The SparkPeople Blog

It Pays to be a Label Reader

By: , SparkPeople Blogger
6/5/2012 2:00 PM   :  61 comments   :  16,010 Views

I often get teased by friends and family when they offer my children new foods.  My kids always look to me first to see if its okay, and many times I like to read the label before telling them they can dig in. Whether it’s a treat, a snack or something else, I just like to know what my kids are eating.  I’m not crazy about it and they try new foods frequently, but I do work hard to make sure they have a healthy, balanced diet most of the time. 

Recently we were visiting some family and they had Nutella on the breakfast table.  My daughter loves to try new things, so she wanted to spread it all over her toast.  “It’s just like peanut butter!  I saw commercials for this stuff and it’s very healthy!” was one response when I said I wanted to look at the jar before she ate it.  My first thought was “Geez, this stuff has as much sugar as a candy bar”, and she didn’t need tons of it to start her day.  I didn’t argue with the person who suggested she eat it, but rather just said that she could try a bite and eat peanut butter on her toast instead.   

I never take someone else’s (or an ad’s) word for it when they say something is “natural” or “healthy”.  I like to do my own detective work, and in this instance I was glad that I did.   When I read that Ferrero (the company that makes Nutella) was sued for deceptive advertising and recently decided to settle, I was not completely surprised.
 
Last year, a California mom sued Ferrero for being misled by product claims that portrayed Nutella as healthy and part of a balanced diet.   Her lawsuit was recently awarded class-action status by the courts, a move that is not without controversy.  The Nutella label clearly states how much sugar and fat is in the product (21 grams of sugar and half of the calories from fat, per serving), and the ingredients list sugar and palm oil first.  Ferrero has chosen to settle for $3 million, and will also change nutrition labels and ads as part of the agreement. 

So is it the consumer’s responsibility to read the label, or the company’s responsibility to be truthful in advertising?  Or maybe a little of both?  In this case, the court sided with the consumer. 

I think it’s important for each of us to educate ourselves about the products we’re putting in our shopping carts.  Don’t rely on other people to tell you whether or not something is good for you- do the homework yourself.  Not sure where to start?  Check out How to Read a Nutrition Facts Label and take this quiz to find out whether or not you can interpret food labels. 
  
What do you think?  Do you agree with the court’s decision?


Click here to to redeem your SparkPoints
  You will earn 5 SparkPoints
 

NEXT ENTRY >   5 Money Mistakes Couples Should Avoid

Great Stories from around the Web

Comments

  • 61
    I think if you or your children are going to ingest a product, it is up to a parent to read the label first. When I took a retailing class in high school, yes it was so long ago that subjects were not given fancy names; the first thing we learned was that retailing was about 'successful selling' now called marketing, and that was something to the saying "Let the buyer beware." I think the court's decision misplaced blame. - 9/25/2013   11:23:28 AM
  • JADISH
    60
    It is called critical thinking - enough said!
    - 9/22/2012   8:14:00 PM
  • SOCALDEBBIE
    59
    The Nutella commercial doesn't say the stuff is healthy. It says it can be part of a healthy breakfast when you spread it on whole-wheat toast, which I guess has an element of truth in it. All the same I laughed when I first saw the ad - anyone who's tried Nutella knows it's a spreadable candy bar. We can all make an impulse buy, but not having time to read a label while shopping doesn't excuse never reading it at all. The court's decision is absurd. - 7/4/2012   1:46:29 AM
  • SARAHC319
    58
    As long as the company has the correct nutrition on the label, then there is no way that a consumer should be able to sue for the product being unhealthy. The whole point of advertising is to make someone buy your product. I'm smart enough to know that sugary cereal, soda and snacks are not good for me. If I see a commercial that tells me otherwise, I ignore it. No one is forcing you to buy their product. Take some responsibility for yourself. When people sue over nutrition issues or act as though they can't be responsible for themselves, this gives the government even more reason to want to step in and tell us what we can and cannot eat. - 6/17/2012   8:42:50 PM
  • 57
    Once upon a time it would have been ridiculous for anyone to consider Nutella a healthfood, not just due to the sugar or fat but because it's chocolate. But ever since the carpetbomb of press on how healthy chocolate is, that's no longer a given. Everyone used to know that chocolate is nasty without a bunch of sugar and fat. While bitterer chocolate is available now, you probably couldn't get the average kid to eat it. (Funny how medical research started being funded after the slave free chocolate controversy, but I digress).

