China has ordered the 112 official Olympic restaurants not to serve dog meat during the Beijing Olympics in August so as not to gross out Westerners. They also strongly suggest that all the other eateries in town stop selling dog meat for the month, too. The move is like their orders to shut factories to clear pollution for the month: purely cosmetic. If anything it shows how deeply entrenched dog-eating is. Animal groups say the practice is actually growing into a big business worth about $4 billion a year.

Even the government's Xinhua News Agency announcement shows how dog-eating is almost revered: "Gourmets with a special predilection for dog meat will be disappointed if they come to the Chinese capital in the coming two months." The Beijing Catering Trade Association (BETA) will "blacklist" those who don't cooperate, but they'll make an exception for dog meat "for medicinal purposes." Many Chinese think eating canines lowers blood pressure, the agency says.

According to the Asian Animal Protection Network, eating dog used to be a "cottage industry" where the rural poor would raise puppies to take to market. Now it's become fashionable -- especially in southern China and among Koreans. Dog meat is more expensive than pork. Factory farms with horrific conditions raise the dogs. The Asia Animal Protection Network says the farms are now importing big, docile breeds, especially St. Bernards, known locally as "Big Dumb Dog," as dog livestock. The Filipino organization Dog Meat Trade also reports that the dog meat industry is expanding and is now about $3.8 billion.

Having tried a few diets, it seems logical to me that, the more repulsive and flavorless one's food is, the less likely one is to actually eat a lot of it. In that context, I can completely understand why cabbage diets, kasha diets, grapefruit diets and the like are so successful: after a few days of eating cabbage stew, starvation seems like a reasonably pleasant alternative.

Recently, however, a Chicago scientist made the bold assertion that foods with clearer, stronger flavors signal consumption to the brain more clearly. As the brain processes the amount of food that someone eats, it decides when to release feelings of fullness. With stronger flavors, those feelings are released more quickly. Consequently, when one eats more flavorful food, one eats less, buys less, loses weight, and generally all is well with the world.

To test his hypothesis, Dr. Alan Hirsch used what he calls "tastant crystals," which are calorie-free sweet and savory flavorings that can be sprinkled atop foods. In a study of 1,436 subjects, Hirsh claims that the crystals led to an average 15% weight loss over a period of six months. A control group of 100 subjects lost less than a tenth as much weight.

Dr. Hirsch's "tastant crystals" aren't on the market yet, but this ever-so-much-more-so approach to weight loss is interesting. In the meantime, I'm keeping a heavy hand on the balsamic vinegar!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. He's got another word for Dr. Hirsch's magic crystals. It's called "seasonings."

In an article in the New York Times this week, a chef chronicles his attempts to prepare a week's worth of gourmet meals from groceries bought exclusively at a 99-cent store. The recipes, including baked salmon in coconut sauce and an impressive tuna casserole, looked appetizing. I just can't imagine being able to turn a can of tuna into a gourmet meal, but I have trouble whipping up an edible meal from fresh food too. But that's another story.

Anyway, I was at a huge dollar store last weekend in Florida and I have to say I did notice aisle after aisle of food, household cleaners, toiletries, books, toys and other practical stuff-all for a dollar. Since I don't have a dollar store near my home, I was amazed at the array of useful products, although there were also plenty of tchatchkes. I ended up spending about 45 minutes, mostly browsing. I couldn't get back on the plane home with groceries for the week, but I bought a few of my kids' favorite snacks, a carton of lemonade, Easter candy and batteries for my dad's camera.

The only real necessity I purchased was Colgate's sugary sweet watermelon-flavored toothpaste, the only brand my son will use. But this week, I coincidentally read an article cautioning against buying toothpaste from dollar stores. (Okay, I admit I was reading Self magazine while getting a haircut). Apparently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning because some Chinese manufacturers reproduce American toothpastes using chemicals that can be dangerous if ingested for any length of time. Needless to say, I got rid of it. At least it was only a dollar.

Back in the early nineties, "Food Stamp menus" were en vogue, and the newsgroups and early web sites were full of ideas (of course it wouldn't hurt to pay a few dollars for the knowledge!). Cynthia Hillson, then a mother of five living outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, was one of the first to happen upon this concept: that feeding a large family could be cheaper, if you'd only plan carefully and follow a list of rules. The Hillbilly Housewife is just one similar concept that has sprouted into web being since.

