I live in Washington state . I went to a local store where I get my Bakers cookies , yesterday . They have the new nutritional labels on them , now . It's not good news . As much as they (Bakers) claimed their imfo was correct , it apparently wasn't . The fruit & nut has higher calories , & fat than they origonally said , & less fiber . They are now 5 points . I could be wrong , but I swear they're smaller , too . I'll still probably eat them occasionally , but not as often . Some of you probably already knew this , & are saying , "SEE". Kathy

Kathleen,
Because you are one of the fortunate few who can buy your cookies in a store, you haven't seen the bombshell announcement on the Baker's website. Check either www.bakersbreakfastcookies.com or www.bakersbox.com (a distributor) to see info on the new "improved" cookie. You aren't mistaken about the size, either--they are now 3.5 oz instead of 4. With the change in nutritional values, my fave, the fruit & nut, increases its calories per ounce by 50%

Sign! I just got an order of the "old" cookies. I have always counted the F&N as 4 pts, PB as 5, but I think I will make this order last and last and last. They are still really good, and I don't eat enough (1-2 week) to "hamper" my weight loss. They are sooo good though. LOL

Well, gee whiz Kathy. That's better than I thought. I never did fall for their figures. You know the old saying, "if it sounds too good to be true- it is!'' My motto. I used to give their cookies 6 points. Just using my common sense and baseing my calculations on what cookies of that size with accurate nutrition labels in the health food stores counted as.

When I was eating them. I had one every morning. Lost just fine- because I counted them correctly. How anyone can honestly believe something that size, that thick, could only be 2 points is beyond me.

Well- now that I can count 5 points instead of 6 - I think I'll put in an order for some more Fruit And Nut.

Are these things really good? I just spent waaaay too much money on three half-dozen orders: peanut butter, chocolate chip, and ginger snap (I think). With shipping, it was a lot. Probably more than buying Clif bars in the stores individually like I do.

Maybe I should have only bought a single half-dozen, but I wanted to try different flavors. And they still sound huge to me. The Clif bar I just ate for breakfast is 2.4 ounces. The Luna bars are even smaller.

Yes, they really are that good, and filling. It is one of the few things I've eatten for breakfast recently that REALLY does hold me to lunch. I had been in the habit of eatting a fruit snack around 10am each day, and truthfully, I haven't thought about it since eatting BC's for breakfast. Enjoy!

Yeah, I just bought some of the cookies in the store with the new labels. I think it will be
my last. No wonder I wasn't losing on weight watchers. I kept blaming the cookies but
the leader kept insisting they were only 2 pts. Not blaming her. That was the info they were
given. Can you imagine how many pts the old cookies really were? They were bigger and who
knows what ingredients were in them before they had to put a nutrition label on them. lol

I hear ya! Fortunately the leaders in Michigan were all skeptical and used common sense. Every leader I discussed the cookies with insisted they were in no way only 2 points! Besides. Baker's was sending out their own little sheet of paper with what ever they felt like putting on it. Prior to now. There was no official nutrition label smacked on the package it self. Therefore, they could say anything they darn well pleased. Sold them a bunch of cookies, anyway.

For me, I appreciate the truth. And that's why I did order some again. But only 1/2 a dozen. I have no intention of getting into a got to have it every day rut. It will be a once a week breakfast only.

We have a very popular restaurant here in Michigan called Friar Tucks, that plays the same games. They've been fooling the gulible Weight Wathcers for YEARS with their chocolate chip lo-cal cookies and Cookie Delits and Cream Puffs- So, I'm conditioned for this sort of thing.

I just bought a few yesterday at a local health food store...I'm gonna check out the new cookies on their site. I'm not sure whether I have the old or new ones!

I could believe that they are lower in fat though, because they don't use butter, and you can tell because they tend to want to fall apart easily....but anyway, I'll go check it out. I saw all kinds of good things about them on these boards, only to finally find them and see how they've changed! If they are the old ones, I'd better stock up!

Girlie, I am willing to bet the old cookies are probably worse than the new ones. The old ones are bigger
and I don't think they were actually telling the truth about the actual calories and nutrition in them. I did
notice that the new peanut butter ones weren't as good as the old ones. Of course they were my favorite
and they have the most points of all of them. Anyway, I have weaned myself off of them. I still have some in the cabinet so I will just have half of one at a time.

