SubscribeCookies With Edible Nutrition Label
Design company Andrew Andrew are selling cookies that have the nutritional information printed directly into the cookie.
The handmade cookies measure around 4" by 5" and apparently cost $25 for two!
The cookies first appeared at a design show last year.
The cookie highlights the oxymoron that is trans fat labeling. Despite partially hydrogenated oil being listed in the ingredients, the label can still show 0 grams.
The idea is fancy...
ReplyIf I've paid $25 for 2 cookies, I'm not going to worry about the nutritional info!
:-)
ReplyBrian
seems to me that the printing of the nutritional info on the cookie is kind of mocking dieters everwhere. "Want a label? Here's your precious label! Read it and weep!" which i would if i had paid $25 dollars for 520 calories of designer cookie with an undetermined span of guilt!
ReplyI guess if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.
ReplyWhy didn't I come up with this idea? I know there are a lot of idiots out there that would make me rich.
ReplyStaci, I think you got it... It has a Warhol feel to it. I like it...
ReplyHmm..eating a cookie with the nutritional data printed right on it seems kind of like eating a plate of fettucine alfredo while wearing a bikini. I don't think I'd buy them, especially for $25. They better taste damn good if they cost that much.
Reply4" x 5" is an awfully big cookie ... that at least helps to explain the number of calories. Plus the icing they need to put the nutrition info on probably adds a fair bit.
Reply$25 a cookie, brilliant! For all those "dieters" who don't hit the gym or do any serious exercise, and who lack any willpower whatsoever (even though they are "dieters", this is is a great idea. Unless, of course, they have enough money such that a $25 cookie is not cost prohibitive.
ReplyAnyone who has a printer that prints on cakes can make a cookie like that, I'm surprised they didn't do it before. You know, the ones who make the creepy birthday cakes where you can eat the face of the child having a birthday? It costs a bit to have one of those, but according to a client who owns a bakery, cakes with photos are huge hits.
ReplyIt doesn't look like much of a cookie. But "is it art"!?
ReplyAs an animator and designer, I love the idea, but the fact that the product contains partially hydrogenated oil, which I consider a MAJOR food evil, is quite disheartening. But then, designers often blow off details for the broader impact.
ReplyAm I the only one who feels squeamish about eating the label, even when it's made of edible ingredients? Somehow it's not the same as a cake with Happy Birthday written on it...
ReplyI think thats an amazing idea... if we all went around in bikinis all the time... perhaps we'd be more conscious about our eating habits.
ReplyAnother expensive way to get fat. Clever though...
ReplyThey don't even look like good cookies. :(
ReplyThe trans fat rules are actually the same as for other nutrients. There's nothing nefarious there. You round down. Actually, calories can be rounded down to zero from 4.9, I believe, resulting in all those "0 calorie" pickles on the market.
During the FDA process that led to the trans fat labeling requirement, a proposal was put forth by consumer groups to make an exception for trans fat and require disclosure even if it only existed in milligram amounts. The FDA seriously considered it, but decided to leave it the same as the other "bad" stuff, like cholesterol, sat fat, and sodium, and allow rounding down.
A key consideration was that the Institute of Medicine had not come up with a %DV for trans fat (they don't have one for sugar either), so the trans fat number was completely out of any context. Is 300 mg of trans fat bad for you? Who knows? There's a fine line between disclosure and alarmism.
The nutritional labeling rules and the trans fat FDA docket and procedings are all online at the FDA site.
ReplyDepends on the source. Natural trans fats in beef and butter are nothing to worry about. For hydrogenated vegetable fats, I wouldn't want to consume 1 mg, let alone 300.
ReplyOf course, the really smart thing to do then is just make all serving sizes 0.49 grams. It can't be labelled as even 0.5 grams of anything then. Also, it will be less than 5 calories no matter what it is, so it can be labelled as 0 calories. I should be in the food industry.
The rounding rule isn't really appropriate anywhere. If they're going to do the analysis, they should be getting some exact amounts anyways. Any calorie amount should be to the calorie or tenth of a calorie, not 5 or 10 calories; and any mass amount should be to the milligram.
Reply