enlightenment?

[clickie]

Today at snacktime, Corey, Mark, and I went to get Jamba Juices because they'd gotten these "free smoothie" coupons in the mail advertising this new "Enlightened Smoothie." They apparently have 1/3 less calories than regular Jamba smoothies, and so of course I'm curious to know what they did to reduce the calories. I go into the store and check out the ingredient list for one of these new smoothies. It says it contains "low calorie enlightened base." What on earth is that?! Curiosity still unsatiated, we go up to the counter and ask the guy what "low calorie enlightened base is." He has no idea. He asks around, and finally comes back with a box of the stuff, with yet another ingredient label. This one says it has some random ingredients, annatto for color, etc., and its primary ingredient is "proprietary dry base." Helpful! I did find that a FAQ about the new smoothies mentions that they use sucralose instead of sugar, but presumably that is just one of the ingredients in the "proprietary dry base."

We gave up. We ordered our smoothies. They were ok. Tasted a bit thin and a bit like sucralose. I don't feel at all enlightened, though. Marketing has let me down yet again :(


Update: a bit of web research has revealed that "Jamba's proprietary Enlightened Base contains nourishing ingredients like non-fat milk, natural flavors, whey protein and Splenda." Still doesn't explain why it can't just say that on the box, though.

Comments

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

Maybe because they're worried about frightening off the people who are aware that Splenda is like instant cancer in a can?

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

Lesson learned: do not reply to entries when in a hurry. I was thinking of S_____, the one made with the eviller sugar substitute than Splenda.

Nothing to see here, carry on.

[clickie]

Which one is the current evil substitute du jour? I was under the impression that everyone had decided that as long as we don't eat massive doses of any sugar substitute (or any one thing, for that matter), that we would not be incurring any significant health risk.

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, yeah, it does rotate, doesn't it? The last thing I read though (maybe in Wired?) listed the ingredient that's in Sugar Twin and Sweet'n'Low as the worst, with Sweet'n'Low being the worstest (see, I knew I'd think of it eventually).

I know most people would probably never ingest enough to worry about, but I get a bit het up over it when I do the math on my mother: she owns CASES of Sweet'n'Low and uses between 8 and 16 packets a day, and has for years. Can't be good, you know what I'm saying?

[clickie]

Saccharin? Last I heard, it was not as bad as people always thought it was, and that you'd need to eat like a pound a day to actually get anywhere near the amount that rats ate in experiments. Also, keep in mind that since saccharin is 300 times sweeter than sugar, only a very small fraction of the stuff that's in a packet of Sweet 'n' Low is actually saccharin.

Basically, I avoid eating artificial sweeteners because they're nasty, not because of the health risks. From a health perspective, I think they're all about the same.

[(Anonymous)]

*** Begin clip ***
Saccharin? ... you'd need to eat like a pound a day to actually get anywhere near the amount that rats ate in experiments.
*** End clip ***

I think I'm in serioius, serious trouble...

Dan