Author Title Imprint. The Adequacy and Economy of Some City Dietaries The Adequacy and Economy of Some City Dietaries H. C. SHERMAN Columbia University J and Li Hi GILLETT New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor This study and its publication are made possible by the Department of Social Welfare established by Mrs. Elizabeth Milbank Anderson BUREAU OF FOOD SUPPLY The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor NEW YORK 1917 PMication A'u. tBl ^p \ Copyright, 1917, by The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor Cornelius X. Bliss .Ik , President George Blagden, Treasurer Franklin B. Kirkbri'de, Secretary Bailey B. Burritt, General Diiector 77/i" Association and authors wish to thank those who tune in any way assisted in this work. They wish especially fo thank Dr. A. 11'. Thomas, of Columbia University, ami Dr. Mary Rose, of Teachers College, for the reading of the manuscript. FEB 23 1918 ©CI.A491921 PRINTED BY ATON & GETTINGER 263 NINTH AVE. NEW YORK "Vvtf A Study of the Adequacy and Economy of Some City Dietaries Since nearly half of the income of the majority of families is spent in the purchasing of food supplies, and since food is such an important factor in the welfare of the family, it is important both economically and physiologically that expenditure for food be made in such a way as will give the best returns for the money spent. Any suggestions, however, as to how to improve upon present food habits should be based on a knowledge of the adequacy of present family dietaries and the relation existing between nutritive value and the different types of food. To this end, 102 family dietaries have been carefully collected and analyzed, each dietary being an exact record of the amount and cost of the food eaten by a family for a period of seven days during 1914-1915. The records were secured in three ways. Two-thirds of them were collected by the investigator who reached the families through settlements, mothers' clubs, health centers, and schools. She made daily visits, sometimes two visits daily, to the homes of the families, weighed the food, and supervised very closely the keeping of the records. Some studies were made by women who were interested and intelligent enough to keep an accurate record under the general direction of the investigator but without detailed supervision. The remaining studies were obtained through teachers of Home Economics who incorporated the keeping of the record into a lesson in household accounts or dietetics. Only such of these records were used as gave every evidence of accuracy as shown by the data of the record itself, the reputation of the girl, and the opinion of the teacher. Of the 102 studies, 87 were made in New York City, 9 in Cleveland, Ohio, 5 in Long Beach, California, and 1 in Stamford, Connecticut. Among these 102 families there were 10 which, as supervised pensioners in the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, had been so influenced by a dietitian that they showed food habits which could hardly be taken as typical. The results of these 10 studies were not included in the general averages. In the 92 remaining families from which the general averages have been made there were 343 children and 287 adults, or 3.7 children and 3.1 adults per family. As to nationality they were divided as follows: 2^ Irish, 20 Americans, 17 Hebrews, 13 Germans, 10 Italians, 5 Scotch, and 4 of mixed races. The studies were quite equally distributed as to the season of the year, 46 having been collected during October, November, and December in 19 14 and January, February, and March in 1915, and 46 during the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September in 1915. 3 The average cost per man per day was 32.9 cents, with a range from 11.2 cents to 76.0 cents. The distribution according to cost per man per day Chart I 92 Family Dietaries. (1914-1915) Distribution as to Cost per Man per Day /j- 10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 1H5 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 76-80 Cost per Man per Day_ Cents (Chart I) shows the greatest frequency from 25 to 35 cents, with approximately one-fourth spending less than 25 cents and one-fourth more than 40 cents. These divisions as to nationality, season of the year, cost and make-up of the family seemed to us to be fairly representative of social groups and well suited to our purpose. Each dietary was analyzed to determine cost per man per day and the distribution of this food expenditure among the various types of food such as meat and fish, eggs, cheese, milk, cream, butter, and other fats, grain products, sugar, vegetables, fruits, nuts and a miscellaneous group including tea, coffee, spices, yeast, vinegar, etc. In each case the food value was calculated in terms of calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium (lime), and iron per man per day. Where necessary this work was supplemented by laboratory analyses to deter- mine the composition of the food. Calories and protein were quite generally assumed from standard tables,* but much ash analysis was necessary where there had not been sufficient work done to establish an average.! * Those contained in Rose's Laboratory Hand book for Dietetics were chiefly used for calories and protein. t For analyses done in connection with this study see Table VI, page 30 of the appendix. On the basis of these results the studies have been classified, averaged, and examined, to trace relationships between the different types of food and the resulting food value, and to determine the adequacy of the ordinary diet in so far as the five factors mentioned above are concerned. In considering the adequacy of the various food factors, it is obviously necessary to have some basis for judgment as to what is adequate for proper nutrition. Since considerable work lias been clone to determine the energy require- ment, a standard allowance for this factor is quite commonly agreed upon as 3,400-3,500 calories for a man working moderately hard, and that is the basis of the allowance used in this study. A review of the work done on protein metabolism indicated that in about 100 experiments which seemed of such a character as to throw light on this question, the average protein requirement was approximately 50 grams per man per day. If this be increased by 50 per cent "for safety," one obtains a standard allowance of 75 grams of protein per man per day. Since very little work had been done on the phosphorus and calcium requirement, however, it was thought advisable to investigate these factors by means of laboratory experiments, and thus get more reliable information than was available. Five metabolism experiments of a month each were performed on healthy individuals, and upon these results in connection with what had previously been done an adequate allowance for each was estimated according to the plan used in estimating the allowance for protein. No revision of the iron figures was made. The results of the dietaries were interpreted in the light of these allowances, which in view of all available evidence were judged as best expressing the requirements of human nutrition. Many of the studies gave evidence of deficiencies in food value in one or more important aspects. These deficiencies occurred frequently where the amount of money spent for food was adequate to supply sufficient nourishment had it been spent wisely. Or in some cases, the amount of food consumed was such as to give nearly 40 per cent more energy than was probably needed, while the amount of calcium (lime) or iron was barely more than enough to provide for the needs of the body. The selection of food was such that had these families been getting energy at the rate of 3,500 calories per man, in many instances some of the important ash constituents would have been below the standard allowance. The first classification of the dietaries was on the basis of cost. The 92 studies were arranged in the order of cost, and averaged in four groups of 23 each.