A Little Moment of Empty "Eureka!"

Over the weekend during a short trip to Tampa (technically, it was in Springhill, FL), I stepped into a local Publix grocery store and gasped with glee when I encountered a small shelf containing British goods. Among the selection of goodies I plucked to fill my basket were a couple of tins of Cadbury Original Drinking Chocolate.

As my brain reasoned, I love British Cadbury chocolate and I love hot chocolate. Finding Cadbury hot chocolate mix is a classic win-win scenario. I honestly heard in my head the "dah-nuh-nuh-nuh" music that plays whenever Link from The Legend of Zelda finds a treasure in a chest.


(I stress that I love British Cadbury chocolates because here in the States, we can buy a pseudo-Cadbury that is manufactured under the more prolific Hershey's; the taste is not the same. Just not cricket, what-what.) 


Shopping wasn't the only thing I did in Tampa. I also went out for a nice walk and saw Cypress trees and a gator swimming in the marshy water. That was pretty cool. 

Cypress tree

Anyway, as it is with most imported products, the Cadbury Original Drinking Chocolate packaging underwent the ritual of having an American-style nutrition label plastered directly unto the original European nutrition grid. I didn't think too much of this for it is what commonly happens to foreign foods over here. 

The Ye Olde American Nutrition Facts Label

However, it wasn't until I returned to Miami when I decided to pay closer attention to said label.


According to the new American label, one serving of the drinking chocolate, a tablespoon, contains 602 calories. 


"That is not possible," I thought to myself. "That cannot be nutritionally possible!"


Then, as if I had to prove my point as to why this could not be nutritionally possible, my inner schizophrenic began to reason and form an argument based on facts. 


"Of the chocolate I would eat in France, just 20 grams out of a 100 gram bar of chocolate would be roughly 125-130 calories. That means that the entire bar of chocolate, all 3.5 ounces of it, would just surpass 600 calories! How is one 15 gram tablespoon of powder more than that?"


"I mean, even a tablespoon of butter is just a little over 100 calories. And it's butter."


Curiosity got the better of me. I peeled off the American nutrition "facts" label, examined the British nutrition information grid, and nearly peed from laughter over the grievous mistake that had been committed. 

Grids are cool.

I do not know what poor soul at Cadbury USA had the responsibility of having to type up the American nutrition label, but I am fairly certain that it was an American who clearly did NOT know the difference between kj and kcal. Either that or they had misread the grid with one flippant glance. 


"I knew there was something wrong!" the voice in my head cheered. "It clearly says on the grid that 100 grams of dry powder are 370 kcal, or 1575 kj. As for the actual 18 gram serving of dry powder, prepared with 200mL of semi-skimmed milk, the concoction is only 165 kcal! Whoever did this label confused the 695 kj with the 165 kcal!"


My inner schizophrenic rejoiced with much rejoicing.


"I uncovered a mistake! I literally uncovered an error by removing the label! My detail-oriented skills have not completely gone to waste! I have faith that I am still a fully-functioning human being! YIPPEE! My life is complete! Ha ha ha!"


...Then I realized that this discovery of someone else's mistake on a food label amounted to being a big whoop by human standards. Yippee. 

Barb the French Bean