Menu

The Worst Snack of 2010

December 20, 2010   8 Comments

It was a difficult decision. Snack Girl has made her choice.

The Worst Snack of 2010

The Nabisco 100 calorie snack pack takes it for Worst Snack of 2010!

Why? Oh, so MANY reasons. I will enumerate why I think they deserve this distinction. They:

  • Taste terrible.
  • Use too much packaging (bad for the environment).
  • Have almost zero nutritional value.
  • Leave you hungry.
  • Trick you into thinking you did something healthy (just 100 calories!).
  • Are expensive ($3.00 a box).

What else can I say? These are a crappy choice in a world of much better choices for packaged snacks. See my list here of healthy packaged snacks: Healthy Eating.

Snack Girl features a list of the Worst Snacks. And there were some serious runners-up to the Worst Snack of 2010. Here are some of the other contenders:

frappeb 560 Calories For Your Rapid Consumption From McDonald's
coolattab You Can De-Ice an Aircraft With This New WORST Drink Winner
muffinb This Blueberry Muffin Has a Dark Secret
hostessfruitpiebw The worst snack in America?
doritobw Which Favorite Snack has 35 Ingredients?

I am SURE they are really bummed that they didn't win :)

Please share your nominees for the worst snack of 2010.

Want to read about snacks?
Don't Forget This Classic
Are Whole Wheat Ritz Crackers Healthy?
Heavenly Fresh Ginger Cake From David Lebovitz
Leaving Santa Cookies? Try This Instead!

Get Free Email Updates! Yes please!

8 Comments:

Sad to say, I'm going with the Girl Scout's Thin Mints.

The reason:

1. When the girls knock on your door, of course, you have to purchase a few boxes. It's un-American if you don't.

2. While the cookies taste great, they are loaded with trans fats. Of course, a known killer.

So unbeknownst to the patriotic American is that the scouts are pedaling artery-clogging foodstuffs.

Sorry...and Merry Christmas,

Ken Leebow

Here's more info about the trans fat lie ...

http://www.partiallyhydrogenated.com

Yeah, They are a tasteless waste of time.

Still getting used to eating healthy snacks, but stuff like this? Not so hard to give up. :)

@Ken Leebow

You need to do some research BEFORE you open your mouth! While I totally agree that Girl Scout cookies are not health food by any means and should be eaten in moderation (if at all), they do NOT 'loaded with trans fats' as you wrote.

The following is straight from their own website:

"Q: What about partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats)?

A: Girl Scouts of the USA is proud that all Girl Scout cookies are "zero trans fat per serving" with the same great taste that has made them one of America's favorite treats over the years. All varieties contain less than 0.5 grams trans fat per serving, which meets or exceeds the FDA guidelines for the "zero trans fat" designation. For the first time this year (2010-2011 season), most varieties of Girl Scout Cookies from Little Brownie Bakers contain 0 hydrogenated oil.

Girl Scouts of the USA has worked diligently with our bakers over the past several years to address the issue of trans fats. We began listing the amount of trans fats one full year before FDA requirements went into effect. It is important to remember that Girl Scout Cookies are a snack food and are meant to be consumed in limited quantities within the context of a balanced diet. So that consumers can make an informed choice, the ingredients and nutritional profile of each variety are clearly listed on both the cookie box and the cookie order form, and also on the Web at www.girlscoutcookies.org."

I have absolutely no affiliation with this organization, etc. It just really really annoys me when people have blogs and are irresponsible with facts and information.

for the most part...all these 100 calorie packs from Nabisco and other huge bakers...are just awful. who cares about the low calories...I wouldn't waste my time eating these.

Oh, AMEN, Snack Girl. When these things came out, it was like the best. thing. ever. Until I finally decided to look at the back of the package (mind you, I was young, stupid and in college at the time) and see that they were NOT the fun, awesome, brilliant "snack" I once thought they were. They're sneaky enough to make you feel like eating one or two packs is ok... until you, um, look at the amount of sugar & fat is in them!! Oh, and don't even BOTHER talking about the ingredients. I'd rather indulge myself with one or two oreos than think I'm doing myself a favor by grabbing one of these packs.

Great pick, Snack Girl! Happy holidays!

I agree with this. PS if you want chocolatey low fat cookies, MUCH better are the chocolate Trader Joe's "Cats Cookies for People" cookies. Much more chocolatey, not full of unpronounceables, and you can just count out the cookies that are a serving yourself or leave out a few if you are obsessed with making the 100 calories or under number... Quite honestly, even a petite person can eat more than 100 calories for a snack if the meals are cut down to compensate. No one needs to have a 500 calorie snack (unless you're an Olympic athlete who eats ginormous amounts of calories a day)--but if you can't portion out your own small servings, you're a 4 letter word : L-A-Z-Y.

In moderation, there is nothing wrong with these snacks. There are no good and bad calories. There is just energy, which some people use more than others. For those on higher calorie diets who cover all their nutritional bases with the usual assortment of superfoods, discretions and indulgences are awsome. Don't hate.

Girl Scout Cookies and other '0 trans fat' foods do contain trans fats - chicagotribune.com http://bit.ly/h6qu1q

For more information on trans fats ... http://www.partiallyhydrogenated.com

Add a comment:

(required)

(required, never published)


© 2024 Snack-Girl.com