Sarah Elizabeth Richards, “The Irresistible Baconator,” Slate, February 16, 2010

“Chalk it up to the lack of willpower, sway of culture, or love of the processed carb, but humans aren’t always rational eaters,” argues Sarah Elizabeth Richards in this February 16, 2010, Slate article that questions the effectiveness of efforts to make calorie counts more visible on menus and food packaging. Citing numerous recent studies that cast doubt on these labeling practices, Richards maintains that not only
are “calorie counts irrelevant for consumers who don’t know how many calories they’re supposed to be eating in a day,” but “[it] can also be hard to take the counts seriously when you’re not even sure they’re accurate.”

For Richards, although menu labeling and federal initiatives to realign product serving sizes are laudable, it remains difficult for most consumers to implement these tools as part of a sensible diet plan. She particularly focuses on a study published in the February 2010 edition of Appetite that found “people had a harder time adhering to diets that seemed complicated than to programs that were simpler to follow.” According to Richards, “[The] surest way to control your weight, experts say, is to develop a sense of what’s best for your body so you don’t have to depend on the government or a corporation to tell you what’s OK to eat.”