Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 8, 2004 / 15 Adar, 5764

Mitch Albom

Mitch Albom
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Yeah, right, downsizing food is the answer | You know White Castle, right? The hamburger place? Sells those good, greasy "sliders," which are really mini-burgers, small enough to fit in the palm of your hand?

Does anyone eat just one of those? No. People buy four. Six. Twelve. Whatever. They eat until they're beyond full. In some cases, they eat more than they would if the burgers were large, because it feels as if you're eating less when the portions are shrunk.

So why does anyone think that McDonald's eliminating its "supersize" products will somehow cut back on our obesity? The world's largest restaurant chain announced with great fanfare last week that it was ditching such items as its 42-ounce sodas - in part, a McDonald's spokesperson said, "to support a more balanced lifestyle."

Funny, I always thought "a more balanced lifestyle" meant working fewer hours, not shrinking the bun. Let's face it: If someone wants to pig out on French fries, can't they get two bags? One "large" bag at McDonald's still carries about 120 fries and 540 calories. That's not exactly Weight Watchers.

Sure, having something called "supersize" was an easy enticement - you're already there, you're already blowing whatever diet you just started, so why not go for the gluttony? But the fact is, if you really love McDonald's, you'll be back enough times to get nice and fat.

Portions have little to do with it.

A bigger question might be why we love supersized food in the first place? I have European friends who visit. We go out to eat. Inevitably, they are aghast when the food arrives.

Donate to JWR

"Oh my, is all that for me?" they'll say. "I can't possibly finish that!"

Doesn't matter what it is. A pizza. A nacho plate. A steak. A large Greek salad. To them, we Americans are always eating for two, even when we're not pregnant.

I have been trying to think of why this is. Here is what I have concluded: (1) Europeans hail from generations of hardship; there is always a story of some potato famine in the family. (2) Lunch there is usually larger than dinner. (3) And this is not a small item - they are not as rich as we are. Money is tighter. Cars are smaller. A bit of frugality is held in high regard.

Americans, on the other hand, embrace their good fortune. We revel in our freedom, and if that means all you can eat at the buffet bar, well, shoot, grab two plates. Big portions make us happy. Big portions remind us that, at least in the most fundamental human activity, eating, we've got it all over everyone else.

I also believe we eat now for comfort, more than ever before, for along with being the richest nation in the world, we are likely the most stressed. Having more means working more, wanting more, we are always chasing bigger portions of life's success, and if we can't get them all in our bank accounts, well, at least we can load up our plates.

I don't think it's an accident that in the United States, our poorest citizens are often our fattest. That is not how it has gone historically, you know. Poor used to suggest thin. But here, in the land of opportunity, if nothing else, we can eat a lot for a little. And our food outlets and restaurants have discovered that "comfort" foods - chocolates, pizzas, Cinnabons - will never go out of style, so long as we have frustrations.

I'm the first to admit it. When things go sour and I pass a dessert place, there's a loud "what the heck?" voice that says, "Go ahead, buy that hunk of chocolate cake, buy that huge caramel apple."

At those moments, the bigger it is, the better it looks. And the problem isn't the place that makes it. The problem is, I see it as salvation.

That probably won't change, not anytime soon. Food for many of us is a companion, an escape, an addiction or a substitute for something else. Downsizing the portions won't change that. Only downsizing our appetites will.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor Mitch Albom's column by clicking here. You may purchase his latest book, "The Five People You Meet in Heaven", by clickingHERE. (Sales help fund JWR.)


03/01/04: Lord of the Geeks
02/17/04: Want to get hitched? Not so fast, pal
02/09/04: Beatlemania still resonates
01/26/04: Fine, you have 110 percent of our respect
01/20/04: The sanctity of wasting our money
12/29/03: Anyone remember a concept called 'childhood'?
12/22/03: The I's have it
12/15/03: Life's brilliant on the other side of the pond
12/08/03: Squeezed by the politics of business
11/24/03: Celebs' misdeeds will make great tales for the grandkids
11/10/03: The butler did it! (But do we care?)
10/27/03: Parsley, sage, rosemary and time
10/13/03: The Kobe case: There are no winners
10/07/03: Tough choices in the not-so-amazing race
11/05/02: Everything is a billboard, even the cops
10/29/02: Nowhere to hide ... even at 40,000 feet
10/22/02: The pen isn't mightier than good sense
10/15/02: We turn our serial killers into celebrities
10/02/02: In Minnesota Vikings star receiver's view, he's king, you're dirt
09/26/01: The feds don't feel their pain
09/18/01: Some cling to life, others give it away
09/12/01: Worshipping a false 'Idol'
11/14/01: Patriotism is no excuse for stupidity
10/30/01: Dr. Dre: champ for First Amendment!
10/23/01: Terror is sugar-free
10/16/01: The army of the in-between
10/11/01: New war begins with delivery of darkness
10/08/01: Give peace a chance?
10/01/01: If this is supposed to make us feel secure, it isn't working
09/28/01: And our flag is still there
09/26/01: On the road to Ohio, life's little joys return
09/25/01: Our challenge: Not to change who we are
09/17/01: We can learn plenty from the horror
08/31/01: Back to school: Revenge of the boomers
08/22/01: The price of connectedness
08/16/01: An anniversary without celebration
07/31/01: Wanna name my kid? Pay me a cool Mil' --- OK, a half-mil'
07/25/01: Hey, there's no television on my ice floe!
07/10/01: When nobody knew what a Heisman was
07/02/01: Business opportunities for the empathy-impaired
06/25/01: Bunker mentality: At least Archie's meanness was satire
06/18/01: Famous fathers, eat your hearts out
06/05/01: 'No comment' on Bush twins is hard to swallow
05/30/01: Veteran scratches out the hatred
05/22/01: O.J.'s genius
05/15/01: No more kidding around
05/01/01: Haunted by the past
04/16/01: Before you file that extension...
04/11/01: Ever want to break an airport agent's neck? This guy did!
04/03/01: The best role models aren't on TV
03/19/01: 'March madness' is aptly named
03/07/01: I'm sorry, I apologize, I beg your forgiveness
03/05/01: Young fans' web sites become a Big Harry deal

© 2003 DFP