1926 Tips for Figuring Out Whether Large or Small Oranges and Other Foods Are Cheaper
Source: Good Housekeeping (April, 1926)
Groceries are so expensive, and it’s often difficult to figure out which sizes and varieties of fruits and vegetables and other produce are least expensive. For example, if large oranges cost $1.75 per pound and a 3-pound bag of small oranges costs $5.99, I can easily figure out which has a lower cost for 3 pounds. But, it’s much harder to figure out which has more waste, and which ultimately is less expensive. Will there be more waste with small oranges than large ones? Which has a thicker skin? How will the serving size differ? Will I eat one orange at lunch regardless of its size, or might I eat two small ones (but only one large one)? If I want to juice the oranges, are the small ones or the large ones juicer?
People have grappled with these types of questions for at least a hundred years. Here’s what it said in a 1926 magazine article:
How much do you pay for the food you eat? Not for the food you buy, but for the food you actually eat. You are, of course aware that many foods as purchased, have more or less waste material that is discarded when food is prepared in the kitchen or when served at the table. In either case, this wasted material finds its way to the garbage can and contributes no food value to the daily meals. It follows, then, that the market price of any food having wasted material does not represent the actual cost of the food to us. . . .
We find that the waste portion of any one fruit or vegetable may vary widely according to size and other factors. . . . [Large oranges] had a large percentage of juice, but the price was high for the quality of juice. We found this order to vary somewhat according to the price of the oranges in other stores. You may also find variation with the prices of oranges in your market. Therefore, if you buy oranges of different sizes and observe the quantity of juice from these various sizes, you may find a particular size most economical for you. . .
We found that small potatoes have a greater percentage of waste than large ones and take half as long again to pare. Cooking the small potatoes in the skin, of course, shortened their time in preparation. . . .
We found shelled walnuts actually cheaper than those bought in the shell, but in the case of all other nuts, the shelled were more expensive, not taking into account, of course the time it takes to shell the nuts.
2 thoughts on “1926 Tips for Figuring Out Whether Large or Small Oranges and Other Foods Are Cheaper”
It is interesting that people in general have comeback to this idea. For a long time, it seemed most people didn’t care about food waste since food was so cheap. With prices rising, they do care again. Food waste is a more prominent concern. My grandmothers and mother were careful not to waste food since they grew so much of it. They didn’t want to waste their hard work. They wanted to get the best value from their food purchases, since buying food was considered expensive. My sisters and I were taught this as well.
It is interesting that people in general have comeback to this idea. For a long time, it seemed most people didn’t care about food waste since food was so cheap. With prices rising, they do care again. Food waste is a more prominent concern. My grandmothers and mother were careful not to waste food since they grew so much of it. They didn’t want to waste their hard work. They wanted to get the best value from their food purchases, since buying food was considered expensive. My sisters and I were taught this as well.
It makes a lot of sense (cents).