* In Group I were the dietaries of the 23 families spending the least amount for food and Group IV contained those spending the largest amount. Table I gives for each group the average cost and food value with a state- ment of the allowance used as a basis for judging the adequacy of the food value. * All figures will be given on the "per man per day" basis. Table 1. 92 Dietaries — Averaged in four groups according to cost. Average food value per man per day of each group Group Cost Calories Protein Phosphorus Calcium Iron Cents drains Grams (Ira ins Milligrams I 19.2 2043 78 1.14 0.51 12.1 II 28.2 2665 91 1.39 0.64 14.9 III 34.7 3106 109 1.60 0.72 17.7 IV 49.4 3889 126 1.95 1.01 20.6 Standard Al- lowance 2500-3500 75 1.44 0.69 15.0 Comparing these averages with the standard allowance given, it would seem as though energy and calcium were the factors most often deficient. This assumption is strengthened by the summary given in Table 2 of the number and percentage of dietaries above and below what is considered a safe allowance. By these figures we see that nearly 59 per cent of the families were getting below the ordinary accepted standard of 3,000 calories and that 76 per cent were below 3,500 calories per man per day, the amount upon which children's requirements have ordinarily been based. Table 2. Number and percentage of dietaries distributed as to calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron CALORIES PROTEIN PHOSPHORUS CALCIUM IRON o.a "o.H o.ii 3 Grams 3 Grams O 3 <* CO Grams 3 Milligrams o 3 Z -JO Below 2000 11 2000-2500 22 Below 50 Below 0.96 5 Below 0.45 13 Below 10 5 2500-3000 21 50-75 12 0.96-1.44 40 0.45-0.68 36 10-15 33 3000-3500 16 75-Above 80 1.44- Above 47 0.68-Above 43 15-Above 54 3500-Above 22 CALORIES PROTEIN PHOSPHORUS CALCIUM IRON 1— u Grams X) c Grams u — Grams - 8 Milligrams 4) G Below 2500 3000 3500 35.9 58.7 :u 1 Below 50 75 100 0.0 13 51.0 Below 0.96 1.44 5.4 48.9 Below 0.45 0.68 14.1 53 2 Below 10 15 5.4 41.3 There seems to be little danger of protein deficiency, indicating that the money spent for food has been spenl in such a way as to supply relatively high protein at a sacrifice to the energy. As regards the probable comparative danger of insufficient energy and protein, only 12 families were getting less than 75 grams of protein as against 54 getting less than ,},ooo calories, while none were getting less than 50 grams of protein, but 33 were getting less than 2,500 calories. Since an adequate supply of energy is essential both to healthy growth and activity, and to the proper protection of body tissue, the frequent deficiency of energy value in these city dietaries must be regarded as an im- portant factor in causing the large amount of malnutrition reported amoig school children. Had the energy been 3,000 calories in each case, the cause for concern re- garding the other food factors would have been much less, as shown in Table 3. Table 3. 92 Dietaries distributed as to food value on the basis of 3,000 calories PROTKIN PHOSPHORUS CALCIUM IRON (Irams U U XI £ c U u Ph drains h X | c a; U u V drams 0> S c CJ 1-1 CJ Ph Milligrams V X E 4-1 c i> U Below 50 Below 62 Below 75 Below KM) Above 100 1 2 36 56 0.0 1.1 11 39.2 60.8 Below 0.96 Below 1.20 Below 1.44 Above 1.44 4 28 04 0.0 4.4 30.5 00 5 Below 0.45 Below 0.57 Below 0.68 Above 0.68 4 17 37 55 4.4 18.5 40.2 50.8 Below 10 Below 12.5 Below 15.0 Above 15.0 3 18 74 0.0 3.3 19.6 80.4 In only 2 cases was there less than 75 grams of protein at 3,000 calories, while 40 per cent of the families were getting less than the standard allowance of calcium, 30 per cent less than the standard allowance of phosphorus, and 19 per cent less than that of iron. Next to energy, then, calcium deficiency seems to offer the largest problem. The importance of calcium deficiency must not be overlooked even though one may not be able to point to clinical symptoms. Professor Mendel of Yale says of his recent nutrition experiments that "animals may be in excellent nutritive condition in so far as protein is concerned for long periods of time while they are still losing calcium from their bones. It then happens that suddenly a collapse conn's for which there is frequently no obvious explanation." Since this element plays such an important part, not only in bone and teeth forma I ion but in organic functions as well, the frequent de- ficiency of calcium in the diet is a serious defect in present food habits. In the economic study of dietaries it is necessary to consider the different types of food used, the influence which each has on the total food value, and the relation between cost and nutritive return. For these comparisons foods have been divided into the various types as represented in Table 4. Table 4. Average distribution of expenditure among various types of food in 92 families (divided into 4 groups on the basis of cost per man per day) Cost per man per day Cost per 3000 calories Type of Food Meat-fish Eggs Milk Cream Cheese Fats Grain products Sugars Vegetables .... Fruit Nuts Miscellaneous. Calories Protein Phosphorus. . . Calcium Iron Protein Phosphorus. . . Calcium Iron Group I 19.2 cents 26.1 cents Per cent 36.8 4.5 9.1 0.3 0.9 6.7 22.6 3.4 9.0 2.3 0.1 4.3 2043 78 grams 1.14 grams 0.51 grams 12.1 milligrams 107 grams 1.59 grams 0.70 grams 16.7 milligrams Group IT 28.2 cents 30.3 cents Percentage Per cent 29.4 6.4 9.2 0.2 1.6 8.1 17.7 4.4 9.0 7.2 0.6 6.2 Group III 34.7 cents 34.3 cents Distribution* Per cent 34.9 5.4 7.8 0.1 0.8 7.9 17.9 3.8 9.2 6.4 0.1 5.7 Food Value per Man per Day* 2665 91 grams 1.39 grams 0.64 grams 14.9 milligrams 3106 109 grams 1.60 grams 0.72 grams 17.7 milligrams Food Value per 3000 Calories 104 grams 1.57 grams 0.77 grams 16.7 milligrams 102 grams 1.54 grams 0.71 grams 17.1 milligrams Group IV 49.4 cents 44.7 cents Per cent 31.8 5.9 8.4 1.2 1.2 98 13.1 3.6 9.3 8.2 0.6 6.9 3889 126 grams 1.95 grams 1.01 grams 20.6 milligrams 116 grams 1.69 grams 0.81 grams 17.9 milligrams * For the amount of each type of food consumed see Table I of the appendix. In this table is given the distribution of expenditure for the various types of food in each of the four groups as described on page 5 with the corresponding return in food value. It is clearly evident that the average expenditure in Group I was too low to provide sufficient energy for that group. If, however, the cost and food factors for each group be recalculated in proportion to 3,000 calories we have a basis for comparison which indicates: (1) that if energy be sufficient the other food factors will on the average be adequately supplied, and (2) that Group I was getting practically the same amount of food value for 26 cents for which Group IV was paying 45 cents. It should also be noted that while only one-fourth were spending for food less than 25 cents per man per day, about 50 to 75 per cent were not getting enough energy. In order that we may judge