Time was, not that long ago, when Clif and I ate out on a regular basis. During the week, I cooked dinner, but on the weekends we would eat out at least twice and sometimes more. We did this for a variety of reasons. As a food writer, I liked to check out various restaurants, and even though we limited our culinary adventures to an hour or so from Winthrop, Portland was included in our food travels. We would eat out socially, with friends and family. Finally, we ate out for the sheer fun of it.

But then the Great Recession happened. The salary went down, and the cost of food and fuel went up. Suddenly, it seemed that lunch prices had jumped to dinner prices, and dinner prices had correspondingly increased. In Maine, before the Great Recession, lunch was always well under $10, even in decent restaurants. Now, $12 and $15 are the norm. This means that lunch, including a soft drink and a tip, can easily come to a third and sometimes even half of our weekly grocery budget. (I do realize that fast-food restaurants such as McDonald’s or Burger King are significantly cheaper, but the food is of such poor quality that it still feels like a waste of money to eat at one of those chains.)

So we had to ask ourselves, is the price of going out to eat worth it? With some reluctance—we did enjoy eating out—we had to concluded it was not worth the money to eat in restaurants, and we have cut way, way back. While I am not a great chef, I am a decent home cook, and the meals I prepare are tasty, nutritious, and much, much less expensive than even lunch at a restaurant. Pasta dishes, soup, bean dishes, chicken in a Crock-Pot—I vary our meals so that in any given month there aren’t many repeats.

Nowadays, when I cook, I always plan on having leftovers, which means I only actually cook a few meals each week. (Thanks, Shari Burke, for encouraging this!) This week, for example, I had leftover cranberry chutney from a potluck at the home of our friends Margy and Steve. On Sunday, I put four large chicken breasts in a Crock-Pot, smeared the leftover chutney on the chicken, and let it all cook on high for about four hours. I served this with rice and corn, and there was plenty of leftover chicken and a tangy sauce from the drippings and chutney. The next night, we had wraps using the rice, some of the chicken, and the sauce. Still, there was enough for another meal, but on the third day, for variation, I made a pasta dish with broccoli, garlic, oregano, red peppers, chicken sausage, and a lovely lemon olive oil. Naturally, I made enough of the pasta dish for leftovers.

Occasionally, perhaps twice a month, we still do eat out. Most of the time it is when we meet friends, and we keep it inexpensive by going to a pizza place or to a Mexican restaurant, where we reluctantly pass on the Margaritas.

Would we eat out more if our budget suddenly increased? Perhaps a little, but only once a week because there is one other very good reason to eat mostly at home—the health benefits of home-cooked meals. From portion size to ingredients to the amount of salt I use, very few restaurants can match, health wise, what I cook from scratch.

So from now on, at home we will mostly eat, regardless of our salary.

Today in the New York Times, I read a piece by Mark Bittman in which he wrote about the correlation between money and food. “With a lack of money comes either not enough food or so-called empty calories, calories that put on pounds but do not nourish.” No argument there. Healthy food does indeed cost more than junk food, and if the intent is to buy as many calories as possible when the budget is tight, then that huge bag of store-brand potato chips certainly fits the bill.

The fact that good, healthy food is so abundant in the United States makes the situation even worse. Bittman continues, “In fact, it’s hard to imagine having a food supply as abundant as ours and doing a worse job with it.” Again, no argument. The United States is the land of plenty. Why should good food be out of reach for so many people?

In his piece, Bittman also writes about social justice, the marketing of junk food, and the lack of emphasis on food education. Bittman concludes that what this country needs is a national food and health policy, “one that sets goals first for healthful eating and only then determines how best to produce the food that will allow us to meet those goals.”

As I read Bittman’s article, two questions came to mind. The first, which I have written about in other posts, is this: Why was obesity the exception rather than the rule when I was growing up in the 1960s? I realize that my neighborhood in North Vassalboro can hardly be considered a broad sample of the times, but there was only one obese family on the road where I lived. Most everyone else was in pretty good shape. And here’s the thing: While gardens and home-cooked meals were the norm, we did not hold back with salty snacks and sweets. As I noted in a previous post, we ate sugary food with a gusto that would have made Shakespeare’s Falstaff proud.

We did play outside a lot—children, all the time, and adults when their work allowed. Could this be the difference? Could eating out also be a factor? Families today eat out much more than they did when I was child. Perhaps today’s families really do take in more calories than families did in the 1960s, despite the abundance of  salty snacks and sugary sweets available to us back then.

Anyway, I don’t have an answer to this one. Only the question.

The second question is even more complicated than the first and needs a bit of a backstory. We evolved on the savannahs of Africa where salt, sugar, and fat were very hard to come by. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have also evolved to crave salt, sugar, and fat. But the problem is that we no longer live on the savannahs. To borrow from another writer—I can’t remember her name—we now live in Candy Land where there are many, many temptations.

And this not just a problem in the United States. As wealth increases in countries such as China and India, so does obesity. Overeating is a human problem, not a Western problem. So how do we combat that? How do we overcome our natural tendency to gorge on fats and sweets? (For myself, I have developed a regimen where I eat healthy, low-calorie foods six days a week and splurge on the seventh. This approach helps, and I am more or less maintaining a healthy weight. )

Even though I don’t really have any answers, I feel as though these two questions must be asked: Why wasn’t obesity such a problem in the 1960s, and how can we deal with the natural tendency to gorge on salt and sweets?

And just for fun, we can throw in a third question: How does money and status affect obesity?

If we can address those questions, then we will go a long way toward addressing the problem of obesity.

Recently in the Portland Press Herald, there was an excellent piece about Jim and Nancy Pike, two Maine senior citizens who are struggling to stay afloat on their social security benefits, which come to about $15,000 a year. Normally, I would feature this on Friday, the day I reserve for posting interesting links, but the couple’s story was so compelling, so much a sign of our times, that I thought it deserved a post all on its own.

According to Gillian Graham’s article, Jim and Nancy Pike, who are 65 and 77 respectively, have worked hard at various jobs. She had a child daycare in her home for 30 years. He cut wood, took care of other people’s properties, and drove a truck for Meals on Wheels. They grew their own vegetables, cooked their own meals, made their own bread, and raised a big family. Nancy “worked until she was 59 and was forced to stop after she was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.” Jim’s last job was as a handyman at a motel, and between what he earned and what Nancy received from Social Security, they were able to make ends meet. But then Jim had a heart attack and a stroke, and he was unable to work.

So now they have joined the ranks of food insecure seniors. As Nancy puts it in the article, “We’re broke before the end of the month.” Because the Pikes are at the poverty line, they do qualify for $66 a month in food stamps and are eligible for other programs, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program for low-income seniors. (The latter is a federal program.) The Pikes also go to their local food pantry. She clips coupons, they shop the sales, and they don’t buy processed food. They get by, but just barely.

Naturally, my heart goes out to the Pikes, who must live on such a small amount of money. But what really floors me is the cuts Congress made in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program for low-income seniors. (Fortunately, the Pikes are still enrolled in this program.) In 2013, the program was reduced by nearly $5.2 million. This meant that 35 Mainers had to be cut from the program, and the year before 60 people were cut. Not surprisingly, there is a waiting list of 1,200 for this program.

How can Congress cut programs such as this? How can they justify reducing benefits to poor elders who are no longer able to work for a living? I would love to hear the explanations. On second thought, maybe I wouldn’t. Maybe it would be such a load of bull that it would be hard to take.

One of the richest countries in the world can’t afford to support seniors who can no longer work? Really?

I don’t believe it. As the late, writer Tony Judt observed, “Ill Fares the Land.”