Family Economics Review [1978, Number 1-2]

              DOUBLE ISSUE
WINTER-SPRING 1978
DIETARY GOALS FOR THE UNITED STATES
OUTLOOK MATERIALS
FOOD
CLOTHING
HOUSING
LABOR FORCE
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
MAY 0 1 19?8
University of North c~rolina
at Greensboro
ARS-NE-36
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FAMII.:Y ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute and on information from
other sources relating to economic aspects of
family living. It i~ prepared primarily for home
economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Authors are on the staff of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute unless otherwise noted.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
DIETARY GOALS FOR THE UNITED STATES
One session of the 1978 Food and Agricul­tural
Outlook Conference, November 14-17,
1977, focused on the "Dietary Goals for the
United States" proposed by the Select Com­mittee
on Nutrition and Human Needs of the
U.S. Senate in February 1977.1 These goals
specify the levels of fat, fatty acids, cholester­ol,
protein, carbohydrate, sugar, and salt in
diets.
The somewhat diverse reactions to the goals
by the scientific community are illustrated by
comments of Dr. D. Mark Hegsted and Dr.
1 Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs,
United States Senate, February 1977. Dietary Goals
for the United States. 95th Congress, 1st Session. Com­mittee
Print.
Gilbert A. Leveille in their talks which are pre­sented
in full in this issue. The views expressed
are those of Drs. Hegsted and Leveille and not
necessarily those of the USDA.
IJ1 a third talk at the Conference session, also
in this issue, Betty Peterkin of the Consumer
and Food Economics Institute's staff discussed
some of the many diets for men, women, and
children that might meet the goals. Her talk is
in no way intended to endorse or discredit the
goals. Furthermore, the Institute, at this time,
neither recommends nor opposes the use of the
diets presented. The Institute's food selection
guides, such as the family food plans, will not
be revised until after information from USDA's.
1977-78 National Food Consumption Survey
becomes available (see page 24).
U.S. DIETARY GOALS
by D. Mark Hegsted1
The Dietary Goals for the United States
published by the Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs essentially state
that Americans eat too much. They eat too
much meat, too much fat-especially saturated
fat-too much cholesterol, too much sugar, and
too much salt. They should eat more fruits,
vegetables, grain products-especially whole
grain products-and unsaturated fat. lt is clear
that a statement of this kind is not very useful,
even if you agree with the generalities, unless
some quantitative estimates are provided. You
cannot translate the statement into a dietary
pattern without at least suggesting what is
meant by too much and what might be a rea­sonable
intake. The report suggests a reduction
of fat from the current level estimated to be
between 40 and 45 percent of calories to about
30 percent, that one-third of this should be
saturated and one-third polyunsaturated fatty
acids, and that the diet should not contain
more than 15 percent of calories as sugar.
These changes would result in an increase of
1 Professor of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public
Health.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
total carbohydrate consumption to 55-60 per­cent
of calories, of which 40-45 percent would
be starchy materials. It is recommended that
protein should provide 12 percent of calories,
that cholesterol intake should be on the order
of 300 mg{day, and that of salt about 3 g{day.
It is important to emphasize that such a diet
does not represent an ideal diet. We do not
know what an ideal diet is. The Dietary Goals
are an attempt to arrive at a more reasonable
dietary pattern than the diet of most Ameri­cans.
I cannot review much of the evidence
upon which the Dietary Goals are based, but
the major health problems of the United States
and other affluent countries are coronary
artery disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, hyper­tension,
and obesity. These are the diseases
which kill Americans and extract a tremendous
toll in medical costs, disability, and premature
death. Treatment of these diseases is ineffec­tive.
There must be increasing efforts toward
their prevention or amelioration. All these
diseases are clearly associated with the diet we
eat, and many other countries with less rich
diets do not have this disease pattern. In addi­tion
to the epidemiologic evidence, there is
3
extensive animal experimentatiofi which sup­ports
the proposition that diet is an important
causal factor in all these diseases.
The best experimental evidence is available
for coronary heart disease. This disease alone
kills about 600,000 Americans, many of them
before age 65 or whatever a suitable retirement
age may be. There is sufficient evidence
demonstrating a causal relationship between
diet and this disease alone to recommend that
Americans change their diet. There are abun­dant
data showing that:
Inappropriate diet~ elevated serum lipids ~
atherosclerosis ~ heart attack.
It is certain that the dietary factors primarily
responsible for this sequence of events are the
amount and composition of dietary fat and the
cholesterol content of the diet. It is important
to emphasize that in American men the serum
lipid levels rise during the late teens and twen­ties;
many have extensive atherosclerosis in the
twenties, yet coronary heart disease begins to
become significant in the thirties and forties,
and progressively more men have heart attacks
as they become older. Thus, it is certain that
the early atherosclerotic lesion which develops
in young men does not induce heart attacks
directly. It is also certain that the severe
atherosclerotic lesions which occur later are
nearly irreversible. It is important to emphasize
this, because it probably means that dietary
modification in middle-aged atherosclerotic
men cannot be expected to have much effect
on this process. As many of you are aware, a
number of current dietary trials are now under­way.
These may be worthwhile but they can­not
demonstrate the ultimate effect of diet
upon coronary heart disease. A truly definitive
experiment is beyond our capabilities. It would
involve the recruitment of a cohort of teenage
boys, feeding them a diet which would prevent
the development of hypercholesterolemia, and
determining the disease pattern over the next
20 or 30 years or longer. This is essentially an
impossible experiment. Many people have opti­mistic
and unwarranted expectations about
what the current stuides may or may not show.
I would also emphasize that if we considered
the data available and were truly interested in
minimizing the occurrence of heart disease, it is
certain that the dietary recommendation would
4
be much more severe than that suggested by
the Dietary Goals. Populations that have very
little atherosclerosis, and almost no heart
attacks, consume extremely low fat and other­wise
restricted diets by our standards. Quite
frankly, most of us will probably opt for the
heart attack, cancer, diabetes, or hyperten­sion-
which are going to get almost all of us­rather
than consume such a diet for a lifetime.
Once we are sick--as has been emphasized by a
recent television report-we may then be will­ing
to submit to such a diet. It is interesting,
incidentally, that the television report indi­cated,
as I have already, that the severe diet did
not appreciably modify the underlying athero­sclerotic
lesion-the electrocardiogram of the
patients did not change. A considerable num­ber
of smaller dietary trials have already been
reported. These have generally shown a modest
reduction in heart attacks. More severe dietary
restriction may produce more favorable results.
We must assume, however, that these improve­ments
are explained not by modification of the
atherosclerosis process but by other mechan­isms,
possibly by changes in blood pressure and
by a reduction in the thrombotic process which
is the terminal event in many heart attacks.
Whatever improvement can be obtained, it
would seem quite certain that the earlier the
dietary change is achieved the greater the effect
will be.
It is important also to emphasize that our
overall objective is probably not to eliminate
heart attacks. It is not likely that immortality
will be achieved by good dietary practice. It
would be a tremendous accomplishment if we
could delay heart attacks, cancer, stroke, dia­betes,
and hypertension so that they were not
prominent causes of death or disability before
age 65. Of course, many of ·us are old enough
so that delay to 65 does not seem much of an
accomplishment.
What we must search for is some dietary pat­tern
that is "reasonable." Recommendations
for dietary changes that are too severe will be
ignored by most of us. Some people will estab­lish
goals that are more than we can reasonably
expect to achieve-to be president of a compa­ny,
to make a million, to live to be a hundred,
and so forth. This kind of goal does not mean
that we consider we have accomplished nothing
unless we achieve it. Excessive expectation,
however, can be discouraging, and I believe we
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
are searching for something that we can expect
Americans to do.
It is important to emphasize that the nutri­tion
strategy which has been developed in the
United States and elsewhere over the past 50
years has been aimed almost totally at the pre­vention
of nutritional deficiency. With the
discovery of the vitamins about 75 years ago
and the recognition that pellagra, scurvy,
xerophthalmia, beriberi, and rickets were
important causes of death and disability, the
primary goal of nutrition became and has been
since that time to assure an adequate intake of
all essential nutrients. This was tempered slight­ly
by the recognition that obesity was undesira­ble,
but the essential message that we have pro­moted
has been and is "Eat more meat, more
milk, more eggs, more fruits and vegetables,
more cereal products-more of everything-but
don't get fat." This message was developed
when we had no idea about the ultimate effects
of such a diet and essentially no knowledge of
the relationship between diet and the chronic
diseases which now beset affluent societies.
Nutritionists have often pointed out, cor­rectly,
that the great advances which flowed
from Pasteur's discoveries demonstrating that
disease was caused by infective organisms great­ly
retarded the acceptance of the fact that
disease could also be caused by a deficiency or
lack of something in the diet. The theory of
infectious disease caused practically everyone
to search for a positive causal agent, and the
associations between poverty, poor hygiene,
and deficiency disease made it extremely diffi­cult
to eliminate infection as a possible cause
of pellagra, for example.
To a considerable degree, nutrition is now
faced with a similar problem. We have devoted
nearly all of our efforts to assuring an adequate
diet-defined as one which contains enough
protein, vitamins, and minerals. The propo­sition
that much of our ill health is due to
overnutrition-not only simply eating too
much but eating too much of specific materi­als-
is not easy to accept. It will require a sub­stantial
revision of nutritional thought and the
nutritional education messages. I should point
out that nutritionists cannot claim very much
of the credit or blame for our current situation.
What we eat is largely the result of our afflu­ence,
the agricultural system, and the sum of
the effects of the food industry. The message,
WINTER-SPRING 197 8
however, has been the same wherever you
heard it.
No one is suggesting~ of course, that it is no
longer important to maintain an adequate
intake of essential nutrients. Clearly, it is. We
do have some undernourished people in the
country, but, fortunately, the number is small.
They must continue to receive appropriate
attention. The only relatively prevalent defi­ciency
disease that we can identify is iron defi­ciency.
This is not limited to poverty groups.
Severe iron deficiency, however, is not com­mon
and generally requires medical attention.
Nearly all nutritionists will agree that we
should minimize iron deficiency and we could
certainly do it. The problem has been, and con­tinues
to be, that we have not been able to
convince the medical establishment that it was
a sufficient problem to require preventive
efforts. It is certainly not in the same league as
heart disease and the other killer diseases. It is
also certain that we do not have to overeat to
avoid iron deficiency.
Most of us have seen a recent report which
indicates that deaths from heart disease have
declined in the past 10 years or so. This is
great. The cause is not clear but this decline is
what we should expect. The American Heart
Association has for several years been advising
a diet similar to that of the Dietary Goals. The
American public has certainly heard of choles­terol-
both dietary and serum cholesterol. Con­sumption
of eggs and butter is down; consump­tion
of unsaturated margarine is up. Many
more people are jogging and exercising in vari­ous
ways. Treatment of hypertension and
diabetes, which often cause heart disease, is
better. A considerable portion of the public has
gotten the message about obesity and has done
something about it. The severe hyperlipidemias
are now clearly recognized as a health hazard,
and dietary treatment is prescribed. Both medi­cal
and surgical treatment have improved. We
should expect an improvement in the situation,
but we must also be aware that this improve­ment
leaves a long way to go. There are at least
200,000 premature deaths annually from heart
disease, and as we improve the situation our
definition of premature will be later and later.
We must continue to do what we have been
doing but with more vigor at every level.
It has been argued that a dietary pattern
such as that suggested by the Dietary Goals is
5
not appropriate for children, pregnant women,
and others. There is no nutritional basis for
this. The protein intakes of Americans are so
high that they greatly exceed all reasonable
estimates of requirement. The diet suggested
would not necessarily reduce the intakes of
vitamins and minerals. Indeed, it may very well
increase the intake of most. It should also be
emphasized that in a technological society of
the kind we have, the provision of vitamins and
minerals is technologically easy. Fortification
of foods can be expanded or restricted as we
see fit. You simply cannot justify a diet which
produces chronic disease in order to obtain suf­ficient
vitamins and minerals.
Nobody expects the American diet to
change overnight. Nutrition education, fortu­nately
or unfortunately, whichever way you
view it, does not appear to be very effective.
But it is clear that the public is demanding bet­ter
and more explicit information all of the
time. As I have already .indicated, whatever you
may think, the Dietary Goals proposed by the
McGovern Committee are relatively moderate
recommendations. What the Dietary Goals
mean in terms of food is something like this:
Less meat and leaner meat and some substitu­tion
with poultry and fish. The protein con­sumption
of the Ameircan public is now exces­sively
high. It has no nutritional justification
and my guess, for .what it is worth, is that evi­dence
will continue to accumulate to show that
the high protein consumption is undesirable in
itself and not only because meat is a primary
source of saturated fat. It means less eggs and
butterfat. The dairy industry should begin to
look at the restrictions it has imposed upon
itself that inhibit the production and marketing
of low-fat products and modified dairy prod­ucts.
It means less sugar of all kinds. Products
are going to have to be labeled with sugar con­tent
and saturated fat content. Sugar, whether
deserved or not, has caught the public's eye
6
and there is essentially no nutritional defense
of products high in sugar. Products will almost
certainly have to be labeled with cholesterol
and salt content and, again, there is no positive
argument for high consumption levels. It means
increased consumption of I polyunsaturated
vegetable oils in all forms. It means increased
consumption of all kinds of fruits and vegeta­bles.
This should mean an expansion of the
areas producing these products nearer to the
consumers. It means increased consumption of
breads, cereals, and potatoes. These have been
the whipping boys since obesity became a
popular subject but unjustifiably so. The calo­ries
in bread, pasta, and potatoes are not more
likely to produce obesity than other sources of
calories. Indeed, a leaner diet with less fat and
sugar is likely to be helpful in controlling
excessive intake of energy.