intelligently with regard to the relative value and economy of various foods, we must know to what extent each factor is supplied by the various types of food. Hence special attention has been given to those types which supply the largest amounts of the various factors consid- ered here, namely, calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron (Table 5). Table 5. Average of 92 dietary studies — percentage expenditure for each type of food with the corresponding return in food values Type of Food Range of Expenditure Average Expendi- ture Calories Protein Phos- phorus Calcium Iron Meat-fish Per cent 6.4-49.1 0.0-15.9 1.3-21.9 0.0-8.9 0.0-21.8 3.8-42.8 0.0-9.2 0.4-19.1 0.0-17.1 0.0- 7.7 0.0-17.6 Per cent 33.2 5.6 9.1 1.1 8.1 17.9 3.8 9.1 6.0 0.4 5.7 Per cent 16.5 1.7 8.1 0.9 10.3 37.8 10.8 9.1 3.9 0.3 0.6 Per cent 36.3 4.5 10.1 2.1 0.3 35.8 0.1 8.9 1.1 0.2 0.6 Per cent 26.7 4.0 18.5 2.9 0.3 28.9 0.1 14.6 2.4 0.3 1.3 Per cent 3.7 3.2 50.2 7.3 0.7 15.3 0.7 13.2 4.7 0.1 0.9 Per cent 31.4 Eggs 6.2 Milk-cream Cheese 4.7 0.5 Fats 0.4 drain products .... Sugar 25.0 0.2 Vegetables Fruit 26.2 4.1 Nuts 0.2 Miscellaneous 1.1 Be rearranging the dietaries according to the expenditure for the various types of food (which ranged for meat from 6 to 49 per cent, and for grain products from 4 to 43 per cent) it was evident that deficiencies frequently occurred where there had been enough money to supply sufficient food value, but where the relation between the various types of food was not well adjusted. MEAT AND FISH The largest expenditure for any one type of food was for meat and fish, or an average for the 92 studies of 33.2 per cent (wherever meat is used in this discussion both meat and fish are included). The dietaries were arranged in order according to the proportion spent for meat. It was found that only 17 were spending less than 25 per cent, while 49 were spending more than 7,7, per cent of their total food expenditure for this type of food. Chartll 92 Dietaries Distribution of Expenditure for Meat Average Expenditure 33.2% dO 15- /o- J- U 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25%25-3O% 3o-35%3S-«%40-45%«-50% CostperMan perday_ 26.6* 496" 36.8* 33.S* 365* 347* 308 4 28.5* 311' Average Calories- 3172 4221 3677 3353 3165 2886 2731 2487 2246 Cost per 3000 Calories. 210* 35.3* 305* 30.0*34.6' 361* 33.8*332' 415* Chart II represents the distribution of expenditure for meat with the corresponding cost and calorics for each group. With the exception of the first group where only 5 to 10 per cent of the food expenditure was for meat, the calories decreased gradually with the increase in the percentage of total expenditure for meat. While it is true that those spending relatively most for meat were spending least for total food, it is apparent from the chart that for 3,000 calories it would have cost those spending over 25 to 30 per cent for meat more than they were already spending for food, while those spending 10 less than 25 per cent for meat were getting more than 3,000 calories. In other words, the greater the percentage expenditure for meat the more expensive the dietary for adequate energy. It would have cost the families spending from 5 to 10 per cent for meat only 23 cents for 3,000 calories, whereas it would have cost those families spending from 45 to 50 per cent for meat 41.5 cents for an equal amount of energy. When the 92 dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for meat and averaged in 4 groups of 23 each, as shown In Table 6, the point mentioned above that the percentage spent for meat seems to increase with the decrease in total food expenditure, is strengthened. Table 6. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for meat and averaged in groups of 23 each Group AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE Cost per Man per Day Meat Eggs Cheese Milk Grain Prod- ucts Vege- tables and Fruit AVERAGE FOOD VALUE Cal- ories Pro- tein ♦Phos- phorus ♦Cal- cium Iron I II III IV Cents 34.8 35.7 31.5 29.8 Per Per Per Per Per cent cent cent cent i ml 21.3 6.0 1.6 9.3 20.6 30.3 6.5 1.5 8.7 16.1 37.3 5.5 0.6 8.0 18.2 42.0 4.3 0.9 8.5 16.5 Per cent 18.9 21.9 13.4 12.2 drams drams drams 3386 3129 2747 2445 102 105 98 99 1.64 1.62 1.38 1.44 0.86 0.80 0.61 0.61 Milli- gra ms 17.3 17.4 15.4 15.3 * Figures here given are for the element. To find the amount of lime (CaO) from the amount of calcium (Ca), multiply by 1.4. To find the amount of phosphorus pentoxide (T g O s ), "phosphoric acid," from the amount of phosphorus (P), multiply by 2.29. This relative increase in meat seems to be more at the expense of vegetables and fruit than of any other one type of food. Both energy and calcium seem to decrease with an increase in the expenditure for meat. It would have cost Group I, 30.8 cents for 3,000 calories with only 21 per cent of the food money spent for meat, whereas it would have cost Group IV, 36.6 cents with an average meat expenditure of 42 per cent. (For further details with regard to the amount of meat consumed and for prices paid for meat, see Tables I, II, and V of the appendix.) GRAIN PRODUCTS Under the head of grain products we include such foods as bread, cereals, macaroni, and rice. The 92 dietaries were arranged according to the per- centage expenditure for this type of food and averaged in 4 groups of 23 each, Group I representing the 23 families spending least for grain products and Group IV, the 23 spending the largest amount. The results are given in Table 7. 11 Table 7. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for grain products and averaged in groups of 23 each AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXENDITURE Cal- ories AVERAGE FOOD VALUE PER 3000 CALORIES Group Cost per Man per Day Cost per 3000 Cal- ories Grain Prod- ucts Milk Meat Vege- tables and Fruit Fats and Sugar Pro- tein ♦Phos- phorus ♦Cal- cium Iron I II III IV Cents 41.8 33.9 31.7 25.2 Cents 41.9 34.3 31.7 27.5 Per cent 10.1 15.2 18.4 27.6 Per cent 8.7 8.1 10.2 7.6 Per cent 35.2 32.9 32.0 32.8 Per cent 18.5 16.0 15.0 11.4 Per cent 15.9 12.5 12.8 10.6 3010 2967 3007 2719 Grams 107 108 104 108 Grams 1.66 1.63 1.57 1.53 Grams 0.84 0.77 0.78 0.63 Milli- grams 17.91 17.66 16.08 16.81 * See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). The most apparent correlation here is the decrease in total cost of food as the percentage expended for grain products increases. In Group I, where only io per cent of total food expenditure was for grain products, the cost per man per day was 41.8 cents, while in Group IV, where the percentage expenditure for grain products was over 27 per cent, the cost was only 25.2 cents. The average number of calories in Group IV was only 2,719, but for 3,000 calories it would have cost this group only 27.5 cents, while it would have cost Group I for the same amount of energy 41.9 cents. It will be noted by studying Table 6 that less meat, fat, and sugar were used as the amount of Chart HI GRAIN PRODUCTS Relation of the Percentage Expenditure for Grain Products and the Energy received in proportion to Money spent. (92 studies arranged according to the percent- age expenditure for grain and averaged in 4 groups_ 23 in each group.) Croup I\ E\ my n 3 r 10 „ •/? £0 £5 rfercenta&e. expenditure for Grain Products in Each Group Group l\ n\ m\ £5 JO Calories for One Cent, in Corresponding Groups Cost per ManperDay Cost per 3000 Calories. Croup I 41.8* 41 94 " I 33.9+ 34.3* - S 31.7* 317* •• E 252* 27.5* 