Scientific research, interpreting the observations of practical life,
implies that several errors are common in the use of food.
First, many people purchase needlessly expensive kinds of food, doing
this under the false impression that there is some peculiar virtue in
the costlier materials, and that economy in our diet is somehow
detrimental to our dignity or our welfare. And, unfortunately, those
who are most extravagant in this respect are often the ones who can
least afford it.
Secondly, the food which we eat does not always contain the proper
proportions of the different kinds of nutritive ingredients. We
consume relatively too much of the fuel ingredients of food, such as
the fats of meat and butter, the starch which makes up the larger part
of the nutritive material of flour and potatoes and sugar and
sweetmeats. Conversely, we have relatively too little of the protein
of flesh-forming substances, like the lean of meat and fish and the
gluten of wheat, which make muscle and sinew and which are the basis
of blood, bone and brain.
Thirdly, many people, not only the well-to-do, but those in moderate
circumstances, use needless quantities of food. Part of the excess,
however, is simply thrown away with the wastes of the table and the
kitchen; so that the injury to health, great as it may be, is
doubtless much less than if all were eaten. Probably the worst
sufferers from this evil are well-to-do people of sedentary
occupations--brain workers as distinguished from hand workers.
Finally, we are guilty of serious errors in our cooking. We waste a
great deal of fuel in the preparation of our food, and even then a
great deal of the food is very badly cooked. A reform in these methods
of cooking is one of the economic demands of our time.
Cheap vs. Dear Food.--We cannot judge of the nutritive value of food
by the quantity. There is as much nutriment in a pound of wheat flour
as in 3½ quarts of oysters, which weigh 7 pounds. There is still less
connection between nutritive value and price. In buying at ordinary
market rates we get as much material to build up our bodies, repair
their wastes, and give strength for work in 5 cents' worth of flour or
beans or codfish as 50 cents or $1 will pay for in tenderloin, salmon
or lobsters.
Round steak at 15 cents a pound is just as digestible and is fully as
nutritious as tenderloin at 50. Mackerel has as high nutritive value
as salmon, and costs from an eighth to half as much. Oysters are a
delicacy. If one can afford them, there is no reason for not having
them, but 25 cents invested in a pint would bring only about an ounce
of protein and 230 calories of energy. The same 25 cents spent for
flour at $6 a barrel, or 3 cents a pound, would pay for nine-tenths of
a pound of protein and 13,700 calories of energy. When a day laborer
buys bread at 7½ cents a pound, the actual nutritive material costs
him three times as much as it does his employer, who buys it in flour
at $6 a barrel.
Illustrations of the prejudice of people, especially those in moderate
circumstances, against the less expensive kinds of food are very
common.
Mr. Lee Meriwether, who has given much attention to this special
subject, cites a case in point, that of a coal laborer, who boasted:
"No one can say that I do not give my family the best flour, the
finest of sugar, the very best quality of meat." He paid $156 a year
for the nicest cuts of meat, which his wife had to cook before six in
the morning or after half past six at night, because she worked all
day in a factory. When excellent butter was selling at 25 cents a
pound he paid 29 cents for an extra quality. He spent only $108 a year
for clothing for his family of nine, and only $72 a year for rent in a
close tenement house, where they slept in rooms without windows or
closets. He indulged in this extravagance in diet, when much less
expensive food materials, such as regularly come upon the tables of
men of wealth, would have been just as nutritious, just as wholesome,
and in every way just as good, save in the gratification to pride and
palate. He was committing an immense economic blunder. Like thousands
of others, he did so in the belief that it was wise and economical.
The sad side of the story is that the poor are the ones who practice
the worst economy in the purchase as well as the use of food. The
Massachusetts Bureau of Labor, in collecting the dietaries above
referred to, made numerous inquiries of tradesmen regarding the food
of the poor in Boston, meaning by poor "those who earn just enough to
keep themselves and families from want." The almost universal
testimony was, "They usually want the best and pay for it, and the
most fastidious are those who can least afford it." The costliest kind
of meat, the finest flour, and very highest priced butter were
demanded, and many scorned the less expensive meats and groceries such
as well-to-do and sensible people were in the habit of buying.