In the time since the late 1980s, when Cynthia's husband lost his job and took one making less than $30,000 a year, she's birthed one more child and the cost of groceries has risen immensely. Instead of attaching a weekly cost to feeding a family (in 1991, it was $45), now Cynthia is just focused on the process, and her self-published book is called "How to Feed Your Family." She sells it for $8.00 and encourages readers to make photocopies to share with their friends and church groups. She sent me a review copy and, after reading her perky, practical advice I've decided to send her a check; her advice is way undersold. Were she vastly more polished and a bit more savvy with sustainability, she'd be travelling the country with Michael Pollan.

In this slim stack of three-hole-punched pages, Hillson sets forth strategies right out of In Defense of Food (without any of the science, most of the background, nor the elegance). Sure, she skips some of the parts I find important in my family food plan (she dismisses organic food as too expensive and gives up on gardening as not worth the effort), but many of the vital strategies are there.

In an earlier post, Tracy Coenen noted the incredible savings that she reaped by cooking at home. Her specific example was a pot of chili. Tracy pointed out that, were she to eat chili at her favorite restaurant, she would pay $8 a bowl. However, by cooking it herself, she reduced the cost to $2.94 per meal. Thus, by preparing her own food, she saved over $5 per serving and probably ate far better.

Although she didn't directly address it, Tracy also highlighted another key money-saving tip: you can save a lot of time and money by cooking in bulk. Although we don't usually count labor among our food expenses, the cost of cooking a meal can be considerable. While it's not as if you have to pay someone to cook your food, after coming home from a long day of work, the last thing that most of us want to do is spend time in the kitchen. If you have to do it night after night, there's a pretty good chance that you'll find yourself falling back on expensive convenience foods, TV dinners, and carry-out food. Sure, you'll start off with cooking every night, but before you know it, you'll fall off the wagon and find yourself settling down to a pizza or Stouffer's and wondering where the money went.

What if, instead of slaving over a stove, you merely had to defrost a meal that you had previously cooked? Many foods will keep for a considerable period of time in the refrigerator or freezer, and will reheat almost perfectly. For that matter, increasing the yield of a recipe is usually just a matter of doubling (or tripling, or quadrupling) the ingredients. Most importantly, by cooking in larger batches, you can spread your time investment out over a lot of meals, vastly increasing your efficiency and leaving you with more time to relax.

Americans are eating out more than ever, and it doesn't just show in their waistlines. It shows in their pocketbooks. While everyone's complaining about the price of gas, the increased cost of staples like milk and eggs, and the rising interest rate on that credit card balance they've been carrying... they still seem to be dining out in record numbers.

Have you ever sat down and calculated the cost of eating out versus eating at home? I think we all realize there's a big difference, but I wonder how many people appreciate exactly how much.

As I was making myself a pot of chili today, I was reflecting on the cost and was inspired by how much money I was saving by cooking at home. If I went to my favorite chili place for lunch, I'd spend about $8 on chili and toppings (not including a drink) for that one meal.

I've been reading Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, a book extolling the virtues of eating locally (and the horrors of eating feedlot meats and processed, packaged corn- and soy-based foods of all kinds). The book is an apologetic sermon; apologetic largely because eating locally is so darned expensive. Though many farmer's markets now take food stamps, that's hardly the point: just pricing a pound of sustainably-farmed ground buffalo meat (the best substitute for ground beef at my farmer's market last weekend), and you'll know why you don't see families of seven stocking their freezer. (It's nearly $9 a pound, if you're wondering.)

So, you ask, what's the secret? How can I avoid CAFO beef and chicken and still feed my family on a limited budget? Eating with the seasons is nice, and all, but that box of McNuggets is priced right. And what better breakfast on the go than a nice Pop-Tart?

I've been experimenting, and thinking, a lot about this subject given (a) my desire to eat locally and (b) my generally limited budget. I'll start to "reveal" some of the lessons I've learned in a series of posts. Today? How to make the most of pricey free range, grass fed meats.