This is a comment on the paper by Irz et al. (2015) in this journal, on nutritional recommendations. Irz et al. (2015) propose to compute the cost of a nutritional constraint as the consumer loss of surplus, derived from their observed choices. Introducing behavioral biases into an extended version of their model, I show that their proposed methodology implicitly assumes that consumer dietary choices do not involve any health considerations. The cost per quality-adjusted life year that they compute should be corrected by the size of the bias of consumers to be compared with benchmark evaluations.