    Peanut butter is not that great either, I still have it now and then but it's an indulgence. - 6/12/2012   11:07:05 PM
  • SOUTHWESTLADY
    56
    I think the amount of money awarded was extreme but, if such an award is to be given, it should be used for public education. I read labels because my mother did and I learned it was a smart thing to do. However, if you are never taught why you should do this, it doesn't occur to you. I have educated many young women in their 20s (many with children) to read labels, especially when they develop health issues. They are surprised to find salt, sugar and fat in products like spaghetti sauce. I told them these substances are cheap fillers. Things like this are not taught in school and should be as it's evident that modern food and inactivity has led to early-onset diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Yes, consumers should be on guard and read labels, and yes manufacturers should be punished for advertising "healthy" when a product is far from healthy. As an aside, my husband picked up a jar of Nutella a couple of days ago and said "I had a sample of this once and it was pretty good. Should we buy it?" I told him to read the label and watched his expression change as he put it back on the shelf. He was shocked at the high fat and sugar content. Nuf said. - 6/12/2012   5:48:18 PM
  • LSIG14
    55
    Once again, the courts or government has decided that people are stupid and need to be cared for. We can all become automatons and have no reason to think, because somebody else can do it for us! Personally, I prefer to think for myself (and read the label.) - 6/12/2012   3:30:47 PM
  • 54
    I think it's ridiculous to award $3 million in a suit such as this as it opens the doors to nearly every food manufacturer being sued. Are we so gullible that we can no longer read a label? And if she did read the label and used the product regardless, whose fault is that?
    It's about time we get ourselves informed and start to live by what we know is right. - 6/12/2012   1:47:39 PM
  • 53
    Read labels and use your own thinking to make decisions. The chances are pretty good that if something is widely advertised as being healthy that it isn't. You really don't see a whole lot of advertising for natural, unadulterated, non-sugar and fat added foods. There really isn't much money in it. The lawsuit is silly. As we can see from the posts, people are going to buy it because they like how it tastes. Unfortunately, we can't force people to make good choices. We've tried. It hasn't worked -- witness the health problems in our country. - 6/12/2012   10:27:56 AM
  • 52
    I agree with the court. And I also think while she was there she should have sue Sunny D also for trying to push itself as nutritious. Too many companies are involved in the deceptive food advertising. I find it quite funny that now they have placed "SEA SALT" in big letters on the packaging like it has some great health benefit. Also they should be held accountable for realistic serving sizes. - 6/12/2012   8:06:47 AM
  • 51
    Labels can also be amusing:
    A new fridge labeled CFC Free (Duh! CFC have been outlawed for 20 years.)
    Non-toxic crayons. (I should hope so!)
    Organic sea salt. (What? Really?)
    The bag of edamame tells me it "May contain soy." (Um. Yeah it may. If it doesn't I want my money back, you can be sure of that.)
    Yogurt is now Gluten free. ANd honey. And Watermelon. (Imagine that. What'll they think of next! Gluten free watermelon. I'll bet it's CFC-Free and non toxic too.) - 6/10/2012   10:20:02 PM
  • 50
    It does very little good for people to read labels, when the food companies change the name of what goes in. You might overlook "castoreum" on the label. BUT CHANCES ARE YOU MIGHT NOTICE IF IT WERE LISTED AS

    "BEAVER ANAL GLAND"

