The wonderful thing about us, the overweight, inactive, sodium and high fructose corn syrup-slurping Americans, is that we put so much energy into figuring out which forbidden food is really, truly the worst.
Yet another case in point: Atlantic’s current article, “McDonald’s vs. Chipotle: Does the Big Mac Win?” by James McWilliams. As the headline indicates, it’s a two-meal comparison of the fat grams, fiber, calories and all those other mysterious measurements we now track.
Bottom line: The Mickey D’s Big Mac edges out the burrito from Chipotle slightly. (And no, McD’s doesn’t own Chipotle anymore.)
We know that just about everything we like to eat is wildly unhealthy. Why do we continue to revisit the bad news by comparing it to…different bad news? (If you’re presently going on a lot of blind dates, you have already asked yourself a version of this question.)
The answer is simple. Because we’re desperate for any answer that means we can keep eating carbs, sugar, meat, booze and whatever else the doctor says to quit.
All this aside, McWilliams is really making the point that places selling supposedly healthier choices may just be better at marketing. He goes on to fire this shot over the bow:
“The culinary domain where I really see the rhetoric of sustainability obscuring heroic amounts of fat, cholesterol, and salt is gourmet dining. One can hardly enter an upscale restaurant these days without being lectured about the locally sourced, sustainably raised, and eco-friendly items on the menu.”
Amen, brother.
–Kimberly Marlowe Hartnett
(A postscript: Where do the nutritional stats come from in stories like this? One frequently cited resource (used in the Atlantic’s online story) is CalorieLab.com out of Las Vegas. The site’s info seems useful….but who is behind this thing? A search for up-to-date names and credentials turned up nothing very satisfying. Now you try and let The Food Watchdog know what you find.)