7J /00 12 grain products increased, and when the food values are calculated to the basis of 3,000 calories neither protein, phosphorus, or iron is decreased in amount by this increase. The calcium seems to have been affected, but it will become evident when we consider the influence of the amount of milk used that this factor is controlled almost entirely by the milk consumption. On Chart III there is represented the relative return in calories for the money spent for food by these four groups. Group I, spending 41.8 cents, was getting in return only 72 calories for every cent spent, while Group IV, with an expenditure of only 25.2 cents, was getting in return 108 calories for every cent. It appears then that the greater the expenditure for grain products the cheaper the dietary for energy, while the amount of the other food factors are not seriously affected. (For the amounts and prices of the various grain products used see Tables I, III, and V of the appendix.) MILK When the 92 studies were arranged in four groups according to the expendi- ture for milk in the same manner as for the meat and fish (Table 6), or grain products (Table 7), there seemed to be no close correlations evident. The percentage spent for milk increased slightly and the percentage spent for meat decreased, as the total food expenditure decreased (Table 8). Table 8. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for milk and averaged in groups of 23 each AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE AVERAGE FOOD VALUE Group Cost per Man per Day Cost iper 3000 Cal- ories Milk Cream Cheese Meat Vege- tables and Fruit Cal- ories Pro- tein ♦Phos- phorus ♦Cal- cium Iron I II III IV Cents 33.3 38.0 29.9 31.4 Cents 34.7 34.8 32.8 Per cent 4.1 6.8 9.4 14.2 Pa- tent 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Per cent 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.7 Per cent 33.5 32.1 35.0 32.2 Pa- cent 16.4 15.8 14.6 13.8 2884 3259 2655 2906 Grams 95 111 94 104 Gra ms 1.35 1.64 1.43 1.65 Grams 0.55 0.74 0.70 0.90 Milli- grams 16.3 18.4 14.9 15.7 * See note at the foot of Table <> (page 11). When the dietaries were arranged according to the amount of calcium in the diet, averaged in groups of 4, the average amount of calcium in each group calculated, and these figures were compared with the amount spent for milk, cream, and cheese in the corresponding groups, a very interesting correlation appeared as shown on Chart IV. L3 Chart W 92 Dietaries arranged according to the Amount of Calcium. Averaged in Groups of 4 and compared with the Corresponding Expenditure for Milk .09- .08- .07- .06 (/l -p c .05 V c3 i 04 X. t- ,o J03" t*-. Jj _2 .02 •3 G ex £ .01 .00 1 2 3 4 5 6 V 8 9 lO 11 12 13 1* 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14 The standard allowance for calcium (0.69 gram) is not reached until the thirteenth group. By comparing the amount spent for the milk with the calcium in the diet it appears that the families were in danger of insufficient calcium when they were spending on an average of less than 3 cents per man per day for milk. Since milk was quite generally 9 cents a quart when these studies were made, it would seem as though every family should be using at the rate of at least one-third of a quart of milk per man per day to provide the calcium requirements of that family. More milk should be provided whenever there are small children, as nearly as possible "a quart of milk a day for every child." In the average of these dietaries over 57 per cent of the total calcium was obtained from milk and cheese. The grain products and the vegetables contributed 12 and 15 per cent respectively, leaving a very small margin to be derived from the several remaining types of food. Since the calcium is so important, and since the amount in the diet is dependent to such a large extent upon the amount of milk used, the use of milk cannot be too strongly urged. (For further correlation between the amount of milk used and the amount of calcium in the diet see Table IV of the appendix. See also Tables I and V for amounts used and prices paid for milk.) VEGETABLES AND FRUIT Because of the similarity of the function of vegetables and fruit in nutrition these foods may be discussed here as one type. The dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expenditure for vegetables and fruit combined, and averaged in 4 groups as previously. The results are shown in Table 9. Table 9. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for Vegetables and Fruit — and averaged in groups of 23 each. AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE AVERAGE FOOD VALUE Group Cost Per Man Per Day Cost Per 3000 Cal- ories Vege tables Fruit Meat Milk Grain Prod- ucts Cal- ories Pro- tein ♦Phos- phorus ♦Cal- cium Iron I II III IV Cents 25.6 35.0 32.7 39.4 Cents 31.2 34.6 34.5 35.0 Per cent 5.6 8.9 10.5 10.9 Per cent 2.5 4.5 6.3 10.9 Per cent 38.2 36.3 30.4 27.8 Per cent 9.0 H.2 ( ).4 7.9 Per cent 21.5 19.1 17.4 13.4 242S 3072 2905 335') Grams 93 109 100 102 drains 1.36 1 .60 1 .53 1.60 Grants 0.61 0.70 0.77 0.81 Milli- ard ms 13.8 17.3 16.5 17.6 ♦See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). L5 Each of the ash constituents seems to be favorably influenced by the in- crease in the use of vegetables and fruit, the iron and calcium rather more so than the phosphorus. The relation between the amount of iron and vege- tables and fruit is shown in Chart V. ChartV I. Relation between the Amount of Iron in the Diet and the Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables and Fruits. (92 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron in the diet .averaged in 4 groups) Group l\ n\ m\ m\ 5 10 , 15 Iron per Man per Day_ Milligrams Group jt E\ •■ m\ O 5 _ . _ 10 15 Corresponding Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables and Fruits Table io might indicate that the amount of iron was more especially in- fluenced by the expenditure for meat, but when the iron figures are calculated to 3,000 calories in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 the amount of iron per 3,000 calories seems to be practically the same for each group. We shall see in Chart VII that by reducing the expenditure for meat and increasing the expenditure for vegetables the iron is increased slightly. This will depend, obviously, on the kind of vegetables used. (For the amounts and prices of vegetables and fruits used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) BUTTER AND OTHER FATS, AND SUGAR According to these dietaries, the fats and sugars contribute on an average about 20 per cent of the total energy of the diet, but very little of any of the other factors considered in this study. The question arises whether there may not be danger of a deficiency of some of the ash constituents through too liberal a use of fat and sugar? When the dietaries were averaged according to the amount of iron at 3,000 calories the relation between the iron and the per- centage of energy from the fats and the sugar appeared as shown in Table 10, and as represented on Chart VI. As the amount of iron increased there was a decided decrease in the percentage of the calories from fats and sugar. 16 Table 10. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron in the diet at 3,000 calories and averaged in 4 groups FOOD VALUE AND COST AT 3,000 CALORIES AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBU- TION OF EXPENDITURE Cal- Group Cost per Man per Day Iron Pro- tein "Phos- phorus *Cal cium Meat Milk Vege tables and Fruit Grain Prod- ucts Fats Sugar ories from Fats and Sugars I II III IV Cents 31.7 33.9 31.2 38.4 Milli- gra »i s 13.90 16.16 17.94 20.40 Grams 90 104 109 128 Grams 1.37 1.58 1.66 1.78 Grams 0.71 0.77 0.76 0.75 Per cent 28.8 32.7 31.4 39.9 Per CCIlt 9.7 8.1 9.2 7.5 Per cent 15.9 14.5 15.9 14.3 Per cent 17.8 18.2 19.6 15.9 Per cent 10.8 8.6 7.7 5.5 Per cent 4.7 3.8 3.7 3.0 Per cent 26.7 21.8 19.1 16.7 * See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). When the dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expendi- ture for butter and sugar, the same relationship between fats and sugar and the amount of iron in the diet was apparent. In Group I, where only 7-7 per cent of the money was spent for fats and sugar there were 18.5 milli- grams of iron per man per day. In group IV, 16.4 per cent of the money was spent for fats and sugar with only 15 milligrams of iron per man per day. In many individual cases where the amount spent for fats and sugar was above the average, the iron figures were considerably below what seemed a safe allowance. It would seem then as though some of the money spent for fats and sugar might better be spent for vegetables and fruit. (For the amounts and prices of fats and sugars used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) Chart VI IRON. Relation between the. Amount of Iron in the Diet and the percentage of Calories from Fats and Sugar. (32 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron (per 3000 calories)- averaged in groups of 23) Group m Group I\ m\ 5 10 '5 Iron per Man per Day_ Milligrams s ,10 is £0 £5 Percental of Calories from Butter and Stjtfar in corresponding Groups 17 From these results it would seem as though the family dietary, at least among city people of limited means, is often relatively poor in energy and cal- cium, and sometimes also in iron or phosphorus. As the percentage expenditure for meat increases the diet tends to suffer in energy. As the relative expenditure for grain products increases, the energy is increased. Calcium seems to be dependent to a large extent on the amount of milk used, and both iron and calcium are favorably influenced by increasing the propor- tion of expenditure for vegetables and fruits. In the average diet the expen- diture for milk, vegetablts and fruit are much overbalanced by the expenditure for meat. If there were an equal expenditure for (i) meat, (2) milk, (3) fruit and vegetables, there is little doubt that the results in food value would be more favorable to a well balanced diet. In Chart VII we have reconstructed a dietary according to the suggested distribution. In each case, A represents the allowance as given on page 6 for each of the five chief food factors. B represents the amount of each corresponding food factor which this family was receiving where 49 per cent of its total food money was spent for meat, 26 per cent for grain products, 10 per cent for milk, and 7.8 per cent for vegetables. Chart W Chart to show the Increase in Food Value when the expenditure for Milk,Meat,and Vegetables and Fruit are made equal. A- Standard Allowance B- Food Value from the Original Distribution of money C-Food Value possible by Redistribution of money D- Food Value at 3000 Calories (C) CALORIES \ 1 A 1 PHOSPHORUS B LZ ZD £ H PROTEIN , 1 1 1 A I 1 1 1 bCZ 1 LZ z c | ° m CALCIUM m mm mm - -, ■:';| IRON A 1 I 1 1 A r 1 1 1 1 bLZ Zl r C | dEZ Z~j LZ ate mmm The Standard Allowances used are those given on page 6 Actual Expenditure perMaii per Da/_l 1.3 + Cost of 3000 Calories ( B) 28.0+ Cost of 3000 Calories (C) 22.3+ 18 Since they were spending only 11.3 cents for food, it is evident that they could not have been getting what they needed. Had they been spending more for milk and vegetables and less for meat, or equal amounts for these three types of food, they would, however, have been getting more food value for the same money as represented by C in Chart VII. According to the way in which they were spending the money, it would have cost them 28 cents for 3,000 calories, whereas, had they spent equal amounts for milk, meat, and vegetables, it would have cost them only 22.3 cents for the 3,000 calories. Although this dietary was somewhat extreme in the amount of money spent for food, 18 dietaries similarly reconstructed give corresponding increases in food value. As none of the five food factors here represented would have suffered in any case by this redistribution, it would seem as though the average diet would be improved so far as food value is concerned by reducing meat and increasing milk, vegetables, and fruit. The changing of food habits is a gradual process. That there is considerable room for improvement is fairly well recognized. That there has been some improvement through education and other forces is evidenced by Chart VIII. ChartM Improvement in Food Habits through Education. Actual expend- iture forMilk,Vegetablesand Fruit Compared with a Proposed Standard FVoposed Standard Percentage Expenditure for Mdk, Vegetables and Fruit A.I.C.P Actual Percentage Expenditure for Mi Ik, Vegetables and Fruit 1891-1895 Average Expenditure of 80 Families 1914-1915 Average Expenditure of 92 Families 1914 Average of 10 A 1CP Families. Influenced by a Dietitian The upper line in Chart VIII represents an expenditure for milk, vegetables, and fruit as proposed by the Relief Department of the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. The average of 80 families in 1891- 1895 shows an expenditure for these foods of only hall" what this allowance calls for. These families had a high average expenditure for meat. The average of 92 families in 1914-1915 shows a slight increase in the relative expenditure for milk, vegetables, and fruit. The average of 10 families which had been strongly influenced by the educational efforts of the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor showed a materially greater increase. 19 A SUGGESTION FOR THE COMPARISON OF FOOD VALUES Discussion of food values may seem confusing to the layman who is told that one food is valuable for certain factors, another for other factors plus some of those already given, and still another for some of those in one, some of those in the other, and has other valuable qualities in addition. If we compare the cost of each type of food with the energy and individual nutrients which it furnishes, it is difficult to decide which expenditures are more economical. Thus in Table 5 (page 9) meat and fish cost one-third of the total expenditure for food and furnished about one-third of the protein, phosphorus, and iron, but only one-sixth of the energy and about one-thirtieth of the calcium. Grain products were less than one-fifth of the cost but furnished over one-third of the energy and protein, one-fourth of the iron and phosphorus and about one- sixth of the calcium. Milk, costing less than one-tenth of the total food expenditure, furnished corresponding amounts of energy and protein but over half of the calcium and very little iron. It becomes difficult to judge the rela- tive merits of different types of food as soon as we try to consider the various factors of food value which we now know to be important Certainly one not familiar with food composition and the terminology used is likely to become confused. To assist in overcoming this confusion, it has seemed worth while to try to combine these various factors of food value in such a way