    Castoreum is a bitter, orange-brown, odoriferous, oily secretion, found in two sacs between the anus and the external genitals of beavers. The discharge of the castor sac is combined with the beaverís urine, and used during scent marking of territory. Both male and female beavers possess a pair of castor sacs and a pair of anal glands located in two cavities under the skin between the pelvis and the base of the tail. - 6/9/2012   4:43:10 AM
  • 49
    I like how the title of this is, "It Pays to be a Label Reader." Apparently, it pays VERY WELL to not be a label reader, when you can sue the company whose labels you aren't reading! - 6/8/2012   11:09:05 PM
  • 48
    I found the results of the court case as repulsive as the Nutella ingredients list. Come on people, take some responsibility and read labels. It does not take that long--a whole lot less time than court does, for sure! It is like those who sue over being burned buy the hot coffee they bought, knowing it would be hot, or that sue for McDonalds making their kids fat. It does not take a genius to figure out that these foods are not healthy and these lawsuits are a grab for money. Just use common sense. - 6/7/2012   11:14:46 PM
  • 47
    I thought this lawsuit was absolutely ridiculous. One of the arguments was "I can't be expected to read the label, or I'd spend hours in the grocery store." So all the government regulations requiring food labeling were for nothing then? I'm sorry, but these two women were either geniuses (or maybe it was the lawyers) for gaming the system and knowing exactly what they were doing, or they're total idiots. Personal resposibility people! It's spreadable chocolate for crying out loud, why would you think it was healthy? I don't have a problem with Nutella's advertising except for one thing: Nutella does not have "a touch of cocoa" hahahaha. It tastes more like chocolate than hazelnuts. Yes first two ingredients sugar and palm oil. Guess what, I have a (mostly eaten) jar in my pantry right now. I ate it every day for breakfast one year in high school. Yes it can be part of a healthy diet (like anything else), but it is definitely not a healthy food.

    I'm just afraid this lawsuit has set a precedent. Now anything that has been advertised as potentially healthy but actually isn't is at risk. "Whole grain" sugary cereal anybody? And when companies are sued, the companies fork over their money to the lawyers, and consumers are stuck with higher prices. And for those of you who think companies should be held accountable, they already are in two ways. They are required to place the FACTS about their products on the nutrition label. And consumers have the CHOICE to purchase them. If enough consumers refuse to buy products, companies will stop making them.

    Oh and here's my recipe for Nutella "alternative" - take a spoonful of peanut butter (I use natural) and melt it with a tablespoon or so of chocolate chips. Again not health food but better than the jarred stuff. - 6/7/2012   10:51:16 PM
  • 46
    Sigh. Nutella. It's sooooo delicious. The kids love it sooooo much. But 1) it's full of sugar. AND 2) it has palm oil, production of which is ecologically very unsound. So I don't buy it very often (and wow, does the jar disappear when I do!) Yes - I'm a label reader, but I try to cook from whole, close-to-the-source ingredients, and guess what? Most don't have a label to read, or contain 1 ingredient! - 6/7/2012   5:13:37 PM
  • 45
    I always read labels. We have to be educated about what we are putting into our bodies. I don't believe commercials any more than I believe those late night infomercials. It's called being your own health advocate. - 6/7/2012   2:04:14 PM
  • 44
    I have never tried Nutella. When I first heard of it and found it at the store, I checked the label and promptly put it back on the shelf. I was shocked at the amount of sugar and that it was being pushed as a healthy product. No way was I buying that!! I stuck to peanut butter and started splurging on organic peanut butter. A much better choice in my opinion!! - 6/7/2012   7:52:40 AM
  • MMINB17
    43
    I don't believe with the courts decision. The whole purpose of advertising is to sell ones products - I don't like the fact that they mislead people, but it is done all the time. I think people should start accepting responsibility for their actions and educating themselves - would one make a major car or home purpose based on an ad? - 6/7/2012   7:42:43 AM
  • 42
    I love the Food Showdowns on SparkPeople and often read the label (and compare products) when I am grocery shopping just to stay in practice and educate myself on what choices to make.

    Congratulations to Disney for changing the foods they offer and advertise!
    Kudos to Michelle Obama for advocating for growing your own food and moving at least an hour a day. - 6/7/2012   6:52:12 AM
  • 41
    Since I am very sodium sensitive I learned to read labels many years ago. Now I get a kick out of my husband reading them when he goes shopping with me as he is NOT a shopper! - 6/6/2012   10:00:57 PM
  • TEMPKIKI
    40
    i read EVERY label when i shop...it makes me choose healthier options - 6/6/2012   2:04:00 PM
  • 39
    My mom was a label reader back in the day, in the 70's. I think about her every time I read one. It's amazing.

    I started reading labels when I was looking for 100% juice and had such a hard time finding some. I greatly decreased my consumption of juice after that. I was going off sugar at the time and found that many of my favorite juices contained HFCS. Most recently, in my attempt to lose weight while tracking the foods I eat, I started reading them again. This time I'm learning about portion size. I no longer derail my whole day with a bag of chips or candy. I can eat a few pieces and stop. I can let the rest stay there until I'm ready for some more. The drive to push and eat and eat and eat till it's gone (usually a day or two) is gone! Yay!

