The Unstoppable Rise of Safe-To-Eat Edible Cookie Dough

Image via Ben & Jerry's

As a kid, the cookie dough eaters were people of legend. They were characters in teen movies and caricatures in commercials. But they walk among us. You may be one. I’m betting you are because safe-to-eat cookie dough is everywhere. 

No matter your special diet, there’s a cookie dough to fit it. You can buy bags filled with Ben & Jerry’s dough chunks. You can purchase rolls of safe-to-eat, slice-and-bake dough from Pillsbury. You can also scoff egg-free cookie dough snack bars or dig into a bag of keto-approved dough bites. We’ve reached peak cookie dough.

And it’s not just because cookie dough is delicious, at least that’s not the only reason cookie dough has become a ready-to-eat darling of the mass-produced food world. While raw eggs can harbor salmonella, the dough’s  uncooked flour also presents a risk. It’s a breeding ground for E. Coli, especially when you forget it for months in the depths of your cupboard. Simply omitting eggs doesn’t make uncooked dough safe to eat

It’s this gap between cookie dough’s carefree, innocent aura and its bacterial menace that, to me at least, makes it such an interesting category. How do you convince people to forget the scary reasons why they’re purchasing your product? How do you make them focus on the exciting, tasty experience they’ll have? How do you take what is frequently described as a guilty pleasure and turn it into something publicly acceptable?

Ben & Jerry’s does it by selling bags of the cookie dough chunks that dot its ice cream. As founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield explained on How I Built This, the extra-large chunks tempt people with the promise of an ultra-satisfying upcoming spoonful. While most cookie dough ice creams taste like vanilla with the occasional chocolate-studded sugar thrown in, Ben & Jerry’s cookie dough chunks have a recognizable taste. Consumers know them, and love them. This familiarity means people desire the dough itself, not just the ice cream.

So, after years of begging, Ben & Jerry’s (as owned by Unilever) released cookie dough bites. These bags of chocolate chip-studded, peanut butter and vegan versions have nothing to do with ice cream. But it doesn’t matter. The Ben & Jerry’s brand validates cookie dough’s solo consumption because it has validated its consumption in ice cream. Consumers have been conditioned to see ice cream as an acceptable vehicle for dough-eating and this link lingers even outside of the pint.

If we take this operation to be the core function of how brands engage with consumption -- that is by stimulating permission mindsets -- then this operation should work for all cookie dough brands. But Nestle’s Tollhouse complicates this theory. When the company adapted its formulation to be eaten raw, it didn’t make it bakeable. Instead, the company made entirely new products: a tub of edible cookie dough and chocolate-dipped bites. While these products are clearly labelled as safe to eat, their distance from the core product that they are attempting to mimic -- that is slice and bake cookie dough -- suggests that the mindset for dough consumption is different than the mindset for baking consumption.

Meanwhile, Pillsbury is converting its entire slice-and-bake cookie dough line up into a safe to eat formulation. Each package has a label proclaiming its safety. This is useful for parents who don’t want to fret if their child sneaks an unbaked slice, but it’s not likely to largely impact sales. Since cookie dough eating was already an established habit, albeit a naughty one, consumers don’t need a label to help them decide whether or not what they desire is safe to eat. 

Selling cookie dough only -- the kind that definitely will not result in cookies -- demands brands connect to deeper consumer drives. Ben & Jerry’s caters to the desire for more and for novelty -- consumers can finally get a taste of just the dough. Meanwhile, Enlightened’s keto-approved cookie dough leans into the fact that its diet-driven formulation is low-calorie and gluten-free. Highlighting these supposed-healthy attributes enables Enlightened to push away the idea that cookie dough is a guilty pleasure. Instead, Enlightened appeals to shoppers who struggle to balance indulgence with health.

This need for safe-spaces and desire-driven enticements is part of the reason why I initially found the concept of cookie dough snack bars so confusing. Whoa Dough is a start-up that makes safe-to-eat cookie dough bars. The bars look like Larabars or Clif Bars, or any of the other, endless options that dominate grocery store shelves. But I’m not being fair. The brand shills its dairy-free, gluten-free and plant-based recipe. It’s high-protein, too. Whoa Dough follows Enlightened and Ben & Jerry’s directive by addressing the larger lifestyle interests that make consumers select one product over another. A Whoa Dough snack bar may not be hummus and carrot sticks, but it represents a hybrid of indulgence and pseudo-health that massages modern consumer desires.

