×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hostess To Close; No More Twinkies

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the a-true-tragedy-of-our-time dept.

Businesses 674

RenderSeven writes "In a press release issued today, baker Hostess Brands asked a bankruptcy court for permission to close all of its plants and sell off their assets, immediately laying off 18,500 workers. Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods, Hostess says it can no longer operate without union concessions. A crippling strike has already shut down operations at all facilities, and while the Teamsters Union has ratified a new contract to keep Hostess in business, the Bakers Union has refused saying they would rather see the company closed than accept pension cuts. The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking; citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is 'not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic' but a certain outcome if workers keep striking. If your late-night programming is fueled by Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Zingers, better stock up now." [Editor's note: A whole bunch of users submitted this news. I worry about our readership's cholesterol levels.]

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

674 comments

Zombieland... (5, Funny)

broginator (1955750) | about a year and a half ago | (#42003991)

Tallahassee said to be inconsolable.

Re:Zombieland... (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004329)

It is a conspiracy. This is, obviously, the first step in zombie world domination.

Re:Zombieland... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004409)

Zombies schmombies...
This makes the Y2k Family Guy episode of plausibility a near zero margin.
Now I have to rework my post-apocalyptic plans :(.

Re:Zombieland... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004509)

This wouldn't have happened if entitled Americans didn't vote to reaffirm Obama's war on business and jobs. Hard times ahead.

Re:Zombieland... (1)

broginator (1955750) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004563)

...said the Anonymous Coward.

Re:Zombieland... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004579)

Thanks for the insight, Broginator. If that is your real name.

Fear not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004017)

Given the teamsters reputation, the bakers' leadership could soon change....

Run on Twinkies? (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004025)

Or bail them out [whitehouse.gov]?

Re:Run on Twinkies? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004127)

This isn't Reddit. Slashdot users have no comradery or instinct to join together to achieve goals.

Re:Run on Twinkies? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004375)

camaraderie

Re:Run on Twinkies? (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004441)

Nope the company will go to auction I believe and somebody more competent (hopefully) will buy it. I do feel bad for the termed employees though, hopefully something can be worked out. I think hostess confused the USA with S. Africa.

Re:Run on Twinkies? (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004541)

Or bail them out [whitehouse.gov]?

Why the hell not! I'll make the argument that Twinkie production is vital from a national security standpoint! Knowing that there won't be Twinkies to come home to is going to be a major blow to troop morale! So, everybody, while you still can buy a box of Twinkies and give it to the USO or other organization. For the troops. For America!

Re:Run on Twinkies? (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004653)

Heck, France blocked Pepsi buying Yopiat (yogurt) because of “national interest”. I would argue that Twinkies are more American then yogurt is French.

WTF!?!?!? (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004031)

Talk about unexpected events! I would expect the investment to be rolling in with the recent wins for pot legalization. I mean, isn't that the old joke? If pot were ever legalized, Hostess would clean up?

What will the people of colorado do?

Re:WTF!?!?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004225)

Serious answer: company resources (such as recipes and product names) will be sold off in the liquidation. A competitior might even buy the Hostess name as well as all related product names and only change the small print on the boxes indicating the owning company.

Silly answer: Stockpile! Those things have a half-life of 2000 years, fill the fallout shelther with them!

Re:WTF!?!?!? (1)

caffiend666 (598633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004335)

Unfortunately, the response to Hostesses brown cream filled 'blunties' was ~slow~. They were next going to consider a delivery service.

