Family Economics Review [1985, Number 3]

              Editor
Katherine S. Tippett
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
Family Economics Review is
published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research
Group. Agricultural Research
Service. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Washington. D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication
of this periodical is necessary in
the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
Department. Use of funds for this
periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Otfice of
Management and Budget
through March31.1987.
Contents may be reprinted
without permission. but credit to
Family Economics Review
would be appreciated. Use of
commercial or trade names
does not imply approval or con­stitute
endorsement by USDA.
Family Economics Review is
for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Otfice. Send subscrip­tion
orders. change of address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent of Documents.
U.S. Government Printing Otfice.
Washington. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con­cerning
this publication should
be addressed to:
Katherine S. Tippett Editor.
Family Economics Review.
~- ~.a.umlCS
Review
1985 No.3
Beginning with the next issue, Marilyn Doss Ruffin will be editor
of the Family Economics Review . Katherine S . Tippett, who has served
as editor since 1970, has accepted a new position with the Nutrition
Monitoring Division of the Human Nutrition Information Service, USDA.
Contents:
Measurements of Family Income
Nancy E. Schwenk
Female Farm Landlords, 1979
Kathleen K. Scholl
Research Report--Major Concerns of Families
Anna Mae Kobbe
Nutrient Data Base for Continuing Food Intake Survey
Linda P . Posati and Robert L. Rizek
Dietary Recommendations for Healthy Americans Summarized
Patricia M. Behlen and Frances J. Cronin
Abstracts
Economic Characteristics of Households--New Data Series
Geographical Mobility
New Publication on Adjustable Rate Mortgages
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1983
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications
Some New USDA Charts
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
1
8
12
14
17
6
7
7
16
13
25
26
27
Family Economics Research Group.
USDN ARS. Federal Building. Issued July 1985
Room 442A. Hyattsville. Md. 20782. ·
Depository
Measurements of
Family Income
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer economist
NWr :nTV Gf. fiE
LIBRARY
tJUL 19 1985
niver .. ity of North Carolin
~'r Gr .nsbcro
Concern over the economic status of
families in the United States has created
incr eased int e r est in the economic tools
used to measure family income. Analyzing
data on family economic issues can result in
contradictory explanations of researcl:l find­ings
. A case in point is conflicting family
income figures , which can result from dif­ferences
in methods of presentation and/or
sou r ces of data . This article will present
reasons why there are various and conflict­ing
income figures available and why a new
method of measuring family income has been
initiated by the Federal Government.
Methods of Presentation
Income figures can be presented in a
number of different ways to assess economic
well-being. Patterns of income change over
time, and differences among subgroups of the
population may vary, however, depending on
how the data are presented . For example,
income can be reported as a mean figure or
as a median figure . In 1983 mean household
income was $25,401 and median household
income was $20 , 885. As this example shows,
mean income figures tend to be higher than
median income figures . This is because
hou sehold income has narrower limits on the
low side than the high side. The usual lower
limit for annual household income is zero
dollars, whereas the upper limit can reach
in to the millions of dollars.
One of the best indicators of economic
well-being over time is the annual change in
real purchasing power. This change is
measured by comparing before-tax median
household or family income figures after
adjusting for changes in prices using the
Consumer Price Index. Although median family
income increased from $22,388 to $23,433
between 1981 and 1982, there was a decline
in real income of 1.4 percent after account­ing
for a 6.1-percent rise in consumer
prices. By contrast, in 1983 median income
for all families increased faster than the
inflation rate for the first time in 4 years.
Before-tax median income was $24, 58 0, an
increase in real income of 1.6 percent over
1982.
There are limitations to the before-tax
income concept. First, this concept fails to
account for changes in tax regulations and
rates or the effect of the "bracket creep . "
For example, while before-tax real mean
family income figures for 1981-82 showed a
decline, after-tax real income increased
during this period by 1.3 percent. This
increase was associated with a reduction in
Federal income tax rates. Second, before-tax
income may not be efficient for measuring
differences in purchasing power between
subgroups, such as the aged and the non­aged,
because certain groups pay smaller
proportions of their gross incomes in taxes
than others. After-tax income estimates
provide a better measure of household
purchasing power and differences among
population subgroups than do unadjusted
income estimates alone. As can be seen in
table 1, various subgroups of the population
are affected by taxes and by inflation in
different ways.
Income statistics can also be expressed as
household income or family income. House­hold
income differs from family income in
that household income includes not only the
income of all related persons in the house­hold
but also the income of any unrelated
persons in the household. Household income
also covers the income of one-person house­holds.
Family income is limited to the
income of only related persons in the
household.
Income can also be reported based on
income per household member. Using income
per household member helps standardize for
differences in household size. The use of
income per household member after taxes
provides a different perspective of income
levels and differences in levels between
households with different characteristics.
For example, in 1980 before-tax per person
income was lower in elderly households than
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review
Table 1. Mean household income in constant 1983 dollars
Household type
All households:
Before tax ••••••••
After tax •••••••••
White:
Before tax ••••••••
After tax •••••••••
Black:
Before tax •••••••
After tax ••••••••
Spanish:
Before tax •••••••
After tax ••••••••
Age 65 and over:
Before tax •••••••
After tax ••••••••
Female head, no
husband present,
with related children:
Before tax •••••••
After tax ••••••••
1980
Income Percent
change
Dollars
25,461
19,670
26,489
20,371
16,887
13,841
20,156
16,380
15,265
13,274
13,841
11,956
-5.4
NA
-5.3
NA
-6.0
NA
-9.1
NA
-0.2
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not available.
1981
Income Percent
change
Dollars
24,958 -2.0
19,162 -2.6
26,004
19,875
16,271
13,234
20,123
16,228
15,603
13,498
-1.8
-2.4
-3.6
-4.4
-0.2
-0.9
+2.2
+1.7
13,483 -2.6
11,577 -3.2
1982
Income Percent
change
Dollars
25,087 +0.5
19,511 +1.8
26,121
20,234
16,251
13,370
19,352
15,787
16,377
14,208
12,974
11,216
+0.4
+1.8
-0.1
+1.0
-3.8
-2.7
+5.0
+5.3
-3.8
-3.1
1983
Income Percent
change
Dollars
25,401
NA
26,455
NA
16,531
NA
19,369
NA
16.386
NA
NA
NA
+1.3
NA
+1.3
NA
+1.7
NA
+0.1
NA
+0.1
NA
NA
NA
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983, Estimating after-tax
money income distribution using data from the March Current Population Survey, Current
Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 126. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1984, After-tax money income estimates of households, 1981, Current Population
Reports, Series P-23, No. 132. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1984,
After-tax money income estimates of households, 1982, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 137.
2 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
in all households, whereas after-tax per
person income was higher for elderly house­holds
than for all households. This compari­son
reflects the smaller size of these el­derly
households relative to all households.
Also, the elderly tend to have lower income
levels (and, hence, lower tax rates), and
they are more likely to receive nontaxable
income such as Social Security benefits. The
relative tax burden for various household
types can be seen in table 2.
Sources of Data
The Bureau of the Census has been collect­ing
annual money income statistics for fami­lies
and persons in the United States since
1947. The statistics are gathered in the
Current Population Survey (CPS) and pub­lished
in the Consumer Income Series P-60 of
the Current Population Reports. These sta­tistics
have been used to measure levels and
changes in the economic well-being of the
population since 1947 and, since 1965,
levels and changes in the official poverty
population. The CPS income estimates,
presently the major source of data on the
distribution of income, are based on data
obtained annually in March from the CPS and
from supplementary questions to the CPS. In
the March CPS, household members are asked
to recall their income for the previous
calendar year. The present CPS sample,
which includes approximately 59,000 house­holds,
was initially selected from the 1970
census files, with coverage in all 50 States
and the District of Columbia, and is
continually updated.
Table 2. Percent of mean household income paid in taxes 1
[Calculated using current dollars]
Household type 1980 1981 1982
All households ............................. 22.7 23.2 22.2
White .................................... 23.1 23.6 22.5
Black .................................... 18.0 18.7 17.7
Spanish .................................. 18.7 19.4 18.3
Elderly .................................. 13.0 13.5 13.2
Female headed •••••••..•....•••••••.••.•.• 13.6 14.1 13.6
1 These taxes include Federal individual income taxes, State individual income taxes, FICA
(Social Security) taxes and Federal retirement payroll taxes, and property taxes on
owner-occupied housing.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1981, Money income of
households in the United States, 1979, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series
P-60, No. 126. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983, Estimating after­tax
money income distribution using data from the March Current Population Survey,
Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 126. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, 1984, After-tax money income estimates of households, 1981, Current Population
Reports, Series P-23, No. 132. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1984,
After-tax money income estimates of households, 1982, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 137. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1984,
Money income and poverty status of families and persons in the United States, 1983, Current
Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 145.