While health is a large driver in supporting dough-eating, there’s another subset of the edible cookie dough boom that sees indulgence as the primary appeal. New York cookie dough bakery Do garnered long lines when it first opened precisely because there was such a large group of people who wanted to indulge in unbaked cookies. As founder Kristen Tomlan told Food52,  “If we all loved cookie dough so much, why did we have to hide it? Why wasn't there a place where you could sit and enjoy it? Why hadn't anyone made it totally safe to eat?" Tomlan’s desire to develop a safe in which cookie dough was safe and acceptable to eat may not have the overt markers of health like Enlightened’s keto bites, but it does gel with more holistic and mindful eating attitudes. Do has succeeded because it acts as a safe space that sanctions unabashed indulgence. Its self-selecting. People who go to Do already enjoy cookie dough and find themselves among others who share their tastes. In this sense, Do creates a space of permissible consumption by showcasing a hidden habit and inviting participants to come together and feel safe in their taste preferences. 

Edible cookie dough is here and people want it. While I don’t believe it’s a category with longevity, the lessons its successes offer underline the importance for brands in supporting mindsets of permissible indulgence. But not just any indulgence. Cookie dough’s popularity builds on previously established consumer habits. People were already eating it and treating it as a cheeky treat. These brand-sanctioned versions put that habit into the light and justifies it. This justification is a powerful emotion for brands to tap into, and one that any category of highly-desirable food product can use.

FUN FACT: If there’s one thing I learned while writing this piece, it’s that the keto community is obsessed with cookie dough. Who knew there would be so many diet approved versions out there? And why do they want the dough and not the cookie? I’m not too sure. But one of the strangest diet-sanctioned varieties I found was Ripple’s vegan dough. Ripple is a pea protein company that got its start making pea protein milk. It’s not the most delicious thing, but it does have a nutritional profile that’s more comparable to dairy milk than other alternatives and it’s nut-free, making it an allergy-friendly option. The company’s recipe is a pea protein palooza. Its uses pea protein milk and pea protein powder to create the dense, dough-like texture. Frankly, I think I’ll stick with the litany of chickpea-based recipes and products available.

The State of Fish Oil

Fish oil. It’s a punchline. It's the supplement that elicits a grimace. Nevertheless, sales are booming. Don’t look surprised, now. Fish oil’s popularity gels with 2020’s immunity supplement mania

Chalk it up to fish oil’s reputation for promoting cognitive health and preventing inflammation. Like most supplements, however, science doesn’t endorse all the claims. Eat more fish, experts say. You’ll get the same benefits. While this may be true, it overlooks the reasons why people choose supplements over whole foods, like time, access and taste preferences, to name a few.

The organoleptic dissonance between eating seared salmon (yum) and swallowing fish oil (yuck) says something about why people insist on purchasing supplements. One is palatable and one isn’t. When consuming fish as a supplement, we override our desire for pleasure and adopt a pragmatic approach to health. This concentration on health doesn’t change how fish oil interacts with the body, but it can change the consumer’s mindset. By engaging in an action identified as healthy, people may be more likely to perform other health-supporting practices.

In this sense, 2020’s immunity focus is a springboard. As people work to power up their immune response, they’re thinking more about their health in general, which leads to reflection on the habits they currently have and how they impact their wellbeing. Fish oil’s healthful reputation makes it an easy next step from probiotics, fermented foods and elderberry.

I also believe its consistency helps it command an aura of healthfulness. Soft-gel capsules -- those clear tan ones you’re picturing right now -- make up 59% of the market. On Amazon, 25 brands control 80% of consumer spend. Considering the fact that sales jumped from $5.6mil in March 2020 to $6.6mil by July, it’s seems evident that most people are content with these well-known formats. They aren’t expecting the experimental ones we see for immune-support from Hilma and sleep from The Nue Co -- even next-gen supplement companies like Ritual and Care/Of persist with the soft gel format.

That’s not to say that fish oil innovation doesn’t exist, but rather suggests that its healthy reputation results from its consistency. Consumers expect a particular format and even taste. These attributes have come to mark the product as health-supporting. 

That’s why Barleans’s fruity-tasting fish oil smoothies are so fascinating. Called “smoothies” these viscous fish oil-infused mask the oil’s distinctive taste with the flavor of gummy candy or sweet yogurt. While the main audience for these products is children (or parents), they also come in adult varieties and in both vegan flaxseed- and fish-derived formulations. 