Some people have argued, of course, that we
do not know enough to recommend a change
in the American diet. I believe that we know so
much that we cannot afford to ignore what we
do know. We are dealing with the most impor­tant
medical problems of our time. Many
countries now have a better health record than
we do. Sweden, which has one of the best, has
already adopted national nutrition goals similar
to the ones we are discussing. The issue is not
whether we have proved that a change in diet
will b_e beneficial, or whether we can predict
the results of a moderation in the diet. As I
have indicated, we do not have the technical
capability to answer some of the questions we
can easily ask. We can ask, however, what the
proved benefits of the American diet are. There
are no positive arguments for a diet which is
high in fat, sugar, and cholesterol, and there is
a host of arguments against it. The real issue is
how soon, by what mechanisms, and how
rapidly we move to encourage consumption of
a more moderate diet.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING DIETARY GOALS
by Gilbert A. Leveille1
The need for dietary goals is obvious. It is
clear that the consuming public has a definite
need for guidance in making appropriate food
selections that will ensure, insofar as possible,
the consumption of a diet providing the essen­tial
nutrients and ensuring maximal health. The
selection of such a diet is not a simple matter
and must be based on current scientific infor­mation.
The public cannot be expected to be
conversant with the scientific information and,
therefore, this information must be translated
into food terms which the consuming public
can understand and use. The need for such
goals should be inherent in any national food
and nutrition policy. Such a policy, developed
by the National Nutrition Consortium, has
been incorporated in previous reports from the
Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and
Human Needs. Dietary goals are an important
component of any national policy, for once
established and accepted by the public they
have significant impacts upon food production
and processing systems. Any effective national
policy must also involve an effective education
component which will assist consumers in
understanding and adopting the enunciated
goals.
Recently, the Senate Select Committe on
Nutrition and Human Needs published a set of
dietary goals. This effort is laudable, but unfor­tunately
the goals leave a great deal to be
desired. In many respects these goals are not
based on the contemporary science and if
implemented would not be in the public inter­est.
I will attempt to point out that these goals
are not based on the whole of the scientific
evidence available; they fail to recognize signifi­cant
problems which exist in our society; and
unfortunately, fail to recognize the possible
negative impacts which their implementation
might have.
Ideally, dietary goals should take into
account those positive aspects of our current
national diets and should assist in sustaining
them. Further, they should correct the poor
eating habits which can be identified. The
1 Chairman Department of Food Science and
Human Nutrition, Michigan State University.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
American diet has been referred to as "patho­genic"
by some and as "disastrous" by others,
implying that our diet has "deteriorated" in
the past 50 to 75 years. I submit that such a
conclusion is erroneous and misleading. The
American diet today is better than ever before
and is one of the best, if not the best, in the
world today. There is much supporting evi­dence
for this statement. One need merely con­sider
the stature of the current generation of
Americans, which is coming closer and closer
to the achievement of maximum genetic poten­tial.
We have virtually eliminated morbidity
and mortality from acute nutritional deficien­cies.
A prime example is pellagra resulting from
niacin deficiency, which claimed thousands of
lives only a few short decades ago but which is
virtually unheard of today. The same could be
said for rickets, which was overcome by the
fortification of milk with vitamin D, and of
goiter, which was eradicated by the iodization
of salt. We have seen a remarkable increase in
the life expectancy of the American popula­tion.
We have seen many improvements in the
quality of our food supply as measured by its
safety, wholesomeness, and variety; it is unpar­alleled
in the world today.
Taking all of these factors into account, it
seems abundantly clear to me that we can put
to rest serious concerns about the quality of
our diet and any consideration of returning to
the diet of days gone by. Any notion that a
return to the diet of the past would improve
the well-being of Americans is nostalgic non­sense.
Rather, we should identify existing
nutritional problems and attempt to develop
solutions to them. This, it seems to me, is the
appropriate challenge of today and the chal­lenge
of developing appropriate goals for the
American population.
The goals developed by the Senate Select
Committee imply that we have been a Nation
without dietary goals. This is not completely
true. Admittedly we have not had a national
food and nutrition policy to give visibility to
dietary goals, but assuredly we have had guide­lines
which have served effectively to direct
many food and nutrition programs in this
country. The guidelines of which I speak are
7
the Recommended Dietary. Allowances
(RDA's) initially established by the Food 8J!d
Nutrition Board of the National Research
Council in 1941 and periodically revised since
then. The RDA's were initially developed as a
basis for planning food supplies for the mili­tary.
They have proved to be equally valuable
in planning food supplies for the civilian sector
of our population and have served admirably as
a basis for a variety of feeding programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
RDA's have also been the basis for the estab­lishment
of guidelines for nutrition labeling by
the Food and Drug Administration. Admitted­ly
the RDA's are considerably different in evo­lution
and purpose from the Senate Select
Committee's Dietary Goals for the United
States.
The RDA's differ from the Senate Select
Committee's goals in that the former are based
on the requirements for known nutrients. The
RDA's represent an attempt to establish an
allowance that will meet the needs of virtually
the en tire population. The goals developed by
the Senate Select Committee, on the other
hand, really reflect an attempt to provide
guidelines for the prevention and/or cure of
diseases considered to be public health hazards.
Any dietary guideline must have, as a funda­mental
basis, the objective of meeting essential
nutrient needs and, secondarily, must deal with
other recommendations that would contribute
to insuring the public health. If such guidelines
are to deal with the prevention of specific
diseases, there should be a sound scientific
basis for their establishment and they should
not put any segment of the population at nutri­tional
risk. Unfortunately, the Senate Select
Committee's dietary goals have not provided
this assurance, and they are not based on the
whole of available scientific evidence.
The dietary goals published by the Senate
Select Committee assume (1) that the diseases
of primary concern, namely cardiovascular
disease and cancer, are of epidemic proportions
in the United States, and (2) that appropriate
dietary modifications can delay or prevent
these diseases. I would like to spend a brief
time reviewing these two fundamental assump­tions.
There is little question that the propor­tion
of the U.S. population dying from cardio­vascular
disease and cancer has increased dra­matically
over the past 50 years. I submit that
8
this is not surpnsmg and is to be expected.
Accompanying the increase in mortality from
cardiovascular disease and cancer has been a
significant reduction in mortality from infecti­ous
diseases. Advances in medical science have
greatly reduced mortality from such causes as
tuberculosis and pneumonia. The old adage
that "death and taxes are assured" remains to
be disproved. Consequently, one would expect
that the elimination of death from infectious
diseases would simply involve some other cause
of death becoming primary.
Accompanying the improvements in medical
care, sanitation, and nutrition has been an
increase in life expectancy and an increase in
that segment of our population above the age
of 65. This proportion of our population has
increased significantly over the last several
decades and continues to grow. The diseases of
primary concern to the Senate Select Commit­tee,
namely cardiovascular disease and cancer,
are chronic diseases. The probability of incur­ring
these diseases grows with advancing age.
Thus, with an older population_ an increase in
both of these diseases is predictable. This is
obvious when one examines mortality statistics
on an age-adjusted basis. While the total num­ber
of deaths from cardiovascular disease and
cancer has increased over the last several
decades, the mortality rate expressed on an
age-adjusted basis has not increased significant­ly
and, in fact, for cardiovascular disease has
shown a significant reduction. Thus, the urgen­cy
for changes in diet and life style to control
the rate of increase of these chronic diseases is
not supported by available evidence. This cer­tainly
does not imply that we should not direct
our attention to further reducing morbidity
and mortality of chronic diseases, for clearly
that should be the direction of our research
and education efforts.
I would like to turn to the scientific basis for
the establishment of the Senate Select Commit­tee's
Dietary Goals. It is implied that the high
incidence of cardiovascular disease in this coun­try
stems directly from an increased consump­tion
of fat, particularly saturated fat, and cho­lesterol.
It is clear that elevated blood choles­terol
levels represent a risk factor in the
development of cardiovascular disease and that
diet can influence circulating cholesterol levels
in some individuals. It should also be recog­nized
that diet is not the only factor affecting
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
circulating cholesterol levels, nor is the blood
cholesterol level the only, nor the major, risk
factor in cardiovascular disease. The concept
that dietary modification will prevent or delay
atherosclerotic heart disease remains a hypo­thetis
and not a demonstrated fact. While it
may seem "prudent" to modify one's diet on
the basis of existing hypotheses, it hardly
seems a sufficient basis for the recommenda­tion
of major dietary changes for the entire
population. There are many other risk factors
associated with the development of cardiovas­cular
disease. The relative importance of each
varies from individual to individual and
requires a comprehensive evaluation of the rela­tive
risk factors for each individual. Considera­ble
controversy exists among specialists as to
the relative value of dietary modification.
There is no consensus upon which to establish
definitive dietary guidelines for the general
population.
The Senate Select Committee's report also
implies that the intake of sugar contributes to
the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in
the American population. This conclusion is
contrary to the views of most experts in the
field. Such a hypothesis has been put forth, but
experimental evidence supporting the hypothe­sis
is completely lacking. Furthermore, the
recommendation for an increased intake of
polyunsaturated fatty acids may represent a
risk which has yet to be fully evaluated. On the
basis of the totality of available evidence, it
seems highly premature to make any major
recommendations for dietary change for the
prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rather, it
would seem far wiser to recommend the estab­lishment
of a system for the evaluation of
individuals to establish that segment of the
population at risk and to make appropriate
dietary and other recommendations for these
individuals.
The report of the Senate Select Committee
proposes that a relationship exists between diet
and the incidence of cancer. Evidence for such
a relationship is extremely meager. The availa­ble
evidence is strictly epidemiological in
nature and remains to be verified experimental­ly.
Such evidence is at best suggestive and can­not
be accepted as a reasonable basis for
recommending dietary changes. The recom­mendation
of the Select Committee that a shift
from foods of animal origin to those of plant
WINTER-SPRING 197 8
origin would protect the population from can­cer
is unfounded. Consequently, these recom­mendations,
like those dealing with cardiovas­cular
disease, are premature and unsound.
The Senate Select Committee has recom­mended
a significant reduction in the intake of
salt as a means of reducing the incidence of
hypertension. Again, this recommendation is
based on a modicum of tenuous information.
The available evidence does demonstrate that
excessive salt intake can induce hypertension in
a segment of the population. There is debate as
to the proportion of the population whose
blood pressure would be influenced by salt
intake, but it is generally agreed that this repre­sents
a relatively small proportion of the popu­lation.
The desirability of reducing the salt
intake of the total population must be careful­ly
examined. It may be wiser to establish
means of detecting those individuals at risk and
to advise this group of desirable dietary
changes. It should also be recognized that not
all hypertensives will respond to a reduction in
salt intake. Further, virtually all professionals
examining the dietary goals of the Select Com­mittee
are in agreement that the recommended
level of salt intake of 3 grams per day is exces­sively
low and represents a level which is not
achievable.
There are health problems which exist in this
country and which should receive attention.
Dental caries, obesity, and iron deficiency
anemia have been identified by several surveys
as problems warranting attention. There is also
preliminary evidence suggesting that certain
population segments have marginal intakes of
certain trace elements, particularly zinc and
perhaps chromium. These problems deserve
attention.
The problem of dental caries has been
researched to a significant degree, but the need
for further research is evident. It is known that
sucrose will contribute to dental caries; how­ever,
the contribution is not so much a quanti­tative
one as a matter of the form in which
sugar is consumed. Sugar in the form of sticky
candies remains in the oral cavity, in contact
with the dental enamel, for significant periods
of time and provides an ideal environment for
the proliferation of acid-producing micro­organisms
responsible for the initiation of
caries.
9
The problem of obesity is recognized; how­ever,
the solution to this problem is not as evi­dent.
Certainly reduction of body weight to a
desirable level involves a reduction in caloric
intake. However, the achievement of that
reduced intake remains difficult and is an area
requiring further research. National dietary
goals should certainly recognize the existence
of obesity as a problem and provide incentive
to reduce caloric intake. In this regard, a reduc­tion
in dietary fat could be supported since this
is the most calorically dense component of our
diets.
The intake of foods with low nutrient con­tent
is partially addressed in the Senate Select
Committee's report. Unfortunately, the report
deals only with the intake of sugar and fails to
recognize the fact that other foods, such as
alcohol and oils and shortenings, can also pro­vide
significant calories without providing
other nutrients. The Select Committee's report
erroneously implies that our intake of sugars
and sweeteners has increased dramatically in
recent decades. In fact, our intake of sugar on
an obsolute basis has not increased significantly
since 1925. What has changed is the form in
which sugar is purchased and utilized. A half
century ago most of the sugar was purchased as
such and utilized in the home. Today, a smaller
proportion of sugar is purchased for home use,
and the greater proportion is consumed in pre­prepared
products, such as baked goods. How­ever,
it should be recognized that the propor­tion
of calories derived from sugar has increas­ed,
for while the absolute amount of sugar
consumed has remained unchanged, our per
capita intake of energy has declined. Thus, our
consumption of sugar as a percent of calories
has increased. There is no evidence that this
increased proportion of calories from sugar has
any detrimental effect, but it should be recog­nized
that sugar is one of those foods having a
low nutrient content, and from this standpoint
a reduction in its consumption might be
warranted.