that the relative values of foods may be expressed by single terms. We have endeavored to do this by means of assigning arbitrary values to each factor on the principle of a score card. In assigning these arbitrary values we have taken into considera- tion the fact that energy is the most frequent deficiency in American dietaries and that the majority of dietaries studied would furnish enough of all other factors if the energy were adequate. We have, therefore, assigned to energy a value of about half its total or combined food value. We have assigned equal values to protein,* calcium, phosphorus and iron. Since any score card has to be made arbitrarily and the results can be only indicative and relative, we have suggested two systems of scoring. The bases of the two systems are as follows: If we give to energy a value of 60 on the scale of 100, and to protein, cal- cium, phosphorus, and iron each a value of 10, the combined value ("composite valuation") of a type of food like meat and fish which in the average of 92 dietaries furnished 16.5 per cent of the energy, 36.3 per cent of the protein, 26.7 per cent of the phosphorus, 3.7 per cent of the calcium, and 31.4 per cent of the iron, would score as given under I in Table 10. If a value of 40 were assigned to the energy, and 15 to each of the other factors, meat and fish would score as given under II in Table 10. This system of weighting would give less prominence to sugar and fat, and slightly less to grain products, but place more emphasis on vegetables, milk, meat and eggs. * In reality, this amounts to giving a higher valuation to protein since this is counted both as protein and as a part of the energy as well. 20 Because of this variation in emphasis, it has seemd advisable to give the two systems of weighting throughout for purposes of comparison. Table 10. Score for meat and fish Per cent of Food Value Supplied by Meat and Fish in 92 Dietaries I II Assigned Values Points Assigned Values Points Energy 16.5 per cent 60 9.90 40 6.60 Protein 36.3 per cent 10 3.63 15 5.45 Phosphorus 26.7 per cent 10 2.67 15 4.01 Calcium 3.7 per cent 10 0.37 15 0.56 Iron 31.4 per cent 10 3.14 19.71 15 4.71 21.33 This gives us a score for the average combined food value of meat as pur- chased by 92 families. Similarly we would find milk to score 13.22 (I) or 15.78 (II), according to the values used. The relative value of meat and fish and milk may be expressed by (I) 19.7 for meat against 13.2 for milk, or (II) 21.3 for meat against 15.8 for milk. The combined food value ("composite valuation") for each type of food according to these two different values is given in Table 11. Table 11. The relative food value of the various types of food, based on the combined food value Score for the Combined Type of Food Food Value ("Composite Valuation") I II Meat and fish 19.7 21.3 Fggs 2.8 3.4 Milk (and cream 1 13.2 15.8 Cheese 1.9 2.3 Butter and other fats 6.3 4.4 Grain products 33.2 30.8 Sugar and molasses ().(. 4.5 Vegetables 11.7 13.1 Fruit 3.6 3.4 Nuts 0.2 0.2 Miscellaneous 0.8 0.8 21 These figures would seem to suggest that meat scores higher as a food than milk. While this may be true per unit of weight, it is not true per unit of cost. For every cent spent for meat we get in these studies only 0.60 (I) of a point of food value in return, whereas for every cent spent for milk we get 1.45 (I) points of food value, or 0.64 (II) for meat against 1.73 (II) for milk. The relation between cost and food value for each type of food is shown in Table 12. Table 12. To show the relative return in combined food value for an equal amount of money spent for each type of food Type of Food Cost in Per cent of Total Expenditure The Combined Food Value Divided by the Per cent of Total Expenditure. I II Per cent Points Points Meat and fish 33.2 0.60 0.64 Eggs 5.6 0.50 0.61 Milk (and cream) 9.1 1.1 1.45 1.73 1.73 Cheese 2.09 Butter and other fats 8.1 0.78 0.54 Grain products 17.9 1.85 1.72 Sugar and molasses 3.8 9.1 1.74 1.29 1.18 Vegetables 1.44 Fruit 6.0 0.4 0.60 0.50 0.57 Nuts 0.50 Miscellaneous 5.7 0.14 0.14 By comparing the composite valuation with the cost it will be seen that if either of these methods of estimating comparative values is at all valid, the money spent in these 92 families for milk and cheese, grain products and veg- etables brought a better relative return in food value and was therefore better invested than the money spent for meats and fish, eggs, and fruit. In making any such comparison, it must be kept prominently in mind (1) that the values assigned to the different factors of food value must necessarily be more or less arbitrarily chosen so that the resulting "combined value," or "score value," rests partly on facts and partly on assumptions; (2) that not all the important factors of food value are taken into account in these valuations, the "vitamine values" being wholly omitted from the calculations because as yet we have not the data necessary to permit us to give them numerical ex- pression (it is quite possible that when it becomes feasible to state the "vita- mine values" in numerical terms and give them due weight in the composite 22 valuation, the expenditures for eggs and butter may appear more economical than is indicated by the above table); (3) that the assumption that a given amount of protein, of phosphorus, of calcium, or of iron, is of the same value in whatever food found, which is certainly not true in detail, and may be very far from true in many cases; (4) that any attempt to reduce foods to a single basis for comparison necessarily tends to obscure these differences which must be kept in mind in order to give each food its proper place in a well balanced dietary. Any comparisons based on the use of such arbirtary valuations as can at present be assigned must therefore be used with much discretion if misconceptions are to be avoided; if so used, however, they may be found serviceable as a guide in the economical choice of food, and to some extent in teaching relative food values. While this method may be open to criticism, it seems much fairer to the various foods than stating the relative value in terms of calories only. Chart IX compares the two methods. In one case we have the return per unit of cost in calories and in the other case the return per unit of cost in terms of the "combined" food value ("composite valuation"). Fats and sugars occupy a much more prominent place when calories alone are considered, while milk, cheese, and vegetables rank much higher in the scale where the ash constituents are taken into consideration. ehartTX Return in Food Value for Money Spent for Food 4 Ratio between Cost and Calories Ratio between Cost and "Combined Food Value 2.0* L73 Chart X shows the relation of the food value of the chief types of food. According to the score rani method, milk ranks first as our most valuable food in proportion to cost, the grain products second, and vegetables third. When stated in terms of calorics, sugar appeared as the most valuable food in pro- portion to cost, grain products second, and butter and other fats third. In view of the lack of ash constituents in both sugar and fats and oils, comparison on the basis of calorics alone is plainly not fair to milk and vegetables. 