1985 No.3 Fam i ly Econom i cs Rev i ew 3
Income data collected in the CPS are lim­ited
to money income received before payment
of Federal, State, local, or FICA (Social
Security) taxes and before any other types
of deductions. By definition, money income
is the sum of amounts received from earn­ings;
Social Security and public assistance
payments; dividends, interest, and rent;
unemployment and worker's compensation;
government and private employees pensions;
and other periodic income. CPS money income,
therefore, does not reflect the fact that
some households receive part of their income
in the form of noncash benefits such as food
stamps, health benefits, and subsidized
housing; that some farm families receive
noncash benefits in the form of rent-free
housing and goods produced and consumed
on the farm; or that some cash benefits are
also received by some nonfarm residents,
such as the use of business transportation
and facilities, full or partial payments by
business for retirement programs, and
medical and educational expenses.
Many policy makers feel that these
elements should be considered when judging
family economic status. The CPS estimates
wage and salary income well, but under­reporting
problems are evident with respect
to property income, Social SeciJrity income,
and worker's compensation. CPS does not
cover all of the information needed to
assess economic well-being of the population
and information needed for policy analysis,
since government assistance programs are not
counted as .income in determining poverty
status but contribute significantly to the
well-being of recipients.
Another source of income statistics is the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS
compiles statistical summaries of individual
income tax returns and makes these statis­tics
available in the IRS publication series
Statistics of Income. IRS returns contain
units which are not included in the CPS
statistics, including prior year deliquent
returns, returns of Armed Forces members
living overseas or on base without families,
and returns of decedents. Also, the computa­tion
of adjusted gross income (AGI) on
Federal income tax returns allows various
adjustments and exclusions from total
4 Family Economics Review 1985 No. J
income, such as interest and dividend exclu­sions,
moving expenses, disability income
exclusion, alimony paid, and employee
business expenses. AGI includes income from
capital gains, whereas CPS income excludes
capital gains and capital losses.
IRS figures for aggregate adjusted gross
income tend to be higher than CPS figures
because there is a tendency in household
surveys for respondents to underreport their
income. In particular, there is a tendency
for survey respondents to forget minor or
irregular sources of income when completing
questionnaires.
Another source of data on family income is
the Decennial Census of Population, which
has been collecting family income data every
10 years since 1940. Income data collected
in the 1980 Census of Population differs
from CPS income data in that CPS data
excludes the institutional population and
most members of the Armed Forces living on
post; these two groups were included in the
census. Also, college students were gener­ally
enumerated at their own homes in the
CPS and classified as family members but
were enumerated at their college residence
in the census. In general, levels of income
reported in the census are slightly higher
than those reported in the CPS.
The Bureau of the Census has initiated a
new publication series, "Economic Character­istics
of Households in the United States,"
based on data obtained from the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP).
SIPP is a national longitudinal survey
program of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services and U.S. Department of
Commerce. Through household visits, the
survey collects information on wages,
salaries, government transfer programs,
assets, liabilities, and taxes, and links
this information with data from various
administrative record systems, such as the
wage and benefit data of the Social Security
Administration.
SIPP was launched in the fall of 1983 when
the Census Bureau began interviewing 18,000
households nationwide. A second wave of
interviewing took place in January 1985.
Households in the survey will be interviewed
at 4-month intervals over a period of 2-1/2
years. The reference period will be the
4 months preceeding the interview. As SIPP
progresses, new panels will be started every
year which will allow cross-sectional analy­ses
based on a total sample of approximately
35,000 households. The initial publication,
released in September 1984, reports on the
third quarter of 1983. (See p. 6.) This first
report includes tables of average monthly
income, employment status, program partici­pation
status, living arrangements, and
other characteristics for the 4 calendar
months preceding the interview.
SIPP was devised to overcome many of the
limitations of the CPS in assessing the
economic well-being of the population. SIPP
will measure income distribution and poverty
more accurately than the CPS does. For exam­ple,
yearly CPS information on the extent of
poverty reveals little about the extent to
which an individual is poor from one year to
the next. According to Greg Duncan's
findings in the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics at the University of Michigan, in
the 10-year period from 1969 to 1978, one of
every four Americans experienced at least
1 year in poverty but only 2. 6 percent were
poor for 8 years or more. Therefore, long­term
poverty characterizes a much smaller
fraction of the population than the 1-year
figures would suggest. SIPP will improve
current estimates of income and income
change, including annual and subannual
estimates, by source of income. SIPP will
provide data on the amount and type of tax
liability, including income taxes, property
taxes, and Social Security taxes. These data
will be used to study Federal and State aid
programs, measure noncash income and delin­eate
those who are eligible for and partici­pate
in government benefits programs, esti­mate
future program costs and coverage, and
assess the effects of proposed changes in
program eligibility rules or benefit levels.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Association of Public Data Users
Newsletter. 1984. Vol. 8, No. 6, p. 1.
2. Duncan, Greg J. 1984. Years of Poverty,
Years of Plenty. Institute for Social
Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
3. Hefferan, Colien, Katherine S. Tippett,
and Joyce M. Pitts. 1983. Interpreting
statistical data in family economics.
Family Economics Review 1983(1): 21-26.
4. Linninger, Charles A. 1980. The Goals
and Objectives of the Survey of Income
and Program Participation. U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services.
5. News from COPAFS (Council of
Professional Associations on Federal
Statistics). 1984. No. 28, pp. 1-2.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1983. Estimating after­tax
money income distribution using
data from the March Current Population
Survey. Current Population Reports.
Series P-23, No. 126.
7. • 1983. Money income of
households, families, and persons in
the United States: 1982. Current
Population Reports. Consumer Income,
Series P-60, No. 142.
8. • 1984. After-tax money
income estimates of households: 1982.
Current Population Reports. Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 137.
9. • 1984. Money income and
poverty status of families and persons
in the United States: 1983. Current
Population Reports. Consumer Income,
Series P-60, No. 145.
10. • 1984. Survey of Income and
Program Participation.- Working Paper
Series, No. 8403.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 5
Economic Characteristics of
Households-New Data Series
The Bureau of the Census has published a
new report titled "Economic Characteristics
of Households in the United States, Third
Quarter 1983." This publication is the first
of a new series of quarterly reports
covering the economic status of households
in the United States, based on data obtained
from the Survey of Income and Program
Participation. The data include information
on average monthly income and program par­ticipation
for the third quarter of 1983.
Monthly Income
In the third quarter of 1983, median
monthly income for the Nation's 83.1 mil,lion
nonfarm households was $1,670. The median
income of white households ($1, 7 50) was
above the national average and well above
median monthly income of black households
($1,080) and Spanish-origin households
($1,230).
Regional differences in median monthly
income were found in this first quarterly
study. The Northeast ($1, 770) and West
($1,800) had the highest median income,
followed by the Midwest (formerly the North
Central) ($1,650) and the South ($1,550).
There was a large difference between
incomes of married-couple families and
single-parent families (mother present). The
latter had a median monthly income of $800,
whereas married-couple families received
approximately $2,160.
The data show that the age of the
householder affects median household income.
Median monthly income peaks at ages 45 to
54 ($2, 340) and then falls to $1,810 in the
55- to 64-year-old group and to $950 in the
65-year- old-and-over group.
Program Participation
During the third quarter of 1983, an
average of 13.5 million nonfarm households
received some form of means-tested benefits.
Approximately 12 million of these households
participated in noncash benefits programs,
and about 7 million received some form of
cash assistance.
6 Family Economics Rev i ew 1985 No.3
The major programs that provided noncash
benefits to households included medicaid
(7.5 million recipients), food stamps (6.3
million), and public or other subsidized
rental housing (3 . 5 million). Cash assis­tance
programs included SSI 1 (2.8 million)
and AFDC2 or other cash assistance (3 .8
million).
The largest number of households are
affected by two programs that are not means­tested
programs . Medicare programs benefit
20 million households, whereas Social
Security or Railroad Retirement benefit 22 . 7
million households.
Those households receiving means-tested
benefits had monthly cash incomes well below
the figure for all households. The median
monthly income for all households was
$1,670; for food stamp households it was
$420. Households receiving pension incomes
also had lower cash income. Among households
receiving only private pensions, the median
monthly income was $1,420; among households
receiving only Social Security or Railroad
Retirement, this amount was $1,050.
Many households that received benefits
received these benefits from more than one
program. Of the 12.4 million households that
received means-tested noncash benefits, 5. 7
million received them from two or more pro­grams
and 2. 3 million received benefits from
three or more programs. Benefits from both
food stamps and medicaid were the most com­mon
form of multiple recipiency, affecting
4. 3 million households.