Re:WTF!?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004581)

Weed legalization would mean expansion of snack foods everywhere. Every forecast was certain. Hostess shares were bound to make a fortune.
~~~ Lord Grantham

GO UNIONS! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004037)

Not.

I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

Re:GO UNIONS! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004125)

Probably that the people at the top were getting raises in the millions of dollars while the "idiots" were having pay cuts thrust on them?

Re:GO UNIONS! (1)

stokessd (89903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004269)

Hey do you work in my company?!? I'm the third cube on the right at the top of the stairs.

Re:GO UNIONS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004299)

UHN! take it, bitches! [wsj.com]

But seriously, unions are the source of everything wrong with this country. Like the 40-hour work week and pensions.

Re:GO UNIONS! (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004161)

While I'll agree that unions can be quite a thorn in the side of effective business (they once had a lot of benefit, these days though, they seem more of a lamprey), when the company says this...

Citing high [...] increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods [...]

I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway. If you can't figure out "Hm... people want healthy food, maybe I should make healthy food" or deal with competition in a mostly capitalistic environment, then you probably shouldn't be in business.

Re:GO UNIONS! (4, Insightful)

aicrules (819392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004319)

They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.

Re:GO UNIONS! (2)

skids (119237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004649)

They had no intention of staying in business. Wall Street entities that were planning on selling Hostess as scrap decided they'd try to milk some PR out of the whole process.

Re:GO UNIONS! (2, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004165)

The union was probably thinking "We already made massive consessions, now the CEO needs to take a pay cut and the private equity groups that saddled us with debt should be facing a lawsuit."

But go ahead, blame the workers. I mean, who needs employees, right?

Re:GO UNIONS! (2, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004401)

The point of striking unions is to twist the arm of the company. Well, in this case, the arm broke off and now none of them will have jobs. The CEO is out of a job, too, after all.

How does the story about the Golden Goose go again?

Re:GO UNIONS! (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004527)

Classic Monopoly / Monopsony situation. When there is only 1 buyer (of labor) and only 1 seller (of labor), and negotiations break down, there are not a lot of options left on the table.

The company has only a single ace – declare bankruptcy. This will void all of the contracts and the bankruptcy judge can sort things out. The union has only a single ace card – call the company’s bluff.

It is like a giant game of chicken. Compare this to Somalia Pirates or your favorite sports franchise. Where is the hockey season this year? These deals are hard to do.

Re:GO UNIONS! (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004289)

I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

If hostess can't properly market and sell products then they should go bankrupt.

I've seen this happen numerous times: a company starts doing poorly, they ask their employees to take cuts. The employees take cuts. The company keeps doing worse, the employees even sometimes start working for free "don't worry we'll turn this around soon." A few months later the company declares bankruptcy and everybody gets fired anyway and the company refuses back pay.

Hostess could have sold to another company which wanted to buy them but they said no. As the article mentions, Pringles was doing poorly, it sold off and now it's incredibly successful because it got new management and marketing.

I haven't eaten a hostess product in years. When I think hostess I think truck stop 10 year old Styrofoam. I can't remember the last time I saw someone eat a Hostess product. Cutting wages isn't going to help. The sooner its property and assets are sold off to someone who can either reinvigorate the brand or put its kitchens to better use the better imo.

Re:GO UNIONS! (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004421)

They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

They could have done that at any time if that's what they truly wanted. They thought they were playing a negotiating game ... it wasn't, but they lost anyway.

Re:GO UNIONS! (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004501)

>> I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

> They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

Then why not quit and go work for another company?

Re:GO UNIONS! (1)

damnbunni (1215350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004551)

You really can't recall the last time you saw someone eat Wonder bread? Beefsteak Rye? GoodHealth? Holsum? Bread du Jour? Tocsom?

While news stories are focusing on Twinkies, Hostess had a massive slice (har, har) of the US bread market.

Re:GO UNIONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004647)

Never heard of any of those except Wonder Bread, and no, I've never actually seen someone pick a loaf of Wonder Bread from the shelf.

Re:GO UNIONS! (4, Informative)

Fulminata (999320) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004295)

