Balance of Food

Upfront cost of food needs to be seen in 'cost per serving' terms

A long time ago, I wrote a story on the marketing of breakfast cereals. To give you an idea on how long ago this was, Chuck Schumer was still a House representative; Schumer has been the senior U.S. senator from New York since 1999.

Then-Rep. Schumer was complaining about the high cost of brand-name breakfast cereals, and how advertising was driving up the cost of breakfast cereals. And you thought our politicians didn't care about the consumer.

Schumer still brags about this on his Web site, and I quote:

Issued a 1995 report entitled "Consumer in a Box" which explored the 90% increase in breakfast cereal prices since 1983 and demanded that the Justice Department investigate breakfast cereal antitrust violations.

I noted in my 1995 consumer marketing column that Kellogg's had started a campaign pointing out that a serving of cereal with milk costs about 30¢. So even with two bowls of cereal with milk, you are only out 60¢. Couldn't even get a small French fries back then for 60¢ (except for Hot 'n' Now, a different story for a different time).

Michael Pollan used the same gimmick to point out how $8 for a carton of a dozen brown eggs wasn't that big of a deal, since two eggs would cost $1.50.

Eight dollars for a dozen eggs sounds outrageous, but when you think that you can make a delicious meal from two eggs, that's $1.50. It's really not that much when we think of how we waste money in our lives.

Actually, two eggs at that rate cost $1.33. And if you pay $5 for a dozen of farm fresh eggs, as I do, two eggs comes out to 83¢.

That is cheaper than a protein plus biscuit from a fast food drive-thru. And with the brown eggs, you get more omega-3s, a long-term benefit.

Breaking down the cost of food into servings is a great way to get the true value impact on your food budget.

Take spaghetti: you could buy a pound of dried white-flour spaghetti for a pretty cheap price, say $1.09. And you could buy 12 oz. of whole wheat spaghetti for $1.99.

If you analyze the cost per 2 oz. serving, the white flour spaghetti comes out to 14¢ and the whole wheat spaghetti comes out to 33¢.

The difference is dramatic: the whole wheat spaghetti is more than twice as much per serving. However, the whole wheat spaghetti has more fiber and keeps you more full longer. And you can eat less of it.

If you factor in a 4 oz. serving of regular spaghetti vs. a 2 oz. serving of whole wheat spaghetti, the difference is 5¢ instead of 19¢, and you have eaten fewer carbohydrates with the whole wheat spaghetti.

Breaking down the cost per serving helps justify buying better-made foods because the perspective is clearer.

There isn't anything wrong with buying a carton of eggs for $1.19 per dozen, and surviving on that. And admittedly, a two-egg meal costing 20¢ instead of 83¢ does add up financially. But 63¢ may not be enough to make that kind of a judgment, and you can judge that the upfront cost difference isn't worthwhile.

Enough consumers will always pick on price, but they need to figure on cost per serving, as well as long-term costs in determining which food is the "cheapest."

Easy to get protein from a wide variety of sources, including meat

Protein -- we're obsessed about getting it, but we either get too much of it or too much of the wrong kind. And we think we pay too much for it.

Somehow we don't worry as much about getting carbohydrates and fats since that seems so natural to our diet mentality.

Our approach involves gathering meat -- beef, chicken, pork, et al. -- as if we were still hunting for it instead of picking it up in the drive-thru lane.

But this column isn't one of those "eat peanut butter and beans to get your protein" sermons. We eat too much meat as a country, but there is a place for meat at the table -- preferably better grown meat.

The good news is that we don't have to work nearly this hard to get protein. Getting enough protein to last through the day is a lot easier than it looks.

If you drink milk and eat cheese, you are in a great position. But even the whole wheat and whole grain spaghetti I consume has a good amount of protein through my day.

And though I'm not the greatest fish eater, as I've proven, there is a nice supply of protein in the seafood section. If you like beans -- and I don't -- you are getting a wonderful protein source.

But I also get protein from fake bacon bits. And anchovies. And from items I'm not even aware have protein.

In my period of severe underemployment, I've had more time to experiment in the kitchen. Brown eggs has been one such recipient of my affection.

Long-time readers know I'm not a big fan of eggs. Omelets and scrambled eggs don't excite me. And even though brown eggs are much more expensive than regular white eggs, they are still a relatively inexpensive source of protein.

