upvote
Potentially as a side effect. A lot of ingredients are switched to cheaper, often more processed substitutes.

For example, vegtable oil instead of olive oil, fructose corn syrup instead of honey or sugar.

Beyond that chainging composition to reduce amount of expensive ingredients. Think Pesto Genovese which is originally Parmesan, Basil, pine nuts, etc. Instead of only pine nuts, you now include other nuts for texture and only add a smaller amount for flavour (and worse add flavoring so customers don't notice too quickly).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22486545/

reply
Palm fat instead of butter in doughs/baked goods is what annoys me a lot recently. But in that case it probably isn't just purely about cheaper goods but also about expanding the market to include vegans similar to how a lot of meat products replace haram pork with turkey.
reply
not to mention "Bac'n Bits" which my wife picked up as a salad topping which contains NO bacon, and is simply colored crispy soy bits with smoke flavor. Someone aught to arrest the manufacturer

Also in big letters "OLIVE OIL" with barely legible "mixed with 90% sunflower seed, canola and other oils"

reply
Brother I don't know what to tell you. Chick'n, Bac'n, Be'ef etc. are well-known vegan susbtitutes for the pun'd meats. Most of them explicitly say they're vegan on the box. That's not shrinkflation, you just didn't read the package.
reply
My Brother in Christ I don't know why anyone would assume Bac'n bits are not made of Bacon...

I am reading the container it says

Bac'n Pieces BACON FLAVORED BITS Great Bacon Flavor! artificially flavored

reply
There's no fruit in Froot Loops.

There's no crab in Krab sticks.

There's no cream in Krispy Kreme.

There's no vanilla in Nilla Wafers.

There's no mayonnaise in Just Mayo.

There's no lemon in Country Time Lemonade mix.

There are no truffles in most truffle oil.

There's no Wasabia japonica in most of wasabi.

reply
and when I am king, each of those involved will be given their Just Deserts (no desert will be received)
reply
To be fair, "Bac'n Bits" have been made of soy for decades - IIRC, they have always been. That's not them being cheap - they were designed that way. You just didn't realize. A lot of brands are similar - not all are vegetarian or vegan, but many are.
reply
I've been vegetarian a long time, I remember eating Bac'n Bits in the 1980s since they didn't actually have any meat in them.
reply
I remember picking up something at the grocery store that featured a large "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" claim on the front. The ingredients on the back listed "corn syrup" which fulfilled the letter of the claim, but not the spirit I would say.
reply
Corn syrup is fructose-free. What do you want them to put on the label? People avoid HFCS for the fructose in it. Corn syrup is glucose.

Corn syrup is one of the only plant-derived industrial-scale sweeteners that isn't substantially fructose. HFCS is made by adding fructose to it so it can be used as a substitute for high-fructose sweeteners like sugar, honey, fruit juice, maple syrup, etc.

reply
If you see a bottle saying "OLIVE OIL" and its actually a mix of sunflower, canola, or other oils in small print that's a product illegal to be sold in the US. It has to be very clearly labeled its a mix.

If its labeled as olive oil it has to be just oil from olives. The "extra virgin" and related labels don't carry any real weight here in the US though. I do wish we'd enforce labeling standards on stuff like EVOO, maybe also require actual country of origin for that particular bottle instead of allowing them to list it may come from practically every olive oil producing country.

Please name and shame the product, and report it to the USDA.

reply
The usual trick is "made with OLIVE OIL".
reply
If its a usual trick one should be able to find some usual examples. I've never encountered a bottle of oil in the US suggesting its olive oil when its really a blend. Maybe I've encountered a bottle that had a picture of an olive in the background along with other vegetables, but never something really trying to suggest its "olive oil". They almost always just have generic vegetables on them or soybeans or whatever. Can you share an example with me?
reply
Oh you gotta start shopping at the discount marts.
reply
I do quite often, and have been for decades. Along with shopping at foreign/"world" grocery stores, higher end grocery stores, etc. Across several different US markets over the many years.

Once again, got any actual examples of this supposedly incredibly common thing?

reply
yes literally heres from my local market. 20% olive oil yet the main oil is in very light (its even harder to see in real life with how the eye works at a store), and then in big letters OLIVE... yeah this is a great example!
reply
....got anything more than a text description of the product that happens to leave off any actual descriptions? Got a brand name? A variety name? What store sold it? No? Huh weird.

