Man about the House

News yesterday that organic produce is no better for us nutritionally than non-organic, and to some extent have always believed this. Plants make their own vitamins, and how they are grown makes little difference there, it is the minerals they take from the soil. Someone made the case that organics have more vitamins and minerals so need not work out more costly as we would then eat less of them. Personally, if I use a carrot per person in a dish being made, then would still use the same amount. Call it habit, or lack of common sense, but serving the weight of food as suggested (by this I mean the total weight, maybe more of some, less of another) seems to give the correct serving and have not noticed that recipes using organic foods suggest using less of them. Serving less food is not a bad thing considering how obese the nation is getting, but how many of us would think about reducing the amount of fruit and vegetables we eat when we are urged to eat even more.

My hairdresser was telling me that now her son has left home, her meals are smaller. Cereals for breakfast, maybe a sarnie for lunch, and a ready-meal for supper. She is trying to lose weight. Yet her food bills remain high. I asked if she eats more fruit and veg, and she said she does. It seems this is where the money is going. She also says she doesn't spend time in the supermarket searching out offers. She knows what she want to buy then just gets in and out of the store as quickly as possible, so we had a good chat about the 'challenges' that I set myself and how they do seem to work when it comes to cost-cutting. Also told her about the 4p cans of curry sauce (remember those?) and bargains that can be found when searched for.
What it all boils down to is to give a little bit more thought when we shop, and take time to look at everything the store has to offer. Write a list by all means, but don't stick to it if something else is at a lower price (meat is meat is meat, it doesn't HAVE to be a lamb chop).