1 Supplemental Security Income.
2 Aid to Families With Dependent Children .
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1984, Economic
characteristics of households in the United
States, third quarter , 1983, Current
Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 1.
Geographical Mobility
Migration within the United States and
immigration into the United States from
abroad are the topics of a report from the
March 1983 Current Population Survey. The
data are derived by comparing responses
about residence in 1982 with actual
residence in 1983.
In March 1983, 36 million people reported
to have moved within the United States
during the past year, while less than
1 million reported to have moved into the
United States from abroad. Of those · persons
who moved within the United States, over 60
percent (about 22 million) moved within the
same county. Of those who moved between
counties (14 million), a little more than
one-half moved within the same State; the
rest (approximately 6 million persons) made
interstate moves.
The March 1983 data show net outmigration
in the Northeast and Midwest, while the
South and the West had net gains of
residents. During this period, 4 million
persons moved from cities to suburbs, while
2 million moved from 'the suburbs into the
cities. For the first time in a decade,
nonmetropolitan areas experienced no net
gains of migrants.
Rates of moving decline with increasing
age. The highest rate of mobility is found
for persons in their early twenties. This is
due to the many life-cycle changes which may
also lead to a change in residence. House­holds
tend to move to accommodate new
members or in anticipation of children
reaching school age. Once the children reach
school age, there appears to be a reduction
in mobility of these households.
Rates of mobility vary by race and by
marital status. Blacks are more likely to
move within the same county, whereas whites
are more likely to move between counties.
Married persons with spouses present in the
household had the lowest rate of moving (13
percent); single persons had the highest
overall rate of mobility (20 percent).
Rates of moving are also related to educa­tional
attainment and employment status.
Higher mobility rates are associated with
higher levels of educational attainment.
Those 18 years of age and older with only
an elementary school education were least
likely to have moved in the survey year;
they were also least likely to make local
moves. Of those in the labor force, persons
in the Armed Forces experienced the highest
mobility rates. Persons not in the labor
force--retired workers, homemakers,
students, and disabled persons--had the
lowest mobility rates.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1984, Geographical
mobility, March 1982 to March 1983, Current
Population Reports, Population Characteris­tics,
Series P-20, No. 393.
New Publication on Adjustable
Rate Mortgages
The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board have issued a new
publication, Consumer Handbook on Adjustable
Rate Mortgages, designed to help consumers
understand how ARM's work and guide them
in making an informative decision in
choosing a mortgage. The booklet describes
the risks and advantages of such features as
index rates, margins, interest rate and
payment caps, and negative amortization.
Also included is a checklist to help home­buyers
compare the features of one ARM with
another or with a fixed-rate mortgage.
Prepared in consultation with many other
Federal agencies and trade and consumer
groups at the request of Congress, the
24-page booklet is available free (single
copy) from the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Publications
Services, Mail Stop 138, Washington, DC
20551.
1985 No.3 family Economics Review 7
Female Farm Landlords, 1979
By Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
Women play a greater role in agriculture
as owners of farmland (23 percent of all
landlords) than as farm operators (5 percent
of all operators). Women landlords own about
one-tenth of all farmland; as farmers, women
farm about one-twentieth of the farmland.
Data from the 1979 Farm Finance Survey
(:!__) show that of the 1. 7 million farm land­lords
in the United States, 46 percent were
males and 25 percent were females. 1 Sex of
landlord was not ascertained for the other
29 percent. Of the nearly 1 billion acres of
farmland, 40 percent was rented to others.
Female landlords rented about 70 million
acres, or 18 percent of all the rented land.
On a per landlord basis, female landlords
had smaller land holdings than male land­lords
or those who did not report their sex
(table 1). The females rented a larger por­tion
of their land to others than the male
landlords (84 percent of their holdings com­pared
with 64 percent); on the average, they
also rented more acres than males (158 acres
compared with 142 acres).
Female farm landlords had a lower rate of
return on their capital investment, even
though the value of their land and buildings
1The percent of farm landlords that are
women varies depending on whether the data
refer to all landlords or to noncorporate
landlords only: Women make up 23 percent of
all landlords but 25 percent of noncorporate
landlords. With the exception of the first
paragraph, data in this article refer to
noncorporate landlords (including indi­vidual,
family, or partnership landlords).
Note that information was collected concern­ing
only one landlord per unit. Sex of
senior partner was requested; therefore,
husband-wife partnerships could be recorded
under either sex category.
8 family Economics Review 1985 No.3
was the same as that of male landlords
(table 2).2 Females were more likely than
males to retain valuable land and rent less
valuable land to others. As illustrated in
table 2, the per acre value of land and
buildings rented by females was $88 less
than land rented by males. The females fell
further behind their male counterparts in
the return they received on the rented land
($34 per acre as compared with $41). Yet,
after taking into consideration that female
landlords' rented land and buildings were
only 90 percent of the value of the males'
rented land and buildings, female landlords
were still found to have a 1 percent lower
rate of return on their capital investment.
In general, farm assets did not differ by
sex of landlord on a per landlord basis
(table 3). Those who did not provide sex of
landlord information, however, have more
assets. An examination of more detailed
asset information indicates very little
difference between the sexes. Females had
slightly more assets in land and less in
household dwellings and tenant's dwellings.
The greatest difference between the
landlords' assets was found in the value of
machinery and equipment, with female
landlords' investment much lower than the
males'. This may be a result of the females
retaining a smaller proportion of their land
for their own farming and thereby not
requiring extensive equipment to operate
it.
Only 8 percent of female farm landlords
had any debt, whereas 19 percent of the
males had farm or nonfarm debt. Of those
with debt, females averaged less debt than
the male or the no response groups
(table 3). Although all three groups secured
the majority of their debts with real
estate, the female landlords' real estate
debt as a percent of the value of rented
land and buildings was less than either the
male or no response groups (16. 5 percent
compared with 23.8 and 23.1 percents).
Overall, female farm landlords had a lower
debt-to-asset ratio than male landlords (1.8
compared with 6 .1). Since females had less
debt and were less likely than males to have
2Landlords self-reported the value of their
assets and debts.
Table 1. Owned and rented land, and rent received per landlord, by sex, 1979
Item
Land owned (acres per landlord) ••••••
Land rented to others (acres per
landlord ............................. .
Rent received per landlord:
Total .............................. ~ .
Share .............................. .
Cash ••.••••••••••.••.....•.•..••.•••
Male
(n=788,720)
221
142
$5,686
4,090
1,597
Female
(n=430,801)
188
158
$5,141
3,813
1,328
No response1
(n=487,271)
217
199
$5,834
3,567
2,267
1These are individual, family, or partnership landlords that did not respond to the sex of
landlord item in the survey.
Source: Data derived from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982, 1979
Farm Finance Survey, Census of Agriculture, 1978, Vol. 5, Special Reports, Part 6, table 9.
Table 2. Per-acre value of land and return and female/male ratios, 1979
Item Male Female Female I male ratio
(percent)
Dollars - -
Value of land and buildings owned ••••••••••• 851 839 99
Value of land and buildings rented .......... 864 776 90
Return per acre •••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 41 34 83
Source: Data derived from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982,
1979 Farm Finance Survey, Census of Agriculture, 1978, Vol. 5, Special Reports, Part 6,
table 9.
1985 No.3 fam i ly Economics Rev ie w 9
debt, female landlords may be at less risk
than males in their investments. This
conservative borrowing behavior is probably
responsible for the females' lower rate of
return on rental land but may have preserved
their presence in today's farm economy.
Collected in 1979, at the beginning of the
fall in farmland prices, these data indicate
that women on average did not risk their
investment on inflated land values. As the
value of land declines in the eighties, the
female farm landlord may be less likely than
the male farm landlord to face foreclosure,
assuming that females' lower rental income
can maintain the expenses associated with
the farm investment.
The above findings on female landlords are
similar to a study of female farm operators
C~). As with female landlords, female opera­tors
assumed less risk, on average, than
their male counterparts. Fewer female opera­tors
reported debt in comparison with male
operators (37 percent compared with 58
percent), and female operators had a lower
debt-to-asset ratio than male operators (8.9
and 17.4, respectively).
Other findings from the report on farm
operators indicated that female operators
produced less (had a lower volume of sales)
than male operators. Some of this difference
is attributable to the smaller farms operat-ed
by women and the fact that the median
age of female operators was 59 years--nearly
10 years older than male operators. Even
after adjusting for size of farm and age of
operator, however, the output of female farm
operations still was lower than that of male
operations.