At the prices I've been paying lately, each brown egg is about 41¢. Not too bad for a protein source that is good in omega-3s.

I've been in a spaghetti carbonara frenzy using those eggs as part of the sauce. I've been frying eggs and dipping my toast into them.

We don't need much protein, and women need less than men. Unless you are freakishly working out, you don't need a protein supplement.

Read labels and rediscover how much protein you probably accidentally ingest before eating meat. True, each source has a little bit at a time, but you will be surprised at the end of the day -- how much protein you get before eating a piece of meat.

We don't need as much protein as we needed back in the hunter and gatherer stage of our development. And we have many more ways to get protein.

Enjoy a little meat, if you wish. Shoot for well-grown, where available. But don't freak out over the search for protein. You are getting more protein than you think.

Senate unanimously passes Child Nutrition Bill; battle still not over yet

Getting excited that the Senate unanimously passed the Child Nutrition Bill is completely understandable. Sure the Senate version is much weaker than the House, and thanks to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the first non-inflationary increase for school lunches since 1973 is 6¢.

The Senate version provides for $4.5 billion over the next decade. About 75% of that goes to improving school lunches; the other 25% will go to increase the number of children receiving food. Just to be clear: this money has to last 10 years.

The other notable element to the Senate version is that the Department of Agriculture will develop nutrition standards for foods sold in schools. The dirty secret of our education system is that schools sell food to raise money they don't get from the levels of government.

Given that the Senate version is the weaker of the two bills, everything in the Senate version should stay. The only reason that would change is if there are funding issues.

Speaking of funding, the Senate takes money from different sources (than the House version) to pay for its bill, including, cruelly, food stamps money.

The House could pass the Senate version as is, but if there are changes, the bill would have to be resubmitted to the Senate. You would hope that the House can fix the Senate bill to fund food stamps AND school lunches.

The looming September 30 deadline is vital, since a bill needs to be passed by the deadline. For advocates, this actually hurts since those who don't want more funding can threaten to stall. So a bad bill may be better than no bill at all.

This bill has wonderful elements to consider, and something needs to be done. Would be beneficial, even if symbolic, to get the increase higher than 6¢.

Previous story: House Committee passes stronger school lunch reform; must get Senate version to be as strong

Podcast: Appreciating all gardens, great and small

This week's podcast tells us how we should appreciate all gardens, great and small.

To access the podcasts, check them out in the podcast library.

Podcast 080610

'Boondocks' spoofs fast food fried chicken hysteria

Would you wait in a long line if "KFC" offered an extra herb and extra spice in its secret recipe?

The "Boondocks" mocked the frenzy behind fast food launches in its latest episode "Fried Chicken Flu." The KFC-Oprah debacle when KFC ran out of the grilled chicken in 2009 was the prototype for this spoof, but the spirit of the Double Down and Monsterburger lives on in this episode.

The cars wait in long lines; before Grandpa and Riley get to the front of the line, "Kernel's Fried Chicken," as they call it, runs out of chicken. One person runs their car into the place in frustration.

Even as the chicken is feared to make people sick -- the "Fried Chicken Flu" -- people keep eating the chicken as the TV announcer noted people were "willing to risk life and limb for a leg and a thigh."

The Boondocks had a classic episode in its first season in 2006 -- "The Itis" -- spotlighting the world of soul food. Aaron McGruder, the Boondocks creator, gave us a peek into the Luther Burger, named after the late singer Luther Vandross, a bacon cheeseburger with Krispy Kreme donuts for the buns.

A little hysteria will always be the American way -- and fast food places will always try and do whatever they can to draw attention to themselves. So it was fun to see that world get a much needed spoof.

The Boondocks airs Sunday night at 11:30 pm Eastern on the Cartoon Network. The repeat of this episode airs Saturday night at 11:30 pm Eastern.

People are starting to realize they are obese

Ever wonder how much you have to weigh to be obese? When you hear about the obesity rates, you might not know how big is too big.

But what's funny — and new — is apparently people are being more honest, relatively speaking, about whether they are obese. People don't always understand the BMI or the nuances between overweight and obese, but it seems more likely that people who are large just assume they are obese.

The recent telephone survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that 27% of people think they are obese, versus a scientific survey that says 34% qualify as obese.