It’s a smart move, but -- if we follow the reasoning above that people actually want fish oil to taste bad to believe that it’s healthy for them -- there’s a limited audience. These are the people who are interested in stealth health, like hiding veggies in sauces and ice creams. By removing the taste of fish from fish oil, Barleans lets people bypass the healthy signifier (taste, as we mentioned above). This means fish oil’s healthfulness is limited to what it does in the body. While the consumer absorbs its nutrients, the pleasant taste eliminates the tangible interaction with health, thereby reducing the likelihood of subsequent health-supporting actions resulting from a health-conscious mindset.

But there’s another, more tangible attribute that could impact the performance of these improved products: they don't contain the same level of omega-3 DHA and EPAs as traditional fish oil capsules. They have added sugar. And so in another sense the actual nutritional benefit is limited simply through the nutrition breakdown of the product itself. It doesn’t taste quite as healthy, because it’s not quite as healthy.

Yet there is a benefit I see the Barlean’s fruit-flavored oils playing as a gateway supplement. For people who embrace health-avoiding tactics by embracing hedonic taste over pragmatic function, there is the potential that the regular consumption of a pleasurable fish oil could transform the healthy mindset from one of avoidance to one of embrace. Through regular interaction with fish oil, it could lose some of its forbidding aura and enable the consumer to identify as someone who consumes fish oil. Once this self-identification bridge is crossed, it could thus become easier to approach the strong-tasting oils or capsules in the first place.

Yet is it really worth it? Studies show that it’s difficult to trace a direct benefit from the regular consumption of fish oil. As with protein powder -- and really as with all functional foods -- I believe food companies should explicitly acknowledge that the most certain benefit (and even this is far from certain) comes from the consumer’s mindset. If adding these products empowers people to see themselves as healthy individuals who take care of themselves -- and so long as the product is not actively harming them -- then it’s doing its job. If taking fish oil each day makes someone feel like they are investing in their health, then that’s going to carry into their mindset and make their whole life healthier.

So, yes, fish oil sales are booming. Let’s take this as an optimistic signal that more Americans than ever are willing to invest in their health and adopt a more nuanced understanding of what that means. An understanding that embraces strong flavors and overtly healthy (or overtly health-signaling) interactions. The pandemic hasn’t been about just junk food, but about self-awareness around all habits.

FUN FACT: I had way too much fun filling out the data-grabbing quiz from Care/of while writing this post. While I am not planning on taking American Ginseng anytime soon (you can ask later about magnesium and vitamin D…), I saw that they had a really cool protein shake bottle. Now, I am cringing that I have called any protein shake bottle as ‘cool’ or that I have even become a person who is interested in protein shake bottles, but it does make me think about who consumes these powders these days. It’s more than just bros. A quick Google search backs this up. You can now buy pink protein shaker bottles, snowflake-decorated ones and Vera Bradley ones. And you can buy the protein shaker equivalent of his/hers mugs: bae/bro protein shaker bottles. The more you know.

Why do people buy protein powder (really)?

Image via Unsplash/CTRL

I got my first serious, out-for-a-month running injury this year. I blame an eight-mile run in brand-new Hokas, as does my PT. I’m constantly shown ads about Hokas and feel personally insulted.

In an effort to not be bitter -- a challenge, I admit! -- I started thinking about nutrition. Specifically, I started thinking about protein: the building block of muscle and the supplement industry’s darling. The market for protein-rich products -- meaning protein bars, powders and drinks -- is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8% through 2027. Driven by the desire to feel like I could tangibly improve the speed at which my injury was (is) healing, I joined in the sales mania. My choice? Chocolatey bone broth protein powder.

Covid-19 is supercharging the supplements industry, especially for immunity-focused products. Vitamin C, elderberry and other purported immune-boosters have seen double digit growth since March. Whether or not these products do anything to improve one’s immune response is besides the point: they give consumers a security blanket in what is literally a life or death situation. Needless to say, inflammation in your tibialis posterior tendon due to running eight miles in a pair of over-hyped running shoes is not life or death. Most reasons why people buy protein supplements are similarly trivial.

So, why do we spend upwards of $30 on a plastic tub of powder that may not impact our health and certainly isn’t nutritionally necessary? Well -- why not? Protein is portrayed as a flawless macronutrient. Even when discussing heart-unhealthy beef and estrogen-packed tofu and commodity chicken, the reasons these foods are demonised is never because of protein. Instead, it’s the fat, the soy, the hormones. Protein justifies consumption. A burger? At least it has protein. Eggs benedict? There’s protein in there. Costco rotisserie chicken? Affordable, family-friendly protein.