Some female farm operators may be widows
who have inherited their operations. This
may also be true of female landlords,
although the data do not provide this
Table 3. Farm assets and debt per farm landlord, by sex, 1979
Item Male Female No response 1
(n=788,720) (n=430,801) (n=487,271)
Total farm assets .................. . $126,156 $123,995 $147,065
Land and buildings .••••••••••.•••• 122,887 122,716 146 '914
Other farm assets: 2
Machinery and equipment •••••••• 9,483 3,731 6,526
Crops stored ................... . 11,123 9,670 15 '381
Livestock and poultry •••.••••••• 9,212 8,117 9,347
Total debt 3
••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41' 095 28,012 40,866
Real estate ••••.•••••••.••••••••••• 46,492 34,485 47,602
Non-real estate ................... . 11,479 6,905 9,240
1These are individual, family, or partnership landlords that did not respond to the sex of
landlord item in the survey.
2 lncludes only landlords reporting these specific assets.
3 lncludes only landlords reporting debt.
Source: Data derived from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982,
1979 Farm Finance Survey, Census of Agriculture, 1978, Vol. 5, Special Reports, Part 6,
tables 23 and 67.
10 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
information. Analysis from another survey
(1, ~) indicated, however, that many female
landowners are older widows who have ac­quired
their land through inheritance or gift.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981,
which allows the tax-free passage of an
entire estate to the surviving spouse, com­bined
with the fact that women outlive men
(_~), indicates the continued likelihood of
widows controlling farmland. Older widows
who do not have children interested in tak­ing
over the farm may not have an incentive
to expand or update the farm operation.
Their preference may be to have a consistent
flow of income rather than to pursue. new,
more efficient production practices that
would entail making long-term commitments
and assuming additional risk.
Whether because they are widows or for
other reasons, women behave differently than
men in the farm economy; they underutilize
their resources. This behavior may be of
concern to those monitoring farm production.
Also, the families of these female landlords
and operators may be experiencing low farm
incomes as a result of the women's lower
production levels or lower rates of return
on their farm investment. Women who are
active in agriculture may wish to reassess
their management decisions concerning their
farm investments.
The findings suggest that some female
landlords may not be receiving the best
return on their farm investment and,
therefore, would benefit from farm financial
counseling. In addition, financial counse-lors
may need to work closely with older
female landlords, since the women may be
widows with little experience in making farm
management decisions without their husbands.
Some of the basic issues to be studied are:
(1) Should the women charge more for the
use of their land? and (2) is the low rent
received per acre an indication that the
land is not used efficiently? If yes is
indicated to either of these questions,
financial counselors may need to work with
agricultural extension specialists to assist
women with farm management decisions. Also,
estate planning and counseling is advisable
for farm couples in which the wife is not
regularly involved in the management of
farmland.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Daugherty, Arthur B., and Robert C.
Otte. 1983. Farmland Ownership in the
United States. ERS Staff Report No.
AGES 830311. Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2. Geisler, Charles C., Nelson L. Bills,
Jack R. Kloppenburg, Jr., and William F.
Waters. 1983. The structure of agricul- ,
tural landownership in the United States
1946 and 1978. Search: Agriculture.
No. 26. Cornell University, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Ithaca, NY.
3. Geisler, Charles C., William F. Waters,
and Katrina L. Eadie. 1984. The changing
structure of female ownership of agri­cultural
land in the United States, 1946
and 1978. [Unpublished paper.] Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
4. Gustafon, Greg C. 1983. Who Owns the
Land? A State and Regional Summary of
Landownership in the United States. ERS
Staff Report No. AGES 830405. Economic
Research Service, U.s. Department of
Agriculture.
5. Inman, Buis T., and William H. Pippin.
1949. Farm Land Ownership in the United
States. Miscellaneous Publication 699.
Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
6. Kalbacher, Judith z. 1985. A Profile of
Female Farmers in America. Rural Devel­opment
Research Report No. 45. Economic
Research Service, U • S. D epartm en t of
Agriculture.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1982. 1979 Farm Finance
Survey, Census of Agriculture, 1978.
Vol. 5. Special Reports, Part 6, tables
9, 23, and 67.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 1984. Births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces for the United
States, 1983. Monthly Vital Statistics
Report. Vol. 32, No. 13. DHHS Pub.
No. (PHS) 84-1120.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 11
Research Report-
Major Concerns of Families1
By Anna Mae Kobbe
President, National Association of Extension
Home Economists
The National Association of Extension Home
Economists, representing the 4, 000 Extension
home economists employed by the USDA
Cooperative Extension Service and State
land-grant universities, has completed a
national survey to identify public policy
issues of greatest concern to families.
The survey questionnaire consisted of two
parts. First, Extension home economists were
asked to rate, on a four-point scale and
according to their observations, how
concerned the majority of people in their
counties were about each of 13 issues. The
four-point rating scale ranged from
"extremely concerned" to "not at all con­cerned."
Respondents were then asked to
rank which three of the issues should be
considered of highest priority. The 13
public policy issues were selected on the
basis of their timeliness and relevance to
priority areas of Extension home economics
programs (box). The second part of the
survey questionnaire was open-ended. It
asked respondents to list three family
concerns or issues other than those already
covered in part 1.
Responses were received from 547 of 856
Extension home economists sampled. (The
sample was drawn from the membership list of
the National Association of Extension Home
Economists.) The majority of the respondents
worked in a rural county (58 percent). More
1 This article is condensed from a paper
presented at the Agricultural Outlook Con­ference
in Uecember 1984 at Washington, DC.
Complete copies are available from the
Family Economics Research Group. (See inside
front cover for address.)
12 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
ISSUES
Fair insurance rates (such as age,
sex, race)
Pay equity for women
Medical costs
Court-ordered child support
enforcement
Preschool care for children
Before- and after-school care for
school-age children
Care of the elderly
Care of the handicapped
Flexitime and job-sharing opportunities
Employment-training opportunities
Equal pensions for men and women
Survivor's benefits for spouses
Equity of social security for women
than half of the respondents (about 58
percent) were under 30, and 80 percent were
under 51. Sixty-three percent were married.
Almost one-half of the survey respondents
were from the Southern region (46 percent);
the Central region accounted for 28 percent,
and the Eastern and Western regions for less
than 15 percent each.
The leading public policy issue selected
was medical costs. Meeting medical costs was
ranked first by 36 percent of all respon­dents
and identified as one of the three
most important issues by a total of 61
percent. In fact, an overwhelming 96 percent
said that people in their communities were
"extremely concerned" or "very concerned"
about rising medical costs. Communities in
the Central region were worried about medi­cal
costs the most, with 40 percent of the
respondents stating that this was the most
important issue.
The second most important concern was pay
equity for women, given top choice by 19
percent of the respondents and named among
the three most important issues by 40
percent. Pay equity was of particular inter­est
in the Southern and Western regions,
where 28 percent and 22 percent of the
Extension professionals respectively stated
that people in their communities were
"extremely concerned" about this matter.
Two issues virtually tied as the third­ranked
choice. The problem of preschool
child care was cited by 31 percent of the
respondents and care of the elderly was
identified by 30 percent. Although Extension
professionals in the Central region were
somewhat less likely than those in other
regions to feel that people in their
counties were "extremely concerned" about
preschool child care, the differences among
the regions were minimal for both issues.
A wide range of problems emerged in re­sponse
to the open-ended question in part 2.
However, high unemployment and lack of jobs
were mentioned by almost one-fifth ·
(19 percent) of all the respondents and by
44 percent of the respondents in the
Southern region.
Difficulties in family relationships and
parenting emerged as the second most
frequently mentioned concern (15 percent).
However, if the whole array of problems
which indicate stress on the family-­divorce,
teenage pregnancy, child abuse,
and alcohol and drug abuse--are aggregated
as family stability, this issue was listed
among the current concerns 42 percent of
the time.
Housing problems and the cost of housing
were mentioned by 11 percent of the respon­dents
as the third most pressing issue. The
region that gave this problem its top prior­ity
was the Eastern region, where almost
one-quarter of the home economists
(24 percent) who responded indicated that
they saw the high cost of housing and/or the
need for low-cost housing as a present and
growing family concern in their counties.
Additional problems listed on the open­ended
question were high interest rates,
unstable farm economy, decreased quality of
education, crime and violence, water
pollution and conservation, and personal
money management and financial planning.
Some New USDA Publications
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,
202-783-3238.
1984 Handbook of Agricultural
Charts. December 1984. Stock No.
001-019-00368-5. $3.75.
1984 Yearbook of Agriculture:
Animal Health--Livestock and
Pets. November 1984. Stock No.
001-000-04434-6. $10.
Chartbook of Nonmetro-Metro
Trends. September 1984. Stock No.
001-019-00351-1. $2.50.
Food Consumption, Prices, and
Expenditures 1963-83. November 1984.
Stock No. 001-019-00370-7. $4.50.
Minifarms: Farm Business or
Rural Residence. November 1984.
Stock No. 001-019-00360-0. $1.50.
Recipes for Quantity Food
Service. September 1984. Stock
No. 001-000-04379-0. $7.50.
The following are for sale from the
Consumer Information Center, Pueblo, CO
81009, 303-948-3334.
How to Buy Economically: A Food
Buyer's Guide. 1981. 28 pp. 436N.
$0.50.
Making Food Dollars Count. 1983.
27 pp. 409N. $0.50.
Single copies of the following are avail­able
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food Safety Inspection Service, Room 1163,
South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
The Safe Food Book: Your Kitchen
Guide. 1984. 33 pp. HG 241. Free.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 13
Nutrtent Data Base for
Continuing Food Intake Survey
By Linda P. Posati
Nutritionist
Human Nutrition Information Service
Robert L. H.izek
Director, Nutrition Monitoring Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
In anticipation of the Continuing Survey
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII)
begun in 1985 by the Human Nutrition Infor­mation
Service (HNIS), 1 the data base used
for calculating the nutrient intakes of indi­viduals
is being broadened and updated to
reflect new research information. Both the
new data base and the data base used for the·
1977-78 individual food intake survey contain
data from the HNIS' National Nutrient Data
Bank, the major nationwide source of infor­mation
on the nutritive value of foods.
1977-78 Survey Data Base 2
The USDA nutrient data base for the
1977-78 individual food intake survey con­tains
data on 100 grams of edible portions
of 4, 545 food items. 3 It contains values
for 14 nutrients and for food energy. The
1See "Continuing survey of food intakes
by individuals," Family Economics Review
1985(1): 16-17, by Robert L. Rizek and
Linda P. Posati.
2Two separate nutrient data bases were
used for calculating the nutritive value of
foods in the 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey--one for the individual
intake portion of the survey, the other for
the household food use portion. This article
describes the data base in use for the
individual intake survey only.
3Many of the items in this base are
mixtures for which nutrient profiles are
based on recipe formulation.
14 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
nutrients are protein, fat, carbohydrate,
calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus,
vitamin A as total international units,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and vitamins
B6, B12 , and C. The data base
includes only foods in forms as they are
ingested, such as cooked meat. Most of the
nutrient values were obtained from the 1963
edition of Agriculture Handbook No. 8 and
its revised sections on Dairy and Egg
Products, Baby Foods, and Poultry Products."
Other data were obtained from reports of
research published between 1963 and 1977 and
from the food industry. Much of the industry
data were generated between 1973 and 1977 in
preparation for nutrition labeling.
1985 Survey Data Base
Preparation of the data base for use with
the 1985 continuing survey has been coordi­nated
with staff of the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who
will also use these data for their surveys. 5
The new data base will contain approximately
the same number of food items as the 1977-78
data base; however, some foods will be
deleted either because they were reported
infrequently in 1977-78 or because they have
been removed from the market since then.
Products that are new to the market will be
added. Some foods with slightly different
characteristics that were treated as one
item in 1977-78 will be entered as separate
items; for example, the addition of low­sodium
products. The separation of regular
and low-sodium products in the 1985 data
base is necessary since sodium intakes will
be studied for the first time in the 1985
study.
4 Composition of Foods •.• Raw, Processed,
Prepared, Agriculture Handbook No. 8
Revised, 1976-79, Consumer and Food
Economics Institute [now known as Human
Nutrition Information Service], U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
5See "National Nutrition Monitoring
System," Family Economics Review 1984(4):
15-19, by Betty B. Peterkin and Robert L.
Rizek, Human Nutrition Information Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The 1985 data base will include the
following additional nutrients and dietary
constituents that were not part of the
1977-78 data base:
Sodium
Potassium
Zinc
Copper
Folacin
Cholesterol
Total saturated fatty acids
Total monounsaturated fatty acids
Total polyunsaturated fatty acids
Vitamin A as retinol equivalents
Carotene as retinol equivalents
Vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol
equivalents
Dietary fiber
Alcohol
Many of the new nutrients are included in
revised sections of Handbook No. 8 6 and
have a relatively strong data base to
support the values. These nutrients include
sodium, potassium, zinc, copper, folacin,
cholesterol, fatty acids, and vitamin A as
retinol equivalents. 7 Data for other
nutrients, however, are less well-founded.
Only limited data are available for dietary
fiber and tocopherol. A study is underway to
generate new data on dietary fiber; however,
the research effort is hampered by the
absence of an accepted method. Values for
dietary fiber will generally represent the
sum of insoluble fiber (by neutral
detergent) and the sum of soluble fiber
(determined as pectin) in foods for which
data exist. This sum may or may not agree
with results from a yet-to-be-determined
"standard method" for dietary fiber.
6 See footnote 4, p. 14.
7 Data on nutrient values come primarily
from analyses conducted by the food industry
and through HNIS contractual arrangements
with land-grant universities, nonprofit
research organizations, and Agricultural
Research Service laboratories.
Data for vitamin E may be confined to the
parent forms of the staple or commodity food
items. These data would then have to be
extrapolated to processed food products
needed in a survey data base. Such extra­polations
require that assumptions be made,
some of which may be with little research
basis.
Until now only the total vitamin A
activity of foods, and not the separate
contributions of retinol and provitamin A
isomers, have been estimated. Values for
beta-carotene have not been reported
frequently, and existing reports on food
composition are often not clear as to
whether a value is explicit for beta-carotene
or whether it may include other
carotenoids. Values in the data base for
carotene will be those assumed in arriving
at the value for total vitamin A. A study
underway will provide helpful information on
the distribution of vitamin A and related
compounds in several kinds of foods and mix­tures.
The ultimate use and distribution of
the data base for dietary fiber, vitamin E,
and carotene will be decided after the data
have been reviewed.
To facilitate preparation of the data base
for the 1985 survey, HNIS has developed a
new computerized system for linking the
survey food items with the computerized
data base that contains nutrient
information. 8 For example, the survey data
base contains a code for whole milk that is
linked to a single whole milk code in the
nutrient data set. Many items in the survey
data base, however, are mixtures for which
there is no one-to-one link. A major part of
the new system, therefore, is a recipe
linking file that will improve accuracy by
automatic calculation of mixtures. For these
foods, links are made through the
ingredients--for each mixture, the recipe
linking file contains the codes from the
nutrient data set for each ingredient, plus
the weights of the ingredients. The indi­vidual
survey food item is then generated
using the proportion of ingredients. Reten­tion
factors for vitamins, which are stored
8 The system includes documentation of
sources of nutrient data, recipes, and other
data used.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 15
in a separate file, can be applied during
the recipe calculation step to compute
cooked values from raw ingredients, or to
adjust values when an additional heat treat­ment
has been applied to a mixture of cooked
ingredients. A yield factor to adjust the
recipe for weight changes during cooking is
also included for each mixture. Fat loss
and/or absorption during cooking are taken
into account by a separate programming
step.
Nutrient Content of the
U.S. Food Supply, 1983
Trends in nutrient levels since 1909-13
are reported by Ruth M. Marston and Nancy
Raper in an article "Nutrient Content of the
U.S. Food Supply, 1983" published in the
National Food Review (NFR-29). A detailed
report on trends in levels and sources of
magnesium is also included.
Nutrient data for the U.S. food supply are
based on per capita use of all food avail-able
for consumption. Subsequent food losses
occurring in processing, marketing, and home
use are not considered; therefore, nutrient
levels as reported from the food supply may
be higher than for nutrients actually
ingested.
In 1983, levels were 1 to 5 percent above
those for 1982 for food energy and for all
nutrients reported in the historical series-­protein,
fat, carbohydrate, calcium, phos­phorus,
iron, magnesium, vitamin A value,
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin 86,
vitamin B 12, and ascorbic acid. Several
factors affected these increases: The
Federal standard for enrichment of white
flour with iron was raised, effective
July 1, 1983, and use increased for some
meats, poultry, salad and cooking oils,
butter, edible beef tallow, oranges and
orange juice, lowfat milks, and high
fructose corn syrup (HFCS), particularly
HFCS-55 (55 percent fructose).
16 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
Changes in nutrient levels between 1967-69
and 1983 included both increases and
declines. Increases ranged from 1 to 20
percent for levels of food energy, protein,
fat, carbohydrate, iron, magnesium,
vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
vitamin B6, and ascorbic acid. Declines
of 1 to 8 percent occurred in levels of
calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin B 12·
The gains in nutrient levels between
1967-69 and 1983 reflected the higher
Federal standards for enrichment of white
flour with thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin,
which became effective in 1975, as well as
the higher standard for enrichment with
iron, effective in 1983. Other factors
included greater use of citrus products,
vegetables, poultry, salad and cooking oils,
shortening, HFCS, peanuts, and spices.
Declines reflected the decreased use of
meats, particularly edible offals, eggs, and
fluid whole milk.
An analysis of trends in levels and
sources of magnesium between 1909 and 1983
indicated that the magnesium level of the
U.S. food supply declined 15 percent, from
409 to 347 mg per capita per day, reflecting
the marked decline in use of grain products
and potatoes. Vegetable sources consistently
accounted for the largest proportion of
magnesium throughout the century, although
their share declined because of decreased
use of grain products and potatoes. Grain
products were the major source of magnesium
in the first half of the century; dairy
products were the major source thereafter.
In 1983 sources of magnesium, in declining
order, were dairy products; fruits and vege­tables,
excluding potatoes; grain products;
meat, poultry, and fish; and dry beans,
peas, nuts, and soy products.
Dietary Recommendations for
Healthy Americans
Summartzed
By Patricia M. Behlen and Frances J. Cronin
Nutritionists
Nutrition Education Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
Nutritionists in both the public and
private sectors have advised Americans about
dietary practices for more than 100 . years
(_!:_~_). The U.S. Department of Agriculture
has developed and published dietary guidance
statements since the turn of the century
(36). Guidance has evolved based on our
understanding of human nutritional needs,
the relationship of diet to health, and the
composition of foods.
The focus of early dietary recommendations
was the consumption of enough of the kinds
of foods needed to provide nutrients and
energy required for good health. In the
sixties, recommendations began to reflect
concern about the excessive consumption of
certain diet components and the risk of some
chronic diseases (7). Since then, several
Federal, professional, and health organiza­tions
have published dietary recommendations
that consider the relationship of diet to
the risk of chronic diseases as well as to
nutrient needs. A number of scientists re­viewed
these recommendations and identified
areas of consensus and of disagreement C£,
17, 19, 23, 24); since publication of these
reviews,however, additional recommendations
have been made or original recommendations
revised.
This article summarizes a number of
dietary recommendations for the healthy U.S.
population prepared since 1977 by 10
Federal, professional, and health organiza­tions.
Additional recommendations for
specific population groups, such as infants
and pregnant and lactating women, are also
discussed. Readers are referred to the orig­inal
documents and other references cited
for more indepth information on dietary
recommendations summarized in this paper.
The organizations and report titles
reviewed in this article are listed in
table 1. (They are listed in chronological
order.) The table also indicates the type of
publication in which the recommendations are
presented and the stated purposes of the
recommendations. Some of the recommenda­tions,
such as those of the American Heart
Association (AHA) (8) and the Food and
Nutrition Board's (FNB) Committee on Dietary
Allowances <l!), are revisions of earlier
recommendations.
Most of the organizations state that they
recognize the dynamic nature of science and
that new evidence could mean refinement or
alteration of their current recommendations.
Some organizations listed in table 1 are now
in the process of reviewing their recommen­dations.
For example, the Departments of
Agriculture and Health and Human Services
recently conducted a review of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans which were
developed in 1980 (~). A committee of nine
scientists was appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture to review comments on the Guide­lines
and to make appropriate recommenda­tions
to the Departments. 1 At its final
meeting held on December 19, 1984, the
Dietary Guidelines Review Committee con­cluded
that the number and general content
of the existing seven Dietary Guidelines
should be essentially unchanged. Their final
report will recommend that some relatively
minor changes be made in the text of the
Guidelines. The two Departments will review
the Committee's recommendations in preparing
a second edition of the Guidelines.
All dietary recommendations summarized
here are for healthy Americans, but the
purpose of specific recommendations differ.
The Dietary Goals (34), Surgeon General's
Report (33), and the Dietary Guidelines (~)
are the most general. Their recommendations
are designed to maintain and improve health.
The recommendations of the National Academy
of Sciences' Committee on Diet, Nutrition,
and Cancer (22), the American Cancer Society
1 Copies of the Report of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee on the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans may be
obtained from the Human Nutrition Informa­tion
Service, USDA, 6505 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville, MD 20782.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 17
Table 1. Summary of type of report and purpose of dietary recommendations, by 10 Federal, professional,
and health organizations
Title and
organization
Dietary Goals for the United States,
2d edition (34)
U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs, 1977
Diet and Coronary Heart Disease:
General Dietary Recommendations (~)
American Heart Association, 1978
Healthy People--Surgeon General's
Report on Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention (ll)
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1979
Concepts of Nutrition and Health (12)
Council on Scientific Affairs --
American Medical Association, 1g79
Recommended Dietary Allowances (21)
Committee on Dietary Allowances-­Food
and Nutrition Board
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1980
Nutrition and Your Health:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (~)
U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Department ·of Health and Human
Services, 1980
Toward Healthful Diets (~)
Food and Nutrition Board
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1g8Q
Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (22)
Committee on Diet, Nutrition,-and Cancer
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1982
Nutrition and Cancer: Cause and
Prevention--A Special Report (2)
American Cancer Society, 1984 -
Cancer Prevention (32)
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1g34
Type of report
Congressional report with
references and statements
by scientists.
Referenced statement
for professionals.
Government report for
the general public.
Referenced report
for professionals.
Referenced report
for professionals.
Government publication
for the general public.
Referenced position
paper for professionals.
Referenced review
for professionals.
Special report for
professionals with
some references.
Booklet for general
public.
Note: Numbers in parenthesis refer to references on pp. 23-24.
18 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
Purpose of
recommendations
To provide individual
consumers with dietary
guidance to make informed
decisions.
To provide dietary guidance
to reduce risk of coronary
heart desease.
To propose a set of major
goals for improving the
health of Americans.
To provide a basis for
dietary recommendations
made to clients.
To provide a nutrient
standard for planning
adequate diets for
population groups.
To provide healthy Americans
with dietary guidance to
maintain and promote health.
To indicate dietary
practices that promote
health benefits without
undue risk.
To provide dietary guidance
to reduce risk of cancer.
To provide dietary guidance
to reduce risk of cancer.
To provide guidance to make
lifestyle changes which may
help to reduce risk of
cancer.
(ACS) (!), and the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) (~) are designed to reduce the risk
of cancer, and those of AHA (8) to reduce
the risk of heart disease. FNB's Committee
on Dietary Allowances makes specific
nutrient recommendations for various sex-age
groups in addition to discussing other
issues (Q). FNB (~Q) and, to a lesser
extent, the American Medical Association
(AMA) (_!!) have advised that some dietary
recommendations to reduce the risk of
chronic diseases are not appropriate for
everyone.
Table 2 summarizes the dietary recommenda­tions
of these 10 organizations in the
following areas: Nutrient adequacy, weight
control, fat (including saturated and poly­unsaturated
fatty acids), cholesterol, car­bohydrates
(including complex carbohydrate
or starch, dietary fiber, and refined
sugar), sodium, and alcohol. A recommenda­tion
is defined as a statement that gives
direct dietary advice to healthy Americans.
If an organization discusses an issue but
states that it is inappropriate to make a
recommendation for the general public, this
position is noted in table 2. Recommenda­tions
for individuals at high risk for a
particular disease are not included. If an
organization discusses a particular dietary
need or concern but did not make a specific
recommendation, this is indicated in table 2.
Over half of the organizations specifical-ly
recommend a varied diet to meet nutrient
needs (_!!, !Q_, Q, ~. ~. ~). Dietary
Goals (34) discusses the importance of
including a variety of fresh and unrefined
foods to provide adequate nutrients but does
not include a specific recommendation for a
varied diet. AHA (9) states that their
recommendations can be followed in a diet
that is nutritionally adequate. The Commit­tee
on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (~) and
ACS (!) only discuss those nutrients, such
as beta-carotene and vitamins A and C, that
have been linked with reduced cancer risk in
some studies. They recommend eating fruits
and vegetables that are good sources of
these nutrients. Both these groups also
recommend including cruciferous vegetables
in the diet.
Most organizations recommend moderation or
reduction of total fat in the diet (!, ~.
_!!, ~. ~. ~. ~. 1i_). Specific levels of
fat as percent of total calories are recom­mended
by the Dietary Goals (34), AHA (~),
and the Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (22)
report. In addition, FNB's Committee on
Dietary Allowances (Q) suggests that fat be
reduced to not more than 35 percent of die­tary
energy, particularly in diets of less
than 2, 000 calories. FNB (20) states that
fat should be reduced if an individual is
overweight or if energy needs are low.
Both AMA (_!!) and FNB (20) state that it
is inappropriate to make recommendations for
the healthy person about the levels or
proportions of saturated and polyunsaturated
fat in the diet. The Committee on Diet,
Nutrition, and Cancer (~), and NCI (~)
state that high-fat diets are associated
with some types of cancer and that fats of
all types should be reduced. The remaining
organizations all recommend reducing satu­rated
fat or avoiding too much saturated fat
(~, Q, ~. ~. 34). Dietary Goals (34) and
AHA (~) recommend that saturated fat pro­vide
only about 10 percent of total calories
and also that polyunsaturated fat be in­creased
to about 10 percent of total calories.
The Committee on Dietary Allowances
recommends an upper limit of 10 percent of
dietary energy from polyunsaturated fat (Q).
AMA (_!!) and FNB (!Q_) conclude that
recommendations concerning dietary choles­terol
are inappropriate for healthy people.
However, Dietary Goals (34), the Dietary
Guidelines (~), the Surgeon General's
Report (~), and AHA (~) suggest a reduc­tion
of dietary cholesterol or avoiding too
much dietary cholesterol. The Committee on
Dietary Allowances (Q), the Committee on
Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (~), and ACS
(!) discuss dietary cholesterol but make no
recommendation. NCI (32) does not discuss
dietary cholesterol.
Recommendations about complex carbohy­drates
are difficult to summarize because
the terminology used is not consistent among
the various reports. Table 2 lists the
recommendations as they are stated by the
organizations. Overall, seven made recommen­dations
about dietary fiber, starch, and/or
complex carbohydrates (!, ~. Q, ~. ~. ~.
34). The Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and
1985 No.3 Family Econom i cs Review 19
N
0
..,
Ill
3 .....
.....
'<
,..,
n
0
:::1
0
3 .....
n
en
::0
CD
.<... .
CD
~
'-tl
CD
\II
z
0
"'
Table 2. Summary of dietary recommendations made for healthy Americans by 10 Federal, professional, and health organizations
Title and
organization
Dietary Goals for the United States,
2d edition (34)
U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs, 1977
Diet and Coronary Heart Disease:
General Dietary Recommendations (_I!)
American Heart Association, 1978
Healthy People--Surgeon General's
Report on Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention (32)
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1979
Concepts of Nutrition and Health (li)
Council on Scientific Affairs
American Medical Association, 1979
Recommended Dietary Allowances (~)
Committee on Dietary Allowances
Food and Nutrition Board
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1980
Nutrition and Your Health:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (28)
U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Department of Health and Human
Services, 1980
Toward Healthful Diets (20)
Food and Nutrition Board-­National
Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1980
Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (22)
Committee on Diet, Nutrition,--
and Cancer
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1982
Nutrition and Cancer: Cause and
Prevention- -A Special Report (l)
American Cancer Society, 1984
Cancer Prevention (32)
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Heaith and Human
Services, 1984
Nutrient
adequacy
(')
(')
Balance and vary
food choices
.everyday.
Vary diet to
increase nutri­ent
adequacy .
Nutrient recom­mendations
are
to be met by
a variety of
foods.
Eat a variety of
foods .
Select wide
variety of foods
from the major
food groups .
(')
(')
Vary diet. Eat
variety of foods
every day.
Weight
control
To avoid over­weight,
consume
only as much
energy as
expended .
Balance calories
to maintain ideal
weight.
Exercise and
balance calories
to maintain
desirable weight.
Maintain desirable
weight through
dietary control
and exercise.
Balance energy
intake with out­put
to maintain
desirable weight .
Maintain ideal
weight. If obese,
lose weight grad­ually;
increase
physical activity.
Adjust energy in ­take
to maintain
appropriate
weight for height .
( 1)
Avoid obesity.
Prevent being
overweight;
increase physical
activity.
Total
Reduce to
27-33 pet of
total energy.
Reduce to 30-35
pet of tot a 1
calories.
Reduce excess
intake.
Moderate intake
regardless of
source.
Fat
Saturated
Reduce to 8-12 pet
of total energy.
Reduce to less
than 10 pet of
total calories.
Consume less.
Polyunsaturated
Intake should be
8-12 pet of total
energy intake.
Up to 10 pet of
total calories.
(')
Proportion of saturated and polyun­saturated
fat is not of universal
importance.
Reduce to not Reduce. Upper limit
more than 35 pet
of dietary energy,
particularly in
diets below 2000
calories.
Avoid too much .
Reduce intake if
overweight, or if
energy needs are
low.
Reduce intake to
30 pet of tot a 1
ca loric intake .
Cut down intake.
Keep intake of
all fats low-­both
saturated
and unsaturated.
Avoid too much.
Recommendations
not warranted for
the pub l ic.
Reduce intake.
(')
Keep intake of
all fats low-­both
saturated
and unsaturated.
intake of 10 pet
of dietary energy.
( 1)
Recommendations
not warranted for
the public .
Reduce intake.
( 1)
Keep intake of
all fats low- ­both
saturated
and unsaturated .
Cholesterol
Reduce to 250-
350 mg/day.
Reduce to 300
mg/day for
adults.
Consume less.
Leve 1 in the
diet is not of
uni versa 1
importance.
( 1)
Avoid too
much.
Recommendation
not warranted
for the
healthy person.
(')
(')
(')
1 No specific dietary advice is stated in the published report. If a group specifically stated that recommendations are inappropriate or unwarranted , this
is noted.
Note: Numbers in parentheses in column 1 refer to references on pp. 23-24.
'J:l
CXl
\Jl
z
0
"'
~
Q)
.3. ..
.....
'<
,...,
n
0
~
0
3.. ..
n
(/)
;:o
(1)
<
(1)
2:
N
Table 2. Summary of dietary recommendations made for healthy Americans by 10 Federal, professional, and health organizations (continued)
Title and
organization
Dietary Goals for the United States ,
2d edit ion ( 34)
U.S . Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs, 1977
Diet and Coronary Heart Disease:
General Dietary Recommendations (~)
American Heart Association, 1978
Healthy People--Surgeon General's
Report on Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention (33}
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1979
Concepts of Nutrition and Health (12)
Council on Scientific Affairs -­American
Medical Association, 1979
Recommended Dietary Allowances (~)
Committee on Dietary Allowances
Food and Nutrition Board
National Research Council
National Academy of Sciences, 1980
Nutrition and Your Health:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (~)
U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Department of Health and Human
Services, 1980
Toward Healthful Diets (20}
Food and Nutrition Board-­National
Research Council
National Academy of Sciences , 1980
Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (22)
Committee on Diet, Nutrition,--
and Cancer
National Research Counci l
National Academy of Sciences , 1982
Nutrition and Cancer: Cause and
Prevention--A Special Report (~)
American Cancer Society, 1984
Cancer Prevention (32}
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1984
Starch
Increase complex
carbohydrates and
naturally occurring
sugar to 45-51 pet
of total energy.
Increase carbohy­drates,
part i cu­larly
complex .
Consume more
complex carbohy­drates.
(')
Maintain or increase
consumption of
complex
carbohydrates.
Eat foods with
adequate starc h.
(')
( l)
( 1)
( 1)
Carbohydrates
Fiber
Increase.
Increase carbohy­drates,
particu­larly
complex.
Consume more
complex carbohy­drates.
( 1)
Moderately
increase
intake.
Eat foods with
adequate fiber .
( 1)
( 1)
Eat more high
fiber foods.
Eat foods with
fiber.
Refined sugar
Reduce to
8-12 pet of
total energy.
(')
Consume less.
( 1)
Reduce intake.
Avoid too much.
Reduce intake if
energy requirement
is low.
(1)
(1)
(1)
Sodium
Decrease salt intake
to 4-6 g/day
(1600-2400 mg/day
sodium).
Avoid excess sodium.
Consume less salt.
Moderate intake of salt
to less than 12 g/day
( 4800 mg/day sodium).
Safe and adequate
range of sodium is
about 1100-3300 mg/day .
Avoid too much.
Use salt in
moderation: 3-8 g/day
(1200-3200 mg/day
sodium).
( 1)
( 1 )
( 1)
Alcohol
Keep intake
moderate.
Keep intake
moderate.
( 1)
Keep intake
moderate.
For many indivi­duals,
reduced in­take
will assist
energy balance.
If you drink, do
so in moderation.
Reduce intake if
energy require­ment
is low.
If consumed, do
so in moderation.
Keep consumption
moderate, if you
drink.
If you drink, do
so in moderation.
1 No specific dietary advice is stated in the published report. 1f a group specifically stated that recommendations are inappropriate or unwarranted, this
is noted.
Note: Numbers in parentheses in column 1 refer to references on pp. 23-24.
Cancer (~~_) did not believe there was enough
evidence to make a recommendation about
dietary fiber; however, they did suggest
including whole grain cereal products,
fruits, and vegetables in the daily diet.
Recommendations to reduce or to avoid too
much refined sugar are made by five groups
(~. ~. ~. E• l_!). The others either dis­cuss
sugar with no specific recommendation
or make no mention of sugar (~. ~ • .,!!. ~.
32).
