352 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



been constructed on the basis of about 13 per cent, protein calories, to 

 be on the safe side. 



It would be most desirable, therefore, if the label on packages of 

 manufactured foods were required to give also the content of protein in 

 addition to the total energy value. This might be done in the case of 

 oatmeal as follows : " This parcel is guaranteed to contain 2,000 calories 

 of heat-value, of which 14 per cent, is in the form of protein," or, in 

 the case of milk, " 700 total calories, 16 per cent, protein calories." 

 Naturally the milk would not yield 700 calories to the bottle unless it 

 were high in cream. The relation of total calories to protein calories 

 might also be expressed in the form of a ratio. 



A law requiring the correct labeling of foods with reference to the 

 energy content and protein content should result in a wholesome compe- 

 tition among producers and manufacturers to improve the actual food 

 value and therefore their real economic value. At present the compe- 

 tition runs along the line of the appearance of food and mere flavor, 

 which, although desirable, are not the most necessary qualities to be 

 considered in the provisioning of our people. Coal and other forms of 

 fuel for our boilers and automobiles we must take as we find them in the 

 earth. The only way in which we can improve their quality is by 

 refinement, which costs nearly as much as we gain. But in the matter 

 of fuels for our bodies there are immense possibilities of improvement 

 without increasing the cost a particle. The fuel value of a food crop 

 depends upon the power of the plant to utilize primarily the carbon 

 dioxide of the air and the water of the soil in the formation of sugars, 

 starches and oils. Under the stimulus of the sunlight the energy of 

 the sun is stored up in roots, grains, etc., and is not lost until the food 

 is burned in the animal body. So long as air and water and sunlight 

 cost nothing an improved variety of corn or wheat or oats or rice which 

 would yield more energy should be produced as cheaply as those we are 

 now living upon, except for the extra thought and work of selection 

 which might be involved. But the stimulus to produce more for the 

 money for the sake of larger sales is exactly the sort of stimulus we 

 want the food manufacturer to have. 



A standard of purity in this sense ought to have the effect also of 

 emphasizing the expensiveness of animal food as a source of energy as 

 compared with vegetable food. For when the corn grown in one field 

 is fed to an ox in another the ox dissipates fully nine tenths of the 

 energy walking about the field and stores in his body for our use as 

 food only the other one tenth. Hence to get our full energy require- 

 ment in the form of beef even the cheapest cuts would cost us at least 

 ten times as much as it would if we ate the corn meal. This is assum- 

 ing that the cost of preparing the two kinds of food for the market, 

 and finally for the table, is the same. The illustration is used only for 



