It only took about two minutes for me to find an article explaining why Burger King created its new low-calorie “satisfries.”
Satisfries only have 270 calories in a small size, compared to the 340 calories in a regular small fry, the chain told the Associated Press.
Why spend ten years creating the new fry for only 70 less calories?
It’s the same reason that 99.99 percent of business decisions are made- to get sales up and boost a business’s reputation.
Apparently, french fry consumption has been down during the past few years, and Burger King has become a public entity in the past few years, thus the low-calorie fry, according to an AP story.
But let’s ignore all that for a minute. Let’s pretend that for once, a corporate America giant did something to improve its product with solely the consumer and his/her health in mind.
Will the satisfry really benefit the health of America? Will we be crediting better health to this french fry in 50 years?
Doubtfully.
The fry like many low-calorie, low-carb, no sugar, low-fat products will likely just be another way for Americans to justify eating french fries. “Oh, it’s low calorie, so I think I can order the fries.” No. The calorie count of french fries is not what’s bad for you and is slowly killing you. (Although I won’t say the calorie count doesn’t matter.)
It’s the preservatives and fats. And since satisfries are made so similarly to Burger King’s regular fries, they still have all that.
I’m not saying eating french fries is terrible because trust me, I’ve eaten them. Many, many times.
What I am saying is that telling yourself they’re low-calorie and therefore better is not OK.
Indulge in those tasty fried bits of deliciousness, but don’t kid yourself: Fries are bad for you- Satisfry or not.