Man they now make almost all olive oil from crude oil! Look, I've got a bottle here, says 100% PURE EXTRA ULTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL* and then you look at the fine print on this bottle and it says "LOL ACTUALLY 100% USED MOTOR OIL GOTCHA!!" This is how all the bottles at every supermarket in my unspecified city is like!

reply
reply
You're confused the "Violi Mediterranean Blend Italian Sunflower & Extra Virgin Olive Oil" isn't purely olive oil? Really?

To be honest though, I've never come across this. Apparently its sold at HEB.

Its also kind of crazy it took this many replies for someone to actually link a real product they're talking about.

Either way, I still feel like this isn't breaking my standard. Its pretty obvious from the packaging what it is. "I've never encountered a bottle of oil in the US suggesting its olive oil when its really a blend". Its not hiding its a blend at all. Its on the face of the bottle, announcing its a blend is in an even bigger font than "OLIVE OIL". The person I replied to said the fact it was a blend was hardly legible. It was immediately obvious to me this was a blend.

reply
You can't be honestly claiming that this packaging isn't designed precisely to confuse people not looking to closely into thinking that this is olive oil.
reply
is there any actual truth that real sugar is not as bad as HFCS? If I drink an american coke every day am I really worse off than if I have the cane sugar coke?
reply
No. They're metabolically equivalent. "High fructose" corn syrup is "high" relative to normal corn syrup, not relative to sugar, some of the HFCS formulae in packaged food has less fructose than table sugar, and, most importantly, your body is a well-oiled machine at breaking down sucrose, which is cleaved enzymatically immediately upon it entering your gut; there's no material slowdown in digestion from eating sucrose.

(The key thing to remember is that sugar is bad for you; it's not that HFCS is good, but rather that cane sugar is just as harmful.)

Two fun additional notes:

* There's a video somewhere showing how cane sugar breaks down into fructose and glucose in bottled sodas anyways, and

* Perhaps unsurprisingly, taste testers can't reliably distinguish between HFCS and cane sugar formula Coke.

reply
I have a theory on this.

Yes, sugar breaks down to the same fructose and glucose proportion.

That takes months. Even longer in concentrated syrup form. Even longer in the one of two components that bottlers get to make the syrup.

A freshly bottled coke in a glass bottle still has the undivided sucrose and that is why it tastes more crisp. After a while, it separates and it doesn’t taste any better because it physically isn’t different.

A freshly bottled HFCS coke still tastes fresh in all other respects, but is essentially stale on day one as far as the sweetener goes.

But by far the best is a properly calibrated soda machine with fresh syrup— but it’s only really fresh if it is sucrose. Otherwise it’s basically stale before you even make it.

reply
Chemistry doesn't support your hypothesis. Sucrose rapidly decomposes into glucose and fructose via acid-catalysis. Coke is very acidic.

The half-life of sucrose in coke under good storage conditions is ~2 weeks[0]. Modestly higher temperatures, such as during transport, reduces that to hours. The internet suggests that that coke is typically consumed 4-12 weeks after manufacturing, depending on the supply chain. Even in the most optimistic scenario, no more than 25% of the sucrose remains when you drink it. Realistically, it will round to 0%. Almost no one has drank a coke that still had sucrose in it.

The process is slower than enzymatic catalysis in the body (seconds to minutes) but still quite fast.

[0] I used an LLM to run the math but the result passes a cursory eyeball test.

reply
(You mean that it takes months in the bottle; it's pretty much instant in the gut.)
reply
Under typical conditions the half-life of sucrose in coke is hours to a couple weeks via acid catalysis. In the body the half-life is seconds to minutes via enzymatic catalysis.

The half-life of sucrose is greatly reduced by acidity and to a lesser extent temperature. It is stable for centuries in a neutral pH when kept cool but that describes almost nothing we do with sugar in foods.

reply
Yeah, a big part of the flavor difference between Mexican Coke and American Coke really comes down to the extra sodium in the Mexican Coke variety.

