Well, maybe not a baby. The New York Times did a little calorie investigation on agriculture’s favorite (insert sarcasm) fast-casual restaurant, Chipotle Mexican Grill. In case you’ve been out of the loop, Chipotle has a bad rap for boasting responsible and sustainable food choices as a marketing scheme, while contradicting themselves at the same time. Their propaganda littered campaigns have a lot of American farmers and ranchers boycotting the restaurant chain, while cleaning up the trail of misinformation Chipotle leaves behind them.

But, let’s face it – Chipotle puts out a mean burrito, at least they did before I stopped eating there a few years ago. And that must still hold true due to their popularity with the average consumer.

According to the New York Times, the typical meal order from Chipotles tips the calorie counter scale at 1,070 calories.

“That’s more than half of the calories that most adults are supposed to eat in an entire day. The recommended range for most adults is between 1,600 and 2,400,” the article says. There is a line in Mean Girls where it is determined the reason why Gretchen Weiners’ hair is big is, “because it’s filled with secrets.”  Could this same philosophy be why Chipotle’s burritos are so calorie dense?

After receiving a lot of feedback on the article, NYT did a follow-up, explaining why they chose Chipotle to display, which was based off of convenience of obtaining information, their own personal curiosity since the editorial team frequents Chipotle, and because the restaurant chain, “is the standard-bearer for the rise of what are called fast-casual restaurants.”

Read through the online comments on the social media links on this Facebook thread. And more on this Reddit page.

“Can’t stop, won’t stop.”
“I regret nothing. NOTHING.”

If the average consumer doesn’t care that they are shoving more than half of their daily calories down their throats in one sitting, does the average consumer really care if those calories come from a company marketing off propaganda?

Click here to read the original article by New York Times.  Click here to read the follow-up.