Why Have I Never Tried: the U-No Bar?

[Photographs: Robyn Lee]

Ed. Note: When's the last time you tried a new candy—just because? For the SE staff, that time is now. Each day for the two weeks leading up to Halloween, we will try a candy we haven't had before, and tell the tale.

I picked Annabelle's U-No bar as my "candy I've never tried before that I'm going to try now because... HALLOWEEN!" because it reminded me of the "Y U NO" Guy. As for why I'd want to eat a candy bar that makes me visualize a sweaty, bulgy-eyed, grapefruit-shaped rage face, it's because...it makes me laugh. My brain, that's how it works.

But there was no laughter while I ate the candy bar. Because it's terrible.

The wrapper describes the candy bar as "RICH CREAMY CHOCOLATE." Nope. What it should say is "DIET CHOCOLATE-FLAVORED FROSTING." Despite the fact that the bar's first two ingredients are milk chocolate and sugar, it doesn't taste particularly chocolaty or sweet. That flavor (or lack thereof) paired with a light, fluffy, and unpleasantly waxy texture puts the bar in the realm of bland diet food. The filling also contains ground roasted almonds, but I wouldn't have been able to tell if it weren't listed in the ingredients.

The U-No is similar to a 3 Musketeers, but it has a thinner chocolate coating and contains about three times the amount of fat per gram of candy bar. (U-No has 17 grams of fat per 42 gram bar; 3 Musketeers has 7 grams of fat per 54.4 gram bar.) ...And it tastes much worse. But that's just my opinion. U-No has its fans; I just wish I could understand why. No one at SEHQ liked it.

And of course, I've gotta do this:

20131010-u-no-bar-y-u-no.jpg

About the author: Robyn Lee is the editor of A Hamburger Today and takes many of the photos for Serious Eats. She'll also doodle cute stuff when necessary. Read more from Robyn at her personal food blog, The Girl Who Ate Everything.

Comments

Add a comment

Comments can take up to a minute to appear - please be patient!

Previewing your comment: