I’ve been told they have a special additive that makes them addictive.
Are they? Do you have study that shows that Oreos are more likely to be overinduldged in that any other given snack food?
To me, they’re just overly-sweetened cookies.
It’s the pure sugar in them. Same thing happens to rats who can eat all the sugar they want. They keep wanting more. Those are empty calories. Eventually, you suffer malnutrition.
There is nothing addictive about oreos. Unless you find the taste of lard particularly enjoyable. Blech.
And the fat.
gee, I ain’t so sure 'bout them Oreos…but do know that they are less addictive than Pringles
I think it’s due to all those alien anal probes…
They are not addictive at all. I hate them. If they were everyone would be addicted.
ETA: I hate Pringles, too.
Everything tasty is addictive to someone. Oreos to most people are not. You’re just one of the (un)lucky few.
Uhhhh . . . no lard. They are kosher. 
–SMM
I am amazed that anyone at all likes them, they are terrible.
Dry, tasteless, weak weak washed out chocolate flavour - like a chocolate biscuit in chocolate rations - I really do not see the point in them. If you want a chocolaty biscuit then why not go for a choccy bourban?
They are like a pale imitation of so many other much better specialised biscuits.
Its not even like they are cheaper than other biscuits either, nor do they keep longer, in fact I can’t think of a single reason why you’d want an Oreo when compared with the alternatives, from dunkability to flavour.
Count me as another who doesn’t get the attraction of Oreos. I don’t care for ice cream sandwiches either. (Klondike bars, on the other hand, are like crack to me.)
In their price class, they are the best sandwich cream cookies. There’s Oreo at the top, then Hydrox a couple of tiers down, then way at the bottom are the store brands.
Of course, there are more expensive sandwich creams that are better, but Oreos are at the top of their class. Hydrox are like particle board surrounding white play-doh. Store brands are crap, almost universally.
Oh come on. They’re fun to disassemble. There’s a bit more interactivity and creativity involved than in other snack foods. So there’s that going for them.
Read David Kessler’s “The End of Overeating” it ain’t no accident.
If you think them dry, dip them in milk. One of my favorite indulgences is to get 5 or 6 Oreos, put them in a cup, and pour milk on top of them. Wait about 30 seconds and start eating
Sooooooooooo good!!! 
Good article. Junk food companies formulate the food to exploit our natural adaptation to pursue high-calorie food sources, which might have been important 50,000 years ago but isn’t as necessary in civilized, high-tech society.
It ain’t for nothin’ that we can only taste 5 things and two of them are sweet and salty.
I buy them just so I can enjoy their resealable package, possibly the best design I can think of in a resealable product. Most of that type just suck.
Count me in as another that doesn’t get oreos. I mean the chocolate flavor is so weak that as a kid I didn’t realize they were supposed to be chocolate. (And anyway they’re a knock off of hydrox.) Personally if I’m going to eat a packaged cookie it’s going to be a Peggy Lawton chocolate chip. (Although I’d rather have a Ho-Ho or a Twinkie if we’re talking sweet snack food.)
Fat and sugar - here is the recipe for the filling if you want to save money.
Bottom line: Crisco + Sugar
My brother leaves the package open until they go soft and then he devours them.
You’ll suffer malnutrition if you eat any one substance exclusive of other required substances.
“Empty” calories? There are only three sources of calories – protein, fat, and carbohydrates (sugars). Sugars aren’t any more “empty” than proteins or fats. You need all three plus vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. Eating any one of these things in exclusion of all others will lead to malnutrition.