One of the significant concerns regarding the
American diet is the fact that due to our seden­tary
life styles the consumption of calories is
declining steadily. If we are to deal successfully
with the problem of obesity, a still greater
reduction will be required. The requirement for
other nutrients remains essentially unchanged,
even though caloric intake decreases. Conse-
10
quently, in order to meet nutrient needs, it
becomes important to increase the nutrient
density of those foods which are consumed.
This requires an even more careful selection of
foods to comprise a complete diet, a task
which is virtually impossible for some nutrients
at very low caloric intakes. For example, it is
not unusual for women in the United States to
be consuming as few as 1,500 to 1,700 calories
per day. On this caloric intake it is virtually
impossible to meet the 18-milligram RDA for
iron in the premenopausal woman. In such
individuals the iron requirement can only be
met by increased fortification of certain foods
or by the use of iron supplements. This appears
to be true for other nutrients, such as zinc and
copper. Consequently, any recommendation
for a change in diet must carefully assess the
impact that such change would have on the
intake of essential nutrients. To my knowledge,
this has not been assessed for the changes
which the Select Committee has recommended.
It seems that the recommendations for die­tary
change made by the Select Committee
have not been evaluated from the standpoint of
other potential, undesirable impacts which
they might have if implemented. For example,
it is recognized that a significant proportion of
the total iron consumption by the U.S. popula­tion
is derived from meats and meat products.
Further,sit is recognized that a large proportion
of the iron derived from meat is in the form of
heme, which has a much higher availability
than does nonheme iron. If the recommenda­tions
of the Select Committee were followed,
the likely effect would be a significant reduc­tion
in total iron intake and a decreased availa­bility
of that iron which was consumed. If this
were to occur, the effect on the problem of
anemia, which already appears to be wide­spread,
would be disastrous. Thus, the recom­mended
changes cannot be made without
recognizing the need for increased iron fortifi­cation
or somehow increasing the availability
of iron from sources other than meat.
Similarly, the American population derives a
significant proportion of its dietary zinc from
meat. A reduction in meat intake would result
in a signifieant reduction in zinc consumption.
Further, the increased intake of cereal grains
would increase the dietary content of phytic
acid which is known to bind zinc and reduce its
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
availability. Thus, there is a reasonable proba­bility
that implementation of the Select Com­mittee's
goals might result in serious zinc defi­ciency
in some segments of the population.
Careful evaluation of the Select Committee's
recommendations demonstrates that they are
not based on the available scientific informa­tion.
Further, there are many inconsisten~ies
and outright errors in the development of the
goals. The errors of ommission and interpreta­tion
are sufficiently great to cause serious con­cern
if they were taken seriously and applied to
any current feeding programs.
There is a need for sound dietary goals to
guide feeding programs and to guide individual
consumers in their food choices. There is no
question, in my opinion, that the Senate Select
Committee's goals are inappropriate and that a
totally new effort is required. Such an effort
should involve a broad cross-sec;tion of exper­tise
from the nutrition, food, and medical com­munities.
It should involve consumers and con­sumer
advocates who are knowledgeable about
the application of nutrition and food informa­tion
by consumers. Only in this way can a real­istic
set of dietary goals be established which
will serve the best interests of the U.S. popula­tion.
I firmly believe that the Department of
Agriculture should be at the forefront of such a
development. This would seem particularly
appropriate, since the application of sound
guidelines to the feeding programs administer­ed
by the Department would impact upon
countless thousands of individuals.
THE DIETARY GOALS AND FOOD ON THE TABLE
by Betty B. Peterkin1
This fall, Secretary Bergland has repeatedly
emphasized the importance of nutrition in set­ting
the direction for food and agriculture poli­cy.
As part of the Department's responsibility
in this area, the Agricultural Research Ser­vice-
the agency of the Federal Government
with primary responsibility for the develop­ment
of food selection and dietary guidance
for the general public-began to reexamine its
national dietary guidelines.
As one step in that process the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) has analyzed the goals
set forth in the report of the Senate Select
Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs­Dietary
Goals for the United States. We hope
this analysis, made primarily for the use of
USDA, will be useful to others, such as the
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human
Needs (called the Committee in this article),
nutrition scientists and educators, the food
industry, and consumers, in appraising the
goals from their various perspectives.
The analysis consists of interpretation of the
Dietary Goals in terms of the kinds and
amounts of foods that will meet them. It
1 The assistance of Richard L. E:err and Carole J.
Shore in the preparation of material presented is grate­fully
acknowledged.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
explores diets for individuals as well as the
population as a whole. Such interpretation
makes possible appraisal of the goals for their
sociological and economic, as well as their
physiological, implications. Through such inter­pretation,
the meaning of the goals for the con­sumer,
the food producer, the food processor,
and food regulatory agencies begins to become
apparent.
Today, I will review briefly the changes in
dietary levels and in food selection suggested
by the Committee in its report of the Dietary
Goals released February 1977. Then, I will
discuss some of the many diets for men,
women, and children that meet the Dietary
Goals and certain changes in food selection
and/or food production and processing that
might contribute toward achieving the goals.
Dietary Goals and Food Selection Changes
Suggested in Committee Report
The Committee report shows the difference
in sources of food energy, such as fat, protein,
complex carbohydrate, and sugar, for the "cur­rent
diet" and for the Dietary Goals. The cur­rent
diet is based on the nutritive value of the
U.S. per capita food supply-the food that dis­appears
into civilian food consumption, some
of which may not be eaten.
11
The goals call for:
• a decrease from 42 percent to 30 percent
of energy from total fat.
• a decrease from 16 percent to 10 percent
of energy from saturated fatty acids.
• no change in the level for protein ... to
provide 12 percent of energy.
• an increase in total carbohydrate con­sumption
to account for 55 to 60 per­cent
of energy intake.
• a decrease in the consumption of sugar­a
major source of carbohydrate. The
percents in the Committee's report-24
percent of energy in the current diet and
15 percent of energy as the goal-refer to
total sugars, including sugars found natu­rally
in foods such as milk and fresh
fruit.
• a twofold increase in the energy from
complex carbohydrates, provided in
diets mainly by grain products and some
vegetables.
Dietary Goals are also specified for choles­terol-
about 300 milligrams per day-and for
salt-about 3 grams per day. No goal or energy
allowance is specified in the report for alcohol,
which provides substantial amounts of energy
in many U.S. diets.
The Committee report gives this advice on
how to change food selection to meet the
goals:
• Eat more fruits and vegetables and whole
grains.
• Eat less meat and more poultry and fish.
• Cut down on foods high in fat and partly
substitute polyunsaturated for saturated
fat.
• Substitute nonfat milk for whole milk.
• Cut down on eggs, butterfat, and other
high cholesterol sources.
• Cut down on sugar and foods high in
sugar.
• Cut down on salt and foods high in salt.
These suggestions point the way toward the
proposed goals for the "average" consumer in
the population. They also present a challenge
to food and agricultural researchers, food regu-
12
latory agencies, and to food producers and pro­cessors
to develop and supply the population
with foods that are low in fat, especially satu­rated
fat, and that contain less sugar and salt.
Food Consumption and the Dietary Goals
The Committee report shows that U.S. diets
as defined by the food that disappears into
civilian consumption do not meet the goals.
U.S. diets can be appraised with respect to the
goals using two other types of dietary data:
(1) food used by households in terms of food
brought into the kitchen-as purchased or
obtained from home gardens or as gift or pay,
and (2) food intake or food actually eaten by
individuals. These two types of data were col­lected
nationwide in USDA's 1965-66 House­hold
Food Consumption Survey and are again
being collected in our 1977-78 survey. Food
intakes of individuals are also obtained in U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Wel­fare's
Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey.
Diets of men, women, and children, in terms
of food as purchased, from the 1965-66 survey
do not meet the Dietary Goals (table 1). Fat,
protein, cholesterol, and sugar levels are higher
and carbohydrate levels are lower on the aver­age
than the goals. Levels of polyunsaturated
fatty acids, as indicated by linoleic acid, are
lower than the goals; and levels of monounsatu­rated
fatty acids, as indicated by oleic acid, and
of saturated fatty acids are higher than the
goals. Generally, men's diets deviate most from
the goals. Fat and cholesterol levels in their
diets are somewhat higher than in diets of
women and children. On the other hand, sugar
levels are lowest in men's diets-providing only
14 percent of food energy (calories) compared
with 16 percent for women and as much as 18
percent for children. Average diets for all of
the 14 sex-age categories studied by ARS2 pro­vide
the Recommended Dietary Allowances3
(RDA's) for protein, vitamin A value, thiamin,
riboflavin, niacin, and ascorbic acid; but diets
for several categories fail to meet the RDA for
calcium and iron.
2 See table 3 for sex-age categories.
3 National Academy of Sciences. 197 4. Recommend·
ed dietary allowances. 8th edition. Washington, D.C.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Daily food intakes of 6,000 people from the
1965-66 survey were reviewed with respect to
two of the goals-those for total fat and total
carbohydrate. Less than 3 percent of the per­sons
reported intakes that met the two goals.
Essentially none of the 3 percent reported
intakes that also met the 1974 RDA's for all of
the five vitamins and two minerals studied.
Modifying Diets to Meet the Dietary Goals
We modified diets to meet the Dietary Goals
using the Committee's suggestions for change
in food selection, listed previously, and average
food consumption patterns (diets) for 14 sex­age
categories from our 1965-66 food con­sumption
survey as the basis for certain
assumptions about food selection. Alternate
assumptions incorporate some possible modifi­cations
to foods through change in production
and processing. Obviously, other assumptions
could be used for deriving diets beyond the
dozen or more we have developed for this
study.
The food consumption patterns used consist
of average quantities of 17 food groups in
terms of food as you buy it. 4 Examples of the
food groups are milk, cheese, and ice cream;
meat, poultry, and fish; eggs; dry legumes and
nuts; four groups of vegetables and fruits; four
4 Food as purchased or brought into the kitchen
from garden or farm in terms of 17 food groups-the
14 food groups shown in table 3 and coffee, tea, and
cocoa; punches, ades, and soft drinks; and seasonings
and leavening agents.
Table 1. Food energy distribution and cholesterol content of food consumption
patterns, 1965-661
Female,
Item
Dietary
Goals
Child'
6-8
years
Child'
9-11
years
Male,
20-54
years
20-54 Person 2
years
Percentage of food energy
from:
Protein ................. 12 14 14 14 14 14
Carbohydrate ............ 55-60 49 49 44 47 47
Sugar 3 ................ 10 18 18 14 16 16
Fat ..................... 30 38 37 42 39 40
Linoleic fatty acid ... 410 6 6 7 6 6
Oleic fatty acid ...... SlQ 15 15 17 16 16
Saturated fatty acids . 10 14 13 14 14 14
Milligrams of cholesterol 300 312 386 553 374 412
per day ..................
lFood as purchased or brought into the kitchen from garden or farm to provide
meals and snacks for individuals by sex and age, estimated from USDA's 1965-66
Household Food Consumption Survey. Amounts of food for each sex-age category
were increased or decreased proportionately to provide the 1974 Recommended
Dietary Allowance for energy plus 5 percent--to allow for some discard of food
and still provide for energy needs. Drippings and one-half of the separable fat
from meat are assumed discarded.
2Food consumption patterns for 14 sex-age categories weighted by the 1975 RS.
population.
3sugar other than that found naturally in foods, such as milk and fresh fruit.
4Goal for all polyunsaturated fatty acids.
5Goal for all monounsaturated fatty acids.
WINTER-SPRING 1978 13
groups of grain products; fats and oils; and
sugar and sweets.
Table 2 shows some of the food groups and
the nutrient sources of energy they provide
compared to the recommended distribution of
energy sources of the Dietary Goals. The
groups with large percentages of calories from
complex carbohydrate are more desirable than
those with large percentages from fat for
changing diets to meet the goals. To increase
carbohydrate levels in diets, as the goals pro­pose,
quantities of vegetables and fruits and
cereal and bread in the diet will need to be
increased. To reduce fat levels in diets, quanti­ties
of food groups that contain fats and oils,
milk, meat, and eggs will need to be reduced.
Table 2. Sources of food energy from selected food groups
Item
Dietary Goals .•••••..••••••.•
Consumption pattern: 1
Milk, cheese, ice cream ••••
Eggs •••••••••••••••••••••••
Dry beans and peas, nuts •••
Meat, poultry, fish 2 ••••••
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables ••••••••••••••••
Citrus fruit, tomatoes •••••
Potatoes .................. .
Other vegetables, fruit ••••
Cereal, pasta ••••••••••••••
Flour, mixes •••••••••••••••
Bread
Other bakery products ••••••
Fats, oils •••••••••••••••••
Sugar, sweets ••••••••••••••
Option 1 assumptions:
Milk, skim ................ .
Meat, poultry, fish 3 •••••••
Option 4 assumptions:
Meat, poultry 4 •••••••••••••
Cereal 5 ................... .
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Carbohy- Protein
drate
Percent
58 12
30 21
2 33
34 18
2 36
81 14
87 8
72 9
86 9
84 11
83 10
77 13
62 7
2
94 1
56 39
2 44
0 68
89 8
Fat
30
49
65
48
62
5
5
19
5
5
7
10
31
98
5
5
54
32
3
1Average selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in
1965-66.
2 Drippings and one-half of separable fat from meat are assumed as
discarded.
3Drippings and all separable fat from meat are discarded and amounts of
meat, poultry, and fish are adjusted to one-half meat and one-half poultry
and fish.
40ne-half Good Grade boned beef rump
ble fat discarded and one-half broiler
discarded.
roast with drippings and all separa­chicken
with drippings and skin
50ne-half raw brown rice and one-half white enriched parboiled rice.
