Another goodie from the NYT, that’s too good not to comment on: “One Bowl = 2 Servings. F.D.A. May Fix That.”
Finally, it seems, things are starting to make sense.
Or are they?
Ben & Jerry’s
When I was in college, we’d all get together now and then, have some food, drink a few bottles of wine, and then each polish off our own pint of Ben & Jerry’s.
Didn’t seem like a lot of ice cream, but I knew what was in it. I worked for Fresh Fields (now Whole Foods), and was keen on dietary information.
A pint of Ben & Jerry’s had something around 1300 calories in it. I think there were 30+ grams of fat per serving. And it tasted delicious!
It didn’t bother any of us. I think we were all young and active enough to be able to burn that stuff off. I don’t know. We’ll find out in another fifteen years or so, when one of us keels over.
Wherefore Art Thou, Nutrition?
Until then, I want to ask the same question I always ask – what does this mean?
Seriously, folks. Do food labels lead to any change? The NYT did another piece in October of last year, showing that the posting of caloric value of foods in restaurants’ windows didn’t lead to any change.
So what is the meaning of this? More regulation? More change?
One of the things that we do know about human (or animal) behavior, is that animals are less likely to be concerned when something appears immediately obvious or transparent.
In that same October NYT article, in fact, the people going into the restaurants with posted nutrition values had actually consumed more calories on average than customers had before the posting took place.
Something to Gain, Something to Lose
Who is gaining from these new rules? Not Americans. Not “the common man.” At least, the common person isn’t gaining anything but extra girth, and a new risk-factor on their health insurance application.
Someone else is gaining something, too. Who is that?
Change is happening, but to what end? And on whose terms?

