Alas, Poor Oreo

The Oreo first appeared in 1912; since then, the world has consumed more than 450 billion of them. The brand consistently ranks as the top-selling U.S. cookie.

In short, consumers really, really like them. So much so that, in 2003, when lawyer Stephen Joseph tried to sue Kraft Foods, Inc., to ban sales of trans-fat-containing Oreos to children, he dropped the suit, ostensibly because he achieved his self-avowed goal of alerting the public and forcing Kraft to work on an alternative (for those of you who believe lawyers’ main purpose is to perform public service). Or, perhaps it was because the public hue and cry sounded like “you’ll have to pry the Oreo out of my cold, dead hand first.”

According to Kraft, for “almost 50 years, the Oreo cookie remained fundamentally the same.” The company attributes changes to brand extensions. I wasn’t reading labels prior to 1962, so I’ll have to take that at face value. Plus, labels back then went something like this: “fat: animal and/or vegetable and/or whatever we want to use, we don’t have to tell anybody, and we’re not gonna.”

The original base-cakes contained animal fat— probably beef tallow, though The New York Times claimed it was lard—a readily available, economical fat that made a darn good cookie. The filling fat was solid, which meant either saturated fats or the now-infamous partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. Because no one cared if cookies were healthy in the ’60s, any changes from the 1912 formulation may have improved finished-product characteristics, shelf life, processing and/or economics.

On to the ’80s, when all things saturated—animal and tropical fats—translated into hardened arteries and heart attacks. So, Oreos underwent another modification. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils seemed to fit the bill ... then. And now, Oreo has experienced another “trans”formation to notrans. Reports say this was neither easy nor quick. (Pause and recall the immortal words of health researcher Walter Willet: Trans fats “can be removed overnight... Not a bit of it has to be there.”) 

Ardent Oreo lovers can’t tell the difference, or can they? From The Washington Post: “Our tasters found virtually no difference between the two. They praised the original for its good balance between the cream filling and the cookie, its attractive smell and its familiar taste. Trying the new trans-fat-free version, they sensed only slight differences—a hint more salt and a slightly greater emphasis on the cream—but found the cookies equal in sweetness, with similar mouthfeel to the filling.” The Chicago Tribune recently ranked them as No. 1 among six similar trans-free varieties. Yet, judging old Oreos against the new, they reported: “The old Oreo ...won by a 2-to-1 margin, with tasters applauding the filling’s nice vanilla flavor, smooth texture and, strangely enough, more chocolatey flavor in the biscuit.” Totally unscientific results, yet a small shift with a formulation change is not unexpected given the laws of nature. Kudos to the reformulation team, considering it was one of the more-difficult trans challenges in the food industry—and to the company for trying to do the right thing. Still, part of me can’t help but wonder how it—or any other nutritionally correct food—stacks up to the one I ate as a kid.