I have taken occasion to verify these observations by personal inquiry
in Boston markets. One intelligent meat man gave his experience with a
poor seamstress, who insisted on buying tenderloin steak at 60 cents
per pound. He tried to persuade her that other parts of the meat were
just as nutritive, as they really are, but she would not believe him;
and when he urged the wiser economy of using them, she became angry at
him for what she regarded as a reflection upon her dignity. "My
wealthy customers," said he, "take our cheaper cuts, but I have got
through trying to sell these economical meats to that woman and others
of her class."
I am told that people in the poorer parts of New York City buy the
highest priced groceries, and that the meat men say they can sell the
coarser cuts of meat to the rich, but that people of moderate means
refuse them. I hear the same thing in Washington and other cities.
One-sidedness of Our Dietary.--I have said that our diet is
one-sided, that the food which we actually eat has relatively too
little protein and too much fat, starch, and sugar. In other words, it
is relatively deficient in the materials which make muscle and bone
and contains a relative excess of the fuel ingredients. This is due
partly to our large consumption of sugar and partly to our use of such
large quantities of fat meats.
Overeating--Injury to Health.--But the most remarkable thing about our
food consumption is the quantity. The American dietaries examined in
this inquiry were of people living at the time in Massachusetts and
Connecticut, though many came from other parts of the country. It
would be wrong to take their eating habits as an exact measure of
those of people throughout the United States. For that matter, a great
deal of careful observation will be needed to show precisely what and
how much is used by persons of different classes in different regions.
Just this kind of study in different parts of the country is greatly
needed. But such facts as I have been able to gather seem to imply
that the figures obtained indicate in a general way the character of
our food consumption. Of the over 50 dietaries of reasonably
well-to-do people thus far examined the smallest is that of a
mechanic's family. In this the potential energy per man per day was
about 3,000 calories. The next smallest was that of the family of a
chemist who had been studying the subject and had learned something of
the excessive amounts of food which many people with light muscular
labor consume. This dietary supplied 3,200 calories of energy per man
a day. The largest was that of brickmakers at very severe work in
Massachusetts. They lived in a boarding house managed by their
employers, who had evidently found that men at hard muscular work out
of doors needed ample nourishment to do the largest amount of work.
The food supplied 8,850 calories per day.
Voit's standard for a laboring man at moderate work, which is based
upon the observation of the food of wage workers, who are counted in
Germany as well paid and well fed, allows 118 grammes of protein and
3,055 calories of energy. The standards proposed by myself, in which
the studies of American dietaries have been taken into account, allow
125 grammes of protein and 3,500 calories of energy for a man at
moderately hard muscular work. The dietaries of Massachusetts and
Connecticut factory operatives, day laborers and mechanics at moderate
work averaged about 125 grammes of protein and 4,500 calories of
energy. For a man at "severe" work, Voit's standard calls for 145
grammes of protein and 3,370 calories of energy.
The Massachusetts and Connecticut mechanics at "hard" and "severe"
work had from 180 to 520 grammes of protein and from 5,000 to 7,800
calories of potential energy, and in one case they rose to the 8,500
just quoted. In the dietary standards proposed by myself it did not
seem to me permissible to assign less than 4,000 calories to that for
a working man at "hard," and 5,700 for a man at "severe" work.[1]
[Footnote 1: Statistics are also given showing that the
professional men of certain European countries live comfortably
and have good health on much less than Americans of the same
occupation.--ED.]
Now it is not easy to see why these men required so much more than was
sufficient to nourish abundantly men of like occupation, but unlike
temptation to overeating, in Europe. Difference in climate cannot
account for it. We are a little more given to muscular exercise here,
which is very well for us, but it cannot justify our eating so
much.... I think the answer to this question is found in the
conditions in which we live. Food is plenty. Holding to a tradition
which had its origin where food was less abundant, that the natural
instinct is the measure of what we should eat, we follow the dictates
of the palate. Living in the midst of abundance, our diet has not been
regulated by the restraints which obtain with the great majority of
the people of the Old World, where food is dear and incomes are small.
