2

INTRODUCTION

This survey was carried out for the Ministry of Food, and is a continuation of Manufactured Foods Part I. Its aim was to determine the relative importance to housewives of the twenty-one foods grouped below, the extent to which their use has changed during the last three years, and the probable attitude of housewives to variations in future supplies of these foods:-

In order to get this information, the following questions were asked for each food:-

(1) How often do you use?

(2) Do you serve more or less often than before the war?

(2.1) If you use more or less often, why?

(3) Are you able to get as much as you want?

(3.1) If less, does this cause you inconvenience?

(3.2) If yes, how are you inconvenienced, and what do you use instead?

(4) If supplies had to be cut down, which could you give up without difficulty; of those which you could not give up altogether, in which cases would you find it hard to manage if supplies were cut down? Those who would find it hard to manage if supplies were cut down were asked.

(5) If supplies could be increased, of which would you like to have more? (Question 5 was made dependent on the answer to question 4 in order to eliminate as far as possible all those who say they want more of everything whether it is needed or not).

The results of the inquiry are presented in eleven sections, one for each of the ten food groups, and one section dealing with the results of the following questions about cooking fats:-

(1) Do you get sufficient fat for cooking?

(2) If not, which kind would you like more of?

(3) For what kind of cooking do you want extra fat?

Field work was carried out between the 30th November and 18th December, 1942. Information was collected from 4,760 housewives all over England and Scotland. (For detailed description of the sample, see Appendix I).

The same reservations which had to be made in the first investigation have to be repeated here:-

“The questions dealing with the actual serving of the different foods gave straightforward results which can, for practical purposes, be used as they stand, as long as it is kept in mind that the figures give no information on the consumption in quantitative terms.

A factor which has to be taken into consideration when studying the results dealing with changes in serving habits is that they take no account of changes in structure of family; this might have brought about a change in the frequency with which certain foods were served; informants tended to disregard the part which these family changes might have played.

The results arising from the question on whether hardship would be caused if supplies had to be cut down will have to be used with great care. This question is hypothetical, in the sense that it asks people to estimate how a possible change in circumstances would affect them. Such a request presents people with a difficult task, as what they think now might not be what they would think if the situation really altered”.

It should be noted that the question “What do you use instead?” could not always be answered by the housewife, as very many go out shopping without having their mind set on any particular food, but rather make their decision in accordance with what is available in the shops. Also, the question “How are you inconvenienced?” was not always answered in the same way. Some housewives understood “inconvenience” to signify a state of complete desperation, when they could no longer imagine what to cook, nor how to satisfy a grumbling family. Others said that they felt inconvenienced, even if it only meant switching over the menu from one food to another.

There are also a certain number of people who would grumble on every possible occasion, and who used this opportunity to say how inconvenienced they were by shortages of different foods. It must, however, be stressed that the majority of informants expressed satisfaction with the food situation and a great number said they were quite prepared to bear further cuts in the supply of foods if this would help to shorten the war.

At the beginning of the first investigation, it was decided to analyse our material under seven headings:-

The analysis of our material under these headings showed that there were statistical differences for all foods only between regions. For a few foods, there were differences between families with and without children, and there were also class differences in some instances. The analyses in all the other groups did not show any noticeable differences, and they are therefore omitted from the report.

3 4

SUMMARY

It is impossible to give a real summary of the results of this survey. The twenty-one kinds of food investigated and the factors determining their usage differ too greatly. All that is given here is a summary table which describes the particular food from four different angles:-

The actual usage of a food depends most probably on three factors - usage before the war, whether it can be used as a substitute for other rationed or unobtainable foods, and also to a certain extent on its availability and price in the shops.

The same three factors are at work in determining the number of people who do not want any cut made in supplies, but two more things have to be taken into consideration - the importance the particular food has in individual diets, and whether or not the housewife is the sort of person who is prepared to make sacrifices (whatever her reasons might be for doing so).

