All of the coverage I have seen seems to have overlooked the fact that candy floss doesn't really taste of anything except sugar. Its ingredients are usually sugar and food colouring. Most of the distinctive quality of candyfloss comes from the texture - which I am pretty sure these lack. So why not call them sugar-flavoured grapes? Or very sweet grapes? They could have called them marshmallow-flavoured grapes and it would have been about as informative.
I haven't tried the grapes, but if they really do taste of nothing but sugar it doesn't sound very appealing. I enjoy grapes for their fragrance and fruit flavour, not sweetness alone.
 |
| Picture by I like |
The grapes were developed at International Fruit Genetics in California and grown by Grapery for Mack Grapes, whose parent company Mack Multiples imports them into the UK. The new variety is actually called Cotton Candy (American for candy floss). Fair enough, new plant varieties always need new names and just calling them "Sugar" might have been a bit less poetic. But I think Sainsbury's may be overdoing it a bit when their press release boats that the grapes have "a distinctive but extremely sweet flavour and surprising taste of candy floss." They are echoing Mack Multiples, whose commercial director describes the grapes' "distinctive candy floss flavour". A triumph of marketing over substance perhaps?
Wow! There are now grapes on the market meant to taste of cotton candy/candy floss? This concept is a 'fail' in my book. If I wanted something that tasted of straight sugar, then I'd, like Mary Poppins sang, have a spoonful of sugar, and be done with it.
ReplyDeleteMy home-state of California has not 'done me proud'.
Exactly! If you want a sweet then have one, don't pretend you're having some healthy fruit.
ReplyDelete