14
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Also, the makeup of certain food groups can be
changed to provide higher proportions of com­plex
carbohydrate and lower proportions of fat
through product modification and/or food
selection.
We assumed in modifying diets to meet the
goals that the makeup of foods within most of
the 17 food groups in the food consumption
patterns is the same as the average for house­holds
surveyed. For example, the proportion of
the citrus fruit and tomatoes group that was
reported as fresh oranges by survey households
in 1965-66 is assumed in the diets. However,
for three groups-meat, poultry, and fish; milk,
cheese, and ice cream; and fats and oils-we set
up three alternative sets of assumptions
(options) concerning the makeup of the group
to demonstrate their differing impacts on diets.
Option 1, which attempts to follow suggestions
for change in food selection in the Committee
report, is used primarily in this study for inter­preting
the goals (tables 3-7). Alterations to
usual consumption in Option 1 are as follows:
For the meat group, drippings and all separa­ble
fat from meat are discarded; the quanti­ties
of meat, poultry, and fish are adjusted
from about three-fourths meat and one­fourth
poultry and fish to one-half meat and
one-half poultry and fish. These changes
reduce the percent of calories from fat in the
meat, poultry, and fish group from 62 per­cent
to 54 percent.
For the milk group, skim milk replaces all
milk, cheese, and ice cream. This change
reduces the percent of calories from fat in
the milk group from 49 percent to
5 percent.
For the fat group, butter and margarine are
replaced by soft margarine, and lard and
vegetable shortening are replaced by vegeta­ble
oils. These substitutions increase the pro­portion
of polyunsaturated fatty acids and
decrease the proportion of saturated fatty
acids.
Options 2 and 3, which more closely resem­ble
reported food consumption within the
milk meat and fat groups than Option 1, are ' ' . . described and information about diets mcor-porating
fuem is given in tables 8 and 9. For
example, Option 2 assumes the use of ~-per­cent-
fat milk and no change in the ratiO of
WINTER-SPRING 1978
meat to poultry and fish; and Option 3 assumes
selections within groups to be essentially as
reported by survey households.
A fourth set of assumptions (Option 4) illus­trates
some changes in food selection with
major implications for food production and
processing of foods, as well as for Government
regulations, that would contribute toward
lower levels of fat and higher levels of complex
carbohydrate in diets. Assortments of foods in
food groups assumed in this option tend to be
optimum with respect to lowering levels of fat
and increasing levels of complex carbohydrate.
In Option 4, as in Option 1, milk is in nonfat
form, and fats and oils are those types with
high proportions of polyunsaturated fatty
acids. The meat group includes items of low fat
content-lean meat from Good Grade beef and
flesh of chicken, or meat and poultry products
of comparable low fat composition. This group
as modified has an average of 6 percent dietary
fat by weight, considerably lower than the 30
percent currently allowed in certain processed
meats, such as frankfurters. With respect to
grain products, Option 4 includes only the
kinds of grain with the highest carbohydrate
content, such as rice, and eliminates grain prod­ucts
that contain fat and sugar. Option 4
changes would reduce the percent of calories
from fat in the meat, poultry, and fish group
from 62 percent to 32 percent. They would
increase the percent of calories from carbo­hydrate
in the grain products group to 89
percent.
The model for developing the USDA family
food plans5 was adapted and used to adjust the
food consumption patterns of each of the 14
sex-age categories to meet the Dietary Goals.
The food plan model selects the optimum
diet-the quantities of the 17 food groups that
represent as little change from the quantities of
the food groups in the food consumption pat­tern
as is necessary to meet nutritional
specifications. "Change" is measured in terms
of squared weighted deviations from the quan­tities
of food groups in the consumption pat­tern,
and total change is minimized. The
s For additional information on procedures used in
developing food consumption patterns and on the
model used to modify patterns, refer to "The Thrifty
Food Plan," CFE(Adm.)326, Consumer and Food Eco­nomics
Institute, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
15
to'
C)
~ .....
t""
t<
t%J
0
0 z
0 .s.:.:.
0 en
~
~
t%J
~
Table 4. Food for a week 1 to meet the Goals and the RDA, 2 Option 1 3
Family member
Milk, Dry beans Meat, Dark-green, Citrus Other Cereal, Flour, Bread Other Fats, Sugar,
skim 3 Eggs and peas, poultry, deep- fruit, Potatoes vegeta- pasta mixes bakery oils 3 sweets
nuts 4 fish 3 yellow tomatoes bles, products
vegetables fruit
Q!. No. - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - Pound - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Child:
7 months to 1 year •
1-2 years ••••••••••
3-5 years ••••••••••
6-8 years ••••••••••
9-11 years •••••••••
Male:
12-14 years ....... .
15-19 years ••••••••
20-54 years ••••••••
55 years and over ••
Female:
12-19 years ••••••••
20-54 years ••••••••
55 years and over ••
Pregnant •••••••••••
Nursing ••••••••••••
4.78 o.oo
2.86 3.20
3.87 2.81
5.06 2.79
5.81 3. 71
5.85 3.84
5.67 3.35
2.98 3.12
2.57 3.75
4.41 3.90
2.05 5.31
2.52 4.36
4.11 4.50
3.88 3.73
0.03 o.oo 0.50 0.69
.14 .47 .34 1.41
.23 1.51 .31 1.51
.29 2.05 .40 1.95
.32 2.74 .45 2.55
.40 3.02 .54 2.46
.37 3.59 .47 2.58
.31 4.13 .56 2.67
.20 3.74 .70 2.38
.34 1.96 .59 2.54
.28 2.52 .73 2.85
.11 2.49 .60 2.64
.30 2.95 .83 3.28
.25 3.62 .81 3.51
1Amounts of food as purchased or brought into the kitchen from garden or farm.
0.21 5.04 1.30 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.37 0. 24
. 79 3.86 1.94 .29 .61 .28 .24 .20
1.03 3.61 1.23 .45 .90 .63 .59 ,32
1.50 4.59 1.26 .72 1.36 1.05 • 75 .37
1. 76 6.00 1.50 .93 I. 74 1.38 .90 .43
1.95 5.01 1.62 1.08 2.10 1.44 .95 .46
2.55 5.49 1.31 1.33 2.53 I. 72 .97 .43
2.43 5.74 1.20 1.24 2.33 1.61 • 78 .41
2.04 5.55 1.40 .96 1.88 1.27 . 72 . 44
1.50 6.02 1.68 • 91 1.63 .90 .67 .30
1.58 5.43 1.53 .80 1.60 .78 .62 .29
1.31 4.99 .93 .75 1.22 .93 .57 . 33
1.83 5.98 .95 1.16 1. 73 1.19 .77 .37
2.03 6.37 1.10 1.20 2. 00 1.36 .83 .39
2Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium , and iron. Energy intake
is distributed as 30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from protein, 56 percent or more from carbohydrate, a nd 10 percent or less from sugar
other ,than that found naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit. Saturated fat provides 10 percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol intake
is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent.
3Food consumption in terms of food groups defined as Option 1. Average selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are assumed
except (1) drippings and all separable fat from meat are discarded, and the amounts of meats, poultry, and fish are adjusted to one- half meat and one-half
poultry and fish; (2) milk and dairy products are replaced by their calcium equivalent in skim milk; (3) butter and margarine are replaced by soft
margarine, and lard and vegetable shortening are replaced by vegetable oils.
4Weight in terms of dry beans and peas, shelled nuts, and peanut butter .
;§
z
;9
~
~ z
0
......
tO
-:1
00
......
-:1
Table 3. Change in food consumption patterns 1 for 14 sex-age categories required to meet the Goals but not necessarily the RDA, 2 Option 1
Food group
Milk, cheese, ice cream
Eggs ••••••••••••••••••••
Dry beans and peas, nuts
Meat, poultry, fish •••••
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables •••••••••••••
Citrus fruit, tomatoes ••
Potatoes ••••••••••••••••
Other vegetables, fruit
Cereal, pasta •••••••••••
Flour, mixes •....•.•.•.•
Bread •••••••••••••••••••
Other bakery products •••
Fats, oils ••••••••.•••••
Sugar, sweets •••••••••••
Child,
7 months
to
1 year
-12
-100
-73
-100
44
55
77
53
141
98
67
156
735
29
Child,
1-2
years
10
-26
-23
-46
26
28
36
27
71
60
42
42
127
-46
Child,
3-5
years
12
-11
-2
-22
22
23
30
22
70
57
44
32
58
-60
Child,
6-8
years
12
-12
-1
-22
22
23
30
22
76
62
48
33
42
-61
Child,
9-11
years
12
-8
4
-16
21
21
29
21
73
60
47
30
33
-64
Male,
12-14
years
13
-ll
2
-19
22
22
30
21
85
69
54
33
15
-63
Male,
15-19
years
Male,
20-54
years
Percent
14
-41
8
-20
23
23
32
22
95
78
61
35
1
-62
12
-57
12
-21
22
21
31
21
105
85
67
37
-18
-55
Male,
55 years
and over
ll
-47
13
-12
18
17
25
17
76
62
50
25
-8
-52
Female,
12-19
years
12
-12
3
-21
22
22
31
21
88
72
55
35
27
-69
Female,
20-54
years
13
-6
13
-10
20
19
28
19
90
72
58
33
-13
-62
Female,
55 years
and over
10
-8
3
-13
17
17
23
16
69
57
44
25
-3
-55
Preg­nant
11
-30
8
-20
21
20
30
20
97
78
62
35
-5
-63
Nursing
12
-43
11
-19
21
20
30
20
97
78
62
35
-4
-63
1Food consumption in terms of food groups defined as Option 1. Average selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are assumed
except (1) drippings and all separable fat from meat are discarded, and the amounts of meats, poultry, and fish are adjusted to one-half meat and one-half
poultry and fish; (2) milk and dairy products are replaced by their calcium equivalent in skim milk; (3) butter and margarine are replaced by soft mar­garine,
and lard and vegetable shortening are replaced by vegetable oils.
2Recommended Dietary Allowance for energy plus 5 percent, distributed as 30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from protein, 56 percent or
more from carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from sugar other than that found naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit. Saturated fat provides
10 percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol intake is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent •
......
r:1)
~
.s..:.:.
t"'
><
trj
(")
0 z
.~....
(")
en
::0
trj
~
trj
~
Table 5. Change in food consumption patterns 1 for 14 sex-age categories required to meet the Goals and the RDA,2 Option l
Food group
Milk, cheese, ice cream ••
Eggs •••••••••••••••••••••
Dry beans and peas, nuts
Meat, poultry, fish ••••••
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables ••••••••••••••
Citrus fruit, tomatoes •••
Potatoes •••••••••••••••••
Other vegetables, fruit ••
Cereal, pasta ••••••••••••
Flour, mixes •••••••••••••
Bread ••••••••••••••••••••
Other bakery products ••••
Fats, oils •••••••••••••••
Sugar, sweets ••••••••••••
Child,
7 months
to
l year
-12
-100
-73
-100
44
55
77
53
141
98
67
156
735
29
Child,
l-2
years
-24
6
36
-65
73
41
37
49
292
60
66
-15
5
-58
Child,
3-5
years
4
2
14
-19
29
23
26
24
93
42
37
15
56
-59
Child,
6-8
years
12
-12
-1
-22
22
23
30
22
76
62
48
33
42
-61
Child,
9-11
years
12
-8
4
-16
21
21
29
21
73
60
47
30
33
-64
Male,
12-14
years
13
-11
2
-19
22
22
30
21
85
69
54
33
15
-63
Male,
15-19
years
Percent
14
-41
8
-20
23
23
32
22
95
78
61
35
1
-62
Male,
20-54
years
12
-57
12
-21
22
21
31
21
105
85
67
37
-18
-55
Male,
55 years
and over
ll
-47
13
-12
18
17
25
17
76
62
50
25
-8
-52
Female,
12-19
years
16
13
41
-41
59
29
25
33
193
80
59
-2
17
-69
Female,
20-54
years
-2
17
56
-33
55
27
25
32
220
70
63
-4
-2
-62
Female,
55 years
and over
38
-4
l
-20
27
17
18
16
53
74
41
20
1
-53
Preg­nant
64
-18
42
-35
47
21
21
22
64
lOS
47
21
3
-60
Nursing
43
-37
9
-27
32
20
24
19
76
96
57
28
l
-61
1Food consumption in terms of food groups defined as Option 1. Average selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are assumed
except (l) drippings and all separable fat from meat are discarded, and the amounts of meats, poultry, and fish are adjusted to one-half meat and one-half
poultry and fish; (2) milk and dairy products are replaced by their calcium equivalent in skim milk; (3) butter and margarine are replaced by soft mar­garine,
and lard and vegetable shortening are replaced by vegetable oils.
2Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium, and iron. Energy intake
is distributed as 30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from protein, 56 percent or more from carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from sugar
other than that found naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit. Saturated fat provides 10 percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol intake
is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent.
weights are set to cause deviations to be mini­mized
on the basis of percentage change rather
than change in pounds of food groups. The
squaring of weigh ted deviations results in small
changes in amounts of several food groups,
rather than a large change in one group to meet
a specification.
Two sets of nutritional specifications (Goals)
based on the Dietary Goals were used in diets
to be discussed here. The two sets differ only
in that one includes specifications for levels of
five vitamins-vitamin A value thiamin ribo- flavin, niacin, and ascorbic ' acid-and' two
minerals--calcium and iron; and the other does
not.
Specific Goals used in· modifying diets in this
study are as follows-
-Total energy intake for each sex-age cate­gory
equal to the RDA plus 5 percent. The
5 percent is added to allow for some discard of
food and still provide for energy needs.
