A trend taken too far … the Burger King Red Velvet Oreo Shake

sweetsEvery few years tremendous amounts of attention turn to something that’s existed under the radar for quite a while. This happens in the world of food all the time. And for the past few years all eyes have turned to red velvet cake. With its roots in southern cooking, red velvet cake isn’t a new culinary discovery. It’s been around since World War II. New York’s famous hotel, the Waldorf-Astoria, claims to have originated the recipe while those from the south will tell you that’s not true and that recipe has been in their family forever. It’s a great cake, moist and uniquely flavorful. But it was never “a thing.”

It is now though. Red Velvet is one of those trends that really caught on and won’t die. There’s red velvet everything, everywhere. We’ve even got Red Velvet Oreos.

And now Burger King has introduced the Red Velvet Oreo Shake.

FoodFacts.com isn’t very excited about this latest introduction. We’re used to the idea that whenever we find the word “red” in a fast food menu item name, we’re going to find artificial colors in the ingredient list. And if they’re using artificial colors in a recipe, we’re pretty positive that the rest of the list will be tainted by a large number of controversial ingredients. It’s almost as though they figure the artificial coloring is already in there, why bother caring about the quality of the remainder of the ingredients. We thought we’d investigate to see if our theory holds up.

Nutrition Facts (16 ou. size)
Calories:                         630
Fat:                                 17 grams
Saturated Fat:              10 grams
Sugar:                            90 grams

We will acknowledge that the shake is listed as a “Sweet” on the website, inferring that you should order this to enjoy as a dessert after your meal. So, for instance, after you’ve eaten a Whopper with fries which cost you about 1,000 calories and 60 grams of fat, you should add an extra 630 calories and 17 grams of fat because you just love red velvet everything. And let’s not forget the almost 23 TEASPOONS OF SUGAR in a 16 oz. serving!!!!!! WOW.

Let’s see how Burger King built the Red Velvet Oreo Shake:

SOFT SERVE/SHAKE MIX: Milk fat and Nonfat Milk, Sugar, Sweet Whey, Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Propylene Glycol Monoesters, Natural and Artificial Vanilla Flavor, Mono & Diglycerides, Guar Gum, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Cellulose Gum, Carrageenan. CONTAINS: MILK, RED VELVET SHAKE SYRUP: Sugar, Water, Cocoa Processed with Alkali, Contains 2% or less of: natural flavors, artificial color (Red 40), Potassium Sorbate (preservative), Salt, Xanthan Gum, Lactic Acid.

There’s nothing good about this ingredient list. We start off with the shake mix that contains all sorts of things we try very hard to stay away from. Then they add the Red Velvet Shake Syrup which contains more ingredients we try very hard to stay away from. Put it all together and you’ve got a pretty big mess (which, by the way, doesn’t have a thing to do with Oreos at all.)

Next time we’re craving red velvet, we’re getting ready to bake a cake (from a recipe that doesn’t include artificial food coloring) and spending the time required to prepare it ourselves. We’re out on this one. Thanks anyway.

http://www.bk.com/menu-item/red-velvet-oreo-shake

Violating first amendment rights with health warning labels on sugary drinks?

soad warningThe American Beverage Association thinks so and they’re suing the city of San Francisco to make their point.

The American Beverage Association has sued the city of San Francisco, claiming new legislation requiring health warning labels on sugary beverages and prohibiting advertisements of them on city property violates the First Amendment.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports the association filed the lawsuit on Friday.

The lawsuit says the city “is trying to ensure that there is no free marketplace of ideas, but instead only a government-imposed, one-sided public ‘dialogue’ on the topic — in violation of the First Amendment.”

The Board of Supervisors in June unanimously approved an ordinance that requires health warnings on ads for sugary drinks. The measure requires those warnings be placed along ads on billboards, buses, transit shelters, posters and stadiums.
The label would read: “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.”

It’s an interesting argument. But FoodFacts.com is skeptical, at best. That warning label isn’t impeding the rights of citizens. Instead, it’s actually giving consumers the other side of the story not represented in the beverage company’s advertising. Really the ABA is arguing for the rights of beverage companies to promote their products in a very one-sided manner. The real free marketplace of ideas they speak of is one where all sides of the story are acknowledged, instead of the one where the beverage company touts the merits of its sugar-sweetened beverage without any acknowledgement of the possible health effects of said beverage.

