Cheap vs. expensive food, which one wins?

Hi- I just ran across this article yesterday in the latest issue of Time, and I thought some people might be interested in it. One of the things that I found surprising, was that only foodies could tell the difference between EVOO and cheap olive oil, and so you should save your money, and just buy the cheap stuff. Any thoughts on the list?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/21/c ... check-out/

BTW- Their cover article is by Dr. Oz this week. He talks about what food is nutritious. I tried to post the link to that article, but you have to be a Time subscriber to access it on line. The cheap vs. expensive article is not written by Dr. Oz. Hope this helps, Nancy

Depending on what would be considered a pro chef, I find it surprising that their panel of judges could not tell the difference between extra virgin and cheap, regular, olive oil. I wouldn't consider myself a pro, but i can tell. I may not be able to decipher between cheap evoo, and expensive evoo though.

Also, cheap vs expensive is not always about flavor. For me, it is generally about added chemicals vs no added chemicals.

The article is prolly a good primer for people who may need to be told what their viewpoint should be.

Hi- Actually I looked at the article again, and it said foodie and not professional chef. So much of the olive oil is adulterated, and most of the really cheap stuff is, and is not 100% olive oil. A lot of companies cheat and mix cheaper oils in with the olive oil. A few years ago I read that somebody in the business, wondered why a lot of people could afford to sell their olive oil so much cheaper than he could. He had a bunch of cheaper brands tested, and I believe found that 80% of the super cheap olive oil that he tested was mixed with other cheaper oils.

Another thing about the article I don't agree with is honey. The author says that regular honey is just as good as raw honey. I don't agree with that. The person that we used to rent bees from to use for pollination on the farm for years, had a honey that he wholesaled, that was acquired from hives which had spent time out in the blueberry fields, and so the honey had a mild blueberry taste too it. We used to sell the honey at our fruit stand, and I loved the stuff. Unfortunately, Lavalle died 20 years ago, and so the honey is no longer available, and we now sell honey from the House of David I believe.

Thanks, Nancy

Hi- There are ten different food items they compare, including milk, eggs, honey, olive oil, chocolate, tuna, peanut butter and three other ones that I forget. They compare canned tuna fish to fresh, and consider it a draw. There is no way that canned tune fish is as good as fresh tune. The majority of the stuff they compare, they say that it is not worth your while to spend money on the more expensive product, such as free range eggs and organic milk. It is not organic, but I can definately tell the difference between Oberweis milk and conventional store brand milk. Hope this helps, Nancy

Kind of a sad article. Doesn't look like they did much digging on the complexities here such as quantified differences between honeys, the issue of adulteration, contamination or much else. Chickens get an animal welfare nod, but not cows. Not feeling tempted to subscribe to the Trib...

The article appears to concentrate on nutrient value rather than flavor. You don't need to be a foodie to be able taste the difference side by side. In anything, it depends on what you're using a product for. For example, few people can tell the difference between real vanilla and artificial in many kinds of baked goods, but in ice cream the difference is more apparent.

Similarly, if you're making salad dressing with a whole lot of ingredients in it, it probably doesn't matter what kind of oil you use; canola will be fine. As reported in another thread, I found good, fruity olive oil in fact made less than stellar mayonnaise -- but if I'm making a simple vinaigrette, I want topnotch evoo.

With honey, it makes a lot of difference. Aside from the fact that different honeys taste different, much cheap honey is not, in fact, legally "honey." It's often ultra-filtered, which removes the pollen, making it impossible to trace its origins and eliminating some protein and trace elements, making it less nutritious. Such "honey" may be imported from China and can be tainted with illegal antibiotics and heavy metals.

Their mustard comparison is just silly. For some things you want yellow mustard and for others whole-grain Dijon. Yellow is what I want on a hot dog. It would not work in a recipe for mustard-glazed fish.

You need to evaluate what you're doing with the product and what it's most important characteristics are. The differences between prime and choice beef is apparent to most people in grilled steaks, but it's a waste of money to buy prime for pot roast. It is true that organic foods have no more nutrient value than non-organic; it's what else might be in non-organic foods that concern those people who pay the premium for organics.

mgmcewen, the article was in Time, not the Tribune.

I read the article today too and I think they were focusing on nutritional content of food, saying that in many cases the ordinary and cheaper food you can buy at a market is just as good nutrient wise as something more expensive and free range, fresh, "gourmet" or organic. A key point is that the nutrient value of frozen and even canned fruits and vegetables are mostly retained and in many cases are more cost effective than fresh, even though fresh may taste better. I think their food comparisons were okay but canned tuna is not a substitute for fresh in my mind. Canned tuna is to make sandwiches....tuna salad. Also yellow mustard is not a substitute for brown.