23 Chart X Comparison Between Calories and'Combined Food Value per unit of Cost for Each of the Main Types of Food. Averageof 92 Studies. MILK-CHEESE GRAIN PRODUCTS VEOETABLES MEAT- EGGS-NUTS FRUIT CALORIES 50 /oo /50 £00 MILK-CHEESE GRAIN PRODUCTS VEGETABLES MEA.T_EGGS.NUTS FRUIT COMBINED FOOD VALUE 50 '50 £00 Individual articles of food may be calculated to a basis of combined food value in a similar manner. Thus if ioo calories be given a value of 40 on the scale of 100, and such quantities of protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron as should accompany 100 calories in an adequate economical diet be given a value of 15 each, the score for almonds might be ascertained as follows: To every 100 calories of almonds there are 3.23 grams of protein, 0.071 gram of phosphorus, 0.039 gram of calcium, and 0.0006 gram of iron. If we accept for the standard allowance* of man 75 grams of protein, 1.44 grams of phosphorus, 0.69 gram of calcium, and 15 milligrams of iron, to every iod calories of the 3,000 ordinarily taken as the requirement of a man at ordinary labor, there should be 2.5 grams of protein, 0.048 gram of phosphorus, 0.02 gram of calcium and 0.0005 gram of iron. Then to every 100 calories of almonds there is 1.3 (3.23 divided by 2.5) the amount of protein required to "balance" the energy value; 1.48 the amount of phosphorus, 1.85 the amount of calcium, and 1.2 the amount of iron. Scoring these as indicated above, we have the score value for almonds as follows: See Page 6 Assumed Values Score Points Calories (100) 40 40 Protein 1.3 x 15 19.5 Phosphorus 1.48 x 15 22.2 Calcium 1.85 x 15 27.8 Iron 1.20x15 18.0 127.5 24 Since a pound of almonds contains 16.14 100-calorie portions, then a pound of almonds has a score value of 2058 (127.5 multiplied by 16.14). Table 14 gives the score value of the common typical foods: Table 14. Score Value (Composite Valuation) per pound of some common typical foods. II II Meat — Beef, medium fat. . . . Bacon Fish — Cod, salt Salmon, canned Eggs Cheese — Cottage Hard Milk — Condensed, sweetened unsweetened Skimmed Whole Butter Cream — 10% fat 40% fat Lard Olive oil Sugar — Brown White Corn syrup Maple syrup Molasses Grain Products — Barley, pearled Bread, entire wheat graham " white " rye Cornmeal Crackers Cornflakes Cream of Wheat Farina Force Flour, graham " rye " white Hominy Macaroni Oatmeal Rice Shredded Wheat Tapioca UNO 1750 1310 930 1092 1287 4460 2005 1556 514 612 2320 869 1342 2450 2449 1630 1324 1710 1074 1341 1688 5690 2267 1955 688 761 1744 862 1150 1645 1630 1231 983 1090 725 960 800 1080 974 1978 2315 1513 1470 1325 1429 1409 1525 1098 1060 1125 1111 1444 1360 1579 1433 1270 1090 1460 1370 1418 130S 2078 2316 2001 21SS 1502 1459 1372 1257 131)1 1147 1502 1444 2245 2465 1289 1159 2028 2214 1262 1091 Vegetables — Asparagus, fresh Beans, dry, white " limas. " fresh limas " string Beets Cabbage Carrots Cauliflower Celery Corn, canned ... Cucumbers Lentils Lettuce Onions Peas, dry " fresh Parsnips Potatoes, sweet. . " white . . Radishes Rhubarb Spinach Squash Tomatoes Turnips Fruit — Apples, fresh " dry Bananas Dates Figs Grapefruit Grapes Lemons Olives Oranges Peaches, fresh Pears Pineapple Plums Prunes Raisins. . . Strawberries. Nuts Almonds Cocoa Filberts Peanuts Pecans Walnuts 279 2767 2380 363 374 246 285 278 487 256 497 125 2834 223 263 2510 400 349 399 377 161 170 576 130 162 246 368 3367 780 420 472 286 367 338 661 350 523 153 3464 299 295 2960 475 405 374 414 195 224 810 141 192 307 175 156 1075 955 254 236 1298 1240 1667 1782 167 169 286 266 199 228 1000 1004 209 228 169 177 236 228 234 253 345 337 1144 1135 1290 1235 293 355 1900 2045 2900 3231 1676 1752 2010 2078 1556 1440 798 768 25 APPENDIX Table I. Number of ounces of food used per man per day in each of four groups where 92 dietaries are divided on the basis of expenditure. Group I Group II Group III Group IV Cost per Man per Day — 19.2 Cents Cost per Man per Day — 28.2 Cents Cost per Man per Day — - 34.7 Cents Cost per Man per Day — 49.4 Cents Ounces Ounces Ounces Ounces Meat and fish — Total .... Beef Veal 6.74 2.96 0.39 0.88 0.56 0.29 1.66 0.78 0.15 7.80 7.49 0.31 0.09 0.64 7.34 2.87 0.42 0.67 1.36 0.89 1.13 1 .39 0.37 9.07 8.94 0.13 0.06 1.15 9.59 4.46 0.50 0.96 1.81 0.80 1.06 1.40 0.20 10.45 10.25 0.20 0.02 1.36 11.64 4.09 0.50 Lamb and mutton Pork Fowl and game Fish 1.64 2.12 1.69 1.60 Eggs 1.80 Cheese . 0.45 Milk— Total 14.73 Fresh 14.53 Condensed 0.20 Cream 0.63 Butter and other fats. . . . 2.42 Grain products — Total . . . Bread 11.51 9.58 11.97 7.37 14.29 8.89 14.03 7.06 Sugar 1.80 2.97 3.09 3.87 Vegetables — Total Potatoes Drv vegetables 11.78 7.80 0.30 13.01 8.11 0.41 13.97 8.04 0.33 18.07 10.58 0.36 Fruit — Total Drv fruit 2.48 0.04 0.01 0.32 5.55 0.21 0.06 0.45 8.37 0.11 0.19 0.72 11.63 0.33 Nuts 0.29 Coffee and tea 0.83 Total food — Ounces 44.10 53.39 63.65 80.49 20 APPENDIX Table II. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of meat used, and averaged in groups of 23 each. Group Amount of Meat per Man per I >ay Cost of Total Food per Man per Day Calories Cost of Total Food per 3000 Calories Amount of Meat Adjusted in Proportion to 3000 Calories Ounces Cents Cents Ounces I 5.0 24.6 2548 29.1 5.9 II 7.5 30.5 2857 31.7 7.7 III 9.5 32.8 2900 34.8 9.8 IV 13.5 44.7 3397 39.9 11.9 Table III. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of grain products used, and averaged in 4 groups. Group Amount of Grain Products per Man per Day Cost of Total Food per Man per Day Calories Cost of Total Food per 3000 Calories Amount of Grain Products Adjusted in Proportion to 3000 Calories Ounces Cents Cents Ounces I ?.9 31.6 2475 37.9 9.6 II 10.8 30.7 2556 35.1 12.7 III 13.9 33.8 3061 M.5 13.6 IV 19.2 36.5 3613 29.7 16.0 Table IV. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of milk used, and compared with the calcium. Group Amount of Milk Used per Man per Day Amount of Calcium per Man per Day Ounces Grams 1 4.11 0.473 11 8.68 OOP, III il.95 0.747 IV 19.29 1.474 27 APPENDIX Table V. To show the range of prices, the average price paid by each of four groups (92 dietaries divided on the basis of cost) and the number of families using the most common articles of food. Range of Prices per Pound Group I Spending 19.2 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid Group II Spending 28.2 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid Group III Spending 34.7 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid Group IV Spending 49.4 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used MEAT— FISH Beef, uncooked " cooked " corned " dried Brains, tripe, kidney, liver Veal, Liver Lamb — mutton Pork " cooked Bacon Salt pork Sausages Fish, fresh Canned, pickled Salt,drie:l and smoked Smoked Fowl DAIRY PRODUCTS Eggs Milk, fresh " condensed . . . , Cream CHEESE American . . Cottage. . . Cream. . . Neufchatel . Parmesan . Roquefort Swiss . FATS Butter Lard and other fats. Oil SUGAR Sugar Corn syrup Coils 12-32 36-70 10-14 34-60 8-15 16-40 10-36 10-30 23-40 20-40 15-24 15-40 4-25 10-36 9-26 18-80 15-2X 25-60* 6-1 If 10-16 10-30J 20-28 9-12 38-40 20 50 54 40-44 40 30-48 12-20 14-60 5- 8 6- 7 22 3 2 7 9 6 3 2 18 8 10 19 20 6 4 21 7 4 21 2 Cents 19.4 39.0 10, 14 13 19 18 22 27 16 16,22 8 19 16 18 28* 6t 11.5 10.5} 23 9 20 50 40 40 16 14,44 21 2 8 17 10 13 4 6 4 9 23 22 4 K) 5 4 ' 2 1 21 15 6 23 5 Cents 20 40,60 60 11 21 19^5 18.0 25.0 26 18 24 12 23 14 27 19 32* 8t 13 151 22 10 40 52 40 38 15 21,42 uiii s_y i u\j w- i t. i j *. * Price per dozen, t Price per quart. | Price per pint. 28 23 4 3 7 9 17 8 7 3 11 12 5 4 1 6 21 23 7 1 20 12 5 22 3 Cents 21 40 35 10 24 2L8 21 38 29 17 23 11 23 23 24 20 34* 8t 14 20J 29 10 39 20 50 40 39 15 22, 38 22 2 2 5 1 14 17 8 11 2 8 16 8 4 6 12 23 23 4 10 23 13 9 23 2 TABLE V.