While it sounds quite American to argue in a lawsuit that the First Amendment rights of consumers are being violated through this new legislation, it does strike us as an attempt at a smoke-and-mirrors end run around the law. The ABA isn’t arguing for our First Amendment rights as consumers. Instead, they’re arguing for the First Amendment rights of the beverage companies. Last time we checked, First Amendment rights applied to people, not corporations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-soda-warnings-advertising-ban-lawsuit/

Does your grocery store need a report card?

86bf5e4c9ba8cc34898721bf992b4bf5Does your grocery store do its best to encourage healthy eating for its customers? FoodFacts.com knows that there’s a lot of promotion going on in grocery stores throughout America. There’s signage promoting sales. There are displays throughout the store emphasizing a variety of different items. Vegetables and fruits that are in season often take center stage. Sale items are often on display. It’s all done in the hope that you’ll modify your shopping list to include those items they want you to purchase. There’s a possible down side to that though, with the possibility that individual stores may be putting unhealthy items on display.

Is your favorite grocery store making you fat? According to new research findings, a Grocer Retailer Scorecard may be an effective, healthy shopping tool that benefits both grocers and shoppers. “Grocers can benefit from encouraging healthy shopping practices because they can sell more perishable items like fruits and vegetables rather than tossing them in the dumpster after a few days,” says lead researcher Brian Wansink, PhD, director of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University and author of the new book, Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life, “The benefit to shoppers is obvious; healthier groceries result in healthier eating!”

Using principles of behavioral economics and psychology, Food and Brand Lab researchers identified 100 changes that grocers could employ to make it easier for shoppers to make healthier food selections used them to create a Grocery Retailer Scorecard. They then tested the scorecard in a large grocery store chain to see if it could be reliably used by shoppers to rate whether a grocery store is helping them to be healthy or heavy.

The researchers concluded that Grocer Retailer Scorecards can be a reliable way to rate how healthy a grocery store is. A person with no training can confidently use such scorecards to rate their favorite store to determine whether it makes it easier or harder for them to select and purchase healthy foods. The scorecards can also be used by the grocers themselves to make evidence based healthy changes to their stores that promote healthier purchases.

FoodFacts.com will be curious about the results of the tests that have been done. While we know and understand that shopping the outside aisles is an important way to keep the majority of your purchases fresh and healthy, we also know that it’s very easy to find yourself perusing the other areas. It’s easy to understand how the store itself can influence purchases through sales, signage, and displays. Is the store making it easy for their customers to find and choose fresh, healthy foods? Are seasonal displays attractive and easy to locate? Are only processed foods in boxes and cans on sale?

How do you think your grocery store would score?

This is an interesting idea and one that we’ll follow up on after the results are published. We look to food manufacturers to improve the quality of their offerings. We educate ourselves on the foods available in our grocery store. It makes sense to involve the stores themselves in the process of grocery shopping for good health. They’re a link in the chain of healthy eating and they should participate in the process.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722154617.htm

Introducing the sixth taste … meet the flavor of fat

te of fatFoodFacts.com is curious as to how many in our community can name the five tastes. Think about it for a minute because we’re sure a few of them will roll off your tongue. And then you might get stuck.

They are as follows: sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (or savory). Even though you may not have gotten all the way to umami, these are pretty familiar concepts and have to do with what our taste buds can identify in food. Now scientists say there’s actually a sixth and the new taste doesn’t appear to be incredibly tasty.

Move over sweet and sour, scientists say they’ve identified a distinct new taste: fat. And while fat has a reputation for making foods taste good (think bacon or french fries), researchers say in isolation it’s not so appealing.

The taste of fat, which researchers call “oleogustus” (a combination of the Latin terms for oil and taste), is a distinct flavor and, as a new study in the journal Chemical Senses reports, quite unpleasant.

Identification of this new taste could provide insight into ways to fight obesity and how to develop food products to optimize health.

To see if people could identify the distinct taste of fat, volunteers sampled a variety of tastes, including non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), free fatty acids that are the building blocks of fat, and sorted them into groups with similar tastes. All of the food samples in the study had the same texture and only a difference in flavor. The volunteers wore nose clips during the experiment so their sense of smell would not sway their perception of taste.

