You know what really really pisses me off? (maybe not as much as losing my Trooper blog, but still a lot) Those retarded serving sizes on the back of food packets. I came home from yoga, opened a cider, and decided that the packet of "Crispy Tortillaz" I had in my cupboard were not getting any riper, and cracked 'em. Swig of cider, crispy tortilla, swig of cider, crispy tortilla..... You can sense a pattern here, I am sure. It was going very well, indeed, the cool sweet bubbles of pear cider nicely complimenting the savory, MSG deliciousness of the Santa Fe Ranch crispy tortillaz. I could not help but then notice that I had consumed much of the packet. Did not intend to...just kind of happened. I further could not help but notice that the serving size on the back was *get ready* 8 chips. 8. Yes, you read that correctly. 8.
Fuck. Well, there goes about 500 calories. And these weren't even the real thing, for God's sake. They were the Quaker kind that cruelly misleads one into thinking that they are not half bad to eat. Why don't they blazon the serving size on the front, in realistic terms. For example, "Serving Size: the whole damned bag. Calories: unspeakable." I'd really rather know the whole story, right off the top. I mean, what is the idea of giving a serving size that small? I'd guess to keep the calorie count under 3 digits. But who ever eats only 2 digits worth of Crispy Tortillaz? So give us the dirty, people. Then, if by some miracle of the modern world, we manage NOT to down the whole bag o' crispy tortillaz, we feel pretty good that we have not ingested a person's caloric intake for the entire day. Can you not just let us feel good, snack manufacturers? Can you not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Or my fave is when they do that with something perishable, like a drink. Who drinks only half a can of something? I totally agree that the serving size debacle is awful and misleading and demeaning. Why must they torment us??!!
Post a Comment