They were probably thinking about previous concessions they'd made only to see that money go to executive bonuses and attorney's fees instead of the capital improvements that the money was supposed to be spent on. http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/news/10829363/bctgm-union-responds-to-hostess-facility-closings

They were probably also thinking of the 300% pay raise that the CEO gave himself while preparing for bankruptcy, along with the lesser raises other executives got at the same time.

I'm still not convinced this was a smart move on the part of the Union, but I can certainly understand what they were thinking!

Re:GO UNIONS! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004503)

They were thinking that they don't care if they kill a company, because making any concessions at all means that they're in a weaker bargaining position with any other companies.

The lesson is clear: if you want to run a business, do it in a right-to-work state, or offshore. Hostess would probably be doing fine if they'd moved all production to Mexico ten years ago and trucked the product in.

Starvageddon (0, Offtopic)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004043)

Just before Dec. 21, coincidence?

Re:Starvageddon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004315)

This is what the Mayans were really warning us about.
It's just been misinterpreted all these years....

Right... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004045)

It's never management's fault the company is failing, it's always the "Unions, Unions, Unions".
If a company can't afford to pay a living wage, a company SHOULD go out of business.

Re:Right... (5, Informative)

MNNorske (2651341) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004163)

Actually if you read some of the comments from the CEO. He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around (including management and the unions.) He was brought in during the bankruptcy to restructure the company and get it back on its feet. It was hemorrhaging money and he laid the case out for everyone. Surprisingly the Teamsters actually agreed to the pay cuts because they understood they'd be without jobs entirely otherwise. The bakers refused to acknowledge that the company was in such dire straights. They seemed to think management was bluffing, well in this case management wasn't.

That being said, I've been on the receiving end of a pay cut before and it sucks. But, it was better for me at that time to have a pay cut and search for another job than to have gone entirely without a paycheck. As much as it would've hurt financially the bakers should've seen reason. 90% of a paycheck is definitely better than no paycheck.

Re:Right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004215)

The Teamsters feel its a living wage. This has happened a few times in my memory were small unions push a company to bankruptcy. Often times its the dumbest union that ruins it for everyone.

Look at the Northwest airlines deal 10 years ago. All the various different unions got on board with cuts and changes to keep them in business, except the mechanics. The mechanics where represented by a small local union that lacked the understanding of Northwests business, their mantra was more more more more. When told no, they said, we will burn down the company! They all are unemployed. The company moved on without them and successfully merged with Delta creating a large profitable business.

Small unions should have learned this lesson, if those plants close and assets sold they get nothing. The jobs wont come back, they will move somewhere else under new ownership. Their pensions will be slashed to a fraction of what they expected when the pension guarantee fund takes over, the stubborn uneducated union employee loose the most, the union bosses go on to live nice lives. Its a scam.

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004229)

And they did. Happy? Now, how exactly does this company going out business benefit anyone, especially all of those employees that now have no job?

Assets will certainly be purchased... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004085)

I am certain someone will pick up the assets and consumers will still get their food products.

Zombieland all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004087)

NOOOOOO!

Post-apocalypse... (4, Funny)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004095)

Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world.
Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!

And... (5, Informative)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004103)

Bimbo Bakery, a 10 billion dollar Mexican multinational conglomerate baking company, is looking to purchase them (for the second time.) in fact, Bimbo could have easily purchased the entire thing while hostess was on the ropes, as hostess is only worth 2.7 billion in revenue, but hostess (headquartered in texas) declined to do so.

Re:And... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004249)

Bimbo Bakery, a 10 billion dollar Mexican multinational conglomerate baking company

For big fun, figure out where the VCs behind Bimbo are located. Hint: No es Mexico.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004523)

How about you just tell us?

Re:And... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004417)

I thought you were kidding.... Bimbo Bakeries [bimbobakeriesusa.com]. Nah, that's just a joke.

Re:And... (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004515)

Bimbo is a huge brand. They sell Bimbo brand bread all over the Southern United States, and is pretty much THE brand of baked goods in Latin America.

