sible. There is a prevalent but unfounded idea that costly-
foods, such as the tenderest meats, the finest fish, the
highest-pviced butter, the choicest flour, and the most
delicate vegetables possess some peculiar virtue which is
lacking in less expensive materials. Many people Avho
have small incomes and really wish to economize, think
it beneath them to use the cheaper meats and inexpensive,
but substantial groceries. Many, too, labor under the false
impression that the costly food materials are somehow
essential and economical. The maxim that ' the best is the
cheapest,' does not apply to food. The ' best ' food, in the
sense of that which is finest in appearance and flavor and
is sold at the highest price, is rarely the most economical
for people in good health. The food that is best fitted to
the real wants of the user may be of the very kind which
supplies the most nutriment at the lowest cost.
" . . . What is here urged is that the facts are not under-
stood, and that the ignorance results in great waste of hard-
earned money. If a man has an income of $5000 a year,
he can afford a tenderloin steak, oysters at fifty cents a
quart, and a young chicken, and the early strawberries at
the high prices that prevail when they first come into the
market. He can likewise, if he wishes, pay $100 for
an overcoat, and his wife may indulge in twenty-dollar
bonnetrs. But if his yearly income is only $1000, these
luxuries will be beyond his means, and if he has but $500
a year for the support of his family, such extravagance
Avould be unpardonable. So far as the overcoat and bonnet
are concerned, every one would agree to this statement ; but
when it comes to a matter of food economy, a great many
people of small incomes would object to the principle n^ost
decidedly.
The larger part of the price of costlier foods is paid for
appearance, flavor, or rarity. The sirloin of beef is no more
128 HANDBOOK OF DOMESTIC SCIENCE
digestible or nutritious than round or rib, although it is
more tender, and to cook it so as to get the finest flavor
is an easier matter. Saddle Rock oysters, fresh from the
shell, at 50 cents a quart, are worth no more for nutriment
than those that are sold in the same market at half the
price ; and a quart of milk contains as much nutriment and
in fully as digestible form as either. Salmon has no higher
food value in the first of the season at $1 than later at 25
cents a pound, and at either time it ranks as food, just
about on a level with mackerel, which is often sold at 10
cents per pound, or less. The expensive food materials are
like the expensive articles of adornment. They are very
nice if one can afford them, but they are not economical.
The plain, substantial, standard food materials, like the
cheaper meats and fish, milk, flour, corn meal, oatmeal,
beans, and potatoes, are as digestible and nutritious, and
as well fitted for the nourishment of people in good health
as any of the costlier materials the markets afford.
A favorite dish in France is a soup or stew with a
large quantity of peas, beans, or lentils. What nutrients
does it contain ? In about what proportions ? Would it
do for a single dish ? Why ? Is it economical ? Why ?
Page 62
Presented as published in 1900. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
sible. There is a prevalent but unfounded idea that costly foods, such as the tenderest meats, the finest fish, the highest-priced butter, the choicest flour, and the most delicate vegetables possess some peculiar virtue which is lacking in less expensive materials. Many people who have small incomes and really wish to economize, think it beneath them to use the cheaper meats and inexpensive, but substantial groceries. Many, too, labor under the false impression that the costly food materials are somehow essential and economical. The maxim that ' the best is the cheapest,' does not apply to food. The ' best ' food, in the sense of that which is finest in appearance and flavor and is sold at the highest price, is rarely the most economical for people in good health. The food that is best fitted to the real wants of the user may be of the very kind which supplies the most nutriment at the lowest cost.
" . . . What is here urged is that the facts are not understood, and that the ignorance results in great waste of hardearned money. If a man has an income of $5000 a year, he can afford a tenderloin steak, oysters at fifty cents a quart, and a young chicken, and the early strawberries at the high prices that prevail when they first come into the market. He can likewise, if he wishes, pay $100 for an overcoat, and his wife may indulge in twenty-dollar bonnetrs. But if his yearly income is only $1000, these luxuries will be beyond his means, and if he has but $500 a year for the support of his family, such extravagance would be unpardonable. So far as the overcoat and bonnet are concerned, every one would agree to this statement ; but when it comes to a matter of food economy, a great many people of small incomes would object to the principle most decidedly.
The larger part of the price of costlier foods is paid for appearance, flavor, or rarity. The sirloin of beef is no more
digestible or nutritious than round or rib, although it is more tender, and to cook it so as to get the finest flavor is an easier matter. Saddle Rock oysters, fresh from the shell, at 50 cents a quart, are worth no more for nutriment than those that are sold in the same market at half the price ; and a quart of milk contains as much nutriment and in fully as digestible form as either. Salmon has no higher food value in the first of the season at $1 than later at 25 cents a pound, and at either time it ranks as food, just about on a level with mackerel, which is often sold at 10 cents per pound, or less. The expensive food materials are like the expensive articles of adornment. They are very nice if one can afford them, but they are not economical. The plain, substantial, standard food materials, like the cheaper meats and fish, milk, flour, corn meal, oatmeal, beans, and potatoes, are as digestible and nutritious, and as well fitted for the nourishment of people in good health as any of the costlier materials the markets afford.
A favorite dish in France is a soup or stew with a large quantity of peas, beans, or lentils. What nutrients does it contain ? In about what proportions ? Would it do for a single dish ? Why ? Is it economical ? Why ?