The other day for lunch I had “animal crackers”. And because I was feeling intelligent at the time, or maybe I was just bored, I started reading the package. It led me to become quite perplexed. A few times in the past I have heard the debate over “animal crackers” and whether they deserved to be called crackers at all. Some people out there believe “animal crackers” are actually… cookies!

Well, I researched my dilemma a bit further. As I continued examining the package, I noticed the maker of my “animal crackers” and checked out their website, which was actually a company owned by Keebler. So I’m surfing, and low and behold, under Products: Cookies is where I find “animal crackers”. Give me a break! How is this possible that for so long this poor product, all the little camels and bunnies and lions and sheep… the whole zoo of them, have been parading themselves around as crackers when they are actually COOKIES!

I still couldn’t believe it. Next step was Their definition of a cracker is: a thin, crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough and a cookie: a small, usually flat and crisp cake made from sweetened dough. Obvious difference, sweetened vs unsweetened. Back to the package, and the number four ingredient is… sugar. Of course.

Well, I’m 60% convinced that an “animal cracker” is actually a cookie. I’ve got room to change my mind, but then the kicker: as I’m closing down the Merriam Webster site (I confirmed cookie vs. cracker there after, I stumble upon this:

animal cracker
Function: noun
Date: 1898
: a small cookie in the shape of an animal

This is ridiculous. Why the hell didn’t they just call it a cookie to begin with! WTF. Needless to say, I have resolved any misconceptions about “animal crackers”. They are in fact… cookies.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.