Food, glorious fo--, wait, what ARE all these ingredients?
re: "Food is vastly cheaper than it used to be and food only makes up 13% or so of the family budget these days as opposed to 40% in 1900." Respectfully suggest that more of the food in 1900 was "real". Sure, we have made great strides in sanitation and ensuring some sort of purity of the ingredients used, and we have economies of production scale not available then, but a loaf of bread in 1900 had four or five ingredients (water, flour, yeast, salt, sugar) whereas now the average grocery store loaf has a long list of polysyllabic words. Many of these ingredients are of value (added vitamins and minerals) but many are, I suspect, cheap replacements/ filler to compensate low quality main ingredients. Would this be more or less healthy (per gram of product, per dollar spent) than a 1900s loaf? Back to the cost comparison, are the above figures comparing a relatively "real" diet today versus a typically preservative/ filler/ additive- free diet in 1900s? If not, do we have any ideas what it would cost today to have a diet comparable to that of the 1900s?
Beer = liquid bread.