I bought some of the new cookies today and I think they are worse!! They have more of a cake like texture and were really dry. The one I tried was fruit and nut. I'm really dissappointed they changed because my mom lives near the factory and could get me cookies for 50 cents each.

Susanne

Did you say cake like? Oh, no. I'm not going to like that one bit. When I want a cookie- I want a cookie! Preferably HARD with some real crunch. Something I could sink my teeth into.

This will be truly disappointing. Maybe for the best. I won't have to order them again.

Another matter that tickes me off. A few weeks back, Baker told me my order was being shipped on March19 and that I should receive them on March 23.

Well March 23 came, and no cookies. Now they tell me March 29. They have never been all that dependable. I'm sure this will be my last and finale order. Especially if their cake like!

For those willing to take the plunge, the cookies are on sale til the end of the month at www.bakersbox.com . I ordered 4 dozen and got an even better reduced price, about $56 including the shipping.

I ordered the combo regular cookies and the combo vegan cookies and an extra half dozen pumkin (one of the few 4 point-ers) to get to 4 dozen. I wanted to save as much money as possible. I'll report back the taste tests when I get them, but it'll still take a few weeks to get them, finish my old stash, and try out each new cookie. I just hope they're filling, like the old recipe.

In the meantime, please post all cookie reviews as you try them. Thanks.

Just got my 1/2 dozen order of the Vegan Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Cookies.

I put the coffee on immediately and had my first one.

I have to say. I don't find them any different than the former one's I tried. The only different thing I can see is the truthful, belivable nutrition label on the package of each and every cookie.

A lot of people have complained about the size. They say their smaller. Even Baker's says their smaller. But I don't see it. They look as big and as thick as they always did.

This particular one is 6 points. Not a big deal. That's what I always counted all their cookies for. I was no fool. I always knew better.

Some one said they are "cake like" I don't think so. Not this one anyway. This one, to me, is a cross between the former peanut butter and the chocolate chip raisin, minus the raisins. It's good. But not good enough to go through the mail order process and dealing with the wait, putting it on my charge and UPS. Just not worth all of that.

Recieved my "baker's dozen" of the new cookies on Tuesday. So far I have tried the oatmeal raisin and pumpkin spice. COmparing the old cookies to the new:

Nutritionally: Assuming the previous nutrition info was accurate: for the most part, the fat has gone up somewhat, the protein has gone up quite a bit, and the carbohydrates have gone up significantly. A good part of the carbohydrate is complex, though (non-sugar), which means longer-lasting energy. The complex carbs are probably higher, but they didn't break the carbs down on their old label so I can't tell for sure.
In the meantime, the serving size has gone down, meaning the cookie has less moisture and is more "concentrated". Overall, it probably makes a more balanced breakfast. Although people who were using the cookie for an intense fiber hit will have lost a lot, there's still quite a bit of fiber in there too.

Overall, I think they have come more in line with the nutritional profile of breakfast nutirtion bars, which perhaps was part of their point.

Ingredients: The biggest change is that they have added brown rice syrup to the cookies, adding both simple and complex carbohydrates, and making them sweeter. In some of them, they seem to have replaced some of the prune puree with banana puree, lightening the cookie and reducing the fiber. They've probably changed the ratio of other ingredients too, but not enough to see it on the ingredient line.

Taste: The cookies are lighter in character, and sweeter, although not intensely sweet. They are less chewy and brownie-like, and more like a cakey cookie, although not nearly as cakey/muffin-top like as Christine's recipe. The flavor is similar to that before the formula change, at least on the two I tried. I still like them, altohugh the exta sweetness is not worth the extra calories to me.

On the vegan cookies: I was wondering about this,since their regular ingredient line looked vegan to me. The difference in these cookies is that they are using "brown beet sugar" instead of "brown sugar". Normally brown sugar would be vegan, but perhaps their supplier produces milk caramels or something in the same facility and they are being super-careful, I don't know.

I'll probably keep having them occasionally. I still like them, although I am dubious of calling these changes a significant product improvement.

Has anyone else tried them yet? What do you think?

--vickibee