Priceless

Just a bit of light chit-chat. About value.

Recently at the grocery store, I overheard a conversation about how food prices had gone up. A lady and a gent were discussing it between the cookie and the vegetable sections. It was quite a lively discussion. How the farmers and the grocery stores have to find a balance between rising costs and not driving customers away. And, of course, how it was not easy for the customers either, because they had to put food on the table at home.

So I chimed in: “You know, some time ago we decided to go by the nutritional value per unit, not by the prices per quantities.”

The lady said: “Sounds interesting, how do you do that?”

“When you buy food, you buy to maximize the nutritional value per unit. And then you look at the price and decide which products have the best ratio. That way we can afford foods that might be expensive at first glance, but are actually very worth their cost when you take a second look at the labels with the nutritional information on the back.”

“I never thought of it that way,” and the gentleman summed it up, “so when I buy something that is cheap but has very little nutritional value, I am actually buying very expensive foods.” With a grin, he added, “Sort of like a luxury good.”

“But that includes foods that are basically just made of ordinary sugars and fats,” the lady observed.

“True,” I agreed, “that’s another angle. And a very important one.”

Our fellow panel member still had his doubts: “I know what you mean, but somehow I feel that my family will be a little reluctant if I suggest this. At least.”

“Yes, well. We made this decision during some pretty difficult times and with a limited budget. It wasn’t easy, but in our case it was a tough choice between health and staying in the comfort zone,” I explained. “And to be honest, it took some family members longer than others to get on board with the new idea. Especially those who consider chocolate a major food group.”

She laughed and nodded, “I can imagine.”

“I never thought of it that way,” and the gentleman summed it up, “so when I buy something that is cheap but has very little nutritional value, I am actually buying very expensive foods.” With a grin, he added, “Sort of like a luxury good.”

Side Notes:

• To make this a little less abstract, let me give you an example
  A) Our favorite cookies (organic) from the store have about 25% fat (about half of which is saturated = 13%) and about 60% carbohydrates, half of which are sugars (= 30%, the added sugars are cane sugar). They have 5% protein and half a percent salt. They also have fiber, I’m sure, because they’re partially made from oatmeal, but that’s not listed. They also have a little over 500 calories per 100g.
  B) 100g of millet (the main ingredient in my standard breakfast) contains about 4% fat (a quarter of which is saturated = 1%) and 70% carbohydrates. Less than 2% of these carbohydrates are natural sugars. The fiber content is about 4%. Millet also contains about 9 milligrams of iron. Which is more than twice as much as spinach per 100g. And the calorie count is just over 350.
  I could also mention that the packet prices of the two foods mentioned above are actually about the same (180g of biscuits versus 500g of millet). And that the packet of millet will last me for about 10 days of breakfasts, while the packet of biscuits will be lucky to survive one teatime. And if you look at the price per kilo, the cookies are three times as ‘luxurious’ as the millet, even if you take into account the extra cost of water and energy needed to cook the millet.
• If you are interested in the recipe for my standard breakfast, see [Hoppidge on Tour]. Also very interesting is the information about the ‘Year of the Millet’, declared for 2023 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, on the [InfoByteSized] page (under ‘M’ for millet).
• I ate two cookies from the package after writing this post. Which makes it even more valuable 😉