this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
780 points (99.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
21691 readers
1507 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would presume it's because they're low in sugar. Due to exploding diabetes rates, Mexico has been making a concerted effort in the last few years to stem the consumption of sugary foods, drinks and snacks, particularly amongst kids. You can't have a cartoon mascot on a box of cereal, for example. They put big stickers over Tony the Tiger before changing the packaging completely. And the cost of snack foods has skyrocketed, making it largely unaffordable for lots of Mexican families. A bag of chips there costs more than it does in North America.
My guess is that this is part of that effort.
Kind of ironic. Chocolate is naturally high in saturated fats, which hypothetically might contribute more toward diabetes than the sugar. On the other hand, high fat plus high sugar will certainly do a lot more damage than just one or the other.
She said it has 35% cane sugar, which pretty much means 35% of hydrocarbons just from that (if the sugar is refined, down to 32% if it's totally unrefined) plus about 8% of the powered milk is also hydrocarbons, so let's say it's 40g hydrocarbons per 100g of product which is very bad for diabetics.
And this is without going into the total caloric level, which must high, not only from all that sugar but also because cocoa butter is pretty caloric.
There's 100%-cocoa chocolate (or even the 90% one) and that stuff is very sour, so totally different.
This is fine for kids, because it avoids artificial ingredients, but it's not for diabetics.