Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Ad astra: M&Ms

For all who aren't up to speed on the subject (and are actually interested), the obvious degradation of M&Ms began when (along with the addition of the blues to the mix) Mars began using "lake", i.e. metal based, dyes along with the vegetable based dyes they'd theretofore used exclusively.

That change, and an artful product mix which uses overpriced items to support them, are the means of which I'm aware that enabled Mars to maintain M&Ms' quality, package size and price point for an astonishingly long time.

A note about the blues: I'd bet the farm that they "won" the "contest to choose a new color" because blue is the cheapest food dye, i.e. that the "contest" was just a publicity stunt.

With that in mind, then, I guessed that the end was near when, around a year ago, the reds and greens became bluer: I figured that if Mars had been reduced to maintaining price point by messing with their trademark colors they were running out of options.

And, boy, was I right!

The shell is now thinner, with an unsatisfying texture (I suspect that M&Ms no longer do as good a job of not melting in your hand as they once did.) and a curious aftertaste, and the chocolate...well, the best I can say for it is that it's now a chocolate product.

M&Ms were GOOD chocolate, but sadly, they're hardly even M&Ms any more.

I've watched as many food products have been gradually degraded over the years, but what's happened to M&Ms is the most profound single change I've ever seen.

(By the way, according to M&M'S® Official Website, the almond/dark chocolate variety is still made.)

Thanks for the explication. I feel your pain/outrage/disgust.

Re 'loss' of almond/dark chocolate M&Ms: In my market they're nowhere to be found. I may have been the only one to purchase them, so purveyors cut and ran. The only upside was that on their way out, I got the remainder on sale.

A reminiscence: Way back when (and maybe even now), when M&Ms were promoted with the phrase "the milk chocolate melts in your mouth not in your hands", many missed the qualification that it was the chocolate component. Testing the misinterpreted premise, people (including yours truly) found that the same wasn't true of the colored shell, winding up with multicolored palms in the testing, which was arguably worse than having melted chocolate in same (which could have been licked off). {sigh}

Again for the unaware, M&Ms type candy was conceived to enable soldiers in warm climates to get a quick energy burst without getting a mess on their hands that could foul their rifles, hence "Melts in your mouth, not in your hand."

And since you've brought that up, I'll mention that before the recent change, if you put a fresh M&M in your cheek and let it sit for about two minutes the chocolate on the inside would melt, and you could crush the shell and taste how good the chocolate actually was; if the piece was stale (16 weeks old before they changed the packaging), the shell would melt first and you'd be left with a vaguely chocolate flavored cardboardy mass.

The shell of a fresh degraded M&M melts before the chocolate on the inside, and the unmelted middle is better than that of an old stale one, but not overwhelmingly so.

I've been an M&M fan since I was a kid. I have only recently discovered pretzel M&Ms, a nice combination of salty and sweet.

I've tried and liked M&Ms Pretzels, but I avoid them on principle, because they're one of the bad-value products that supports the price point of the Plains.

This comparative listing of the ingredients in the two varieties shows that for the same $1, the Pretzel M&Ms give you about 50% less sugars and calories from fat, i.e. chocolate, than the Plains; they're more or less a big fat bag stuffed with air...not at all up the alley of a chocolate junkie.

I don't crave chocolate covered pretzels, and when I'm in the mood for "salty" chocolate I buy chocolate with sea salt.