As journalists, we consider it our duty to bring to your notice, and often elaborate on, new groundbreaking concepts. The concept of 'responsible snacking', we think, definitely makes the grade. In fact, to impart more roundedness to the phrase, which for all purposes sounds like an oxymoron to the rest of us, the United States-based chocolate major Mars Inc has decided to restrict the calorie count of its chocolate bars, refusing to ship anything that exceeds 250 calories. Thanks to the rationing, this downsized chocolate bar is all you will get to lay your hands on, to satisfy hunger, craving, fetish or greed.
Many of you who ravenously devour their chocolates have already started wondering why your antagonists in the calorie-counting club should bother, or rather stoop, to eat chocolates at all. If you are fit and rich enough to care about calories, should you not be the slave of some complicated diet, munching hemp and sunflower seeds on your way through life, with some exotic fat-burning seaweed thrown in for added relish and pleasure? You are no Augustus Gloop, the incessant eater who drowns in a river of chocolate in Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory nor are you one who needs to snack just to forget how bad and unfair the outside world has been to you.
By an extension of the same logic, we do not understand the necessity of producing non-alcoholic alcohol, since one consuming it can barely restrain his drinking instincts but would rather not suffer for it. If you are a worshipper of the complex machine that is the human body, you must have the patience and abnegation worthy of such a votary. The world of food cannot be modified around the impossible aim of 'eating your chocolate and keeping fit too', a world where the food police mans every supermarket aisle to make sure that you are not buying more than you can bear.