Participants grouped the samples into piles that they self-identified as sweet, sour, salty and bitter. The bitter pile included nebulous flavors that participants could not quite label, such as umami (often described as meaty or savory) or fat.

In a second experiment, participants sampled only from the bitter pile, were able to isolate fat as its own flavor, and it was described as bitter and unpalatable.

“They were struggling to say something that they don’t have a word for,” the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Mattes, a professor of food and nutrition at Purdue University, told CBS News. “They said things like irritating, nauseating — generic terms to say this is really unpleasant.”

Mattes suggested that the taste of fat might have been so unpleasant because of the high concentrations of flavors used in the study. He likened it to the same way bitter stimulus is unpalatable, except when it is used in lower concentrations or put in the right context like in coffee or wine.

Thus high qualities of the fat taste are a warning sign that food is bad or rancid.

“Depending on the form of fat in food, you either get a message that promotes or discourages ingestion,” Matte said.

Mattes believes that his work could help to improve the quality of fat modified products and how we understand taste.

“Taste, perhaps is not quite as limited a sense as we thought,” he said.

Fat is a taste and apparently it’s not a pleasant one. Instead it notifies us when a food has turned bad. When combined with other flavors like salt and sweet, however, we’re getting different signals about the taste.

FoodFacts.com wonders if science will ever discover the taste of health … a signature taste you identify upon eating foods that are good for your body that you immediately perceive as pleasant and want more of.

We’re waiting for that one. Science, are you listening?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-discover-the-taste-of-fat-and-its-disgusting/

More bacon … this time from Taco Bell with the Bacon Club Chalupa

pdp-Bacon-Club-Chalupa-2015Did you know that a chalupa is described as a tostada platter? It is a Mexican specialty of south-central Mexico, including the states of Puebla,Guerrero and Oaxaca. Chalupas nad is made by pressing a thin layer of masa dough around the outside of a small mold, in the process creating a concave container resembling the boat of the same name, and then deep frying the result to produce crisp, shallow corn cups.

If you’re a Taco Bell fan, odds are you didn’t know that because the Taco Bell Chalupa doesn’t remotely resemble that description. And their Bacon Club Chalupa doesn’t resemble anything remotely Mexican.

Welcome the Bacon Club Chalupa back to the menu. Bacon. Again. We’ve been reporting on waaaay too many fast food items featuring bacon. We’re guessing this is supposed to be like a Mexican club sandwich.

FoodFacts.com looked a little further into it and discovered the following significant information:

Nutrition Facts:
Calories:                  470
Fat:                           29 grams
Saturated Fat:        6 grams
Sodium :                 870 mg

Fat and salt are abundant here. While good old American club sandwiches sound like fresh, healthy meal choices when you’re sitting in a diner, they most often contain the same abundance of fat and salt. Mimicking them in a Mexican reincarnation certainly doesn’t do anyone any favors.
Here’s what it takes to make a Bacon Club Chalupa:

Chalupa Shell: Enriched wheat flour, malted barley flour, water, soybean oil, yeast, sugar, vital wheat gluten, contains 1% or less of, salt, corn syrup solids, oat fiber, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, mono and di-glycerides), baking powder, soy protein isolate, enzymes, calcium propionate (P). Prepared in canola oil. Contains: Wheat, Soy, Fire Grilled Chicken: Chicken, water, seasoning (maltodextrin, dried garlic, salt, spices, natural flavor, carrageenan, dried onion, disodium inosinate & guanylate, citric acid, caramel color (C), garlic powder, onion powder), modified food starch, sodium phosphates, salt., Tomatoes: Fresh tomatoes., Avocado Ranch Sauce: Soybean oil, buttermilk, water, avocado, vinegar, enzyme modified egg yolk, garlic juice, sugar, salt, garlic powder, onion powder, spices, natural flavor, lactic acid, lemon and lime juice concentrate, disodium inosinate, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate (P), propylene glycol alginate, xanthan gum, calcium disodium EDTA (PF), blue 1 (C). Contains: Milk, Eggs, Bacon: Bacon cured with water, salt, sugar, sodium phosphates, sodium erythorbate, flavor (including smoke flavor), sodum nitrite (P)., Iceberg Lettuce: Fresh iceberg lettuce, Three Cheese Blend: Part skim mozzerella cheese, cheddar cheese, Monterey pepper jack cheeese (cultured pasteurized milk, salt, enzymes, water, cream, sodium citrate, jalapeno peppers, salt, sodium phosphate, lactic acid, sorbic Acid (P)), anti-caking agent. Contains: Milk