Whether people can buy as much as they would like is obviously a supply question.

The relative importance of each food is dependent on the interaction of all these factors and attitudes, and though it is possible to define the importance of one food and compare it with another, it is not possible to group the foods.

As it is stated in the introduction, almost the only noticeable group differences were those between regions. An attempt was made to define each region in terms of: the number of people who use the food, the number who are prepared to give it up, and the number who cannot get as much as they want. To present all these factors for each food in each region would have made the material too bulky, and so the following method was followed: for each region the average number who used all the foods was calculated, and the regions placed in rank according to these average numbers. The same was done for the number who are prepared to give up the food completely, and the number who cannot buy as much as they want. On this basis, the following table was obtained:

Thus, Scotland could be described as the region with the smallest number of users, the second highest number of those who can obtain the amounts they want, and the highest number of people who are prepared to give up the use of these foods altogether. The Midlands region ranks fourth for the number of users, and has the highest number of people who cannot buy as much as they want and the highest number who do not want to reduce their consumption. The other regions rank midway between these three.

5 6 7 8 9 10

SECTION I
BOUGHT MEAT PIES, SAUSAGE MEAT (NOT ON POINTS), SAUSAGES

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Three-quarters of the sample use sausages, and slightly more than a third use sausage meat or meat pies. The majority of those who use sausages also use sausage meat or meat pies.

All three foods are served more often new than before the war. The main reason for the increase in consumption is the limited meat ration Those who buy a smaller amount of these foods now than before the war do so because they cannot get enough in the shops; this seems to be especially the case with meat pies. Another reason for buying less is the poorer quality of the food - this complaint is made more often with regard to sausages than with the other two foods.

After adjusting their consumption to the limitations of present supplies, the majority of consumers now find that they can get as much as they need of these three foods.

About half of all who serve the three foods say that they would not feel very inconvenienced if supplies were cut down. About a quarter of those who serve them would be prepared to give them up, at the same time expressing the opinion that they could replace one food by the other.

There are no regional differences in the use of sausages. Sausage meat is used by the smallest number in Scotland and London, and by the highest number in the Eastern region. The largest number using meat pies is to be found in the North and East. Willingness to give up the three foods altogether is most frequently expressed in Scotland and the East.

Detailed Results

Nearly half the sample had used sausages during the previous week, more than a quarter used them sometimes, and one quarter never use them.

Nearly two-thirds of the sample never used sausage meat or bought meat pies, the other third is about equally divided between those who used it last week, and those who use sometimes.

The three foods were used in the following combinations:-

There is a marked tendency among housewives to use all three foods more often now than previously, e.g. half of those who use sausage meat say they serve it more often now than before the war. All three foods serve as substitutes for meat. Housewives explain their increased consumption in these ways:-

“More sausages bought now because cannot get enough meat - use sausages instead - sausages help out dinners, help out rations. Have to buy more meat pies now because of the small meat ration, is a good standby instead of meat - have no meat to put into sandwiches, cannot make my own now. Sausage meat is bought instead of meat, other things cannot be obtained; never used to buy it, but has to replace fish now - helps out rations, is not on points”.

Two main reasons are given for serving these foods less often - either the[Text Missing] are in short supply, or else the quality is so poor that it is not worth while buying them.

More complaints are made about the poor quality of sausages than is the case with the other two foods. Meat pies seem to be more difficult to obtain than sausages and sausage meat.

Question 3 - Can you get as much of these foods as you want ?

Answers were classified into two groups - those which indicated that supplies were sufficient, or even abundant, and those which indicated a shortage.

About a quarter of the housewives say that they do not get all the meat pies they want; between a sixth and a seventh do not get as much sausage or sausage meat as they would like. If the figures of this table are compared with those for serving less often because the foods are unobtainable (Table 6), it becomes clear that a higher proportion (16%, 14%, 24%) would like to buy more, as compared with those who said they serve less now than before the war because supplies are short (9%, 6%, 13%). This indicates that a certain percentage of people would like to increase their consumption above what they use now, although they already use as much or more than they did before the war.

