Some scandals are more delicious than others.
Many lovers of Oreo cookies are pointing accusatory fingers at the Chicago-based maker of the storied treats for what they claim is a ruinous reduction in the amount of creme filling between the two chocolate wafers.
The dispute has gotten so hot that The Wall Street Journal delivered a front-page story. Dirk Van de Put, CEO of Oreos maker Mondelez, personally denied the charge.
Mondelez hasn’t messed with the formula, he says.
Inflation has been the economic hot topic of the past 18 months or so, but it takes more than one form. “Shrinkflation” — consumer products companies sneakily providing less than they used to for the same price in similarly sized bags or containers — is one, and savvy American consumers increasingly are on the lookout.
It’s one thing to put a few less chips in a bag; it’s another to mess with the insides of a beloved foodstuff.
Many brands are described as iconic, a term slung around too liberally. But Oreos qualify.
If Mondelez has dared to skimp on the creme — and they are innocent until proven guilty in our book — they’d be foolish to think they could do so without people noticing.
We’ve seen foolishness with iconic brands before, though. Those of a certain age will recall “New Coke,” the formulaic change that enraged Coca-Cola lovers and prompted a hasty return to the tried-and-true.
There’s so much chaos in modern life that we need more things we can rely on. Like Oreos being Oreos.
So, Mondelez, let’s make a deal. If there’s been some furtive creme caper, you don’t have to tell us. Just return the Oreo to its native state.
