Letter: Food conundrum

The general confusion arising from the words "poverty" and "diet" really annoys me and your article, ("Scotland is takeaway capital", 18 June), plus the editorial - in which you attempt to justify the purchase of takeaway food for "people on limited means" - simply adds to that annoyance.

Putting it bluntly, if someone is experiencing financial hardship surely the most economical meal must be one cooked at home and not purchased from a "takeaway".

I give the example (using prices gained from the internet) - for one person a large fish supper costs 6.70 (smaller serving 5.40), a "pie and chips" 4.30 (large) or 3.60 (small). For a couple, simply double these prices (13.40, 10.80 for one meal). Whilst not attempting to do any direct price comparison, the offer of a meal for two at Marks & Spencer, which this week includes a chicken (serving three to four), a vegetable dish, a dessert and a bottle of wine all for 10 seems a far better, far healthier and more sensible option.

For two people, the chicken is of a size which would be sufficient for two meals with its carcase providing the stock for a soup, which would result in at least three servings and a sweet being sufficient for two servings. If you do not over-indulge, the wine would be sufficient for two people at two meals. So please tell me, given the above comparisons, how "people on limited means" should spend their money wisely?

ALAN McKINNEY

Beauchamp Road

Edinburgh