When asked whether they were inconvenienced by the fact that they could not buy as much as they like, the overwhelming majority of people said that they would be inconvenienced by a cut in supplies.

When asked what foods are used as substitutes, if these three are in short supply, the following foods were mentioned. (As the absolute figures are small, care should be taken in interpreting this table). Informants found it difficult to answer this question, as the alternatives varied on different occasions.

Over half of those who use sausages and sausage meat and nearly half of those who use meat pies said they would find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down. About a quarter of those who use sausages and sausage meat and a third of those who use meat pies, thought they could give up those foods altogether if it became really necessary.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like to have more of these foods?

Only those who had said it would be hard for them if supplies were cut down were asked this question.

Three quarters of those who would find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut are satisfied with the supply of sausages and sausage meat available, two thirds feel the same about meat pies.

GROUP DIFFERENCES

The only group differences are regional ones, and even these are not very pronounced. The following tables show the differences for Questions 1 and 5 (“How often do you use sausages, sausage meat, meat pies?” and “Would you find it difficult if supplies were cut down?”).

Question 1

There are no significant differences between the numbers who use sausages in the different regions. Sausage meat is used least in London and Scotland and most in the Eastern Region. Meat pies are used most in the North and East.

Question 5

The highest percentages who think they could give up these three foods are in the Eastern region and in Scotland. The numbers in the other three regions do not differ very much.

Income group differences

There is a slightly more marked tendency among the lower income group to use these two foods. There is no difference in the use of sausage meat.

11 12 13 14 15

SECTION II
BOUGHT FRIED FISH, BOUGHT CHIPS

Summary of Results

Slightly more than a third of the sample buy either fried fish or chips. On the whole, people buy fried fish less often now than before the war, but the consumption of chips is about the same. The main reason given by those people who buy less of both foods is that they are in short supply. Those who buy more do so because they have not enough ingredients, especially fat, for home cooking.

About half of the people who served fried fish cannot buy as much as they would like, and one fifth cannot buy enough chips. The majority of those who cannot buy as much as they would like say this causes them inconvenience.

The substitutes used for fried fish are bread and spread, cheese, meat pie, sausages and chips. The main substitutes for chips are bread and spread, and potatoes prepared in some other way.

A fifth of those who buy fried fish and chips would not find it too difficult to manage if the supply of both these foods were completely cut out. More than a half of the housewives who serve these foods would not like any further cut made in the supplies.

The smallest number who buy fried fish and chips is in Scotland and the South, and the highest number in the East.

The consumption of fried fish and chips is much greater in the lower than in the upper income group. (45% compared with 10%), and appreciably greater in urban areas and by families with children.

Detailed Results

Question 1 - How often do you buy fried fish, chips ?

Quite a high proportion never buy either fried fish or chips.

Question 2 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war ?

Nearly 40% the sample buy less fish now than before the war, and a quarter buy fewer chips. The proportion buying both foods more often is about a quarter.

Some of the reasons why more fried fish is bought than before the war are: “Not enough fat to fry it at home - It has to be bought in order to help out dinners, eke out meat ration, or as a substitute for offals”.

More chips are bought because: “There is not enough fat to make own, use them instead of meat, nothing else can be got”.

Those two who serve less often do so mainly because of the short supply, particularly of fried. The only new significant reason for buying less, is that fish and chips are too expensive to buy.

Question 3 - Can you get as much of these foods as you want ?

Nearly half of all who serve fish now say that they cannot get as much as they want. Only 20% of those who serve chips have this experience.

The majority of those who get less than they want say this causes them inconvenience.

The following substitute foods are mentioned:- For fried fish: cheese, chaps, bread and spread, meat pies, sausages, tinned meat or fish, vegetables, dried egg. For chips: potatoes prepared in other ways, or most frequently, bread and spread.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down ?