There’s been plenty written on how protein assumed this reputation: it’s coded masculine (tiered paywall), it signals wealth, it repairs muscles, it curbs hunger. But despite the good attributes protein has accrued, these traits don’t explain why we choose to purchase it in powdered form. If society allows us to justify real foods by saying that they’re high in protein, then why is there an industry built on distilling and powdering it so we can drink it?  

Most articles that tackle this question trace protein desire to fitness, arguing that extra protein helps muscles repair faster and thus maximises training. On one level, that is the reasoning behind why I purchased protein powder. I want to speed up the repair of my tibialis posterior muscle and get back to running so I can maximise my training. But I’m not so sure the statistics play out. If the US protein supplement industry was worth $16.7bn in 2019, while just over half of Americans met the CDC’s weekly aerobic activity guidelines in 2018 (half that if you include strength training), then who are the people driving protein powder sales? The desire to maximise one’s fitness routine may play into the protein powder boom, but it’s not the sole driver.

Time is another excuse for consuming protein powder, and one that widens the customer base. A protein shake can sub in for an on-the-go breakfast, or mid-afternoon pick-me-up. In the before times, on-the-go was a booming category and major source of innovation (as I’ve written elsewhere on this blog). This is an especially relevant market for consumers who believe in protein’s hunger-curbing power and so want more of it in their diet,

This leads us to another group of people who are consuming elevated levels of protein: those who follow stringent diets, like Keto and Paleo. Among this restrictive group, protein powder offers an ingredient hack to transform highly-palatable foods into diet-approved dupes. From protein powder pancakes to protein muffins and cakes, these alternatives once again lean on protein to justify the consumption of a food frequently maligned by society. In this sense, protein powder becomes a comfort blanket to ensure that one can match one’s diet, one’s bodily hunger and one’s intellectual desires to society. Protein powder is both a time hack and a mind hack.

It’s this aspect of mind hack that interests me most, and I think gets most looked over in articles discussing protein powder. Sure, I can read about how to pick the best one for my diet, or why I might actually not need one in the first place, but these articles only dance around that link between what we put in our bodies and how we perceive ourselves. For the gym-goer looking to build muscle, the harried college student needing a quick meal fix or the injured runner going mad hoping to heal, protein powder is a mental crutch. We lean on it for hope: the hope that it works, the hope that we’re healthy and the hope of vitality.

I don’t believe this is a bad thing. In fact, I believe more brands should be overt about the power of hope when marketing their products, especially so-called functional foods, of which I consider protein powder a part. When we buy and consume protein powder, we are buying and consuming ideas just as much as we are nutrients or calories. We’re buying the belief that it will help us reach our goals. We’re purchasing the placebo effect. The thing is, the placebo effect has been shown to work in terms of pain reduction, especially when people actively choose their own placebo. If someone told me to take a specific brand of protein powder, it would have less of an impact if I went out, researched and chose the brand that I thought was right for me. The placebo effect requires active engagement from consumers -- the exact kind of engagement that brands want. 

So, yes, protein powder has become a huge market because of its modern, gold-star nutritional reputation, but it is significantly helped along by the fact that there are plenty of people who are willing to believe that protein will help them reach specific health objectives. For these people, protein powder offers a shortcut to hope: it’s a talisman of health, the placebo effect. I believe that I am doing something good when I consume it, which makes me feel good, which is good. 


FUN FACT: Collagen is another interesting market sector that operates on a lot of the same hope/placebo effects principles as protein, if not more so. It’s not a complete protein, it’s intended to boost skin elasticity and joint health, but no one knows if it really works. And yet, collagen sales are booming. I’ve tried a fair bit of collagen at trade shows, and I’ve got to say that it’s an acquired taste (a bit salty). That’s not stopping companies from spooning into lattes, stuffing it into bars and dissolving it into water. Do you believe it works?

Has Veganism Become Mainstream?

Image via Miyoko's Creamery

I wanted to write about edible cookie dough. Then, I got a press release for an award-winning vegan camembert, learned that San Francisco vegan dairy brand Miyoko’s Creamery won the right to label its oat-based butter “butter” and saw vegan protein brand Lightlife buy a full-page ad in the New York Times urging Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods to “clean up” their ingredient list. In such a crazy summer, why are vegan foods getting so much attention?

