#49 - Swizzels Double Lollies Squashies

Given the quantity and variety of sweets I have consumed in my lifetime, one might think that I am so well versed in the world of candy that nothing could catch me off guard; surely by now I can predict, with uncanny accuracy, whether or not I will like a candy with nothing more than a quick glance at the packaging, right?

Of course not. Don't be silly.

But give me a break. It's not entirely my fault! Sometimes there's a language barrier to blame. Other times it's a failure in package design. And still other times it's due to a name that is practically meaningless unless one has already tried the product before.

The end result is that your guess is as good as mine (okay, mine's better; I was just trying to be nice) as to whether or not I will react favorably to any particular sugary treat. In fact, I am occasionally completely clueless as to what a candy has to offer.

Take, for instance, today's subject: Swizzels Double Lollies Squashies!

A British-sounding name for a sweet if ever I heard one.

Swizzels is an English candy company that's been bringing sugary treats into the world since 1928, so I'd suspect they have a handle on the whole candy making thing. Swizzels Double Lollies Squashies are the soft, chewy, stick-less version of their popular Double Lollies suckers (which have been around since the start of Queen Elizabeth II's reign).

It all sounds pleasant enough, I suppose. Or maybe not. It doesn't really give me much to go on.

The package design is solid, though not exceptional. The font choices border on generic, and the pastel color scheme feels more drab than it should, but it is overall a successful effort, particularly when considering its complementary nature to the product (which resemble smoothed, poorly painted rocks) seen through the front "window." In fact, if the packaging were much better, it would likely overshadow and diminish any appeal of the actual viewable candy; Swizzels is more clever than first appearances might suggest!

At one time, this was the future.

The "best by" date is conspicuously displayed on the back of the bag (in the popular DD/MM/YYYY), with printing that is not of the highest quality but gets the job done. Also in the panel are what I assume are the lot number and time of production, which every consumer likes to know.

This review has been on the back burner for ages; I actually did meet the "best by" requirements (though it was a close one) when consuming my sample of the product, so lay your worries to rest!

Data based on an indeterminate number of "squashies."

The nutritional information (also displayed on the back), is more or less (mostly more) what one would expect from such a candy: sugar, sugar, and more sugar! Nutritionally, there's very little else to the "squashies." The panel is practically a waste of space.

As is customary in Europe, the values are based on a serving of 100g. If you would like to know how many "squashies" that equates to, I cannot help you, as I could find no indication anywhere on the packaging (which makes the nutritional data rather useless, in my humble opinion, and the panel even more of a waste of space). I may need to invest in a small scale to aid me in future reviews; that 100g standard is becoming a real nuisance!

Above the nutritional information one can find the ingredients list:

Swizzels Double Lollies Squashies are chock-full of surprises!

The list again shows the wisdom of Swizzels. For instance, "Double Lollies Squashies" is (arguably) a more appetizing name than "Fruit Flavour Foam Gums." Furthermore, the arrangement of the list (with multiple languages) as one big block of text dissuades the consumer from bothering to read it.

Because, quite honestly, Double Lollies Squashies contain a fair amount of unusual entries (mostly to accommodate the "no artificial colours" promise from the front of the package), so I thought I'd go over a few of them here.

• Sulphur Dioxide: This is sometimes used to preserve fruit (in this case, I'd guess the apple pulp). It is also described as "a toxic gas with a pungent, irritating smell." Oh, joy. At least it's printed in bold lettering.
• Black Carrot Extract: This is used as a food colorant. I mention this entry only because the very existence of black carrots is often unknown in the Western world. Interested readers can learn more than they ever wanted to know at the virtual World Carrot Museum (because of course there is a virtual World Carrot Museum), which suggests black carrots have cancer fighting powers. It also produces a purplish color similar to grapeskin extract, which is also for some reason present (I guess they didn't fully trust the black carrot extract?).
• Copper Chlorophyllin: This is used to provide a green coloring to food products. It also is suspected to have anti-cancer properties (assuming one survives the sulphur dioxide), and has been used to treat wounds as well combat the odor of the urine/fecal matter of people suffering from various conditions (which I guess will balance out the sulphur dioxide smell?).
• Lutein: This chemical is produced by plants and can give colors ranging from yellow to red. In the United States, it is prohibited as a food additive for humans. Well, then.
• Paprika: Nothing strange about this, except what is it doing in my candy?

Taken as a whole, the ingredients list is not terrifying or anything, but it is much less predictable than I thought it would be; gummy candies are not usually known for their adventurous compositions.

But what does that mean for the taste (if anything)?

I opened the bag to find out...

You can practically smell the sulphur dioxide!

The odor that greeted me was not the sugary sweet smell I was hoping for. I wouldn't call it a bad smell (frankly, I lack the linguistic prowess to describe it accurately), but know this: when one is anticipating the scent of candy, anything other than candy will not do.

So I wasn't exactly excited at this point. And, as it turned out, that was just as well, because that would have just added to my disappointment (SPOILER ALERT: I did not much care for them).

The candies are color-coded according to their various "fruit" flavors (none of which I could identify; I think one might have been pineapple?), which range from "this is sort of acceptable" to "why did I put this in my mouth?" In terms of consistency, the "squashies" fall somewhere between marshmallows and rubber. Granted, my wife loved the chewiness and most (but certainly not all) of the flavors. But, to keep her judgment in perspective, remember that she willingly married me.

I don't know what Swizzels was going for here, but I hope the non-squashies version of the Double Lollies are better; I can't imagine the properties of this product were intentional. Every bite just reminded me of how much better I wished the candies were. The package design, while perhaps not overselling the product, conjured up dreams of sweet sugary delicacies. What the product actually delivered was... I don't even know what to say. Sugary? Maybe. Sweet delicacy? I'd say no.

Thus I am rating Swizzels Double Lollies Squashies an unfortunate 1. I'm sure I could handle eating more without any serious issues, but I wouldn't enjoy it. I had expected more from Swizzels, what with their nearly-a-century of candy making experience. Oh, well. I guess nobody's perfect.

If only I had seen it coming...

Washing my mouth out with sugar,
The Sweets Fiend

So much sugar gone to waste. It breaks my heart.