Nearly two-thirds of those who serve fish and more than half of those who serve chips would be seriously inconvenienced if supplies were further reduced.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like to have more?

Of those who would experience hardship if fried fish supplies were cut down, more than half would like to buy more than they can now, (the percentage of those who serve fish is 35). A much smaller number - less than a third, or 16% of all who serve - want to buy more chips.

Group differences

Regional differences

The smallest numbers buying fried fish and chips are in Scotland and the South (this figure gives, of course, no indication as to how much fish and chips are fried at home). The eastern region has the largest number of people who buy fried fish and chips.

The Eastern region and Scotland have the greatest number of people who think they could give up buying fried fish and chips. The smallest percentage of this opinion is in the Midlands.

Differences between urban and rural districts and between families with and without children

The only differences are on the question “How often do you use?”.

More fish and chips are bought in urban areas, and by families with children.

Glass differences

A considerably greater percentage of the lower income group buy these [Text Missing] foods.

Of those who buy fish and chips, a higher percentage of the upper income group could give up these two foods altogether.

16 17 18

SECTION III
MEAT AND FISH PASTE

Summary of Results

Half of the housewives in the sample use meat and fish paste. Their consumption has increased since the beginning of the war, mainly in order to take the place of rationed foods, jam and other sandwich fillings.

About 7% find the quality so poor that they have given up buying it altogether.

The overwhelming majority of housewives consider the supply to be ample.

39% of those who use fish paste think that they could give it up altogether without suffering great inconvenience, about one-third would not like any cut made in the supplies, and a negligible number want an increase in supplies.

The smallest proportion who use fish paste is in Scotland. The greatest percentage who would be prepared to give up pastes is in the East.

Detailed results

Question 1 - How often do you use meat or fish paste?

Half of the sample never uses paste.

Question 2 - Do you serve meat or fish paste more or less often than before the war?

Of all those who serve paste, only one-eighth serve it less often than before the war, but nearly a third serve more often. The main reasons given for the increased use of meat and fish paste are that it takes the place of jam, that there is nothing else to put into packed meals, and it makes the margarine go farther.

Of those who serve it less often, half do so because the quality is poore[Text Missing]

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want ?

The large majority of housewives who now use meat and fish paste can get as much as they want. Of the 6% who get less than they want only half feel inconvenienced, because they find it difficult to think of something else to put in sandwiches.

The foods which are used to replace meat and fish paste when this is unobtainable are jam, cheese, home-made spreads (the absolute figures are too small to indicate the frequency with which these foods are so used).

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down ?

Only one-third of those who use meat and fish paste would find it hard to manage if supplies were cut. More than a quarter could manage with less than they are getting now, and nearly 40% would put up with a complete cut.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like to have more of these foods ?

Of those for whom a cut would cause difficulty only 11% (or 3 of all who serve) would like to have the supply increased above the present level.

Group differences

The only differences were between regions.

The smallest percentage who use fish or meat paste is in Scotland.

The Eastern region has the greatest number who are prepared to give up paste altogether, followed by Scotland and the North.

Class differences

Those in the upper income group serve paste slightly more often.

19 20

SECTION IV
BOVRIL

The following results are given with a reservation. A number of informants included under the heading “Bovril” similar foods, such as Oxo or Bisto, not clearly distinguishing between the different kinds. It is therefore likely that the absolute figures of users are smaller in reality than the following tables suggest.

Summary of Results

Two-thirds of the housewives in the sample use Bovril.

It is used more often now than before the war, the main reason being the shortage of meat - it is used to give a stronger flavour to stews, gravy, and other dishes in which less meat can now be used.

There is no great shortage of Bovril in the shops, and the majority of people can buy as much as they want.

Two-thirds of all who use it would not like any cut in supplies.