— Continued APPENDIX Range of Prices per Pound Group I Spending 19.2 Cents per Man per Day Group II Spending 28.2 Cents per Man per Day Group III Spending 34.7 Cents per Man per Day Group IV Spending 49.4 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid GRAIN PRODUCTS Barley Cents 6-10 4-10 7-16 8-50 9-40 15-25 3-10 5-12 4- 6 6-20 5-12 6-10 5-10 6-15 5-10 2- 4 1- 5 2-10 5-22 6-12 7- 9 5-40 1- 8 5-17 6-12 3-12 2- 5 1- 4 2-10 4-15 2-20 2- 5 1-12 3- 8 10-13 10-20 15-20 4-28 4-10 18-30 10-20 7 19 19 5 4 4 13 8 6 14 12 2 2 12 3 3 3 14 I 1 2 23 2 8 10 5 11 5 2 5 Cents 8 5 9 17 22 8 4.4 8 6 8 9 6,9 2 2 3 8 15 2.1 8 8 2 1.6 7. 10 5 4 2 2.6 4 24 10 3 19 12 12 8 3 3 4 18 6 6 12 8 2 4 4 5 2 3 1 7 19 3 3 1 6 23 3 7 6 3 13 11 2 1 1 3 3 8 L'nits 8 6 11 15 12 25 3 10 4.4 10 5 9 8 8 2.7 2.7 2.6 5 10 7 15 3 8 8.6 3 2.5 1.5 4 8 5 2 2.7 5.5 10, 13 10 20 8 24 12 8 22 11 12 13 3 2 2 16 9 13 11 5 2 3 4 7 3 4 6 1 7 10 6 4 1 4 22 5 13 5 2 17 6 1 2 3 3 2 Cents 8 6 9 14 10 15 3 9 4.6 10 7 9 8 7,8 6 2.6 3 4 11 9 9 15 2.5 8.5 8.0 7 3 2 8 6 8 2.5,5 2.9 4 10 4, 5 7 18 12 2 22 15 21 10 5 6 6 21 11 14 16 16 4 3 6 11 10 9 8 1 13 13 6 3 2 9 23 2 11 5 4 18 11 3 2 2 5 5 5 5 Cents 9 Bread, white 7 Rolls 9 Cake and cookies Crackers 16 16 Cornflakes 19 Cornmeal . . .... 6 Farina 9 Flour 4 Macaroni 10 Oatmeal . . .... 7 Rice .... 8 VEGETABLES Beans, dry . . .... 8 " fresh 12 " string .... 7 Beets 2.5 Cabbage ... .... 3 Carrots 3 Celery 11 Corn, canned . .... 10 Lentils 7 Lettuce . . .... 18 Onions 5 Peas, canned 12 " dried ... .... 8 " fresh . . .... 6, 12 Potatoes, sweet " white Spinach 3 2 5,7 Tomatoes, canned fresh Turnips . . .... 7 9 2.5 FRUIT Apples 6 Bananas . . .... 6 Currants, dry 10 Dates. . . 20 Figs 15,20 Grapes 14 Grapefruit 6 Jam 25 Jelly 15 29 APPENDIX TABLE V.— Continued Range of Prices per Pound Group I Spending 19.2 Cents per Man per Day Group II Spending 28.2 Cents per Man per Day Group III Spending 34.7 Cents per Man per Day Group IV Spending 49.4 Cents per Man per Day No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid No. of Times Used Aver- age Price Paid FRUIT— Continued Cents 3-25 8-16 6-16 4-25 5- 8 10-16 16 20 18-24 20-80 20-45 20-80 2 1 3 5 1 2 4 15 15 Cents 3, 6 8 8 5 8 12,16 27 26 36 13 2 2 3 1 6 4 14 19 15 Cents 8 8 6,8 6 5 12 24 il 27 44 12 3 4 4 1 3 1 7 18 15 Cents 8 12 7 5 6 12 16 42 29 45 17 5 ' 4 2 8 3 7 14 21 20 Cents 7 Peaches, canned " fresh 9.5 7 5, 25 Raisins 14 NUTS Filberts Peanuts 20 Walnuts 22 Cocoa and chocolate Coffee 35 30 52 Table VI. — Percentage composition of foods analyzed in connection with the dietary study and metabolism experiments. (Figures given are on edible portion.) Pro- Carbo- hy- Mois- tein Fat drate Total CaO Ca Po0 3 P Fe ture (Nx 6.25) (By Differ- ence) Ash MEAT Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Beef, lean, round cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent (free from visi- ble fat) 20.55 0.015 0.011 0.443 0.193 Beef liver 67.87 20.84 4.74 1.13 0.008 0.006 0.927 0.405 Fowl 75.04 68.40 21.46 18.85 3.00 4.57 0.96 7.35 0.029 0.043 0.021 0.031 0.473 0.385 0.207 0.168 Ham, smoked. . . . Mutton chops. . . . 74.90 19.31 4.38 1.17 0.023 0.016 0.547 0.239 FISH Blue 77.34 80.67 20.45 18.22 0.70 0.15 0.34 1.11 1.12 0.032 0.014 0.023 0.010 0.483 0.465 0.211 0.203 Cod, fresh Halibut .0007 Herring, fresh. . . . .0016 Mackerel 66.91 20.34 12.45 1.35 0.015 0.011 0.692 0.302 ■M) APPENDIX TABLE VI.— Continued Carbo- Pro- hy- Mois- tein (Irate Total ture (Nx 6.25) Fat (By Differ ence) Ash Ca( ) Ca p»o 6 P Fe Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per FISH cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent (Continued) Perch .0014 Porgies 79.10 59.12 18.25 23.20 1.74 16.23 1.26 1.93 0.076 0.019 0.054 0.014 0.536 0.531 0.234 0.232 Salmon, canned . . " fresh. . . . 69.94 20.90 7.86 0.21 1.09 0.023 0.010 0.589 0.257 Tuna, canned. . . . 60.67 26.60 11.35 2.16 0.009 0.006 0.831 0.363 White, smoked. . 68.20 20.86 7.30 3.70 0.031 0.022 0.027 0.274 Lobster, canned. 0.000 0.069 Oysters .0081 CHEESE American 28.32 1.184 0.846 1.592 0.608 0013 Cottage . . 72.68 24.85 21.34 34.86 0.4S 2S., so 4.22 5.48 1.28 5.95 0.140 1.540 0.100 1.101 0.747 2.001 0.326 0.874 Parmesan Swiss 29.93 30.85 31.05 2.87 4.40 1.520 1.086 1.860 0.812 .0012 DAIRY PRODUCTS Milk 3.11 0.166 0.144 0.119 0.082 0.213 0.093 Cream (31% fat) Butter 0.50 0.019 0.014 0.040 0.018 GRAIN PRODUCTS Bread, Boston brown 30.85 5.97 0.20 53.98 2.92 0.180 0.129 0.405 0.205 Bread, Graham.. . .0003 " entire 0.045 0.052 wheat 32.44 8.72 0.28 50.50 2.00 0.033 0.024 0.55S 0.148 Bread, rye " white 0.22 0.020 0.021 0.201 0.0S8 Bran .0114 Buckwheat 0.055 0.231 .0011 Cornflakes 0.112 0.040 Cornstarch 12.20 0.47 0.41 86.72 0.20 0.025 0.018 0.133 0.058 Cream of Wheat. 10.90 11.84 1.12 75.78 0.50 0.050 0.021 0.355 0.155 .0008 Farina 9.64 11.34 1.23 0.286 0.125 .0008 Flour, graham. 0.057 0.041 0.833 0.364 .0036 " rye 12.47 11.03 1.72 0.055 0.025 0.590 0.258 .0011 white ... .0007 " entire wheat 0.707 0.309 .0035 Force 5.95 0.01 1.13 81.32 2.00 0.856 0.374 Macaroni 11.18 12.07 0.04 74.82 0.09 0.030 0.022 0.344 0.150 .0011 Pretzels 10.29 10.07 11.12 0.37 73.51 4.80 0.058 0.041 0.409 0.740 0.205 0.323 Shredded Wheat. .0042 Tapioca — sago . . . 11.00 0.20 6.23 S7.71 6.26 0.024 0.017 0.207 0.090 .0016 Wafers — cheese. . . 7.05 14.90 12.20 05.25 2.00 0.474 f 0.550* 0.720 0.314 Fig Newtons 11.50 4.16 4.00 78.47 1.18 0.1121 0.0801 0.254 0.111 Social Teas 5.00 0.50 0.04 76.87 1.05 0.362 0.158 * Calculated from the protein in cheese and crackers, t Calculated from the protein in figs and crackers. Hi APPENDIX TABLE VL— Continued SUGAR Sugar, brown (mo- lasses) Corn syrup Maple syrup MOLASSES Barbadoes New Orleans Porto Rican VEGETABLES Artichokes, French Beans, dry, lima " fresh, string Brussels sprouts. Carrots Cauliflower Cucumbers Egg plant Kohlrabi Parsnips Peas, dry Peppers, green . . Potatoes, sweet.. Rhubarb Tomatoes Mois- ture Per cent 4.90 82.80 93.04 94.20 FRUIT Apples Bananas Grapefruit Grape juice, I. . . " II.. Grapes, Tokay*. " Concord* Orange juice JELLY (Commercial) Currant Strawberry NUTS Almonds f Peanuts Peanut butter. . . Pecans MISCEL- LANEOUS Coffee infusion. Gelatine 79.90 6.11 Pro- tein (Nx 6.25) Per cent 0.20 Fat 3.44 1.03 24.56 0.73 0.19 0.43 0.28 0.62 29.81 11.28 0.12 Per cent 0.51 0.11 0.10 0.07 70.62 Carbo- hy- drate (By Differ- ence) Total Ash Per cent 93.50 11.97 Per cent 1.40 CaO 1.28 5.34 4.59 0.49 0.38 10.37 1.62 Per cent 0.107 0.072 0.156 0.043 0.520 0.730 0.057 0.085 0.044 0.016 0.076 0.008 0.009 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.020 0.018 0.300 0.060 0.121 0.002 0.350 Ca Per cent 0.076 0.051 P«0 E Per Per cent ' cent 0.085 0.025 0.112 0.002 0.245 0.372 0.522 0.041 0.061 0.031 0.011 0.054 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.013 0.214 0.043 0.086 0.001 0.250 0.114 0.128 0.127 0.228 0.037 0.011 0.001 0.050 0.056 0.055 0.100 Fe Per cent 0.260 0.114 0.078 0.874 0.060 0.025 0.028 0.020 0.045 0.019 0.018 1.071 0.825 0.820 0.767 0.034 0.382 0.026 0.011 0.012 0.009 0.020 0.008 0.008 0.468 0.360 0.358 0.335 0.007 0.003 .0015 .0010 .0003 .0006 .0002 .0005 .0006 .0006 .0004 .0005 .0010 .0004 .0003 .0005 .0002 .0004 .0002 .0055 .0026 * Tokay grapes analyzed with skins; Concord without skins, t Almonds were not blanched. 32 Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, 105 East 22nd Street, New York City, at 25 cents per copy.