LUXURY MEALS

Waikato Independent, Volume XL, Issue 3761, 23 September 1940, Page 3

LUXURY MEALS

EXPENSIVE EATING NOT WRONG AN ECONOMIST'S VIEW Mr Reginald Lennard, Reader in Economic History in the University of Oxford, and a former member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, writes to the "Sunday Times" as follows: A recent statement by the Minister of Food and the declaration of the National Executive of the Labour Party have raised the question of luxurious feeding. In war-time luxury has an ugly sound; and the very idea of spending more than one need on food seems shocking. But sentiment is a poor guide in" economic affairs. In war, as well as in peace, there is more in economy than, mere curtailment of expenditure; and in war it is especially important to understand the difference between that which spares our own purses and that which spells economy of national resources. We economise the national food resources by eating little, not by eating what is cheap. If rich peo-

pie abstain from those foodstuffs which only rich people can afford, such food-stuffs may be wasted. Roast swan, . venison, lampreys, crayfish, oysters are luxurious diet; but sound economy requires that more use than ever should be made of these home products. In general the new rule which forbids hotels and restaurants to serve more than one course of fish or meat is probably sound, for a change of courses stimulates appetite and leads people to eat more. But some modification of the order, exempting certain articles of food from the rule, seems desirable, for otherwise there may be an undue concentration of demand upon the more solid viands and upon eggs as the material of supplementary dishes. People will eat less meat if they can have prawns or whitebait at the same meal; but there is a danger of prawns and whitebait being wasted if their consumption bars one from beef or even from brains or sweetbreads. Think First The general principles of food economy are clear. Land and labour and shipping should be used to produce the • maximum return in food values ,and these food values should be distributed according to needs. But what that means in concrete detail cannot be determined by

unreflecting sentiment. For example, there is prima facie a case against imported luxuries; but. it is not impossible that shipping might be saved by importing expensive foods from a nearby source of supply rather than cheap foods from a distance; and if imported luxury foods are already here, they ought certainly to be consumed and not wasted. Again, there is a good case against eating spring chickens and ducklings before they have grown to maturity, but the need of economy in regard to the cereals on which poultry are fed has to be borne in mind, and sound economy may well have to' distinguish between ducks and chickens, because ducks get a good deal of their food for themselves from ponds and streams.