Indeed, the very progress which we are making in our civilization
brings with it increased temptation to overeating. The four quarters
of the earth are ransacked to supply us with the things which will
most tempt our appetites, and the utmost effort of cooks and
housewives is used in the same direction. It is all the more fitting,
therefore, that information as to our excesses and the ways of
avoiding them should come at the same time.
How much harm is done to health by our one-sided and excessive diet no
one can say. Physicians tell us that it is very great. Of the vice of
overeating, Sir Henry Thompson, a noted English physician and
authority on the subject, says:
"I have come to the conclusion that more than half the disease which
embitters the middle and latter part of life is due to avoidable
errors in diet, ... and that more mischief in the form of actual
disease, of impaired vigor, and of shortened life accrues to civilized
man ... in England and throughout central Europe from erroneous habits
of eating than from the habitual use of alcoholic drink, considerable
as I know that evil to be."
This is in the fullest accord with the opinions of physicians and
hygienists who have given the most attention to the subject, and these
opinions are exactly parallel with the statistics here cited.
Waste of Food in American Households.--The direct waste of food occurs
in two ways, in eating more than is needed and in throwing away
valuable material in the form of kitchen and table refuse. That which
is thrown away does no harm to health, and in so far as part of it may
be fed to animals or otherwise utilized, it is not an absolute loss.
That which we consume in excess of our need of nourishment is worse
than wasted, because of the injury it does to health. A few instances
taken from the investigations mentioned above will help to illustrate
the waste of food.
One of the dietaries examined by the Massachusetts Labor Bureau was
that of a machinist in Boston, who earned $3.25 per day. In food
purchased the dietary furnished 182 grammes of protein and 5,640
calories of energy per man per day, at a cost of 47 cents. One-half
the meats, fish, lard, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, sugar, and molasses
would have been represented by 57 grammes of protein, 1,650 calories,
and 19 cents. If these had been subtracted, the record would have
stood at 125 grammes, 3,990 calories, and 28 cents. This family might
have dispensed with one-half of all their meats, fish, eggs, dairy
products, and sugar, saved 40 per cent. of the whole cost of their
food, and still have had all the protein and much more energy than is
called for by a standard which is supposed to be decidedly liberal.
In the instance just cited no attempt was made to learn how much of
the food purchased was actually consumed and how much was rejected. In
some of the dietaries published by the Massachusetts bureau such
estimates were made. That of a students' club in a New England college
will serve as an example.
The young men of the club, some 25 in number, were mostly from the
Northern and Eastern States, and coming from the class of families
whose sons go to college, it seems fair to assume that their habits of
eating formed at home would not differ materially from those of the
more intelligent classes of people in that part of the country. While
the diet of the club was substantial and wholesome, it was plain, as
was, indeed, necessary, because several of the members were dependent
upon their own exertions and the majority had rather limited means.
Though fond of athletic sports they could hardly be credited with as
much muscular exercise as the average "laboring man at moderate work."
The matron, a very intelligent, capable New England woman, had been
selected because of her especial fitness for the care of such an
establishment. The steward who purchased the food was a member of the
club, and had been chosen as a man of business capacity. He thought
that very little of the food was left unconsumed. "All of the meat and
other available food that was not actually served to the men at the
table," said he, "was carefully saved and made over into croquettes.
Men who work their way through college cannot afford to throw away
their food." But actual examination showed the waste to be
considerable. The estimates of the quantities of nutrients were based
upon the quantities of food materials for a term of three months and
upon the table and kitchen refuse for a week. The results were as
follows: In food purchased, protein, 161 grammes; energy, 5,345
calories. In waste, protein, 23 grammes; energy, 520 calories. In food
consumed, protein, 138 grammes; energy, 4,825 calories. One-eighth of
the protein and one-tenth of the energy were simply thrown away.
