Scientific American Supplement, No. 1082, September 26, 1896

by Various

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.