When you measure obesity by states, 9 states in 2009 had at least 30% of the adults at the level of obese. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee were repeat states from 2007 at that level and were joined in 2009 by Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

Only Colorado and the District of Columbia had obesity levels that are lower than 20%. As we have noted in the past, no state or district had a level as high as 20% in 1991.

The mindless body mass index (BMI) is the determinant. Takes your weight in pounds and divide that by your height in inches. Divide that total again by your height in inches. And multiply that number by 703.

So if you are a 5'10" guy — such as me — 209 lbs. makes you obese. Good thing I am nowhere near that mark. If a 5-foot-4 woman hits 174 pounds, she is considered obese.

Basil Marceaux's paranoia aside, government will never measure waistlines

"Make sure that if national insurance is put in place, I will make sure the roots of such bill will not inclued any type measuring of the waist like other counties."

This statement is from Basil Marceaux (R), a candidate for governor in Tennessee. The misspellings above are left in on purpose, including substituting "counties" for countries.

As troubling as the collective American waistline is, there is no plan, imaginary or real, to measure anyone's waist for health insurance. And no other county or country has any current or future plan to do the same.

Despite what can be described as naive paranoia by Marceaux, the government is doing as little as humanly possible to make us a healthier nation. Even the actions of First Lady Michelle Obama have no official government endorsement.

And the role of government in other Western countries is providing true universal health care and providing precise measures for what qualifies as food.

Some insurance companies in the United States are taking blanket body mass index (BMI) marks and adjusting health insurance policies accordingly. That isn't measuring waists, but it is almost as troubling and more irresponsible. But since the actions are from private companies, the right wing thinks this is okay behavior.

The right wing of this country is good at being paranoid about what our government might do, especially when they aren't in charge. The left wing is also paranoid, but they are right more often than the right wing.

Somewhere somehow Marceaux got this idea in his head that someone somewhere was measuring waists in the name of government. Is it true? Doesn't really have to be these days.

There is a standard where the government might do too much to make us a healthier nation. We could actually ban salt, as some have claimed will happen. It won't, but it makes for an interesting story, even if it isn't true.

We could improve school lunches, but probably not by that much, regardless of whether our children won't learn as well as a result. But there are people who don't think our children should eat healthier at lunchtime in our schools, and some of those people have great power.

If you are really concerned that the government will do too much to make us healthier, let it do something before you complain that the government is doing too much. Rules that require only actual cheese to be labeled as cheese. Increased inspections for factory farms. Increased federal funding for school lunches. These are tiny steps where government would be the best influence.

No country has a worst efficiency of spending vs. results in health care than the United States. No country is even close to our incompetence in this area. One reason is that we don't trust government when we could, and we refuse government's help to fix those problems that it can effectively solve.

Government shouldn't measure waistlines, but government can and should do more to help us be healthier. At least, allow government to let us make better choices for our own individual health.

screen capture via BasilMarceaux.com

Canada tries reducing sodium levels, but the road is tough there too

The battle over recommended daily sodium levels in the United States has focused on 2,300 mg (the traditional level, a teaspoon of salt) vs. 1,500 mg (initially for health-challenged people, now the official standard).

We should note that our neighbors to the north, Canada, is now trying to decide whether to go from 3,400 mg to 2,300 mg. The difference is that Canada is trying to get consumption down to 2,300 mg, where the U.S. is focused on recommended levels.

The United States doesn't focus on how many milligrams of sodium people consume — if they did, the numbers would be so far off the charts.

The Canadian federal task force's plan to reduce sodium consumption may not receive strong support from the conservative minority government. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't have near the same passion on our food supply as U.S. President Barack Obama.

The long-awaited report, released Thursday by the federally appointed Sodium Working Group, maps out the steps to reduce sodium consumption from 3,400 to 2,300 milligrams a day.

Similar to the United States, Canada is trying to get food processors to make changes voluntarily. Good luck with that.

While several major food suppliers have reduced sodium levels, you do have to wonder when — according to the Globe and Mail, the McDonald's grilled chicken classic sandwich moves from 1,010 mg to 810 mg — why the "healthier" version still has that much sodium.

Canada is a good country for the U.S. to study: while it has a touch of European-light flavor to its cultures and traditions, gastronomically Canada is fairly similar to the U.S. in what we eat, especially processed foods.