With far too many controversial ingredients, this option from Taco Bell isn’t the best idea for anyone. We’d really love to see Taco Bell rethink their some of their product introductions. Perhaps if they concentrated more on better ingredients and staying true to their original theme, we’d find better options here. This just isn’t appealing. Sorry, Taco Bell.

http://www.tacobell.com/food/menuitem/Bacon-Club-Chalupa

How about some Baconater Fries to go with that Baconater?

Wendy's_logo_2012.svgWho knows, maybe someday Wendy’s will find a way to offer a Baconater Coke. Or maybe a Baconater Frosty.

Seriously, Wendy’s is doubling down on the bacon with the introduction of Baconater Fries. This can’t be good folks. It doesn’t take the FoodFacts.com database to figure that out. All we need to do is read the name and we can make certain assumptions. Too much fat. Too much salt. Nasty ingredients. Let’s see if we’re right.

Nutrition Facts:
Calories:                          490
Fat:                                   28 grams
Saturated Fat:                9 grams
Sodium:                          550 mg

These fries pack on the calories, fat and sodium. And they’re simply a meal component, not a meal by themselves. Based on that idea alone, these fries are a bad idea.

So what’s inside these French fries slathered in cheese sauce and bacon?

Cheddar Cheese Sauce: Water, Cheddar Cheese (pasteurized milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes), Milk, Cream Cheese Spread (pasteurized milk and cream, cheese culture, salt, carob bean gum), Modified Cornstarch, Non Fat Dry Milk, Soybean Oil, Palm Oil, Whey, Sodium Phosphate, Cream, Cheese Culture, Milk Fat, Parmesan Cheese (pasteurized part-skim milk, cheese cultures, salt, enzyme), Butter, Salt And Sea Salt, Sodium Alginate, Carob Bean Gum, Mono & Diglycerides, Annatto And Apocarotenal (for color), Lactic Acid. CONTAINS: MILK. Natural-Cut Fries: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (contains one or more of the following oils: canola, soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, corn), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (to maintain natural color). Cooked in Soybean Oil, Vegetable Oil (may contain one or more of the following: canola, corn, cottonseed), Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Flavor, Citric Acid (preservative), Dimethylpolysiloxane (anti-foaming agent). Cooked in the same oil as menu items that contain Wheat, Egg, and Fish (where available). Seasoned with Sea Salt. Cheddar Cheese, Shredded: Cultured Pasteurized Milk, Salt, Enzymes, Annatto Color, Potato Starch and Powdered Cellulose (to prevent caking), Natamycin (natural mold inhibitor). CONTAINS: MILK. Applewood Smoked Bacon: Pork Cured With: Water, Salt, Sugar, Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Eryhthobate, Sodium Nitrite.

Not the recipe for french fries we like to see. That’s an awful lot of ingredients for one order of fries. Baconater French Fries aren’t a healthy choice. If you pair them up with a Baconater Burger, you’ve got quite a recipe for unhealthy effects happening. It’s definitely not something we’ll be eating.

https://www.wendys.com/en-us/nutrition-info

New sugar consumption recommendations out of England may be worth taking a look at for other nations

Added-fructose-is-key-driver-of-type-2-diabetes-warn-experts_strict_xxlIt appears that the U.S. isn’t the only country with an excessive sweet tooth. New recommendations have been introduced recommending another significant reduction in sugar consumption for the British population.

• Adults and children should get no more than 5%, down from the previous 10%, of their energy intake from ‘free’ sugars – this is equivalent to 5-7 teaspoons of sugar

• Sugar-sweetened beverages should be drunk as infrequently as possible by both adults and children

• The recommended fibre intake should increase to 30g per day (equivalent to about a quarter more than the old guidelines)

That’s a big change – so what happens next? And how is this linked to cancer anyway?

Importantly, there isn’t conclusive evidence that sugar itself causes cancer cells to grow or spread (despite persistent myths that claim there is). But what is crystal clear is that eating more sugary food and drink increases total energy intake, which can lead to being overweight or obese – the biggest preventable cause of cancer after smoking. Being overweight and not having a healthy, balanced diet causes 49,100 extra cases of cancer every year.

