The Problem with Oreos
The Problem with Oreos
By Steven J. Callis
The Oreo Cookie was introduced in 1912. No changes were made at all until 1975 when Nabisco introduced a new Oreo Cookie – Double Stuff. Do you understand what that means? First of all, the original cookie stood on its own for 63 years!
Here’s my theory on that: one day on milk and cookie break at the factory, some ordinary employee candidly remarked to his supervisor, “You know, after eating these things for 63 years, I’m getting kinda tired of them. Why don’t we double the stuffing and see what that does to the flavor!”
The second implication is this: when they finally decided to make a change in the cookie, they did not change the coloring, or the recipe – they just doubled the amount of crème between the two cookie halves. Brilliant!
Since then, they have tried several different ways to stay on the cutting edge of the cookie world. They have even tried Cakesters – somehow it does not seem the same without the crunch! Nabisco has made all of these attempts to keep Oreo on the top of the wanted list. To my knowledge, however, Nabisco has never tried to sell a crème-less Oreo Cookie.
Think about it. Without the crème, we would have a crunchy, dry chocolate cookie with cute little flowers on it to keep it from appearing to be a bland, chunky, dry chocolate cookie. I am sure you’ve seen someone, maybe even yourself, twist the Oreo apart and eat the crème by itself. I have even seen kids eat the filling and throw the cookie away. On the other hand, I have never seen anyone eat the cookie and discard the crème. And that, my friends, is the problem with Oreos – it’s the cookie! Don’t get me wrong, the cookie is not a bad tasting cookie. However, without the filling, it would not even be on the most wanted list! Remember, Nabisco did not double the cookie in 1975, only the stuff!
Let me say it another way: it’s what’s inside that really matters!
The same may also be said for our everyday lives. Human beings are imperfect creatures. We make mistakes. We sometimes choose poorly. We can be unjust, self-absorbed, and lacking focus. While I am responsible for all my actions, it does matter to me whether a specific hurtful action is intentional or careless – it matters what is on the inside behind that action.
As a child, I recall hearing it said of certain persons, “He/she has a heart of gold.” This was a way to say that such a person would not intentionally say or do anything that would hurt another person; that nothing is beyond the limit of what he/she would do for someone else.
Here, then, is a twofold reminder: first, let us check our own motives, seeking to keep them pure. Second, let us consider (but not assume!) the motives of others, and extend grace where the motive is innocent, even if the action caused hurt. The Golden Rule is known inside and outside religious circles, and certainly it fits here: treat others the way you want to be treated.