    But I agree, no one should believe an ad. - 6/6/2012   1:51:18 PM
  • 38
    Absolutley companies should be accountable for what they advertise. We should be the ones to really read the labels & be educated about what we are buying. - 6/6/2012   12:55:43 PM
  • KMAKEY
    37
    Deceptive advertising is an unacceptable and highly used gimmick to sell products. "Natural" does not necessarily mean healthy, so you do need to learn to read labels. If everyone learned to read the labels and understood what they were putting in their bodies many of these products would no longer be be available for purchase because non money makers do not stay on the shelves. As long as people stay uninformed and are willing to purchase products based on "advertising jargon" unhealthy foods will continue to be consumed. - 6/6/2012   11:56:42 AM
  • BAMAJAM
    36
    Our government office of FDA should enforce truth in advertising, and it should be responsible in looking out for HEALTH. Thankfully, many years ago, because of the strict FDA controls, the drug, thalidomide, was not approved for pregnant women-- Many severe birth defects happened overseas because this harmful drug was taken. Despite decreased funding in gov't offices, I hope that the FDA can continue to be prudent in their operation---for all our sakes. - 6/6/2012   11:35:05 AM
  • 35
    Although I don't like how food may be marketed here in the United States, I think that the onus is on the consumer to read labels. Yes, the companies should be held accountable but ultimately it's our fault when we aren't aware of what we put in our bodies. We have no one else to blame. I completely disagree with the court decision. - 6/6/2012   11:28:37 AM
  • 2DIETORNOT2DIET
    34
    I so disagree with court, she should have read the label and used better judgement, since when do you believe what an ad says about anything from food to cars and everything in between. - 6/6/2012   11:25:55 AM
  • 33
    We're hopeless. If we practiced more personal responsibility, then maybe we'd be afforded more freedoms. Then again, if you look at the slew of food, health, and nutrition documentaries out there that interview members of the general public, the majority of people don't WANT to be told what and how to eat--we want to eat what we want even if we have an inkling of an idea that it's unhealthy, and there are those who think labeling suggesting good health is pretentious and just government b.s. and lies, and suggestions to eat better is butting into their lives and being told what to do. Maybe it needs to be like driving where we study and pass and exam before we're allowed to shop for our own food, read labels and make educated decisions less we endanger other peoples' lives. - 6/6/2012   11:01:11 AM
  • NURSETALL
    32
    I think both party's were at fault. The mom for not reading the label and the company for deceptive advertising. When my kids were growing up if they asked for something new that was advertised they knew if I read the label and found that it was not as good for them as it advertised I could veto buying it. My son is now 20 and he reads lables and advises his friends about reading the label. - 6/6/2012   10:49:54 AM
  • 31
    I think the blame is on the consumer. The company put all the information out there, as it is legally obligated to do...it's on us to make sure that we make sure exactly what is going into our mouths.

    That is why if/when I add new things to my grocery cart, I read the label first. I also read the label on the foods that may not be the healthiest for me that I have a craving for to make sure that I don't pick that item up and take it home with me. That's when I usually come to my senses and realize that there's a better way for me to use my calories than that cake or ice cream. - 6/6/2012   10:34:03 AM
  • 30
    I first tried Nutella was I went to Italy in 1994. It was wonderful. Needless to say, I was thrilled when I found my first jar here in the US. Unfortunately, the Nutella I had in Italy is NOT the Nutella they sell here. The Nutella here is loaded with all those unnecessary additives. Trader Joe's makes a version of Nutella that is a combo of peanut butter and cocoa powder. no preservatives or fillers. yum....

    Now, while I understand that what Nutella marketing did was deceptive, how is this any different than what Kellogs, Post or any other cereal maker does ? I hope that most people know that Cocoa Puffs (or any other sugary cereal) do not qualify as a health food just because it happens to be vitamin enriched. So, if cereal makers can claim their products are part of a "healthy" breakfast, why can't Nutella ? that really strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Why prosecute against Nutella when we should also be citing the breakfast cereal companies too.