The UK consumes too much sugar. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows that every age group exceeded even the previous guidelines – that people should get no more than 10% of their energy intake from free sugars. This is a particular problem for teenagers, who appear to get more than 15% of their energy intake from free sugars – three times the new guideline.

The new guidelines also reaffirm a definition for ‘free sugars’, which until now has not been a well-understood term. The Committee recommends that free sugars are defined as both sugars which are added to food by the cook, customer, or manufacturer (sugars like glucose and fructose), and sugars naturally present in products like honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices.

Halving the recommended maximum level of sugar intake is a clear statement that the Committee agrees with the evidence that reducing the amount of sugar in our diets can have clear benefits for a person’s health.

FoodFacts.com knows that the whole world has a sweet tooth. We also know that it’s growing increasingly difficult for anyone to do anything about reducing their sugar intake while still relying on processed, prepared products. It’s the same story everywhere. The only remedy is cooking real food with fresh, whole ingredients in our own kitchens. When we take control of our diets, we take control of our health.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-07-health-england-halving-sugar-consumption.html

Can obesity be reversed?

3829063385_8e46d16540_oMany different initiatives have been undertaken to attempt to reverse obesity in affected individuals, up to and including bariatric surgery. The recent classification of obesity as a disease has encouraged research and study into effective treatments for the condition. Can obese people turn their situation around, losing weight and keeping it off?

Casting aspersions on the effectiveness of current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise, it has been found that chances of obese people recovering normal body weight are very slim, shows research.

The chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is one in 210 for men and one in 124 for women, increasing to one in 1,290 for men and one in 677 for women with severe obesity, the findings showed.

“Once an adult becomes obese, it is very unlikely that they will return to a healthy body weight,” said study’s first author Alison Fildes from the University College London.

The findings suggest that current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level.

The research tracked the weight of 278,982 participants (129,194 men and 149,788) women using electronic health records from 2004 to 2014.

The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, looked at the probability of obese patients attaining normal weight or a five percent reduction in body weight.

Patients who received bariatric surgery were excluded from the study.

The annual chance of obese patients achieving five percent weight loss was one in 12 for men and one in 10 for women.

For those people who achieved five percent weight loss, 53 percent regained this weight within two years and 78 percent had regained the weight within five years.

Overall, only 1,283 men and 2,245 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 reached their normal body weight, equivalent to an annual probability of one in 210 for men and one in 124 for women.

For those with a BMI above 40, the odds increased to one in 1,290 for men and one in 677 for women with severe obesity.

Weight cycling, with both increases and decreases in body weight, was also observed in more than a third of patients.

“This evidence suggests the current system is not working for the vast majority of obese patients,” Fildes said.

Finding out what will work for the majority of patients suffering from obesity is still the task at hand. FoodFacts.com fully supports the continuation of this important research. While the odds don’t look great today, we can only assume that with more research and study, we’ll discovered a combination of medication and lifestyle changes that will have a significant impact on the lives of obese men and women, and help us avoid obesity in future generations.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/most-obese-people-likely-to-stay-fat_1632507.html

Possibly the best tasting heart healthy food that exists … eat more chocolate for a healthier heart!

chocEating up to 100 g of chocolate every day is linked to lowered heart disease and stroke risk, finds research published online in the journal Heart.

There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for cutting out chocolate to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, conclude the researchers.

They base their findings on almost 21,000 adults taking part in the EPIC-Norfolk study, which is tracking the impact of diet on the long term health of 25,000 men and women in Norfolk, England, using food frequency and lifestyle questionnaires.

The researchers also carried out a systematic review of the available international published evidence on the links between chocolate and cardiovascular disease, involving almost 158,000 people–including the EPIC study participants.

The EPIC-Norfolk participants (9214 men and 11 737 women) were monitored for an average of almost 12 years, during which time 3013 (14%) people experienced either an episode of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease or stroke.

Around one in five (20%) participants said they did not eat any chocolate, but among the others, daily consumption averaged 7 g, with some eating up to 100 g.

Higher levels of consumption were associated with younger age and lower weight (BMI), waist: hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, inflammatory proteins, diabetes and more regular physical activity –all of which add up to a favourable cardiovascular disease risk profile.

