Answer to Jaffa Cakes being biscuits or cakes finally found
If you want the definitive answer to the query, which has become existential for some, here is what McVitie's has to say after sending a cease and desist-esque letter to the London-based Biscuit Museum.
McVitie's answers long long-running question on how to classify Jaffa Cakes
The museum, which has long celebrated the UK's "most dunkable delights", dedicated an entire exhibition to Jaffa Cakes earlier this week.
However, this did not go unnoticed by McVitie's, with the company penning an open letter reading: 'Dear Sirs, Madams, and Biscuit Enthusiasts,
"It has come to our attention, with no small degree of dismay, that the Biscuit Museum has included the humble Jaffa Cake within its exhibition of biscuitry.
"We write to you today, not with crumbs of animosity, but with a full slice of firm objection.
"Allow us to be clear: Jaffa Cakes are, in fact, cakes.
"Not biscuits. Not hybrid snacks. Just cakes. Some would say the clue is in the name on the box.'
To help alleviate this, the company has announced the creation of a new "Cake Wing".
A new 'Cake Wing' was opened to house the Jaffa Cake exhibit (Image: McVitie's/Biscuit Museum)
Recommended Reading:
The new centre will see the Jaffa Cake exhibition housed in its own dedicated space and acknowledge that while Jaffa Cakes may be neighbours of biscuits in the supermarket, they are, and always have been, cakes.
Discussing this, a spokesperson for McVitie's Jaffa Cakes commented: "Well, you can imagine our delight! After much deliberation, we've come to a happy compromise with the Biscuit Museum. The new 'Cake Wing' ensures our iconic Jaffa Cakes can remain a cherished feature in this British institution, but rightly recognises and pays homage to our cake-ness.'
The Biscuit Museum's curator, Gary Magold, added: 'We never could have imagined how the public would have responded to the news of the letter we received after unveiling the Jaffa Cakes exhibit - it's been amazing to see so many people support the work we do in preserving biscuit history. We want to say a huge thank you to McVitie's for their support in opening the Cake Wing, too - it means we can still proudly feature Jaffa Cakes here at the museum, in its new, very own, dedicated space.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Mother of Air India crash victim ‘heartbroken' after remains wrongly identified
The mother of a British Air India crash victim has said her family is 'heartbroken' after receiving news the remains of her son were wrongly identified, The Sunday Times reported. The London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into a medical college shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad Airport on June 12, killing 241 people on board. Some 169 Indian passengers and 52 British nationals were killed, making it one of the deadliest plane crashes in terms of the number of British fatalities. Among the British victims were Fiongal Greenlaw-Meek, 39, and his husband Jamie, 45, who had been returning to Britain after celebrating their wedding anniversary in India. Mr Greenlaw-Meek's mother, Amanda Donaghey, told The Sunday Times she flew to India after the crash in order to find her son's remains, providing a DNA sample at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital to assist the identification process. Following a match on June 20 last year, she returned to the UK with Mr Greenlaw-Meek's coffin. But on July 5, as Mr Greenlaw-Meek and his husband's families prepared to bury the married couple together, police told Ms Donaghey that DNA tests carried out in the UK showed Mr Greenlaw-Meek's remains were not in the coffin. 'We don't know what poor person is in that casket,' she told The Sunday Times. 'I had my doubts but to be told that was heartbreaking. 'This is an appalling thing to have happened,' she added. 'And we would now like the British Gvernment to do everything in its power to find out, and bring Fiongal home.' It was revealed last week the coffin of another repatriated British victim, 71-year-old Shobhana Patel, contained remains of multiple people, The Sunday Times reported. Mrs Patel was killed alongside her husband Ashok, 74, as they returned to the UK from a Hindu religious trip. Their son Miten Patel told The Sunday Times: 'There may have been a mistake done. 'But for religious reasons we need to make sure my mother is my mother and not somebody else's remains. 'Knowing 100% that it is my mum is very important to us.' Shobhana and Ashok Patel were laid to rest last week, The Sunday Times said. International aviation lawyer James Healey-Pratt, whose firm Keystone Law is representing families of victims of the Air India crash, has told Times Radio the identification issues have raised concerns over the total number of victims whose identities may have been misattributed. 'We know that 12 caskets were repatriated from India to the UK,' he said. 'Of those 12, two had been mishandled, misidentified. 'And so if you extrapolate that sample, you're looking at 40 mishandled remains out of 240. 'So that's a very large number, but we simply don't know. 'And to date, the Indian authorities have not been transparent or helpful about that, which is why there was pressure put on by the families to the FCO and the Prime Minister's office. 'And this was actually mentioned in the meeting at Chequers between Keir Starmer and Prime Minister Modi on Thursday. 'So the families are waiting to hear, first thing next week, about what actions are really being done in India to provide some degree of assurance.' It is understood no blame is being put on any UK agency for the blunders, Mr Healy-Pratt previously told the PA news agency. The only surviving passenger on the plane was Briton Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, who previously told The Sun it was a 'miracle' he was alive but felt 'terrible' he could not save his brother Ajay. A preliminary report into the incident from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau found both of the plane's fuel switches moved to the 'cut-off' position 'immediately' after take-off, stopping fuel supply to the engine.
