What are M&M’s Munchums?

M&M’s has taken a fancy new natural approach by kicking the candy coating to the curb in favor of a crunchy baked shell.

How are they?

They’re one of the five best M&M flavors I’ve ever had.

Let me walk that back a little…

These are clearly different from the usual M&M, but I don’t care; they destroy most of them, especially the classic brown bag originals.

These are not so much pieces of candy as they’re tiny little chocolate chip cookie balls, and they’re good chocolate chip cookies at that.

They start with a chocolate crispy core, which I was already pumped about as Crispy M&M’s are also in my top five. The core is encased in the standard chocolate, but the real marvel here is the shell, which has a perfectly crispy baked flavor that reminded me of a Famous Amos-type cookie.

Now you’re probably thinking, “So what, plenty of cookies use M&M’s,” and you’re right, but I just found this inverse to be much more exciting. I don’t know why, but I really loved the flavor of this bite-sized “candy.” Usually, if M&M’s releases a flavor with the promise of “cookie,” it would taste like an M&M with a hint of that cookie’s flavor. These taste like cookies without even really promising that.

Anything else you need to know?

I’ve never actually had Keebler Gripz, but I recall a similar product from my youth. They were just little tiny chocolate chip cookies in a pouch, and my Googling has brought no help. Anyway, that’s what I ultimately walked away thinking of. These taste like an upscale, more chocolatey version of those with a much nicer crunchy texture.

If you can’t tell, I really dug the shell. I even think the colored “M” on the tan shell looks great.

These could be a reinvention of the M&M wheel. I could also picture these being a truly elite ingredient in a great trail/snack mix.

Conclusion:

I hope these expand on shelves and everyone gets to try them. They should really market these. Introduce a “Baked” M&M character to the revamped lineup. Give him little dreads and a goatee. Eh, maybe that’s a literal pipe dream.

Either way, these are legit. They also come in a salted caramel flavor if you’re lucky enough to find them.

UPDATE: By luck, my aunt had the Salted Caramel Munchums at my family’s Easter get-together! It is with great regret that I inform you they taste like a cheap salty café latte absorbed in a piece of cardboard. I cannot believe the stark difference between the two flavors. Don’t even bother with the Salted Caramel, and just get the Milk Chocolate flavor.

Purchased Price: $3.49
Size: 4.94 oz pouch
Purchased at: Wegmans
Rating: 9 out of 10 (Milk Chocolate), 3 out of 10 (Salted Caramel)
Nutrition Facts: (1 oz, 14 pieces) 120 calories, 5 grams of fat, 2.5 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 95 milligrams of sodium, 20 grams of total carbohydrates, 9 grams of total sugars, and 2 grams of protein.

As I looked down into my bag of Crunchy Cookie M&M’s, I wondered if the Red M&M was playing a trick on me and filled the bag with Sixlets rejects that didn’t meet the spherical standards of, um, whoever produces Sixlets (I’m too lazy to Google it).

Anyhoo, when did crisp rice-filled M&M’s get Sixlets-small?

While I was initially disappointed with their size, after I started eating them, I began to understand why they are the way they are. It boils down to what these chocolate candies are supposed to taste like — a crunchy cookie. That can also be expanded to their texture. Thanks to a thinner chocolate layer, they have a crunch that can be described as more like a cookie than candy-coated M&M’s, and I like it.

Sadly, that crunch doesn’t come from an actual cookie core embedded in the center of each piece. It’s a rice crisp, which our teeth have chomped on over the years. I guess when it comes to solid ingredients, M&M’s stuffing technology hasn’t improved beyond rice crisps, pretzels, and peanuts. Does Mars even have the Sixlets to add cookie nuggets to the center of M&M’s?

But the food manufacturing folks there should figure it out because if they added a cookie nugget, these would probably have a cookie’s flavor, which these Crunchy Cookie M&M’s lack. There were moments when I thought I got a bit of an artificial brown sugar-like flavor, but for the most part, these taste like less chocolatey Crispy M&M’s.

Maybe there isn’t a strong cookie flavor because the chocolate mantle beneath the colorful candy crust is so thin. I’m sure that’s where the flavor is supposed to come from because it’s not the rice crisp core. I pulled one out from the candy, and it has a flavor that I wouldn’t consider cookie-like. Instead, it tastes (and looks) like a tanned piece of Kix cereal. This parent does not approve.

Look, I enjoy Crispy M&M’s, so much so that years ago I probably signed an online petition to bring them back. So I’m okay with the way these taste. But I’m disappointed that they could’ve been better.

I thought about making them better by pulling out a cookie sheet and a box of cookie mix to make actual cookies using these Crunchy Cookie M&M’s. But if I’m too lazy to Google who produces Sixlets, I’m too lazy to bake cookies with these underwhelming candies in them.

Purchased Price: More than one should pay on eBay
Size: 7.40 oz sharing bag
Purchased at: eBay
Rating: 6 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: (1 oz/about 34 pieces) 130 calories, 5 grams of fat, 3 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 45 milligrams of sodium, 21 grams of carbohydrates, 0 grams of fiber, 16 grams of sugar (15 grams of added sugar), and 1 gram of protein.

What are Milk Chocolate Honey Graham M&M’s?

The busy bees at M&M’s have added a new seasonal flavor to their hive: honey graham, featuring milk chocolate with a crisp rice center.

How are they?

Milk Chocolate Honey Graham M&M’s could be described as “upgraded Crispy M&M’s” because they have a subtle, wonderful current of additional sweetness running through the candy. The dominant flavor is intermingling honey and milk chocolate, which reminds me of a Toblerone bar. The crispy rice center provides a perfect light texture to accompany the delicate honey flavor.

Clad in honeycomb-esque yellow and brown shells, these M&M’s are tiny compared to other seasonal M&M varieties. They are close to a plain M&M in size, so it’s difficult to tell whether the flavor is coming from the chocolate itself or the crisp center. Either way, every bite provides a satisfying blend of flavor and texture.

However, in an “upgraded Crispy M&M,” the graham component is difficult to identify. The crisp rice slightly echoes the texture that I associate with graham crackers or rice cereal. But while the honey flavor is wonderful, it doesn’t have enough nutty or toasty shades to remind me of graham flavor.

Anything else you need to know?

Even though I liked the flavor of these M&M’s, I wondered what could have been with a graham cookie center instead of crisp rice. I had some Teddy Grahams on hand, so I cruelly dismembered one in order to sample an M&M with a Teddy Graham leg as its center. (Sorry, but I did it in the name of science.)

This addition did satisfy my graham fix, but it overwhelmed the chocolate of the tiny M&M. I’m not sure it was an improvement, but a better candy engineer than I could probably readjust the ratios for better results.

Conclusion:

The honey and chocolate flavor duo of Milk Chocolate Honey Graham M&M’s is something to buzz about, but the crisp rice center may leave graham fanatics feeling stung.

Purchased Price: $3.49
Purchased at: Tops Friendly Markets
Size: 8 oz (226.8 g) bag
Rating: 7 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: (per 1 ounce/about 30 pieces) 130 calories, 5 grams of fat, 3 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, less than 5 milligrams of cholesterol, 40 milligrams of sodium, 21 grams of carbohydrates, less than 1 gram of fiber, 15 grams of sugar, and 1 gram of protein