Eating more chocolate was also associated with higher energy intake and a diet containing more fat and carbs and less protein and alcohol.

The calculations showed that compared with those who ate no chocolate higher intake was linked to an 11% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 25% lower risk of associated death.

It was also associated with a 9% lower risk of hospital admission or death as a result of coronary heart disease, after taking account of dietary factors.

And among the 16,000 people whose inflammatory protein (CRP) level had been measured, those eating the most chocolate seemed to have an 18% lower risk than those who ate the least.

The highest chocolate intake was similarly associated with a 23% lower risk of stroke, even after taking account of other potential risk factors.

Of nine relevant studies included in the systematic review, five studies each assessed coronary heart disease and stroke outcome, and they found a significantly lower risk of both conditions associated with regular chocolate consumption.

And it was linked to a 25% lower risk of any episode of cardiovascular disease and a 45% lower risk of associated death.

This is an observational study so no definitive conclusions about cause and effect can be drawn. And the researchers point out that food frequency questionnaires do involve a certain amount of recall bias and underestimation of items eaten.

Reverse causation–whereby those with a higher cardiovascular disease risk profile eat less chocolate and foods containing it than those who are healthier–may also help to explain the results, they say.

Nevertheless, they add: “Cumulative evidence suggests that higher chocolate intake is associated with a lower risk of future cardiovascular events.”

And they point out that as milk chocolate, which is considered to be less ‘healthy’ than dark chocolate, was more frequently eaten by the EPIC-Norfolk participants, the beneficial health effects may extend to this type of chocolate too.

“This may indicate that not only flavonoids, but also other compounds, possibly related to milk constituents, such as calcium and fatty acids, may provide an explanation for the observed association,” they suggest.

And they conclude: “There does not appear to be any evidence to say that chocolate should be avoided in those who are concerned about cardiovascular risk.”

FoodFacts.com knows that there are so many in our community who will love this idea. An indulgence that actually does something good for the heart … now, perhaps someone can find something heart healthy about ice cream (doubtful, we know, but we can dream.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615191518.htm

Cap’n Crunch Berries Delights at Taco Bell … Where do they come up with this stuff anyway?

pdp-capt-crunch-delightsThey really don’t look delightful to us here at FoodFacts.com. And for the life of us we really can’t imagine why anyone thought these limited edition snack bites were a good idea. The idea of a pastry filled with sweet milk icing and then rolled in crushed Cap’n Crunch Berries cereal seems to be a stretch for the fast food imagination. And not necessarily a welcome one, either.

Cap’n Crunch Berries Delights look to be a few inches in diameter each and come in packs of 2, 4 and 12. They’re also a really vibrant shade of red when you open them up. That never leaves us feeling particularly comfortable about eating something. Honestly, they look like overly sweet, highly processed small food disasters. Let’s take a look inside:

Nutrition Facts:
Calories:                                    330 (4 bites)
Fat:                                             22 grams
Saturated Fat:                          4.5 grams
Sugars:                                      14 grams

Ingredients: Dough and filling: Sugar, nonfat milk, margarine, evaporated milk, sweetened condensed milk, enriched bleached wheat flour, water, vegetable shortening (palm and soybean oils), eggs, yeast, dough conditioners (mono- and diglycerides, sodium alginate, sodium stearoyl lactylate), natural flavors, salt, Red 40 (C), enzyme. Cereal Coating: Corn flour, sugar, oat flour, brown sugar, coconut oil, salt, sodium nitrate, natural and artificial flavor, strawberry juice concentrate, malic acid, reduced iron, niacinamide, zinc oxide, vitamin B2 (riboflavin), BHT (P), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride), vitamin B1 (thiamin mononitrate), folic acid, yellow 5 & 6 (C), Red 40 (C), Blue 1 (C). Contains: Wheat, Milk, Eggs, Soy

There’s really no good reason to eat these. They’re a too-bright, neon color for a reason. They serve no nutritional purpose. They don’t even appear to be an actual dessert. Just small balls of sugar and controversial ingredients.

While we honestly don’t understand the attraction here, if you’re ever in a Taco Bell and you feel yourself drawn to the Cap’n Crunch Berry Delights, we hope you’ll remember this blog post and stay far away!

http://www.tacobell.com/food/sides/Capn-Crunch-Delights