    - 6/6/2012   10:04:40 AM
  • 29
    Deceptive advertising is SPIN to get trusting souls to fork over the cash. Their aim is for the benefit of the stockholder, not the common good.
    How they could say something like that, making us believe that something is "healthy" option when clearly it is not.
    Sure we need to take responsibility for ourselves but the media brainwashes us and our children into believing the hype. It is truly sad when we have lost trust and What ever happened to "Truth in Advertising"... realistic portion sizes... all the ingredients, etc.
    Shame on them, the public does not deserve to be misled for the sake of profits.
    - 6/6/2012   9:49:35 AM
  • JPEARL127
    28
    AND we have our own special healthier version from Chef Meg!!! - 6/6/2012   9:17:47 AM
  • 27
    I think the situation with Nutella is pretty greedy and disgusting. When we sue companies because we don't understand what they are saying in a commercial, the liability should not be on them, especially if we want to be a country that is a positive place for business growth. I personally recall the commercials in question. Never once did Nutella say that their product was 'healthy'. They recommended making it a part of a healthy breakfast to get kids to eat whole-grain bread. If you can't figure out the language, get an interpreter, not a lawyer. I can't stand this kind of sue-happy environment. I don't think the company should have to pay a dime. It's the consumer's responsibility to read labels and use products in a safe way. Slathering the substance on toast is unhealthy, sure. But if you use a small amount, there is nothing wrong with SOME sugar in your diet. Even for a diabetic. It's the point of using it in moderation. That's what people need educated on... but instead if things are not just done for them so they don't have to think for themselves or measure for themselves then they want to blame someone or anyone else for their health problems. Ridiculousness. - 6/6/2012   9:11:59 AM
  • 26
    It's not always the consumer's fault. I have a friend who has a child that is autistic and is on a certain diet. I am not sure what it intails fornthis diet, but I do know if he eats right, he's a happy go lucky kid, if not, it's not pleasant to deal with. My friend has to constantly read labels because of this. Maple Foods has a product for meats that mention that it's natural, etc. Read the ingredients, bought and her son tried it. Didn't go well. Went on the website, everything seemed fine, still not good for her son. She had to do more research and found out that they didn't include everything on the list, the stuff they didn't include on the ingredient list affects her son. She had to send a letter stating how can you claim natural on your products when in reality it's not. They were nice and said they'll change it and it'll come out in 3 months time. - 6/6/2012   9:02:40 AM
  • 25
    i agree with many that since the product was already clearly labeled with ingredients and nutrition, then the person should not have won the lawsuit. it is known that ANY product can be part of a healthy lifestyle. all things in moderation. so, it is the mother's fault for believing the advertising, especially since it was just to sell the product. i don't believe most of what is advertised on TV or in magazines. shame on the mother. - 6/6/2012   7:58:50 AM
  • EYRGJAAFA
    24
    I applaude you for reading labels, however not every ingredient has to be listed.
    Regarding the suing of Ferrero: only in the USA! I'm from Germany, something like this wouldn't happen over here...
    I think it's your own responsibility to check what you eat, if you prepare lots of your meals from scratch, you know whats in there, for the rest: go for wholegrain and organic. Personally I love Nutella, every once in a while a buy it and sometimes it ends up a little think on my bread (wholegrain), but I don't overanalyze it. - 6/6/2012   7:43:25 AM
  • CHIBISEIRA
    23
    I was back and forth... it is the consumer's responsibility to read the label, but that advertising was very deceptive... until I read this comment thread. Now I have to agree with the court. If people here on Spark are STILL saying that it may be healthy for some people, is healthy in moderation, etc... no. Is it OKAY in moderation/as a treat, or can it be part of an overall healthy diet? Of course, but that's pretty much true for everything. But if the first ingredient is sugar it's not HEALTHY for anyone.

    One good alternative for those who are looking is Justin's Chocolate Hazlenut butter. I still wouldn't label it as health food, but it's more nuts than sugar at least, and not too hard to find (I'll have to keep an eye out for that Oregon brand though, thanks sakenn!). - 6/6/2012   7:29:05 AM
  • 22
    I think both is at fault..... - 6/6/2012   7:00:17 AM
  • CAMILLEDEMAITRI
    21
    I agree with the court. I work with individuals who, through no fault of their own, cannot read or comprehend food labels. However, they ARE able to understand and fall for advertising gimmicks. Their health is at risk because they are fooled into thinking what they are eating is healthy.

    Advertisers know exactly what they are doing, and why, and so they deserve a slap on the hand...or more. - 6/6/2012   6:46:55 AM
  • 20
    I'm a very strong believer in personal responsibility. I'm a skeptic of the first order when faced with ANY advertising or media claim.