13% of those who serve it would like to be able to buy more than they can now.

Bovril is least used in Scotland and most used in the Southern region.

Detailed Results

Question 1 - How often do you use Bovril?

About one-third never uses any Bovril or similar product.

Question 1.1 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war?

Bovril is more used now than before the war.

Question 2.1 - Why do you serve more often?

The main reason for serving Bovril more often is that it can be used as a substitute for rationed foods - mainly meat - in stews, gravy, etc. When it is used as a drink, it helps eke out the tea, and sometimes the milk ration.

The main reason given by the small minority who use less Bovril is that it is in short supply.

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want?

The majority of housewives can get as much as they want.

Of those who get less, more than half say it causes them inconvenience, the reason “being that they have nothing else with which to flavour meat dishes, and also that it is already used as a substitute for sandwich fillings - without this, they wouldn’t know what to put in their sandwiches.

Those who use a substitute for Bovril mainly use Oxo.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down?

Nearly two-thirds would feel inconvenienced by any cut in supplies, but only a third of these would like to buy more than they can now.

Regional differences

Bovril is least used in Scotland (67%), and most used in the Southern region (82%)

Class differences

Slightly more people in the upper income group use Bovril.

21 22 23

SECTION V
TINNED AND POWDERED SOUPS

Summary of Results

53% of the housewives interviewed use tinned soups, and 21% powdered soups.

Both kinds of soup are served more often than before the war, owing to the shortage of meat and bones.

The majority of people can buy as much as they want.

About half the sample does not want any cut in supplies, and a quarter would be quite prepared to give up the use of these soups altogether.

Housewives in Scotland and the Eastern region use these foods less than anywhere else, and are also most prepared to give them up altogether.

Detailed Results

Question 1 - How often do you use tinned soup or powdered soup?

Half of the sample uses tinned soups, but not quite a quarter make soups from powder.

The following table shows that the majority of housewives who use powdered soup use it alternately with tinned soup.

Question 2 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war ?

It is clear that both tinned and powdered soups are used more often now than before the war. Housewives find it necessary to do so because they cannot get enough meat and bones to make their own soup.

The main reason for serving less often now is that housewives cannot get the brand they like.

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want ?

The majority of women can buy as much as they want of both kinds of soup. About half of those who cannot buy as much as they want say that they feel inconvenienced by this fact.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down ?

About half would find it hard to manage if supplies were cut, and about a quarter could give up these soups altogether with little inconvenience.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like more ?

Only a small minority would like to be able to buy more tinned and powdered soup than they can now.

Group differences

Regions

(The percentages in the next tables are based on relatively small absolute figures especially in the Eastern region and in Scotland).

The smallest number of housewives who use tinned soup is in Scotland and the Eastern region. Powdered soup is used by only 2% of the Scottish housewives.

Scotland and the Eastern region have the greatest number of housewives who could give up the use of these two kinds of soup altogether.

Class differences

Those in the upper income group use somewhat more tinned soup than the lower income group. There is no class difference for powdered soup.

24 25

SECTION VI
FLAVOURING ESSENCES

This section deals with all those essences which provide a sweet or fruity flavour. Gravy salts are not included.

Summary of Results

One-third of the housewives in the sample use these essences.

They are used less often now than before the war, mainly because less baking and cooking is done now.

The majority of people can buy as much of the essences as they want.

Half of those who use flavouring essences could give them up without hardship. A very small number would like to buy more than they can now.

The smallest number of housewives who use these essences is in Scotland, The Midlands had the highest proportion of housewives unwilling to give up flavouring essences.

Detailed Results

Question 1 - How often do you use flavouring essences?

About one-third of the sample uses flavouring essences.

Question 2 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war ?

Those who serve more often do so mainly to replace lemons. There are two reasons for serving less often - either the essences are unobtainable, or less cooking is done now.

Question 3 - Do you get as much as you want ?

