The world was shocked, SHOCKED to learn last month that leaner Oreos — Oreo Thins — were making their way into the famed sandwich cookie’s empire.
Now that the shockwaves have subsided, we decided it was time to wade into this with a level head. We wanted to conduct our own (un)scientific, (un)official taste test.
But to really gauge how the Thins stack up, we decided a head-to-head was in order. I swung by alocal Giant to pick up the newbies, along with packages of the original and Double Stuf varieties. Moments like this are what self-checkout was designed for. (And, no, we didn’t even go there with the flavored fillings — Brownie Batter?!? — or that impostor known as the Golden Oreo.)
Before we tasted, we measured. Each Thin came in at a delicate 3/16 inch, eachoriginal 3/8 inch and eachDouble Stuf 1/2 inch.
As you can see, despite the small-sounding numbers, the difference is noticeable. The Thins areparticularly slight: If you enjoy the Gulliver-like sensation of feeling very large in comparison to your food, this is the cookie for you. They also showed a propensity for breaking into pieces when we bit into them; depending on your dexterity or ham-handedness, the Thins may or may not survive attempts to twist off the top to eat the cream filling first.
Advertisem*nt
But here, perhaps, is what we find particularly galling: If you buy Oreo Thins, you will most likely be paying more for less.
Consider this. The packages of Oreos were on sale at two for $6 (normal price $3.49). Except the package sizes were all different: 10.1 ounces (about 40 cookies) for the Thins, 14.3 ounces (about 36 cookies) for the original and 15.35 ounces (about 30 cookies) for the Double Stuf. So, yes, you get more Thins, but for the same price, you come home with50 percent more net cookie by weight if you go for the Double Stuf.
Similarly, scrutinizing the nutritional facts also gives you insight into the more is less or less is more debate — and to why it’s all about the marketing. As the subliminal packaging above shows, the recommended serving of Oreo Thins is four cookies (140 calories, 2 g saturated fat), while the original is three (160 calories, 2 g saturated fat) and Double Stuf two (140 calories, 2 g of saturated fat). In other words, almost identical. Of course, if you’re only planning on eating one, then great — that Thin will only set you back 35 calories, compared to 53 for the original and 70 for the Double Stuf. But don’t let the slimmer profile trickyou into consuming more.
Advertisem*nt
Tasters’ reactions ran the gamut from appalled to intrigued.Really, it boils down to whether you’re a cookie or filling person. The wafer dominated the flavor of the Thins, so much so that you may just be better off munching on their cousins, the Nabisco Famous Chocolate Wafers. The cream filling takes on a much more prominent role in Double Stuf, but most of us came to aGoldilocks decisionthat the original was just right, in terms of crunch and filling-wafer balance.
So are Thins the Worst Thing Ever? No. Are they necessary? Not really. Parent company Mondelez International is marketing the Thins as “a more grown-up option.” Thanks, but when I want an Oreo, I don’t want to feel like a grown-up. Not even a little. Now please pass the milk.
Related items:
