Sweets aren't normally my thing. Beer and wine are my preferred vehicles for consuming unneeded calories. But it was mid-afternoon, lunch had been light and the Starbucks pastries beckoned. I was eyeing a "reduced-fat coffee cake" to nibble with my latte until I noticed it was 350 calories. I opted for a 200-calorie pastry instead.

Calorie and nutrient labels will be even more ubiquitous now that many restaurant chains will have to supply that information for their customers. (DTN illustration by Scott R Kemper)

How did I know the calorie counts? The Starbucks was in New York City, which requires restaurants to post them. Some argue posted calorie counts have little effect on consumers' choices. Maybe, but this one affected mine. For at least some consumers, information alters behavior.

Now the federal government is getting into the act. The just-enacted health-reform law says restaurant chains with more than 20 outlets must post calorie counts. That won't happen immediately; the Food and Drug Administration must write rules specifying the size of the type to be used and other details. But within a few years, your menu will alert you that the double cheeseburger and large fries clock in at 1,200 calories.

Contrary to what you might expect, many restaurant chains are relieved. The federal rules will replace a hodgepodge of state and local requirements that vexes national chains.

Health insurers like them as well. They hope calorie counts will help Americans control their weight and file fewer claims for heart surgeries and diabetes treatments. Experts say a third of Americans are obese and thus at greater risk for diseases. It was, indeed, in hopes of cutting health-care costs that Congress put the calorie-labeling provision in the health-reform bill.

Farmers and ranchers do not defend obesity but dietary changes that might affect demand for crops attract their attention. If Americans eat fewer sweets, sugar-beet and wheat growers will take note. If Americans eat less meat, corn and soybean growers will plan accordingly.

And if Americans abandon products made with high-fructose corn syrup in favor of those made with sugar, corn growers will shudder. That's happening already, thanks to the drumbeat of anti-HFCS publicity. Calorie postings that heighten Americans' weight consciousness could accelerate the trend.

The latest HFCS study was making headlines even as President Barack Obama was signing the health-care-reform bill. According to a medical-news website, researchers at Princeton University found rats got fatter on HFCS than on table sugar. (http://bit.ly/…)

Why would the two have such different effects? The researchers speculated that because HFCS contains a higher proportion of fructose than sugar, the body metabolizes excess HFCS into fat while processing sugar for energy or storing it as a carbohydrate in the liver and muscles. Why the body might do that is unclear. The researchers called it a "fascinating puzzle."

Of course, the Princeton study was dissed by several critics, including some with no economic interest in corn. And for every study of this sort, corn groups can cite others showing a sweetener is a sweetener is a sweetener.

But they're losing the public-relations battle. Encouraged by consumers, some food companies are already switching to sugar. A list in a Des Moines Register article included PepsiCo (Gatorade), ConAgra (Hunt's Ketchup), Del Monte (Light Fruit), Kraft Foods (Wheat Thins) and Oroweat (breads).

The big question is whether the fight against obesity will resurrect smaller portions. Anti-HFCS types spotlight the expansion in Americans' waistlines since high-fructose corn syrup came into wide-scale use 40 years ago, but at least two other relevant trends unfolded during those years -- the big increase in eating out and the enormous increase in restaurant portion sizes.

Yes, the pastry is fattening, but 40 years ago high-priced coffee shops were rare. Yes, the calorie count for that double cheeseburger pops eyes, but 40 years ago many more of us were eating single-patty burgers.

Indeed, new though admittedly offbeat evidence suggests supersizing goes back further than 40 years. Appropriately enough for a column appearing around Easter, the evidence involves the Last Supper.

According to an article in the International Journal of Obesity a study of 52 artistic renderings of the biblical event shows the size of the apostles' servings increasing 70 percent over the course of the millennium.

I'm not sure what to make of that, but isn't it a sign of our obesity-obsessed times that obesity rates an academic journal?

Happy Easter, everyone. For now, at least, a calorie count won't accompany your Easter Sunday feast.