The majority of housewives can buy as much as they want. Half of those who get less than they want feel inconvenienced by this fact, and the other half do not mind. The main reason given for feeling inconvenienced is that foods have less taste now, and flavouring essences help to give dishes more variety.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down ?

Half of those who use flavouring essences could give them up altogether, if necessary.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like to have more ?

Only a small percentage would like to buy more essences than they can get now.

Group Differences

Flavouring essences are used less in Scotland (18%, average 32%) than in any other region.

The smallest percentage prepared to give them up altogether is in the Midlands (35%, average 50%).

No other differences could be observed.

Class differences

The better off housewives use considerably more flavouring essences (53%) than the lower income group (24%).

26 27 28 29 30

SECTION VII
VINEGAR, BOTTLED SAUCES, BOUGHT PICKLES, HOME-MADE PICKLES

The usual questions were asked for the first three of these foods, but only two questions were asked for home-made pickles:-

Summary of Results

89% of the housewives in the sample use vinegar, and 78% bottled sauces. 53% use bought pickles, and 61% home-made pickles.

All these foods are used less often now than before the war - the decrease is less marked in the case of vinegar.

22% cannot get enough vinegar, 41% enough bottled sauces, and 36% enough pickles. Not quite half of those who cannot get the amount they want find themselves inconvenienced by this, mainly because they have to serve food in a less appetising way. Even so, 25% think they could give up vinegar altogether, 35% think thus about bottled sauces, and 40% about bought pickles.

The smallest numbers who use these foods are in Scotland and the Eastern region, which also have the largest numbers who are prepared to do without them altogether.

More families with children than without use bottled sauces and bought pickles.

Detailed Results

Question 1 - How often do you use vinegar, bottled sauces, bought pickles?

The great majority of housewives use vinegar and bottled sauces; nearly half use bought pickles.

The percentage who use pickles is greater if home-made pickles are included, as the following table shows:-

Do you use bought pickles and/or do you use home-made pickles ?

Only 18% do not use pickles at all.

Question 2 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war?

All four foods are now used less often than before the war. Almost the only reason is that they (or the ingredients, in the case of home-made pickles) are in short supply.

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want?

The most marked shortage is that of bottled sauces, and after that bought pickles. Only about a quarter could not buy as much vinegar as they wanted to.

Of those housewives who cannot buy as much as they like, about 40% say that it causes them inconvenience, the reason being that their families miss these foods and grumble about their dinners not being tasty enough.

The shortage of vinegar makes itself felt because less pickles and sauces can be made at home, and salads are less tasty without it.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down?

Of these three foods, bought pickles and bottled sauces could be given up a greater number of housewives than vinegar. The reason is that vinegar x is considered a more important ingredient for cooking as compared with the other two foods, which are more of a luxury, and also that vinegar or dishes made with it can be substituted for the other two.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like to buy more?

About a half of those who buy pickles and sauces and a quarter of those who buy vinegar, would like to have increased supplies.

Group differences

Regional differences

Very much less vinegar is used in Scotland than elsewhere, and less bottled sauces and bought pickles, also, although with these the difference is not so great. In the Eastern Region, too, fewer housewives use bottled sauces and bought pickles, cut there is no difference in the case of vinegar.

Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down?

As usual, the highest percentage of housewives who could give up these three foods altogether is in Scotland and in the Eastern region.

Analysis by families with and without children

Slightly more housewives with children use bottled sauces and bought pickles than those without children.

Class differences

Housewives in the upper income group make less pickles at home, and buy rather less sauces than do those in the lower income group.

There is no difference in the use of bought pickles and vinegar.

31 32 33 34 35 36

SECTION VIII
COFFEE ESSENCE, COCOA, PATENT FOOD DRINKS (BOURNVITA, OVALTINE, ETC.)

Summary of Results

49% of the sample use coffee essence, 81% serve cocoa, and 50% patent foods. The majority of housewives alternate the use of these three foods, with the exception of 20% of the sample who use cocoa only.