-Total fat to provide 30 percent or less of
energy.
-Saturated fat to provide 10 percent or less
of energy.
-Cholesterol in daily amounts of no more
than 300 milligrams plus 5 percent.
-Sugar other than that found naturally in
foods such as milk and fresh fruit to provide 10
percent or less of energy. The 10 percent goal
for such sugar, rather than the 15-percent goal
for total sugars in the Committee report, was
used with concurrence of the Committee.
-Protein to provide 14 percent or less of
energy. The 14 percent level, rather than the
12 percent goal in the Committee report, also
is used with the concurrence of the Committee.
The Committee's intent in establishing the goal
for protein was to maintain the level of protein
in the current diet; therefore, 12 percent of
energy from protein-the level in the U.S. food
supply in recent years--was selected. In the
food patterns from the 1965-66 survey of
household food consumption used in this
study, 14 percent of energy is provided by pro­tein;
therefore, a goal of 14 percent is used.
-Carbohydrate to provide 56 percent or
more of energy.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
-Five vitamins and two minerals in amounts
of at least the RDA plus 5 percent. (This speci­fication
is included in only one of the two sets
of goals.)
-Salt is not included as a specification
because of the limited information on the sodi­um
content of foods and on salt added to food.
Diets That Meet the Goals, Option 1
Changes in diets for all sex-age categories are
required to meet the Goals but not necessarily
the RDA (table 3) and to meet the Goals and
the RDA (tables 4 and 5). Diets modified to
meet only the Goals also meet the RDA for a
man 20-54 years of age and many of the other
sex-age categories.
To meet the Goals, a man 20-54 years old, in
addition to changing selections from the milk,
meat, and fat groups according to Option 1,
would need to buy and use on the average-
-two-thirds more grain products
--one-fourth more vegetables and fruit
--one-eighth more dry legumes and nuts
--one-eighth more milk--all of it in the form
of skim milk
-one-half as many eggs
-one-half as much refined sugar and sweets,
such as sirup, jams, and jellies
--one-sixth less fats and oils and
--one-fifth less meat, poultry, and fish.
Taking into account the adjustment to increase
the ratio of poultry and fish to meat, as sug­gested
by the Cnmmittee and incorporated into
Option 1, this decrease of one-fifth for the
group translates into a 45-percent decrease for
me~t and a 45-percent increase for poultry and
fish. Ho,vever, the suggestion by the Commit­tee
that meat consumption be reduced and
poultry and fish consumption be increased--a
change in the ratio of meat to poultry and
fish-is not necessary if the meat eaten is trim­med
of all fat, fat drippings from meat are not
used, and other measures to control fat in the
diet are followed. Reduction in the overall con- .
sumption of meat, poultry, and fish is essential­ly
the same when, under Option 1, the ratio of
meat to poultry and fish is changed (table 5)
19
and, under Option 2, it is not changed
(table 8).
Meeting the Goals for total carbohydrate,
sugar, protein, and total fat appears to require
the most change in quantities of food groups
used for all sex-age categories. The Goals for
saturated fatty acids and for cholesterol,
except in the man's diet, are not as difficult to
achieve. This is partly because the quantities of
meats and eggs are restricted due to their rela­tively
low-carbohydrate and high-fat compo­sition
and because only fats and oils that have
high proportions of polyunsaturates and skim
milk are used.
The cholesterol goal of 300 milligrams per
person per day is more limiting for men than
for women and children. It translates into 110
milligrams per 1,000 calories of energy allow­ance
for a man, compared with 150 milligrams
for a woman and 167 milligrams for a 6-year­old
child.
The food sources of the calories from carbo­hydrate,
protein, fat, and sugar in the man's
diet and in his diet modified to meet the Goals
with Option 1 assumptions are discussed
below:
Carbohydrate. To meet the Goals, the quan­tity
of cereal, pasta, flour, and mixes in the
consumption pattern is about doubled; the
quantity of bread is increased by two-thirds;
and the quantity of other bakery products is
increased by over one-third. Such increases in
the use of grain products are required to meet
the carbohydrate goal. Grain products are
required also to provide energy in the modified
diet to replace energy provided by several
sources, such as the carbohydrate from larger
quantities of sugar, the fat from whole milk
and less well-trimmed meat, and fat and pro­tein
from larger quantities of meat and eggs.
Increased quantities of vegetables and fruit also
help provide the needed carbohydrate. Calories
from sugar, other sweets, and soft drinks are
limited by the sugar goal.
Protein. The number of calories from pro­tein
in the man's diet is the same as in his diet
modified to meet the Goals, each representing
14 percent of his total calorie needs. However
the food sources of protein differ. The increas-'
ed quantities of grain products, required to
provide the carbohydrate goal, also provide
20
protein; and the amount of protein from
animal products must be reduced if protein is
limited to provide only 14 percent of calories.
Therefore, the protein goal. is limiting in plan­ning
diets to meet the Goals.
Fat. A man must reduce his fat consumption
by 350 calories per day-from 1,200 calories to
850 calories-to meet the goal of 30 percent of
total calories from fat. Changes in the compo­sition
of the milk and meat groups under
Option 1 and the reduction in quantities of
meat and eggs account for a reduction of over
300 calories.
The suggestion that skim milk be used in
place of whole milk appears to be unnecessarily
restrictive as a means of reducing levels of fat
and saturated fatty acids, especially in chil­dren's
diets. Children's diets with whole milk
cheese, and ice cream replaced by their calcium'
equivalent in skim milk and other assumptions
in Option 1 and then modifted to meet the
Goals contain as much as one-half more fats
and oils than children ordinarily consume
(table 5). Some of the fat from milk has been
reintroduced into the diet as fats and oils.
Sugar. Sugar other than that found naturally
in foods in the man's diet provides 400 calories
per day and must be reduced by 25 percent to
provide 300 calories, to meet the goal. 'To
~ccomplish this, quantities of sugar, sirup,
Jams, jellies, candies, and soft drinks are
decreased to provide 140 fewer calories. The
quantity of commercially prepared grain prod­ucts,
increased to help meet the goal for com­plex
carbohydrate, adds over 50 calories from
the sugar they contain. Sugar levels in chil­dren's
diets, somewhat higher than in men's
diets, would have to be reduced by as much as
44 percent to meet the goal.
Food as served. A day's food for a man as
served, illustrates the large quantity of g;ain
products in diets modified to meet the Goals
under Option 1 (table 6). His modified diet
con~ins 2% to 3 bowls of cereal or pasta and
13 shces of bread or equivalent in other bakery
products, increased from 1-1 J 3 bowls and 8
slices in his usual diet. The woman's modified
~et contains 3% bowls of cereal or pasta and 8
slices of bread or equivalent. The larger amount
of cereal in her diet is needed to help provide
recommended amounts of iron.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Sample meals for a day for a man meeting
the Goals with Option 1 are:
BREAKFAST
Cereal (2 cups) with sugar*
Skim milk (1 cup)
Toast (3 slices)
Margarine*
Juice (% cup)
Coffee or tea, if desired
LUNCH
Macaroni salad (1 cup)
(contains macaroni, 1/3 egg,
2 tablespoons kidney beans,
salad oil)
Vegetable (% cup)
Bread (3 slices)
Margarine*
Milk (% cup)
DINNER
Lean meat, poultry, or fish (5 ounces)**
Potato (% cup)
Other vegetable or salad (% cup)
Bread (3 slices)
Margarine*
Cake
Coffee or tea, if desired
SNACK
Biscuits (3)
Juice (Ih cup)
*About 2 tablespoons of sugar or other
sweets such as sirup, jams, and jellies and 3%
tablespoons of fats and oils in a day may be
added to foods during preparation or at the
table.
**Meat and poultry or fish are served on
alternate days.
For the people who may find large amounts
of grain products objectionable, diets were
modified to meet the Goals while holding the
amounts of grain products at levels in the con­sumption
patterns. Such diets contain large
amounts of vegetables and fruits. For example,
a man would buy and use each day over
3 pounds of vegetables and fruits and 2-2/3
ounces of dry legumes and nuts. His usual con­sumption
of dry legumes would be quadrupled;
of potatoes, tripled; and of other vegetables
and fruit, doubled. His consumption of milk
would be increased by 60 percent; and meat,
poultry, and fish would be reduced by 50 per­cent.
Obviously, diets could be modified to
include some increase for grain products and
WINTER-SPRING 1978
smaller increases for vegetables and fruits than
those above.
The "average" man 20-54 years old can meet
the Goals and his RDA while continuing to eat
the quantity and selection he ordinarily con­sumes
of any single food group, even the eggs
and sugar and sweets groups. However, his
resistance to change for a food group will result
in changes for certain other food groups that
are greater than shown for Option 1 (table 5).
For example, he could continue to have the
quantities of whole milk, cheese, and ice cream
he is accustomed to and reduce fat, especially
saturated fat, in his diet by other means, such
as reducing further the quantities of meat, eggs,
and fats and oils in his diet.
Diets That Meet the Goals, Option 4
Option 4 assumptions (page 15) are used to
illustrate what diets meeting the Goals might
be like if consumers use foods that are primari­ly
unprocessed, low in fat and saturated fatty
acids and refined and processed sugars, and
high in complex carbohydrate (table 10). Gen­erally,
the diet contains skim milk; eggs, dry
legumes and nuts; lean meat from Good Grade
beef and flesh from poultry or other items of
comparable low fat composition; vegetables
and fruit; rice or varieties of other grains or
flour of comparable high carbohydrate compo­sition;
soft margarine and vegetable oils; and
sugar and sweets. Elimination of most of the
fat from milk and meats, and the sugar and fat
from grain products frees fat and sugar and the
calories associated with them for use elsewhere
in the diet. Much of the carbohydrate goal is
provided efficiently by the 5-IA cups cooked
rice or equivalent grain or flour, leaving most
of the protein goal to be provided by milk and
meat. A man can have more identifiable fats
and oils and sugar and sweets; however, his diet
as a whole, will be less rich in fat and less sweet
than the diet he ordinarily consumes.
Food Cost
Costs were estimated for the average food
consumption patterns and for diets modified to
meet the Goals and the RDA using Option 1
and Option 4 assumptions. To estimate these .
costs, prices paid for food by 1965-66 survey
households were updated using the percentage
change from the time of the survey to August
21
1977 in the average retail prices of about 100
foods priced monthly in U.S. cities by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Costs apply only to
diets as described in this study and cannot be
used to indicate cost relationships for other
diets modified to meet the Goals. These cost
estimates, of course, do not allow for major
shifts in price levels of foods which would
almost certainly occur if demands for certain
foods were markedly increased to meet the
Goals.
The estimated weekly costs in August 1977
for a four-person family with average food con­sumption
patterns and with diets modified to
meet the Goals and the RDA, with Option 1
and Option 4 assumptions6 are:
Food Diet to meet Goals
con-sumptiorr
pattern Option 1 Option 4
Child, 6-8 ye;us $10.4 7 $10.96 $11.71
Child, 9-11 years 13.02 13.72 14.71
Male, 20-54years 15.46 14.88 16.65
Female, 20-54years 12.21 11.57 12.40
TOTAL $51.16 $51.13 $55.47
Limitations of Interpretation
The consumer could select many combina­tions
of foods to meet the Goals. The few com­binations
presented here are designed for the
least deviation from average food consumption
patterns for men, women, and children of dif­ferent
ages required to meet the Goals, taking.
into account suggestions for food selection
made in the Committee report and alternative
suggestions. Minimum disruption of average
consumption patterns to meet nutritional goals
is consistent with ARS's approach in develop­ing
guidance for food selection for the general
public. This approach recognizes that food
habits are difficult to change and assumes that
food guides that least disrupt them are most
likely to be followed. Other combinations of
foods, arbitrarily selected to meet the Goals,
might be more acceptable to some groups of
people.
Consumption patterns used in developing
the diets are based on data for food used at
6 The August 1977 cost for a four-person family
with diets modified to meet the Goals and the RDA
under Option 3 (table9) is $48.53.
22
home in 1965-66, the most recent data on
national household food consumption availa­ble.
Current consumption, which will be under­stood
better from our 1977-78 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey now underway,
probably differs from that in 1965-66. Annual
USDA estimates of the national per capita food
supply (disappearance data) can be used to
indicate differences in consumption that may
have occurred since 1965.
Changes in the food supply between 1965
and 1975 and changes in 1965-66 consumption
patterns required to meet the Goals are shown
in table 7. For this comparison quantities of
food groups in consumption patterns and in
diets modified to meet the Goals for the 14
sex-age categories were weighted using 1975
population estimates; then change for the aver­age
person in the · population was determined.
For sugar and grains an attempt was made to
express quantities on a commodity basis. The
change for sugar represents the change when all
sugar, including that in commercially prepared
products, is taken into account; and the change
for grain represents the change in the grain
equivalent of grain products used. No attempt
was made to take the eggs and fats from com­mercially
prepared bakery products into
account.
The nutrition messages behind some of the
Dietary Goals seem to have been heard and
heeded by at least part of the U.S. population.
Between 1965 and 1975 changes in food con­sumption-
as indicated by the food supply-of
eggs, butter, lard, margarine, vegetable oils,
vegetables and fruit, and poultry and fish were
in the direction of changes needed to meet the
Goals. This implies that consumption has
already moved toward meeting the Chals, and
the changes for these foods based on 1965-66
food consumption patterns presented in this
study with Option 1 may be some what exag­gerated.
