Newest Review: ... off buying a box. Wonder of the day – isn’t it interesting how many items come in a pack? 8 Snack size Mars bars, 3 full ... more
Member Name: sugarlily83
Date: 06/06/02, updated on 06/06/02 (2871 review reads)
It's a chore, but it has to be done. You can't review a food product unless you've tasted it, and you can't earn a "very helpful" unless you know the product inside out.
This is why, kiddiewinkies, I sit here at my laptop tonight, taking a break from revision and reading the papers in the JCR (I'm a G2 kinda gal myself) in order to chomp my way through two, yes two mars bars. Made in Slough, that factory haven nestled in the heart of Berkshire countryside, churning out every product... ever. It's the "made in China" of the UK, isn't it? Fortunately for those of you who live in Slough, Sir Betjeman's dreams for the town have yet to have been carried out, and so we continue to see mars bars and other such treats on our shelves. But I digress.
Why do I feel the need to eat, nay, why do I put myself through the veritable task of eating TWO bars of the Mars?
Well, gentle reader, it is my wish and desire to provide you with the most comprehensive review in my power. I therefore intend to compare and contrast the original Mars bar with the newer one, which you may have seen advertised (rather weirdly) upon the retina-burning scoundrel that is the television set.
So.. here goes... munch, munch, chomp chomp, chew, nibble, lick, chompy chomp, chew chew swallow.
Right... eurgh.. apart from a feeling of sickness, I feel fit to continue....
Price? Two for 49p at the Students' Union shop, which I love because they got the apostrophe in the right place. Bargain, if you can eat 'em both!
Okay, packaging. A new font-- but not so you'd notice right away... still red on black, though sleeker and more feminine. In fact, the bar was redesigned in order to be more appealing to the ladies. Gone is the work rest and play rhyme, replaced by a second description of the bar. (Milk chocolate with soft nougat and caramel centre)
Also different is the si
ze. The new one is slightly skinnier: easier to get in one's feminine gob? It weighs just 62.5 grammes, in comparison with the older version's 65 grammes. Apart from this, the appearance of the naked bar is identical. The flavours are really very similar -- nice, chewy, quite stodgy, though eat too many and you'll feel thoroughly sick. 'Tis the spotted dick of puddings: traditional, hard as nails, and sitting heavy on the stomach not to mention the waistline. Rargh.
"What else is different, oh sugared lily?", I hear you cry! Well I'll tell you! Handily for those without GCSE maths (or just a calculator), the new bar give nutritional info for both 100 grammes and the bar itself -- although weirdly it says "per piece" rather than "per bar", which I think brings it into line with foreign nutr.info charts which tend to translate as "per piece". A weak excuse, but so what, I have two mars bars inside me. You don't. Grrr.
The calorific, protein, carbohydrate and fat contents have shrunk a little in the new bar, let me show you:
OLD BAR------------------------NEW BAR
(per 100 grammes)
477 CALS.................... 449 CALS
4.5g PROTEIN................ 4.2g PROTEIN
73g CARBO................... 69g CARBO
18.3g FAT (eek!)............ 17.4g FAT
Not a big change, but still....
Wow, I've ingested so much fat! Must do exercise tomorrow. Make that monday. I'll go swimming or something.
The ingredients are similar, but they're listed in different orders, which means they've fiddled about with the quantities, less milk fat for example, and the only thing that appears to have been removed is the full cream milk powder, which probably explains the lower fat content.
Here's what it contains then:
*Hydrogenated vegetable fat
*Skimmed milk powder
*Fat reduced cocoa
The chocolate itself contains:
*Emulsifiers (E422, soys lecithin)
Presumably also some cocoa?? It doesn't say. But if I put the four above ingredients in a bowl I would not have chocolate! I assume the phrase "Milk chocolate contains" means "here are some of the ingredients".
Mars is not suitable for nut allergy sufferers.
So. There it is. The old and the new, more differences than just the font and advert. But surely if they wanted it to appeal to women, why not just call it Venus? think about it! ;-)
More reviews in the field of Supermarket
- Exotic Selection
- If you're watching the pennies, make sure you keep them away from here!
- Premium review about an Express
- Bargain barbeque sauce.
- Tesco falls far short of the competition!
- TESCO EXPRESS
- Part shop part treasure hunt
- Crazy quality
- dont be intimidated, staff are helpful
- Hotel Chocolat - deal for indulgent Christmas gifts