Mark Bittman’s blog recently featured a bar chart (we love those graphs!) comparing consumer spending in 2007 on “candy, snacks, soft drinks, and water” to “fresh produce.” Surprise: The cost of buying all the junk wasn’t much more than that of the fresh stuff.
Sift | |
| Here’s where we sort and report the latest in food news. | |
Want more? Comb the archives.
| | The promise of a tiny orchardMeet the cherriesA bumper crop keeps Joan on her toes. |
Cookbook FridaysT.G.I.F. for cooks: book giveaways | Ask HankRemoving pin bonesYour guests will appreciate salmon sans bones |
FeaturesKitchen experimentsA live chat focusing on science in the kitchen | Table TalkTable Talk: July 9Food and the cinema |
There is 1 comment on this item
Add a comment
1. by SeattleCB on Oct 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM PDT
I think the point made by many folks who commented on the original post is that the bar graph example is far too broad and general to be taken seriously. While I kinda fall in the category of saying “whew!” when I first glanced at it (the post on Bittman and the graph) on second thought it needs more clarification to be soundly accepted as being remotely helpful. For instance, one reader posted a comment that (and I paraphrase) he ‘purchases a bag of leafy greens and one fine chocolate bar at the grocery each week - cost is approximately equal - but the cost doesn’t reflect that he eats very well.’
Additional information would be helpful before jumping to conclusions. Cost per pound would be one form of analysis. And even breakouts as to what constitutes the category. For instance, if you take a look at the average grocery store the fresh produce and frozen vegetable shelf space is usually more than associated with the cookie and soft drink aisle.
But one must also figure in all of the candy and soft drinks sold at convenience stores and machines - to the best of my knowledge there aren’t any “veggie machines” in the office canteen.
and
Add a comment