weights for canned or packaged foods were used. A» In still others, like oer “Me? 4 some marine foods, densities in grams/cc were computed and used for the . conversion. . ’ . fFAN -7 . es Pe Some assumptions were also made where a specific food item was unavallable. gr Tables 15 and 16 summarize the can conversion data we developed for the subsistence and imported foods, respectively. In each table, the foods have been grouped under the major categories we will eventually refer to in our dietary means. We have included the results reported by Pritchard, were appropriate; and have made liberal use of footnotes to clarify the sources of data. conversion data has some limitations. “samples of all foods. crabs, octopus, In terms of accuracy, our can First, we were not able to obtain Second, our data for fish, shellfish, clams, turtle, domestic meat, and wild birds is raw weight, whereas, the majority of these foods are only consumed after some form of cooking. Third, we have assumed an average for raw and scrambled eggs Since Pritchard reports that bird eggs are “usually eaten scrambled," chicken eggs are not described, and turtle eggs are "usually eaten raw or scrambled.'' Fourth, pumpkin, and undoubtedly squash, is consumed cooked rather than uncooked. Fifth, there may be other foods that are consumed in a form different than we reported. Finally, the differences between the LLL and Pritchard values for a specific food item could reflect differences in food form (e.g., raw or cookec), can packing, or both. To be more precise in the can conversion data would require detailed weighing of each food item in the form consumed by the Enewetak people. The final step in our procedure was analyses of the data with a computer code specifically developed for that purpose. For each specific food item and major category identified, the mean intake, standard deviation, high intake, low intake, and sample (NO /N) were determined. : 5011102 proportion of nonzeroes in the Likewise for the total diet. - 23 - | vN Ss 7%,