On the other hand, for those foods for
which the direction of change in the food sup­ply
between 1965 and 1975 is different from
that required to meet the Goals-meat, vegeta­ble
shotening, sugar and sirup, grains, and
milk-changes suggested in the study, with
Option 1, may be underestimated.
Conclusions
1. Few people in the United States consume
diets that are as high in carbohydrate and as
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
low in fat and sugar content as specified in the
Dietary Goals proposed by the Select Commit­tee
on Nutrition and Human Needs.
2. Alternative assumptions regarding food
selections within certain food groups (options)
are used in modifying diets to meet the Goals
and the RDA for five vitamins and two miner­als.
Dietary changes generally include the· use
of more grain products, vegetables, fruits,
legumes and nuts, and less sugar, meat, and
eggs. The magnitude of the changes varies con­siderably
for some · foods depending on the
option used. For example, to meet the Goals
with Option 1, in which assortments of foods
in the food groups below are based on average
household food consumption in 1965-66
except as noted for milk, fats and oils, and
meat, people on the average change the foods
they buy and use to include:
• 69 percent more grain products (grain
equivalent basis)
• 25 percent more vegetables and fruit
• 21 percent more dry legumes and nuts
• 10 percent more milk, all in the form of
skim milk
• about the same amount of visible fats
and oils; however, soft margarine and oil
replace butter, lard, and vegetable short­ening
which are higher in saturated fatty
acids
• 59 percent less visible sugar, sirup, jams,
jellies, and candies
• 25 percent less meat, poultry, and fish,
with none of the drippings or separable
fat from meat being consumed
• 24 percent fewer eggs
On the other hand, to meet the Goals with
Option 4, in which through changes in food
selection and/or production and processing,
foods chosen are primarily unprocessed, low in
fat and saturated fatty acids and refined and
processed sugars, and high in complex carbohy­drates,
people on the average would change the
foods they buy and use to include:
• 7 4 percent more grain products (grain
equivalent basis), all of which is rice or
grain of similar composition
WINTER-SPRING 1978
• 43 percent more fruits and vegetables
• 39 percent more dry legumes and nuts
• 34 percent more milk, all in the form of
skim milk
• 22 percent more visible fats and oils;
however, soft margarine and oil replace
butter, lard, and vegetable shortening
which are higher in saturated fatty acids
• 10 percent less visible sugar, sirup, jams,
jellies, and candies
• 6 percent less meat, poultry and fish,
which is one-half Good Grade beef roast
with none of the drippings or separable
fat consumed and one-half poultry with
only the flesh consumed, or meat, poul­try,
and fish of similar composition
• 7 percent fewer eggs
3. If goals are to be established for carbohy­drate,
protein, fat, sugar, cholesterol, and salt,
such goals probably should be set separately
for men, women, and children of different
ages. Goals that restrict intake to a given
amount per person per day of a dietary ele­ment,
such as cholesterol and salt, result in
diets with much more of the element per unit
of energy or per kilogram of body weight for
children and women than for teenage boys and
men, who have greater food energy needs.
Some of the Dietary Goals and suggestions for
modifying diets to meet them in the Commit­tee's
report are not appropriate for use by indi­viduals
in all sex-age categories. For example,
the goal for protein-to provide 12 percent of
energy-is so low that a pregnant woman meet­ing
the protein goal and her RDA for energy
will not meet her RDA for protein. The sug­gestion
that skim milk be used in place of
whole milk may be unnecessarily restrictive as
a means of reducing fat levels, especially in
children's diets.
4. Goals based on food consumption in
terms of food disappearance data are not neces­sarily
appropriate for developing guides for
amounts of foods to buy or guides for food
intake of individuals to meet the nutritional
needs. The intended use of the goals and the
adequacy of detail on food consumption and
associated food composition data are some of
the factors to be considered in determining
whether data on household food use, food
23
intake of individuals, or both should be used as
the basis for goals and their interpretation in
terms of food. The protein goal in the pro­posed
Dietary Goals is an example of the
importance of selection of the appropriate
food consumption data base. The aim of the
Committee in setting the protein goal was to
retain the level in the current diet; therefore, a
goal of 12 percent of energy, based on disap­pearance
data, was established. Yet in the "cur­rent
diet" as defined by USDA's 1965-66 sur­vey
on household food use, protein provides 14
percent of energy; and in the current diet as
defined by the intake of individuals reported in
USDA's 1965-66 survey and in DHEW's more
recent Health and Nutrition Examination Sur­vey,
protein provides about 16 percent or more
of energy.
Where Do We Go From Here?
As the basis for developing food selection
guides for use of the general public and in
administering the food programs, USDA has
made and must continue to make decisions
about acceptable levels of fat, carbohydrate,
protein, sugar, cholesterol, and other elements
in the diet. To help in making these decisions,
the Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Academy of Sciences has agreed to make
recommendations, even though they may be
provisional, as to acceptable levels of 14 die­tary
elements beyond those for which RDA's
24
are established. Levels will be recommended
for healthy men, women, and children of dif­ferent
ages. Among the 14 dietary elements are
those covered by the Dietary Goals. The Board
will include as a part of its considerations the
important issues raised by the Select Commit­tee
on Nutrition and Human Needs and subse­quent
statements and studies. We hope to use
these recommendations and the RDA's as the
basis for nutritional specifications for revising
the USDA food selection guides, after the
information on food consumption of house­holds
and individuals from the 1977-78 Nation­wide
Food Consumption Survey is available.
The Dietary Goals report and discussions
that it has evoked reemphasize the need for
additional research-
-To determine the nutritive value of foods
in the marketplace.
-To provide timely information on the food
selections and nutritional status of people.
-To provide a firm basis for dietary goals
for healthy men, women, and children of dif­ferent
ages.
-To explore adjustments in production and
processing to provide foods that will be helpful
in meeting such goals.
-To develop strategies and guidance materi­als
for encouraging consumers to change their
food behavior as necessary to meet the goals.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 6. A day's food, ·as served, in diets modified to meet the Goals but not
necessarily the RDA,l and further modified to meet the RDA,2 Option 1
Food3and unit
Skim milk (cup) •••••••••••
Eggs (number per week) ••••
Mature beans or peas,
cooked (tbsp) ••••••••••••
Meat, boned cooked
lean (ounce) ...•.••....••
Poultry and fish, cooked
boned (ounce) ••••••••••••
Vegetables and fruit (cup)
Cereal, pasta (ounce) 5 ••••
Bread or equivalent in
bakery products (slices) •
Margarine, oil (tbsp) •••••
Sugar, sweets (tsp) •••••••
Meet Goals, not necessarily RDA
Child,
6-8·
years4
2.9
2.8
1.9
1.3
1.1
2.0
2.9
7.8
3.4
6.0
Child,
9-11
years4
3.3
3.7
2.1
1.8
1.5
2.5
3.4
10.1
4.1
7.0
Male,
20-54
years4
1.7
3.1
2.0
2.7
2.3
2.6
2.7
12.9
3.6
6.7
Female,
20-54
years
1.3
4.3
1.3
2.2
1.9
2.3
2.1
8.6
2.5
4.7
Meet
Goals
and RDA,
female
20-54
years
1.2
5.3
1.8
1.6
1.4
2.5
3.5
8.0
2.9
4.7
1Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, distributed as 30
percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from protein, 56 percent or more
from carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from sugar other than .that found
naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit. Saturated fat provides 10
percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol intake is limited to no more
than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent.
2RDA plus 5 percent for vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic
acid, calcium, and iron.
3The assortment of meats, vegetables, and other groups of foods is based on
food consumption of U.S. households in 1965-66.
4niet modified to meet the Goals also meets the RDA for the 5 vitamins and
2 minerals studied.
51 serving is approximately 1 ounce of dry cereal.
WINTER-SPRING 1978 25
26
Table 7. Change in 1965-66 food consumption patterns required to meet the
Goals and the RDA, Option 11 and change in the national per-capita food
supply from 1965 to 1975
Food
Milk .•.......................
Eggs •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Dry beans and peas, nuts •••••
Beef, pork, veal, lamb •••••••
Paul try, fish ............... .
Potatoes •••••••••••••••••••••
Other vegetables, fruit ••••••
Wheat, corn, oats, rice,
and other grains ••••••••••••
Butter .....•.................
Lard •••••••••.••••••••.•••.••
Margarine ..•.....••.....•.•••
Vegetable shortening •••••••••
Oils ........................ .
S ugar, s1. rups 3 •••••••••••••••
Change in 1965-66
consumption
to meet Goals
10
-24
21
-48
40
27
24
69
2 -100
2 -100
52
2 -100
73
-32
Change in food
supply, 1965
to 1975
Percent
-8
-11
1
7
5
5
7
-4
-25
-53
13
23
44
3
1The 1965-66 food consumption patterns for men, women, and children
were modified to meet the Goals and the RDA, using assumptions defined
as Option 1, and 'weighted by the 1975 population.
2Replaced by margarine and oils, which are higher in polyunsaturated
fatty acids.
3Includes sugar in commercially prepared foods, such as ready-to-eat
cereals, canned fruit sirup, and bakery products.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 8. Change in food consumption patterns 1 required to meet the Goals
and the RDA, 2 Option 2
Child, Child' Male, Female,
Food group 6-8 9-11 20-54 20-54 Person 3
years years years years
Percent ---
Milk, cheese, ice cream .... -12 -10 4 4 1
Eggs ....................... -18 -18 -64 5 -33
Dry beans and peas, nuts ... 56 58 17 44 35
Meat, poultry, fish ........ -22 -16 -23 -33 -26
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables ................ 19 18 18 53 31
Citrus fruit, tomatoes ..... 16 15 16 21 17
Potatoes ................... 26 24 28 17 22
Other vegetables, fruit .... 16 15 16 26 19
Cereal, pasta .............. 108 102 116 207 129
Flour, mixes ............... 81 77 92 79 84
Bread ...................... 68 65 73 60 64
Other bakery products ...... 5 5 37 -10 13
Fats, oils . ' ............... -39 -38 -49 -34 -42
Sugar, sweets .............. -69 -71 -62 -65 -66
1Food consumption in terms of food groups defined as Option 2. Average
selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are
assumed except (1) drippings and all separable fat from meat are discarded;
(2) milk is replaced by 2-percent-fat milk; (3) butter is replaced by
margarine, and lard is replaced by vegetable shortening.
2Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, vitamin A value,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium, and iron. Energy in­take
is distributed as 30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from
protein, 56 percent or more from carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from
sugar other than that found naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit.
Saturated fat provides 10 percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol
intake is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent.
3Food consumption patterns and modified diets for 14 sex-age categories
weighted by the 1975 U.S. population.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
27
Table 9. Change in food consumption patterns1 required to meet the Goals
and the RDA, 2 Option 3
Food group
Milk, cheese, ice cream ••••
Eggs •••••••••••••••••••••••
Dry beans and peas, nuts •••
Meat, poultry, fish ••••••••
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables ••••••••.•••••••
Citrus fruit, tomatoes •••••
Potatoes •••••••••••••••••••
Other vegetables, fruit ••••
Cereal, pasta ••••••••••••••
Flour, mixes •••••••••.•••••
Bread
Other bakery products ••••••
Fats, oils •••••••••••••••••
Sugar, sweets ••••••••••••••
Child,
6-8
years
-13
-15
71
-32
16
13
25
14
119
89
75
17
-82
-71
Child,
9-11
years
-12
-15
73
-26
15
13
24
13
114
86
72
16
-81
-73
Male,
20-54
years
Percent
-10
-65
88
-26
17
14
27
14
124
96
80
21
-70
-59
Female,
20-54
years
3
0
60
-37
55
18
15
24
214
93
67
-12
-56
-65
Person3
-3
-33
70
-31
31
15
21
17
141
94
72
8
-71
-66
1Food consumption in terms of food groups defined as Option 3. Average
selections within food groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are
assumed except drippings and one-half of the separable fat from meat are
discarded.
2Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, vitamin A value,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium, and iron. Energy in­take
is distributed as 30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from
protein, 56 percent or more from carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from
sugar other than that found naturally in foods such as milk and fresh fruit.
Saturated fat provides 10 percent or less of energy intake, and cholesterol
intake is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day plus 5 percent.
3Food consumption patterns and modified diets for 14 sex-age categories
weighted by the 1975 U.S. population.
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 10. Change in food consumption fatterns required to meet the Goals
and the RDA, Option 42
Child, Child, Male, Female,
Food group 6-8 9-11 20-54 20-54 Person 3
years years years years
Percent
Milk, cheese, ice cream .... 26 27 47 30 34
Eggs ....................... 17 21 -51 35 -7
Dry beans and peas, nuts ... 16 23 19 88 39
Meat, poultry, fish ........ 7 13 6 -29 -6
Dark-green, deep-yellow
vegetables ................ 31 31 43 92 63
Citrus fruit, tomatoes ..... 32 31 35 49 40
Potatoes ................... 34 34 37 41 35
Other vegetables, fruit .... 31 31 36 56 44
Grain4 ..................... 45 44 54 138 74
Fats, oils ................. 91 81 38 -53 22
Sugar, sweets .............. -21 -22 8 -15 -10
1Recommended Dietary Allowance plus 5 percent for energy, vitamin A value, thiamin,
riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium, and iron. Energy intake is distributed as
30 percent or less from fat, 14 percent or less from protein, 56 percent or more from
carbohydrate, and 10 percent or less from sugar other than that found naturally in
foods such as milk and fresh fruit. Saturated fat provides 10 percent or less of
energy intake, and cholesterol intake is limited to no more than 300 milligrams per
day plus 5 percent.