Should have moved production to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004117)

Hostess should have moved twinkie production to China.

Lesson learned!!!

Re:Should have moved production to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004241)

Can you imagine Twinkies being marketed in Asia?

"Fluffy goldiness. Cream and good. Happy day!"

Uh-Oh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004121)

Little Debbie better watch out. She's about to get a bunch of pasty, fat, basement-dwelling boyfriends.

Obligatory Zombieland Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004123)

lol http://www.examiner.com/article/the-twinkies-zombie-apocalypse-has-officially-begun

I don't much care for twinkies (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004177)

but the 2-packs of orange cupcakes... ahhh! The only time I ever see them (fortunately) is backwoods gas stations on road trips.

Back on topic, seems the BCT union would rather be unemployed than take a pay cut.

This is probably a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004191)

The Yucca Mountain Waste Repository will not be built, so the sooner we can stop building Twinkies the better.

And nothing of value was lost (1, Interesting)

j_presper_eckert (617907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004253)

Way to go, Hostess management. Don't let the door hit you in your partially hydrogenated ass on the way out!
Considering that their product has a shelf life best measured in geologic terms, and is often functionally identical to substances used in ancient Egyptian mummification practices, I think that nothing of value was lost.
Except the jobs themselves, that is. It's going to be *such* a merry Christmas for their workforce this year.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (5, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004525)

it wasn't Hostess management that did this. it was the Baker's Union. Hostess was in the midst of a managed reorganization to try and save it. Even the Teamsters union was going along with Hostess because they could see that it was this or no more jobs.

The Baker's Union (and possibly you as well) is living in a Marxist fantasy land where behind every "evil proletariat oppressing capitalist" is an endless pile of money that he just won't share. Back in reality the money was gone and it was this, or liquidation. The Baker's union chose liquidation. Not just for themselves (about 5000 people) but for the OTHER 18000 employees (including Management) too! Don't blame management for something they didn't cause.

Hostess will now be entering a court-ordered liquidation, and the brand rights will (if fate has a sense of humor) be sold to a non-union company in a right-to-work state. As it should be.

Good riddens (3, Funny)

Scowler (667000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004267)

While I have some nostalgia over Twinkies, the fact remains the stuff is utter garbage.

Honestly, this stuff makes other junk food like Cheetos and Pop Tarts look healthy in comparison.

Woody Harrelson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004273)

... is devastated by the news!

Won't be missed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004279)

Nasty corn syrup and whipped animal fat things... I haven't eaten one in almost three decades.

When Hostess closes.. (2)

tramp (68773) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004287)

what happens to those pensions? They will be cutted anyway I suppose? Does not sound like the Bakers Union have a clue.

Re:When Hostess closes.. (0)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004531)

And what happens to those pensions if they agree to the contract that has no pensions? Congratulations on being an effing dimwit.

Re:When Hostess closes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004629)

And yet the CEO of hostess was unwilling to give up his 7 figure income....

Yeah, Boo fricking hoo for the rich assholes that refuse to adjust their income first to save the company.

Fueled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004301)

Let me get this straight: I am not, will not, and never have been fueled by Ding Dongs. In fact, I find them very discouraging to tell you the truth. I must also disclaim my lack of interest in TwinkTits and Swingerz. Let me also say, that if you think those things are Baked, think again. I believe they are instant chemical reactions achieved when sugar is mixed with stewed mattress foam and morphine.

Change! (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004307)

The Twinkie is a symbol of steadfastness, of resistance to change. No matter the environment, it remains obdurate and unimpressed. The recipe has not changed in decades. This must be Obama's first step towards his promises of change! Next targets: the McDonald's french fry and The Legend of Zelda.

Now we'll have to eat Snowballs :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004309)

Now we'll have to eat Snowballs or drive across country in search of Twinkies.

And nothing was lost (3, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004325)

I know this is being framed as a unions / management story, and that's fine and at least partly true, but really: Hostess is losing money because their products are horribly unhealthy and people are wising up about it. People wonder why Americans are fat, and the reason is always because companies like Hostess haven't gone out of business sooner.

When people learn about junk like healthy eating, companies like Hostess need to either reform or get replaced. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with a company being replaced.

I want to be clear that I don't dislike Hostess, but it appears that they have served their purpose.

