Okay, I’ll admit. I’m sitting next to the empty wrapper of a “Sharing Size” bag of M&M’s.
But come on, when they first came out did anyone really think “Gee wiz, now I can finally share my delicious bag of candy with all my friends!” No. You didn’t. You thought “More fatty fuel for fatty.” I know I did. The only way I can see this being put to any practical use is with the sharing size sticks of Starburst. Because, come on: has anyone ever been able to finish a stick of Starburst in public without some little mooch asking for a piece?
I’m not complaining about the portion size. Since they came out, I’ve exclusively bought the sharing sizes. I think the original sizes are too small. I’m always left craving more, but maybe that’s just good marketing?
What I’m whining about is the calories. My bag/sack Peanut M&M’s contains two servings of 240 calories. That’s 480 calories down the hatch. I know that the Mars candy company knows that nobody’s actually sharing these. I also know that I was presented with two choices and while my brain said “no” my muffin top said “go”! But I think if they’re going to spend millions marketing candy at twice the serving size, I think it wouldn’t kill ’em to put out a Splenda-sprinkled sugar free option to let us enjoy this offering without the sharing size serving of guilt to boot.
I’m surprised that more sugar free options aren’t available from some of the mainstream brands. Everyone’s worried about the obesity epidemic so there’s definitely a market for it.
I fear that the “sharing size” will soon become “large size” without the implication of sharing your stash. It happened with soft drinks and fries, is candy next? They’ve already invented the fun size or as I like to call it the my-neighbors-were-to-cheap-to-get-the-good-stuff-on-Halloween size or the “parade candy” size. I’m starting to see a small/medium/large configuration.
So strap into your I-can’t-walk-in-a-grocery-store cart because the sharing size is coming for your thighs!
I’ll be feeding you seconds in no time~