Mass-culture veganism is approaching a crossroads. The diet is removing its ultra-stringent, fringe reputation -- no more “I could never live without cheese” exclamations. As the diet’s social positioning role shifts, long-standing adherents are needing to reassess their relationship with veganism. This shift is causing friction amongst brands, between brands and customers and between brands and regulatory structures.

Naming a product has proved to be one of the most powerful tools to spin plant-based products mainstream. Labels help determine where items are placed in grocery stores. The arguments over plant-based milks typify this conflict. While the milk lobby has the money to push back against non-dairy milks, they only care when alt varieties impinge on milk sales. For a long time, this wasn’t a problem. Soy, rice and even hemp milks have been around for decades, but they were sold in shelf-stable cartons at natural food stores. It was a limited market. When almond milk became popular in the 2010s, companies like Blue Diamond and Califia Farms realized that sales increased when their cartons were placed in the refrigerated case next to conventional milk. A recent study confirms the same is true for alt-meats. Shoppers aren’t as loyal to conventional formulations as they are loyal to conventional names.

Strictly following this logic, Miyoko’s could avoided conflict and labelled its oat-based butter as margarine, but the negative associations that the high-oleic spread has accrued over the years are likely to dissuade customers contemplating a vegan diet for health reasons -- nearly half of vegan-curious current meat-eaters. And once you taste their cultured oat alt-butter, you’ll realize that its organoleptic properties scream butter. It’s salty and savory with a complexity often limited to the elite cultured French versions. Just like goat milk yogurt is slightly different from cow milk yogurt, but fulfils the same dietary role, Miyoko’s butter is made with a liquid derived from oats, but occupies the same culinary niche as butter made from cow’s milk.

Yet the idea that a vegan product must replicate the animal-derived on to warrant the same name pigeonholes attention-worthy vegan foods into replicating current eating structures and the nutrition gaps that come along with them. This is the attitude that Lightlife was attempting to call out when it asked Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat to reduce the number of ingredients in their mock meat formulations. The brand, which is owned by Canada’s Maple Leaf Foods, ran a full-page ad in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal that urged the alt-meat wunderkinds to reject highly-processed ingredients. While Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are easy targets thanks to their success, focusing on these popular brands overlooks the fact that they probably shouldn’t be cornerstones of the next-gen vegan diet.

The economic engine behind today’s mass-market(ish) veganism is reproduction of traditional eating structures separated from traditional ingredients and processes. Duplication drives demand. But this demand is limited to a few dishes deemed appealing enough to warrant replication.

Plant-based camembert is not one of these mass-market vegan dupes, but it does demonstrate how veganism is attempting to hold onto its exclusive identity. Brooklyn-based company Rind uses live active bacteria and a non-dairy base to culture plant-based versions of soft French cheeses. As the name indicates, the company is proud of its rinds, which are safe to eat and boast unique, funky aromas that are similar to, yet different from, conventional soft cheeses. Rind offers a conception of veganism that sees a plant-based alternative served to friends with wine at a dinner party. It’s elite and controlled.

I believe that the tension that we’re seeing between companies like Lightlife -- an old school vegan company that’s been in the tempeh and tofu game for 40 years -- and next-gen alt-meat producers like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat is one that sits between the elite and mass-conceptions of vegan food. Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are targeting mass consumers and tastes. They replicate popular eating patterns without using animals to make fast food a halfway-healthy option. Meanwhile, companies like Rind and Miyoko’s are reimagining high-end food products with new ingredients while still retaining traditional processes, like fermentation. When we talk about veganism as a monolith, we miss out on these nuances. These nuances are what make the category a vital space, where consumers and companies select foods that best express their identity, whether mass or elite.

I hope that the industry can find a middle ground, where plant-based products are seen as an ordinary alternative to conventional, animal-based ones. Where you can have a product that aims to replicate a fast food burger or one that offers an elevated dinner party snack. I want to be able to eat tempeh and a Beyond sausage. This is going to be a lot to ask for in a market where attitudes toward health and diet remain staunchly black-and-white, good-or-bad. The question that I’d like to see being asked isn’t “is this a healthy alternative” but rather “does this alternative serve the eating occasion I want to have now.”

——-

FUN FACT: There’s a research company in Australia that’s using cellular agriculture to produce cruelty-free versions of exotic meats, like kangaroo and zebra. I’m excited for my first lab-grown burger or chicken nugget (which, researchers have told me, is the easiest to produce), but this brings the anticipation to a whole new level.