2Food in terms of food groups defined in Option 4. Average selections within food
groups as used by U.S. households in 1965-66 are assumed except (1) amounts of meat,
poultry, and fish are adjusted to one-half Good Grade boned beef rump roast, and one­half
broiler chicken and all drippings and separable fat from the roast and drippings
and skin from the chicken are discarded; (2) milk and dairy products are replaced by
their calcium equivalent in skim milk; (3) butter and margarine are replaced by soft
margarine, and lard and vegetable shortening are replaced by vegetable oils; (4) grain
products are replaced by their grain equivalent in rice--one-half raw brown and one­half
white enriched parboiled rice.
3Food consumption patterns and modified diets for 14 sex-age categories weighted by
the 1975 U.S. population.
4rhe amount of cereal in the consumption pattern is the grain equivalent of the 4
grain products food groups. Other ingredients in grain products, such as fat and
sugar, are excluded from the consumption pattern.
WINTER-SPRING 1978 29
THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR FOOD
by Kenneth R. Farrell1
Food Price Determinants
The food marketing system in the United
States is a very complex part of our vast food
and agricultural sector. The system has often
been subject to substantial criticism. Consum­ers
blame the system for "high" food prices.
Farmers blame it for "low" farm prices. As
food prices continue to rise, more people tend
to perceive the marketing system as simply
"charging a lot for doing very little." What
then should we expect to be the relationship
between farm and food prices?
Farm prices and food prices are generated in
different markets, subject to different supply
and demand forces. Farm prices of raw agricul­tural
products are largely influenced by what is
produced, both on U.S. farms and worldwide.
What gets produced at the farm level is heavily
dependent upon rather unpredictable natural
forces such as the weather, pest infestations, or
plant and animal diseases.
The markets in which food is sold operate
quite differently. Processors purchase raw agri­cultural
products at prices determined largely
by relative product availability. They then add
processing, transportation, and packaging serv­ices
and ultimately sell a differentiated food
product to wholesalers and/or retailers. Whole­salers
and retailers, although they may make
fewer physical changes in the product form,
add still more services.
Clearly then there is good reason for some
variability in movements between farm prices
and prices for food. It is true that farmers con­tribute
the raw material base for most food
products; but it is also true that farm products
are only one input into the food marketing
process. That raw product must be converted
into a form consumers are willing to purchase;
it must be delivered to a place where the con­sumer
may obtain it; and it must be available at
a time when the consumer wants it. These food
1 Economic Research Service, USDA. Condensed
from a paper presented at the Food and Agricultural
Outlook Conference in November 1977, at Washing­ton,
D.C. Complete copies are available from the Con­sumer
and Food Economics Institute (see inside cover
of this issue of Family Economics Review for address).
30
marketing services involve more than just trans­porting,
processing, and distributing farm prod­ucts.
Food retailers, in particular, have invested
billions of dollars in the land, buildings, and
equipment necessary to complete the present
network of modern supermarkets. These stores
have been built with the shopper in mind-wide
aisles, air conditioning, and carryout services.
Such services as check cashing and long operat­ing
hours (sometimes 24 hours a day) are com­mon.
Food prices must, therefore, reflect both
the costs for the raw farm product as well as
the costs involved in providing marketing
services.
Consumer demand, therefore, plays a key,
but often neglected, role in the widening farm­to-
retail price spread. As income increases, the
consumer demand for food system services can
be expected to increase at a faster rate than the
demand for farm output. As services become
more important relative to the total product
sold, the farm level price for the basic raw
ingredient becomes less important. In addition,
since there is a rather loosely defined biological
constraint on how much food people will
ingest, the food marketing system has a strong
incentive to increase the service component of
the products they sell. In fact, the marketing
service component is their primary product.
A Review of 1977
Food prices at retail were affected most by
weather, imported food prices, marketing
costs, and consumer demand. The severe winter
which devastated Florida's vegetables and
severely damaged its citrus crops contributed
significantly to the food price rise. Imported
food prices were also influenced dramatically
by the weather. The coffee shortage, in particu­lar,
is noted, although a number of other items
have had sharp increases too. Costs of market­ing
services continued to rise and either were
passed on to consumers through higher prices
or were partially offset by lower prices of farm
commodities. Again in 1977, the consumer
demand for food and related services was
strengthened by increased disposable and real
income.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Retail food prices were relatively stable in
1976, but prices began to climb early in 1977.
Through July an average rise of 1 percent per
month had occurred. Winter vegetables and
citrus fruits were contributors, but most of the
increase resulted from the dramatic increases in
prices of fish and imported foods, particularly
coffee. By mid-1977 prices for food at home
were up 7.5 percent from December 1976 with
the all-food index, which includes prices of
food away from home, up 7.2 percent. In the
second half of 1977, larger supplies of farm
commodities with lower prices to farmers but
wider price spreads for U.S. farm food resulted
in little change in prices of domestically pro­duced
food. Coffee prices were down 7 to 8
percent, but prices of other imported foods
and fish continued to increase in the second
half. Prices for food at home were about 1 per­cent
higher at the end of December 1976 than
at midyear; prices for all food were slightly
higher.
For 197 7, grocery prices ended the year at
about a 7 percent higher level than a year earli­er
and averaged over the whole year about
6 percent above 1976. Price increases for
away-from-home eating, which were influenced
more by rising consumer demand and by
increases in costs in the nonfarm sector, were
up 8 percent over 1976 on the average-a
slightly larger increase than a year earlier. The
all-food index combining both at-home and
away-from-home components averaged about
6llz percent above 1976.
Another perspective on the behavior of retail
food prices can be obtained by an examination
of a market basket of domestically produced
food. The market basket contains 65 food
items and represents the average quantities of
domestic farm-originated foods bought in retail
stores during a year by an urban household. It
does not include foods consumers buy in
away-from-home eating establishments, fishery
products, or imported foods such as coffee,
tea, cocoa, and bananas.
The retail cost of the market basket of U.S.
farm foods averaged only about 2% percent
higher in 1977, following the 1 percent rise in
1976. Although prices at the farm level had
been higher for some commodities, average
returns to farmers for all market basket foods
were slightly below 1976. Price spreads, .the
difference between what the farmer receives
WINTER-SPRING 1978
and what the .::unsumer pays, however, aver­aged
about 41;2 percent higher for 1977, reflect­ing
lags in adjustments between farm and retail
prices and rising costs for labor and other
marketing related inputs. Thus, all of the 1977
increase in the retail cost of our market basket
of foods produced on U.S. farms arose from
wider price spreads which reflected higher mar­keting
charges.
Although the retail price of the market bas­ket
increased moderately in 1977, some of its
components showed substantial variations in
price behavior. Retail prices averaged sharply
higher for fresh fruits and vegetables (14 per­cent)
and oilseed products (10 percent),
reflecting tight supplies and higher farm prices
for these commodities earlier in 1977 and
widening price spreads toward the end of 1977.
Small-to-moderate price increases for cereal
and bakery products (lllz percent), processed
fruits and vegetables (3 percent), and other
highly processed foods were wholly attributa­ble
to higher marketing charges. Returns to
farmers producing the major raw material in
these products were generally lower in 1977.
Outlook for 1978
The food outlook for 1978 is dominated by
anticipated large food supplies (both domestic
and foreign), increases in marketing costs, some
uncertainty about the weather, energy costs,
and the impact of recent or pending food legis­lation.
Overall, food price increases in 1978 are
expected to be about the same as in 1977, or
slightly lower.
World grain output for the 1977-78 crop
year is below 1976-77, and total world usage
will be higher because of population pressures
and economic growth. With the record U.S.
crop, total world production is expected to be
below utilization by only 4 to 6 million tons.
U.S. farm production will, however, be suffi­cient
to meet the anticipated export require­ments
and still provide an adequate supply of
major crop commodities for domestic use.
Processed fruits and vegetables also are
expected to be adequate through mid-1978,
largely as a result of 1977's large crop harvests.
The availability of many fresh produce items
will depend on weather conditions at critical
times during the growing season.
With large feed supplies available and feed
prices at relatively low levels, larger supplies of
31
pork, grain-fed beef, poultry, eggs, and dairy
products are anticipated this year. Although
total beef output may be down slightly {if, as
expected, cattle producers reduce the number
of nonfed animals sent to slaughter) the per
capita availability of all animal food products
combined will match or slightly exceed the
record-high levels of 1976 and 1977.
Rising wages of food processing and market­ing
employees and prices of other inputs pur­chased
by food marketing firms will continue
to exert upward pressure on food prices during
1978. Wages of employees in the food industry
will probably increase 7 to 8 percent in 1978 as
a result of prior wage settlements, cost-of-living
adjustments to wages, renegotiated wage agree­ments,
and increases in the minimum wage.
In 1978, major collective bargaining agree­ments
covering about a quarter-million food
marketing workers will expire, mostly for retail
food store employees. Although only one
worker in nine is included in major collective
bargaining agreements, these agreements have
potentially far-reaching effects on the food
industry since wages of nonunion and manage­ment
employees tend to follow changes in col­lective
bargaining agreements. New wage settle­ments
in 1978 will be strongly influenced by
attempts to protect workers from further infla­tion
and the possible loss of purchasing power.
In addition to the provisions of labor contracts,
increases in the minimum wage to $2.65 per
hour and higher social security withholding
rates will also increase the labor costs of mar­keting
firms.
Labor productivity should continue to
increase slightly next year due to the greater
volume of food marketed. This should help off.
set increases in wages and other cost elements.
Productivity gains are likely to be greater in
food processing than in food retailing. Produc­tivity
growth in food stores has been slowed by
a loss of business to eating places, longer hours
of operation, and the growth of service-orient­ed
operations in supermarkets, such as bakery
shops and delicatessens.
Higher prices for other services, such as
energy, packaging materials, and transportation
will also contribute to rising marketing costs in
1978. The stable railroad-freight rate situation
for both food products and farm products that
prevailed for much of 1977 ended in the fall of
1977. Rail rates during 1978 are expected to
32
average 6 to 7 percent above 1977 levels. Rates
charged by trucks and barges are also expected
to rise commensurately.
Pending legislation and international oil
prices introduce considerable uncertainty into
the energy situation. However, it appears
almost certain that the general upward trend in
these prices will continue in 197 8. Increases in
natural gas prices of 10 to 20 percent may
result from proposed changes in the regulation
of prices. Electric power rates can be expected
to increase because of the cost of the required
conversion of many steam-generating plants
from fuel oil and natural gas to coal. The gen­erally
rising prices for all forms of energy will
also exert some upward pressure on electric
power rates.
Domestic demand for food is expected to
continue to expand in 1978 at about the same
rate as in 1977. In addition to the anticipated
small increases in the population, disposable
personal income is expected to increase about
9 percent, nearly identical to the 1977
increase. The overall inflation rate is likely to
be about the same as in 1977. Real consumer
income, therefore, would increase by about
3 percent. However, demand for automobiles,
housing, and services will continue to absorb
most of the overall increase in consumer
income, thus moderating its impact on food
demand and prices.
Producer response to new farm legislation
and the recent international trade develop­ments
represent uncertainties which could
affect food prices in 1978 even if the weather
is good. There is, however, little doubt that the
recently adopted sugar program will significant­ly
influence U.S. food prices. It has been esti­mated
that increasing the sugar support price
to 13.5 cents per pound of raw product equiva­lent
alone will increase domestic food expendi­tures
in 1978 by about 0.5 percent.
Anticipated developments in the regulation
of food safety and composition will also bring
about changes in food marketing costs. Saccha­rin
appears to be on the way out as a food
additive-just when, no one knows-creating
adjustment problems for consumers, as well as
food manufacturers. The use of antibiotics and
growth stimulants by livestock and poultry
producers is being questioned.
Finally, the technique for measuring price
increases will be changed in 1978. The Bureau
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
of Labor Statistics has updated the way it will
calculate the Consumer Price Index ( CPI).
Food will be less important in the new index so
that fluctuations in food prices will have less
impact on the overall CPl. The composition of
the food index will also be changed. In particu-lar,
the base weights will be adjusted to reflect
consumer purchasing patterns for a more
recent time period-July 1972 through June
1974. Just what these changes will mean for
official reports of food price changes is still
uncertain.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C. 20402:
• GARDENING FOR FOOD AND FUN. 1977 yearbook of Agriculture. $6.50 (hardback).
• 1977 HANDBOOK OF AGRICULTURAL CHARTS. AH 524. November 1977.$3.00.
• WATER CONSERVATION CHECKLIST FOR THE HOME. PA 1192. August 1977. 70
cents.
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Please
address your request to the office indicated:
From Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• FACT SHEET-STARTING PLANTS FROM SEEDS. AFS 8-9-1.
• REMOVING STAINS FROM FABRICS. G 62. Revised May 1977.
• FREEZING MEAT AND FISH IN THE HOME. G 93. Revised May 1977.
• PORK IN F AMIL YMEALS-A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS. G 160. Revised July 1977.
• HOUSE CONSTRUCTION-HOW TO REDUCE COSTS. G 168. Revised Apri11977.
• SELECTING AND FINANCING A HOME. G 182. Revised September 1977.
• TRANSPLANTING ORNAMENTAL TREES AND SHRUBS. G 192. Revised June 1977.
• BE SAFE FROM INSECTS IN RECREATION AREAS. G 200. Revised May 1977.
• FAMILY FOOD BUYING-A GUIDE FOR CALCULATING AMOUNTS TO BUY AND
COMPARING COSTS. HERR 37. Revised August 1977.