Cocoa is used more often now than before the war: it has taken the place of tea or milk in many families. The number of housewives who use coffee essence and patent foods “more often” and “less often” now than before the war is equal. Those who serve less coffee essence or patent foods say it is because they cannot obtain them. Nearly half of the housewives who serve coffee essence cannot get as much as they would like. There is no shortage of cocoa, but 22% of those who serve patent foods cannot get as much of their favourite brand as they want. Over half of those who cannot get as much as they want of coffee essence or patent foods say this causes them inconvenience. The substitutes for coffee essence when this is unobtainable are cocoa, tea, and, only in the third place, real coffee. The majority of those who cannot get their patent food drinks use cocoa instead.

More than half of the users of each food do not want any cut in the supplies. About a quarter of all those who serve coffee would like to have more. The smallest number using any of these foods is in Scotland, and the greatest number in the Southern and Eastern regions. Scotland and the Eastern region have the greatest number who would be prepared to give up these foods altogether.

As might he expected, families with children use more cocoa, and would find it more difficult to give up this completely than families without children.

Detailed Results

The Use of coffee essence, cocoa, patent foods

Only a very small minority uses none of these foods. A third uses only one food - in the majority of cases, this is cocoa. Nearly two thirds use the foods alternately.

The following table shows how often the individual foods and used.

Question 1 - How often do you use coffee essence, cocoa, patent foods?

About half of the sample never use coffee essence or patent food drinks. It is possible that the figure for coffee essence is even higher - interviewers got the impression that informants did not always distinguish clearly between ordinary coffee and coffee essence.

Cocoa is used by 80% of the housewives interviewed, and more than half had served it the previous week.

Question 2 - Do you serve more or less often than before the war?

The amount of cocoa used has increased appreciably. The main reason given was that it takes the place of tea, and it is also used to eke out the milk ration. Some use it instead of coffee essence or other unobtainable foods. The main reason for taking cocoa less often is that there is not sufficient milk for it.

The consumption of coffee essence and patent food drinks has on balance, changed little since before the war. 85% of all those who use less coffee essence have cut down their consumption because it is unobtainable. The same reason is given by 55% of those who use less patent foods. Nearly all the others not using these foods say this is due to the milk shortage.

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want?

There is an ample supply of cocoa. About half of those who serve coffee essence and about a quarter of those who use patent food drinks cannot get as much as they would like. Over half of these experience inconvenience because of this.

The foods which are used instead of coffee essence or patent foods are shown in the following table:-

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down?

More than a quarter of those who use coffee essence, and nearly a quarter of those who use patent foods, but only 15% of those who serve cocoa, think they could give it up altogether.

However, over 50% of all users would not like to have any cut made in the supply of any of the three foods.

Question 5 - If supplies could be increased, would you like more?

About half of the housewives who would find it hard to manage if supplies of coffee essence were cut down would like to buy more than they are able to at the moment. Very few would like to buy more cocoa, but more than a quarter of those who do not want any cut in patent foods would like to buy more.

Group Differences

Regional differences

Question 1 - How often do you use?

The smallest number using any of these three foods is in Scotland, and the greatest in the Southern and Eastern regions.

Question 3 - Can you get as much as you want?

Both patent foods and coffee essence can be got most easily in London. The supply of cocoa seems to be abundant everywhere, so in this case there were no regional differences.

Question 4 - Would you find it difficult to manage if supplies were cut down?

The highest numbers who are prepared to give up any of the three foods are in Scotland and the Eastern region.

Families with and without children

Families without children use more cocoa, and would find it more difficult to give it up altogether.

Class differences

Housewives in the lower income group serve more coffee essence than those in the upper income group. There is no difference so far as the other two foods are concerned.

Of those who serve coffee essence, a lower percentage in the lower income group (26%) are prepared to give it up altogether than in the upper income group (37%).