You can get the US formula coke with cane sugar during Passover in markets with a high Jewish population. Taste it, it'll be practically the same as HFCS US Coke and not like Mexican Coke. Because, it has the same amount of salt as the US variety.

reply
The bigger difference, imo, is that Coke just tastes better out of a glass bottle. Orifice size and shape makes a big difference in taste and mouthfeel.
reply
I definitely agree that the container can make a big difference on how we can perceive beverages, and I don't doubt it's a part of the experience fans of Mexican coke enjoy even if they don't realize that's playing a role.
reply
I don't think so. I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose in terms of spiking your blood sugar or whatever but that's minor compared to the overall impact of any sugar. Sugar is sweet because we were once starving beasts and calories were good. Now it's a hazard. And corn syrup gets dumped into all kinds of processed foods in the US because of how cheap it is, and how much people like sweet stuff.

We have shaped our food culture in a way to maximize short term profit at the expense of making everyone fat and disabled longer term.

reply
>I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose in terms of spiking your blood sugar or whatever but that's minor compared to the overall impact of any sugar

That sounds pretty major. You can be not in the slightest bit obese and the blood sugar spikes will still be bad for your brain, your insulin regulation, etc as far as I understand it.

reply
> I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose

Sucrose is 50% fructose.

HFCS is ~42-55% fructose. Its "high fructose" compared to just straight corn syrup, which is 0% fructose (practically pure glucose).

reply
I'm unaware of any large scale studies on this topic. Both are pretty bad health-wise and should be avoided in regular large doses by anyone regardless.

I pointed it out because its often used instead of sugar for cost reasons.

reply
I remember watching a video (something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY66qpMFOYo, but probably not that exact one) where they did the analysis and determined that Mexican cane-sugar coke contains the exact same proportion of sugars as HFCS coke - and it's because of the chemistry of how the sugars break apart in the presence of acid in the liquid.

So in theory an extremely fresh mexican coke might be different, but in practice you're getting the same thing.

reply
Not really other than the micronutrient dimension which is not relevant in most commercial preparations. What matters most is the other stuff you're having it with. You want to have fiber _at the same time_ as refined carbs/any kind of sugar/jaggery/honey/palm sugar/... In a coke you're just getting sugar and water which is terrible.
reply
Yes, you get pure fructose which is processed by your liver. With normal sugar you get a mix of fructose and sucrose, so less fructose.

Excessive consumption of fructose leads to fatty liver and is just generally bad for you.

reply
This isn't true. Your body breaks sucrose into fructose and sucrose almost instantaneously; in fact, sucrose is so easy to break down that it happens in Coke bottles. Fructose is bad for you, but you're getting just as much of it from table sugar as you would from HFCS.
reply
"breaks sucrose into fructose and glucose almost instantaneously" - I presume what you meant to write?

And that's absolutely true. I think it's easy to hate (more) on HFCS because it literally says "high fructose" in it, and thus easy to come to that conclusion.

reply
Yeah sorry, so many -croses and -coses!
reply
deleted
reply
it is not "pure fructose" - they have different levels but usually it is 50% fructose syrups. Lots of fruits have similar ratios to that too, fructose isn't the problem so much as the quantity of it being ingested, but high quantities are glucose or other sugars are also bad when they come in liquid or otherwise highly digestible and fast absorbing foods. Also sucrose, which is table sugar, is indeed also 50% fructose.
reply
HFCS is a mixture of fructose and ~~sucrose~~ glucose. If it was pure fructose it wouldn't be as an effective of cane sugar replacement.
reply
Fructose mixed with glucose, not sucrose (the same typo is in several comments here). Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose linked together.

When corn starch is processed, the produced syrup is nearly 100% glucose. Because fructose tastes sweeter, lots of corn syrup is further processed, converting much of the glucose into fructose, hence the name high fructose corn syrup.

reply
Oof, yes, sorry, thanks for calling that out!
reply
I'd be relatively surprised if the Mars bar's calorie density went up after it was ruined in 2002. The old Mars bar was a beast: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49245791 .
reply
That's one reason I phrased it as density rather than weight or a raw count of calories. For density we would have the weight as a denominator.

It's conceivable that if they've removed better quality ingredients, calories per gram of weight could go up.

reply
A lot of people feel like stuff tastes worse than it used to, too

That's obviously hard to measure because you can't do a blind taste test of a 20 year ago candy bar and one today, and people's tastes change as they get older. But worse ingredients making a worse flavor is possible too

reply
Over here in the UK at the moment you can. They’ve recently made huge changes to a lot of chocolate products in the space of a year or two. Especially cadburys which is now just at the legal definition of chocolate over here. Any lower and they legally have to call it “chocolate flavoured” which has already recently happened to a bunch of classic lunchbox chocolate bars. So shit.
reply