Ignore the photo on the right for a moment. I'd like to take you back in time. Back to the dark ages when mobile phones could only make phone calls and cameras required purchasing a film. It's the 1990s. Are you with me? Then I'll begin...
As a newly diagnosed coeliac, I was keen to see what was out there in the way of gluten-free substitutes. Apart from an extortionate price, the most glaringly obvious difference was that biscuits and cakes contained a shedload more fat and calories. You could easily become obese and strapped for cash within a relatively short space of time.
So the obvious answer was to avoid biscuits and cake...and to sob quietly in the corner.
But things have changed massively since then. My mobile phone has been able to provide the photo in this blog post (and I was able to take 3 photos before deciding which I preferred; I would never have wasted so many of my precious 36 pics with a Kodak). And biscuits, I've noticed, don't seem to have a massive warning on them any more (you know: Police line - do not cross). So it's with huge joy I've been able to put together a small comparison.
(By the way, I have no idea why some of the lines didn't come out in this table. I have not deliberately tried to merge McVitie's with Schar but perhaps this will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!)
Anyway, back to my huge joy. The joy, as you can see, comes from the realisation that most gluten-free biscuits now contain fewer calories than normal ones. (All right, so it's usually only one or two, but this is leaps and bounds from the horror that was nutrition information when I had that Kodak camera.)
So I hope you'll be celebrating with me by putting the kettle on and dunking a rich tea biscuit (or two). I mean, let's face it, it's taken a bloomin' long time to get here.
Have you come across any other nutritional differences across the decades? Do tell all below!