    Do I think a court should be involved and making this decision? Yes. Because the only way food labeling laws tend to be enforced is through consumer action taken when they are deceptive. Someone has to be willing to challenge the lies for them to be corrected. That's part of how the American system works.

    Do ~I~ need the court to tell me the label and advertising claims are hokey? Nope. I already know food labels can brag about "No Sodium" on something that is pure Trans Fats and put a 0 when the number is actually more than 0 but less than 1 or 5. - 6/6/2012   5:00:14 AM
  • 19
    That's what labels are there for....to be read! I read them all, and am often shocked! :) - 6/6/2012   3:23:06 AM
  • 1GNPARKER
    18
    What a surprise, another frivilous lawsuit started in California! It was that woman's choice to buy the product unless somebody was twisting her arm in the store. Personally I think this lawsuit should have been laughed right out of court. The only ones who will profit from this are the lawyers.

    Yes, companies should be truthful in their advertising. But it's still a choice whether or not to believe them or buy their product. I buy Nutella all the time(when it's on sale and I have a coupon) because I love the taste of it. Eaten in moderation I see no reason not to have it in my house. If I have it, then I cut the back on other things that have sugar. - 6/6/2012   1:08:18 AM
  • 17
    Just as I was always amazed and annoyed by the advertisements for sugar-laden cereals targeted to my children -- for cereals I would not allow in the house, I'm amazed to hear Nutella touted as exceptionally nutritious. As a treat like a candy bar, maybe. We will stick to freshly ground organic almond butter, thanks. And sometimes, I do add cocoa powder to my almond butter for dipping apples and celery. - 6/6/2012   12:36:50 AM
  • 16
    $3 million is pocket change to Ferrero -- they rake in over $7 BILLION annually. Not sure whether the settlement supports or conflicts with their reputation as among the most trusted companies in the world, but I do know that this wouldn't have happened in Europe, where "moderation" is common, and frivolous law suits are less so. - 6/5/2012   11:59:53 PM
  • 15
    This is another example of people expecting the government to carry the burden of things that are our own responsibility. The commercials might lead you to the store to check out the Nutella, but it is your own responsibility to read the label and decide if it is appropriate for your diet.

    I lived in Austria for years, and I was always shocked at the commercials for Nutella - the one I remember was with Boris Becker going on about how nutritious it is. And it also featured shots of him playing tennis. At the time, I wondered to myself how they could say something like that. I mean, it's chocolate people! Use your brains. But for someone with an active lifestyle as Becker's, extra fat and calories may be appropriate. I do think the ads are misleading, but the jar has all the info a consumer needs to make the decision. This is my long-winded way of saying I disagree with the court's decision.

    - 6/5/2012   11:30:14 PM
  • 14
    If we take responsibility for ourselves and learn to read labels, this will be a non-issue.
    By the way, Nutella has been a breakfast staple in Europe for many years. - 6/5/2012   11:13:29 PM
  • 13
    The Nutella settlement has nothing to do with consumer protection, and everything to do with money and our messed-up legal system. The attorneys are seeking $5 million in fees, and the payment to the entire class is expected to be less than $2 million after administrative expenses ($20 max per person, and very likely less depending on number of claims filed). And all that with a settlement agreement that agrees that Nutella can still use statements like the following: "Turn a balanced breakfast into a tasty one." It's OK to say "balanced," but it's deceptive to say "healthy"? Really?? Come on!!! The point is that the information is available on the label if you care to read it, and so many people don't. - 6/5/2012   9:06:53 PM
  • 12
    I don't agree with the court, mainly because I think it's our responsbility as consumers to read labels and know what we are eating. It would be like McDonald's having to pay people for making them gain weight! I automatically read labels when I go to the store (if it's something that I'm not familiar with). I started to buy some V-8 Fusion (I think that what it was--or something similar to that) because the label on the front said that it had X servings of fruit and veggies. Then I read the label and saw that each serving had about 35 grams of sugar. No way! (Years ago, Jif or some other PB company used to make a peanut butter/chocolate spread. It's been discontinued for years--at least I haven't been able to find it--and I'm sure that it was loaded with as much sugar as Nutella, but, boy, that stuff was tasty!) - 6/5/2012   8:42:45 PM

Please Log In To Leave A Comment:    Log in now ›


Join SparkPeople.com

Sign up for a FREE SparkPeople account