[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 135 KB, 1318x1278, Screenshot 2023-03-23 153826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19083664 No.19083664 [Reply] [Original]

Do American's really?

"A mother has sparked a heated debate about the appearance of animal cookies. The mother, Mrs. Ralph, claims that the popular Reece's animal cookies, which are marketed as animal-shaped, do not actually resemble animals at all.

Mrs. Ralph first noticed the issue when she purchased a pack of the cookies for her children. She expected to see cute, animal-shaped treats, but instead, she was disappointed to find that the cookies looked nothing like the animals they were supposed to represent.

Reece's, the company behind the cookies, has since responded to the controversy, stating that their animal cookies are made to look like generic animal shapes and not to replicate specific animal species. They also stressed that the packaging clearly states that the cookies are "animal-shaped" and not "animal-replica."

However, Mrs. Ralph remains unconvinced and is calling for Reece's to change the appearance of their animal cookies to better reflect actual animals. She argues that children should learn to identify and appreciate different animal species from a young age, and the current cookies do not help with that.


Frustrated with her purchase, Mrs. Ralph took to social media to voice her concerns. Her post quickly gained traction, with many other parents agreeing that the cookies were a far cry from actual animals.

However, Mrs. Ralph remains unconvinced and is calling for Reece's to change the appearance of their animal cookies to better reflect actual animals. She argues that children should learn to identify and appreciate different animal species from a young age, and the current cookies do not help with that.

>> No.19083672

>>19083664
what animal is that in the picture?

>> No.19083680

>>19083672
The shaped kind, obviously

>> No.19083682

>>19083672
Does it really matter? How is this news worthy.

>> No.19083687

>>19083672
slug

>> No.19083688

>>19083664
I agree with the mom's issue, but I think regular animal crackers might be a bit better gor the developing child than reeses ones... and those also look like animals...

>> No.19083689

>>19083682
dunno i didn't post the thread. it must be important for OP to post about this pulitzer prize worthy piece from Chuckles McLaughlin and Betty Bazinga

>> No.19083695

>>19083664
idk looks accurate to me for an animal cracker dipped in peanut butter candy and milk chocolate

>> No.19083701
File: 84 KB, 225x225, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19083701

the fuck you mean them crackers ain't shaped like animals?

>> No.19083715

>>19083664
>Reece's

>>19083689
>Chuckles McLaughlin and Betty Bazinga
kek good catch I assumed it was just a man bites dog fluff piece from the failing New York Times.

>> No.19083716

>>19083672
Buffalo, duh.

>> No.19083727
File: 36 KB, 712x474, Barnum's_animals_examples.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19083727

>>19083672
probably elephant

>> No.19083734

>>19083664
If I buy an animal cookie I expect a fucking animal cookie

>> No.19083763

>>19083664

Crackers aren't animals. Niggers are.

>> No.19084793

>>19083664
Why doesn't reeses say they're enrichment crackers? They are animal like. Like staring up at clouds and seeing things. Imagination builder. Is that woman's child too stupid to see animals?

>> No.19084800
File: 2.87 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_2502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19084800

>>19084793
Oooops.

>> No.19084829

These things fucking blow dick anyway, taste like thick dry biscuits and a tiny hint of burnt hocolate - 0% peanut butter flavor.

>> No.19084949
File: 53 KB, 819x1024, C4B50441-F5F5-42EC-963C-33411EA2FB17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19084949

>>19083727
I just ordered a case of 12 of these because of this thread

>> No.19084961

>>19083664
Based Reece's getting all primeval with their pre-form animals.

>> No.19085011

>>19083664
>>19084800
The opinion of a woman who willingly feeds her child these things is irrelevant

>> No.19085026

>mothers go wild
>heated debate
>over goyslop cookies for future diabetics
do Ameriblubbers really?

>> No.19085139

>>19084800
wtf those look fine. also, are they more animal like under the coating?

>> No.19085143

>>19084829
cant tell if you enjoy them or not

>> No.19085163

>>19083682
Its false advertising

>> No.19085174

>>19085163
If you scrape off the coating and the cookie underneath is an Animal Cracker, it's 100% honest advertising. Strange how the journalist didn't check that.

>> No.19085178

>>19085174
Nobody does this

>> No.19085181

>>19085174
So if I buy a camera that says its a black camera but its purple, that's fine because underneath the shell its black?
Great logic.

>> No.19085188

>>19085174
You'd scrape off the grooves. Shluld she suck on them? Use a toothbrush?

>> No.19085196

>>19085181
If it says it's a purple dipped black camera, yes.

>> No.19085206

>>19085196
Thats not what I said. In common phraseology a food item is it constituent parts. If its called a chocolate cake but its vanilla with chocolate pieces inside, it is not a chocolate cake, you are not expected to disassemble the cake, it is not how people eat the cracker in this case is the whole food item because nobody removes the coating, as its the entire point of the product

>> No.19085217

>>19085196
If you purchased a car and it said it has xm radio, but there are no control knobs or scrrens to access it, would you not be upset that you had you had to take apart the console to get to the xm receiver and display?

>> No.19085218

>>19085206
shut up nerd. I'd fucking annihilate you any day of the week

>> No.19085229

>>19085218
I accept your concession

>> No.19085236

>>19085206
I think you're unfamiliar with Animal Crackers. This is a product for Animal Cracker fans who want to buy Animal Crackers dipped in a new coating, not for people who have never seen an uncoated Animal Cracker before.

>>19085217
You too.

>> No.19085242

>>19085236
Thats a fair argument. But is not the point that animal crackers even coated to be distinctively animal shaped? Ive had dipped ones and they still look like animals

>> No.19085282

>>19083664
What is an 'animal shape' a cloud with legs? These aren't even that!

>> No.19085291

>>19085011
Not just willingly feeds, she expects the candy cookies to educate her child too.

>> No.19085499

>>19085011
Yeah kids should never have fun

>> No.19085599

>>19083672
SpongeBob

>> No.19085639

>>19085163
Not really. The packaging clearly depicts what they look like.

>> No.19085655
File: 44 KB, 474x259, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19085655

>>19083664
Who could forget Pulitzer prize winner, and cosmopolitan playboy, 'Chuckles McLaughlin' and his trusty cadet 'Betty Bazinga'?

>> No.19085736

>>19083664
>Do American is really?
Do ESL is really?

>> No.19085746

>>19083672
brown recluse

>> No.19085759

>>19084949
Addmitting (((they))) got you

>> No.19085762

>Mrs Ralph

>> No.19085779

>>19085736
sí, acostúmbrate :^)

>> No.19085786 [DELETED] 

Animal crackers really? Can you fucking imagine if we had animal gooks or animal niggers on shelves?