From Food Safety and Quality Service, Information Division, Room 1078, South Building,
Washington, D.C. 20250:
• STANDARDS FOR MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS: A CONSUMER REFERENCE
LIST. Revised July 1977.
From Economic Research Service, Division of Information, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• BALANCE SHEET OF THE FARMING SECTOR. AB 411. October 1977.
WINTER-SPRING 1978
33
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND
OUTLOOK FOR 1978
by Annette Polyzou
Trends in Clothing Expenditures
and Prices: 1960-771
Two types of data can be used in examining
clothing expenditures: (1) Aggregate data on
personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are
supplied annually by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
These data, which are derived from business
transactions, measure total expenditures in the
United States and are part of the U.S. National
Income and Product accounts. The PCE data
are easiest to use when they are expressed on a
per-capita basis (total U.S. expenditures
divided by total U.S. population). (2) House­hold
data on family expenditures are collected
through nationwide surveys, such as the Con­sumer
Expenditure Surveys (CES) of 1960-61
and 1972-73, conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
CES data measure average family expenditures
and are available for component population
groups as well as for national totals. These
data, however, have only been available at
about 10-year intervals.
The two types of data are not interchange­able.
2 The PCE data are most useful in examin­ing
trends in clothing expenditures and the
CES data are most useful in developing budgets
or in helping families understand their expendi­tures.
Nevertheless, examination of the data
from both sources, between 1960 and 1977 shows similar patterns with respect to total'
expenditures for clothing and the percent of
total expenditures spent on clothing.
Expenditures. Per-capita expenditures for
clothing and shoes, as measured by PCE data
increased in both current and constant doll~
during the period 1960-77 (table 1). In current
dollars, per-capita expenditures for clothing
1 Preliminary figures for 1977-based on most recent
data available during October 1977.
2 For a more detailed discussion of the differences in
aggregate and household data, see Family Economics
Review December 1970.
34
and shoes were about 152 percent higher in
1977 than in 1960. Approximately two-thirds
of this increase was caused by a rise in the level
of prices and one-third by increased buying-a
real increase of 51 percent in dollars of con­stant
value. Such an increase in purchase of
clothing and shoes during this period might be
attributed to rising incomes as well as to a
change in the composition of the population.
Real disposable income was 89 percent higher
in 1977 than in 1960, according to the U.S.
Department of Commerce series on personal
income and outlay.
The composition of the population during
those years reveals an increasing proportion of
individuals in the 14-34 age group (table 2).
These individuals typically have high clothing
expenditures that result from new clothing
needs associated with sporting activities dat- m. g, entering college, or beginning careers. ' Indi-viduals
in this age group also tend to be more
fashion conscious than in other age groups and
may thus accept fashion changes more quickly.
The increase in 14-34-year-olds with generally
high clothing expenditures was partially offset
by a slight increase in the proportion of indi­viduals
age 55 and over. These people typically
spend less on clothing than other individuals
due to decreases in clothing needs and in
income, which result from retirement from the
labor force and from a reduced level of physi­cal
activity. Projections of the population for
1980 indicate that the composition will be
virtual!~ the same as that in 1976-the greatest
proportiOn of the population will be individu­als
with the highest clothing expenditures.
Thus, ~eal increases in per-capita clothing
expend1~ures, on an aggregate basis, are likely
to contmue at their present levels during the
next few years and perhaps to increase as real
disposa?le personal incomes rise. However,
future mcreases are likely to be at a slower rate
since projections indicate no further growth in
the 14-34 age group.
A_s measur~d by the CES data, average
fa~ly e~pend1tures on clothing, materials, and
services, mcluding all laundry and drycleaning
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
services, were 17 percent higher in current dol­lars
in 1972-73 than in 1960-61 (table 3). In
constant dollars, however, average family
expenditures dropped by about 13 percent
between 1960-61 and 1972-73. That drop
might be attributed to a decline in family size.
Data collected separately by CES and by the
Bureau of the Census show a decline in average
family size between 1960 and 1970. Smaller
families generally buy fewer clothes. Data from
the Bureau of the Census show that average
family size continued to decline during the
period 1972-73 through March 1977 from 3.51
persons to 3. 37 persons. That decline suggests
the possibility that family expenditures on
clothing may have continued to decline in
recent years.
Percent of total spending for clothing. In
both current and constant dollars, the percent
of total personal consumption expenditures
(PCE) spent on clothing and shoes declined
during the period 1960-77 (table 1). In current
dollars, clothing comprised 8.2 percent of per­sonal
consumption expenditures in 1960 and
6.8 percent in 1977. In constant dollars, cloth­ing
comprised 8.1 percent of personal con­sumption
expenditures in 1960 and 7. 7 percent
in 1977. Clothing, as a percent of total person­al
consumption expenditures, declined at a
faster rate in current than in constant dollars
because prices for the all-items category of per­sonal
consumption expenditures increased at a
faster rate than prices for clothing.
The CES data are consistent with PCE indi­cations
of a decline in clothing expenditures as
a percent of total personal consumption
expenditures. Clothing expenditures, as a per­cent
of total consumption expenditures
(table 3), were lower in 1972-73 than in
1960-61 in both current (7 .8 versus 10.9 per­cent)
and constant dollars (7.8 versus 10.2
percent).
The downward trend in clothing as a percent
of total expenditures parallels a downward
trend for nondurable goods in general.
Expenditures have shifted away from nondura­ble
goods toward durable goods, such as auto­mobiles,
furniture, and household equipment,
and toward services ' such as h.o using, hou.s e- hold operation and transportatiOn. Accordmg
to the PCE d~ta, nondurable goods declined
from 46 percent of personal consumption
WINTER-SPRING 197 8
expenditures in 1960 in constant dollars to 39
percent in 1977, whereas durable goods rose
from 12 to 16 percent and services rose from
42 to 45 percent during the same period. The
CES data show a similar trend. The trend
toward durable goods may be partially attribut­ed
to an increased rate of new household for­mation
during the 1960-77 period, resulting
from a greater proportion of individuals aged
14-34 years who either live away from home
before marriage or get married and form new
households. The formation of new households
is typically associated with increased demand
for durable goods and services, such as automo­biles,
housing, and household furnishings.
Attitudes towards clothing also have
changed in recent years. Most individuals have
adopted a casual lifestyle that has brought
about a relaxed attitude towards clothing.
Jeans have become a major influence on appar­el,
as have separates that provide variety
through mixing and matching garments and
allow inexpensive replacement of components.
There has also been greater use of active sports­wear,
such as jogging suits, as streetwear. Con­sumers'
interest has also shifted in recent years
from faddish items to garments with basic utili­ty
and permanence. Trade sources expect con­sumers
to purchase a few higher priced, better
quality garments with more durability for
long-lasting wear rather than many lower quali­ty
faddish items.
Clothing Expenditures and Prices During 1977
Consumer expenditures for clothing and
shoes averaged $37 3 per person during the first
three quarters of 197 7, according to prelimi­nary
figures (table 1). Although that amount is
$18 higher than the corresponding amount in
1976, nearly two-thirds of the increase resulted
from a rise in the level of prices rather than
from increased buying.
The price level for apparel and upkeep, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
averaged 4. 6 percent higher during the first
three quarters of 1977 than during the same
period in 1976 (table 4). Increases among the
three apparel subgroups averaged 4.6 percent
for men's and boys' clothing, 3.3 percent for
women's and girls' clothing, 4.9 percent for
footwear, and 5.2 percent for other apparel
commodities. Such increases for apparel items
35
Table 1. Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes, 1960-77 1
Percent of Aggregate
Per-capita expenditures expenditures
expenditures2 for personal
consumption Billions Billions
Year of of
Constant Current Constant Current constant current
dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars
(1972) (1972) (1972)
1960 ......... 203 148 8.1 8.2 36.6 26.7
1961 .......... 203 149 8.1 8.2 37.3 27.4
1962 ......... 209 154 8.1 8.1 38.9 28.7
1963 ......... 209 156 7.9 7.9 39.6 29.5
1964 ......... 222 166 8.1 8.0 42.6 31.9
1965 .......... 227 172 7.9 7.8 44.2 33.5
1966 ......... 239 186 8.0 7.9 46.9 36.6
1967 ......... 236 192 7.8 7.8 46.9 38.2
1968 ......... 242 208 7.7 7.8 48.6 41.8
1969 ......... 245 223 7.6 7.8 49.6 45.1
1970 ......... 240 227 7.4 7.5 49.2 46.6
1971 ......... 249 244 7.5 7.6 51.6 50.5
1972 ......... 264 264 7.5 7.5 55.1 55.1
1973 .... . ... 281 291 7.7 7.6 59.2 61.3
1974 ......... 279 308 7.8 7.3 59.1 65.3
1975 ......... 288 329 7.9 7.2 61.5 70.2
1976 ......... 301 355 7.9 7.0 64.7 76.3
1977 3 •••••••• 306 373 7.7 6.8 66.2 80.9
1Data shown for 1960 through 1976 differ from data given in previous papers
on the outlook for clothing and textiles. The revisions resulted from changes
in definitions of personal consumption expenditures (other than clothing and
shoes), statistical revisions of previous estimates, and revisions in popula­tion
figures for 1975 and 1976. More detailed information can be obtained
from the Survey of Current Business and Current Population Reports (see
sources below).
2calculated by dividing aggregate expenditures for each year by population
figures for July 1 of each year.
3Preliminary figures--average of estimates for first 3 quarters of 1977
(i.e., seasonally adjusted quarterly totals at annual rates).
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1977, Estimates
of the population of the United States and components of change: 1940 to 1976,
Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 706 (table c). U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business (tables
2.3 and 2.4), 1976, 56(1), parts I and II, and 1977, 57(7); and personal commu­nication
with the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
36 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 2. Composition of population by age, specified years, 1960-80
Year
1960 ........
1970 ........
1976 ........
19 80 1 •••••••
1Projections.
Total population
(in thousands)
180,671
204,878
215,118
224,066
Percent of population by age group
Under 14 14-34 35-54 55-65+
30 28 25 18
26 32 23 19
22 36 22 20
21 36 22 21
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1977, Projec­tions
of the population of the United States: 1977 to 2050, Current Population
Reports, Series P-25, No. 704, table h.
Table 3. Comparison of 1960-61 and 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey data 1
Item
Current dollars:
Average total consumption expenditures
Average expenditures on clothing,
materials, and services ••••••••••••.•••••••
Clothing expenditures as a percent of
total consumption expenditures ••••.••••••
Average family size ..••.•••••.••.•.....•••.••.
Constant 1972 dollars:
Average total consumption expenditures .•••••••
Average expenditures on clothing,
materials, and services •••••.••••••••••••••
Clothing expenditures as a percent of
total consumption expenditures .•••.•.•••••
11972-73 preliminary data.
1960-61 1972-73
5,054 8,282
553 647
10.9 7.8
3.2 2.9
7,328 8,282
747 647
10.2 7.8
Source: u.s. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977, Changes
in consumer spending patterns, News 77-428, PP· 1-5.
37
WINTER-SPRING 197 8
w
CX>
~ .....
t"'
I<!
trJ
(")
0 z
0 .a..:.:.
(")
C/)
::0
trJ
.<...:.
trJ
=El
Table 4. Annual percentage increase in selected indexes of consumer prices, 1973-77
Consumer Price Index component 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1
All items .................................. 6.2 11.0 9.1 5.8
Apparel and upkeep 2 •••••••••••••••••••••• 3.7 7.4 4.5 3.7
Men's and boys' c lathing ••••••••••••••• 3.7 7.9 4.3 3.5
Women's and girls' clothing •••••••••••• 3.5 6.0 2.4 2.8
Footwear ..........•••.••...........•• • . 4.2 6.1 4.4 4.0
Other apparel commodities 3 ••••••••••••• -- -- -- --
1Preliminary estimates--average for first 3 quarters of 1977 compared with the average for first
3 quarters of 1976.
2Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel upkeep services, for which
indexes are not available.
3Developed in 1976 to include diapers, yard goods, earrings, wrist watches, and zippers.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977, News, Consumer Price Index
(monthly issues); and personal communication with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
6.4
4.6
4.6
3.3
4.9
5.2
were less than the 6.4-percent increase for all
items of the CPl.
Retail sales of apparel were generally weak
during the first quarter of 1977. Abnormally
cold weather during January and early Febru­ary
caused an increase in home-heating fuel
usage as well as a rise in fuel prices and in
weather-affected food prices, thus red\,\cing
consumers' discretionary income for retail pur­chases.
The severe cold did strengthen sales of
sweaters, thermal underwear, hats, and gloves.
As the effects of the severe weather abated and
personal income increased substantially during
the latter half of the first quarter, consumer
spending rapidly increased. Strong sales of
durable goods, mainly automobiles, major
appliances, and furniture, indicated that con­sumers
may have purchased such big-ticket
items in anticipation of future price increases
resulting from the rise in fuel prices. Con­sumers
also invested in such home improve­ments
as storm windows and home insulation,
presumably to reduce energy usage.
This trend continued to be strong during the
second quarter, affecting sales of automobiles,
appliances, garden and nursery equipment,
sporting goods, and related items. Various
trade sources cited several possible reasons for
the weak apparel sales during most of the
second quarter:
•
•
•
Consumers' resistance to higher prices of ,
apparel.
Consumers' strong interest in housing
and automobiles.
Consumers' concern about energy and
long-term inflation.
Retailers responded to sluggish apparel sales by
promoting aggressively and cutting prices in
hope of creating some consumer interest.
Retailers also kept inventories lean and depend­ed
on