Re:And nothing was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004447)

I feel for the workers, but I'm glad that some % of the garbage Americans shove into their mouthes will be gone. Wonder Bread? Twinkies? These are utter garbage.

Re:And nothing was lost (2)

matthewd (59896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004611)

Well that, and I looked at the store snack section last night, and the Hostess products are twice the price of other options available. So, if you want a Twinkie fix and the store brand is just as good (I don't know if that's the case, I don't eat Twinkies) why pay more especially with the economy being so bad right now? Same with the fruit pies, Ho-Ho's et al.

Cholesterol levels are adequately high (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004405)

Thank you, but I top off with a pulled pork sandwich or plate of deep-fried pepperoni when needed.

Aw, man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004455)

Now we're supposed to settle for deep-fried Snickers bars?

Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004457)

Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Ho [wikipedia.org]s?

Twinkies suck. Ho-Hos are where it's at. I freely admit though, I haven't eaten a Ho-Ho since... maybe my early 20s. I have many fond memories of them from childhood though. Oh, the sweet, savored pleasure of unwinding them. The thin layers of chocolate that would flake off the outside. That last bit of thin cake and cream core...

Alas, the desire for extreme sugar waned with youth. Health consciousness took the front seat. Would it be so bad to take a walk down that aisle just one last time? Maybe not; but it's raining today. Besides. That shit's bad for you.

There will be more Twinkies (1)

pwileyii (106242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004473)

Just like "The Sharper Image" and "Circuit City," the Twinkie name will live on. It is a name that is worth probably around half a billion dollars per year to a company that is able to manage it correctly. There may be a few months in which Twinkies are off the shelves, but they'll be back.

That's okay. (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004555)

The twinkies available now will be good for most of the next 657,000 years due to all the preservatives.

They'll just get a bit crunchier after the first millennium or so.

Union logic? (2, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004557)

It's this kind of attitude of unions in the US which makes me say most have outlived their usefulness and something I had to explain when I lived in Germany to the Europeans that the union in the US are nothing like the unions in Europe. Many of the unions in the US are basically racketeers with a bully complex. In Europe if jobs had to be lost, usually the Union would step in and help provide those members with job training to find a new job. If that's what unions did in the US, I'd probably be more supportive.

What union really thinks that it's better for a company to go out of business and everyone in the union lose their job than to try and save as many as possible? Because a union worker making $0 isn't contributing any dues.

When the hostess brand gets bought, do the unions think the new owners are going to do? Maybe they'll keep the old benefits, but only hire back half the workers.

Laying off 18,500 workers - that's a big Twinkie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004565)

No more deep fried twinkies! What will we eat at the state fair...

Re:Laying off 18,500 workers - that's a big Twinki (1)

Biff98 (633281) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004607)

Fried Ice Cream Fried Snickers Bars Fried Bacon Fried Pickles Fried Avocado Fried Coca Cola Fried Key Lime Pie it doesn't really end....

Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform (0, Troll)

sethstorm (512897) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004569)

The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.

Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.

I sense a disturbance.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004575)

It's as if 90,000,000 fat sweaty nerds all cried out at once..... and are still whining.....

Eulogy for a Twinkie (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004599)

Enriched wheat flour, sugar, corn syrup, niacin, water, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable and/or animal shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed and canola oil, and beef fat, dextrose, whole eggs, modified corn starch, cellulose gum, whey, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, cornstarch, corn flour, corn syrup, solids, mono and diglycerides, soy lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, wheat gluten, calcium sulphate, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, yellow #5, red #40.

RIP!

I felt a great disturbance in the force... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42004623)

It's as if millions of nerds, comic book store operators and World of Warcraft players suddenly cried out and then were silenced.. (as they rushed to their stores to secure loads of Twinkies and Ding-dongs)

Victory! (3, Funny)

ddt (14627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004651)

Hostess has been a major arms dealer in the war against diabetes in the US. It's great to see them finally fail.

Next up: McDonalds? Dare we dream?

The US gov't should be heavily taxing food this unhealthy or subsidizing food that is healthy. Neither of these is happening, and it's fucking ridiculous.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...