As I was waiting in the car park for my dad to collect me, boredom took over and I found myself reading the side of the Munchies packet. This was a first. Usually when I eat Munchies (or any sweets for that matter) all of my attention is focused on trying to shovel the most amount of chocolate into my mouth in the shortest amount of time.
I’m not one for calorie counting but at 133 calories it felt as if a packet of Munchies wasn’t such a devastating blow to the healthy diet after all. My moment of bliss was cut short however when I read a little further to discover that 133 calories only accounted for half a tube. Half a tube?!?
Who on earth eats half a tube of Munchies before declaring, “that’s it, I’ve had sufficient”? What’s even more ridiculous is that half a packet of Munchies is 5 and a half pieces and I guarantee that no-one is going to stop eating after 5 and half pieces let alone save the other 5 and a half pieces for a second sitting. Especially Munchies, the name literally beckons a mini feast.
This sort of portion sizing is a slap in the face to the paying customer, a slap that I certainly felt. When browsing the chocolate counter, people nationwide will chose a lower calorie product as justification to themselves that their moment of indulgence isn’t so naughty after all.
I doubt there are many people who would further inspect the packet to check that the whole item is indeed the recommended portion size because it’s ridiculously unreasonable to assume otherwise. Especially when it comes to chocolate.
The overwhelming fear that this experience has left me with is that maybe other product calorie totals also work on a half packet basis. What else have I been happily gorging on without knowing the true extent of the damage? Either way, I’ve vowed to never question the calorie count again because, as I’ve recently learnt, ignorance truly is bliss.