During the succeeding term a second examination of the dietary of the
same club was made. Another steward was then in charge. He had learned
of the excessive amounts of food in the former dietary, and planned to
reduce the quantities. This was done largely by diminishing the meats.
He stated that he did not apprise the club of the change, and that it
was not noticed. As he put it, "The boys had all they wanted, and were
just as well pleased as if they had more." Estimates as before but
with more care in determining the waste, showed in food purchased,
protein, 115 grammes; energy, 3,875 calories. In waste, protein, 11
grammes; energy, 460 calories. In food consumed, protein, 104 grammes;
energy, 3,415 calories. One-tenth of the nutritive material of the
food this time was thrown away. The young men were amply nourished
with three-fifths of the nutrients they had purchased in the previous
term.
How much food is required on the average by men whose labor is mainly
intellectual is a question to which physiology has not yet given a
definite answer, but it is safe to say that the general teaching of
the specialists who have given the most attention to the subject would
call for little more than the 104 grammes of protein and very much
less than the 3,400 calories of energy in the food estimated to be
actually consumed by these young men when the second examination was
made. They could have dispensed with half of all the meats, fish,
oysters, eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and sugar purchased for the first
dietary and still have had more nutritive material than they consumed
in the second. Not only was one-tenth or more of the nutrients thrown
away in each of the two cases, but what makes the case still worse
pecuniarily, the rejected material was very largely from the animal
foods in which it is the most expensive.
The estimates of the quantities of food in the two dietaries just
quoted were made from tradesmen's bills and the composition was
calculated from analyses of similar materials rather than of those
actually used. The figures are therefore less reliable than if the
foods and wastes had been actually weighed and analyzed. In some
dietaries lately examined in Middletown, Conn., all the food has been
carefully weighed and portions have been analyzed, and the same has
been done with the table and kitchen refuse. The results, therefore,
show exactly how much was purchased, consumed and thrown away. One
dietary so investigated was that of a boarding house. The boarders
were largely mechanics of superior intelligence and skill, and earning
good wages; the mistress was counted an excellent housekeeper and the
boarding house a very good one. About one-ninth of the total nutritive
ingredients of the food was left in the kitchen and table refuse. The
actual waste was worse than this proportion would imply, because it
consisted mostly of the protein and fats, which are more costly than
the carbohydrates. The waste contained nearly one-fifth of the total
protein and fat, and only one-twentieth of the total carbohydrates of
the food. Or to put it in another way, the food purchased contained
about 23 per cent. more protein, 24 per cent. more fats, and 6 per
cent. more carbohydrates than were eaten. And worst of all for the
pecuniary economy, or lack of economy, the wasted protein and fats
were mostly from the meats which supply them in the costliest form.
In another dietary, that of a carpenter's family, also in Middletown
Conn., 7.6 per cent. of the total food purchased was left in the
kitchen and table wastes. The total waste was somewhat worse than this
proportion would imply, because it consisted mostly of the protein and
fats, which are more costly than the carbohydrates. The waste
contained about one-tenth of the total protein and fat and only
one-twenty-fifth of the total carbohydrates of the food. At the rate
in which the nutrients were actually eaten in this dietary, the
protein and fats in the waste would have each supplied one man for a
week and the carbohydrates for three days.
These cases are probably exceptional; at least it is to be hoped that
they are. Among eight dietaries lately studied in Middletown those
above named showed the largest proportion of material thrown away. In
the rest it was much less. In two cases there was almost none. It is
worth noting, however, that the people in these two had the largest
incomes of all. In other words the best-to-do families were the least
wasteful.
This form of bad economy is not confined to the kitchen, but begins in
the market.... The common saying that "the average American family
wastes as much food as a French family would live upon" is a great
exaggeration, but the statistics cited show that there is a great deal
of truth in it. Even in some of the most economical families the
amount of food wasted, if it could be collected for a month or a year,
would prove to be very large, and in many cases the amounts would be
little less than enormous.--W.O. Atwater, Charities Review.
* * * * *