Many of the organizations suggest either
reducing or avoiding too much sodium or salt
in the diet (~. _!!, ~. ~. ~. E· ~) ·
Specific levels or ranges of sodium were
specified by some of these organizations and
are listed in table 2 (_!!, ~. ~. 34).
Finally, two recommendations that are made
by most of the 10 organizations are to
maintain ideal or desirable weight (~. ~.
_!!, ~. ~. ~. 1!• ~. l_!), and, if alcohol
is consumed, to consume it in moderation
(~. ~. _!!, ~. ~. ~. ~. 1!· l_!).
Many of the recommendations made by these
organizations have been reviewed, critiqued,
and in some cases endorsed by other profes­sional
associations or organizations. For
example, the American Public Health Associa­tion
(_!!) and the Society for Nutrition
Education (SNE) (26) have endorsed the
Dietary Guidelines. SNE (~1) also endorsed
the dietary recommendations included in the
report of the Committee on Diet, Nutrition,
and Cancer. Four of the six guidelines in
the Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer report are
being publicized by the American Institute
for Cancer Research (_!_Q_, ~) •
In December 1984 the National Institutes
of Health held a Consensus Development
Conference on lowering blood cholesterol
(lQ_). The consensus panel advised that all
Americans over 2 years of age adopt a diet
in which total dietary fat provides no more
than 30 percent of total calories, saturated
fats provide no more than 10 percent of
total calories, polyunsaturated fats are
limited to 10 percent of total calories, and
dietary cholesterol is limited to 250 to 300
mg per day. For those who are obese,
reduced calorie intake was recommended.
Not all groups have supported recommenda­tions
in these reports. For example, the
Council for Agricultural Science and
22 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
Technology (CAST) published a series of
papers (~), a number of which expressed
concern about some sections of the Diet,
Nutrition, and Cancer report. In a 1980
report, the American Council on Science and
Health (4) concluded that it was not
appropriate to make recommendations to the
general public about dietary changes to
reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
In addition to the specific areas summa­rized
in table 2, other dietary guidance
recommendations have been made by these
groups and others. Among them is the recom­mendation
to use flouridated water to help
prevent tooth decay (!..!.• ~. ~. ~. ~).
This recommendation is also supported by the
American Dental Association (ADA) (5). For
optimum dental health ADA (~) also recom­mends
eating a balanced diet, minimizing
snacks, and restricting consumption of
sweets.
The Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and
Cancer (~), and ACS (~) recommend that
everyone minimize their consumption of foods
preserved by salt curing and smoking. This
recommendation was criticized in a number of
the papers included in the CAST report (~).
This report noted that only a very small
proportion of the cured foods available in
the United States are processed using tech­niques
of salt curing or smoking similar to
those that have been linked with increased
cancer risk in populations in other
countries. Most cured and smoked foods in
the United States are prepared by processes
that have not been linked with cancer.
The organizations listed in table 2 and
others discuss the needs of special groups
within the general population. Several
discuss the increased nutrient needs of
pregnant and lactating women (3, 12, 21, 28,
E). With the exception of ir~n -;_ndperhap;­folacin,
these increased needs are expected
to be met through a balanced diet (3, 21,
~). AMA (_!!) and the American Colleg7 of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (~) recom­mend
a calorie level for most pregnant women
that supports a weight gain of about 10 to
12 kg (approximately 22 to 26 lb) during
pregnancy. Some groups suggest that preg­nant
women restrict alcohol consumption
<l. _!l, ..?.!!_, ~).
Those organizations making recommendations
about feeding infants encourage breast
feeding and advise delaying the introduction
of solid foods until the infant is around 4
to 6 months of age (_g, ..?.!!_, ~).
Both the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) (!) and the AHA (~) have published
information on dietary recommendations for
healthy children. AAP (_!) states that the
safety of a diet reduced in calories, fat,
cholesterol, refined sugar, and sodiu_m, and
increased in complex carbohydrates has not
been established for children. AHA (35)
recommends a prudent modification of the
diet for children over 2 years of age, which
is similar to the recommendations they made
for adults.
In the last few years, osteoporosis has
been recognized as a major health concern
(_g). In April 1984 the National Institutes
of Health held a Consensus Development
Conference on osteoporosis. The consensus
panel concluded that osteoporosis is a major
public health problem (31). One of the
possible causes listed by the panel was a
deficiency of calcium. The panel recommended
that well before menopause, women increase
their calcium intake to between 1, 000 and
1, 500 mg per day. This recommendation is
higher than the 800 mg of calcium per day
for adults currently recommended by the
Committee on Dietary Allowances (~!). The
panel also stated that increased calcium
intake may prevent age-related bone loss in
men.
Dietary recommendations for healthy
Americans made by Federal, professional,
and health organizations are similar in most
respects. All of the organizations acknow­ledge
the importance of diet to good health.
The inconsistencies in recommendations that
occur reflect differences in interpretation
of research results. Recommendations will be
modified and refined as research enhances
understanding of the relationships among
specific diet components, food, and health.
LITERATURE CITED
1. American Academy of Pediatrics,
Committee on Nutrition. 1983. Toward a
prudent diet for children. Pediatrics
71(1): 78-80.
2. American Cancer Society. 1984. Nutrition
and cancer: Cause and prevention; an
American Cancer Society special report.
Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 34(2).
3. American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Committee on Nutrition.
1974. Nutrition in Maternal Health Care.
Chicago, IL.
4. American Council on Science and Health.
1982. Diet Modification: Can it Reduce
the Risk of Heart Disease? New York,
NY.
5. American Dental Association. 1983.
Flouride Helps Prevent Tooth Decay.
Bureau of Health Education and
Audiovisual Services. Chicago, IL.
6. • 1983. Statement on diet and
dental caries. Journal of the American
Dental Association 107 (1): 78.
7. American Heart Association. 1961.
Dietary fat and its relation to heart
attacks and strokes. Circulation 23:133.
8. • 1978. Diet and coronary
heart disease. Circulation 58:762A-765A.
9. • 1982. Rationale of the diet-heart
statement of the American Heart
Association. Report of Nutrition
Committee. Circulation 65(4): 839A-854A.
10. American Institute for Cancer Research.
1984. Dietary Guidelines to Lower Cancer
Risk.
11. American Medical Association, Council on
Foods and Nutrition. 1974. Official Pol­icy
of the American Medical Association:
Flouridation of Public Water Supplies.
Chicago, IL.
12. , Council on Scientific
Affairs. 1979. Concepts of nutrition and
health. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 242(21): 2335-2338.
13. , Council on Scientific Af-fairs.
1983. Fetal effects of maternal
alcohol use. Journal of the American
Medical Association 249 (18): 2517-2521.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Rev i ew 23
14. American Public Health Association.
1981. Public Policy Statement 8127:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
15. Blackburn, Henry. 1!:179. Diet and mass
hyperlipidemia: A public health view.
~ Robert I. Levy, Basil M. Rifkind,
Barbara H. Dennis, and Nancy Ernst,
editors. Nutrition, Lipids, and
Coronary Heart Disease--Nutrition in
Health and Disease. Vol. 1. Raven
Press, New York, NY.
16. Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology. 1982. Diet, Nutrition, and
Cancer: A Critique. CAST Special
Publications Series, No. 13. Ames, IA.
17. Dwyer, Johanna. 1983. Dietary recom­mendations
and policy implications--the
U.S. experience. ~ Jean Weininger and
George M. Briggs, editors. Nutrition
Update, Volume 1. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
18. Light, Luise, and Frances J. Cronin.
1981. Food guidance revisited. Journal
of Nutrition Education 13(2): 58-62.
19. McNutt, Kristen. 1980. Dietary advice
to the public: 1957 to 1980. Nutrition
Reviews 38(10): 353-360.
20. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Food and Nutrition
Board. 1980. Toward Heathful Diets.
21. , Food and Nutrition Board
Committee on Dietary Allowances. 1980.
Recommended Dietary Allowances. 9th
edition.
22. , Committee on Diet, Nutri-tion,
and Cancer. 1982. Diet, Nutrition
and Cancer. National Academy Press.
23. Nestle, Marion, Philip R. Lee, and
Robert B. Baron. 1983. Nutrition policy
update. ~Jean Weininger and George M.
Briggs, editors. Nutrition Update,
Volume 1. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
24. Palmer, Sushma. 1983. Diet, nutrition,
and cancer: The future of dietary
policy. Cancer Research (Supplement)
43:2509s-2514s•
25. Rivers, Jerry M., and Karen Collins.
1984. Planning Meals That Lower Cancer
Risk: A Reference Guide. American
Institute of Cancer Research.
24 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
26. Society for Nutrition Education. 1980.
Resolution results. SNE Communicator
11(4):6.
27. • 1982. Resolutions results.
SNE Communicator 13(4):3.
28. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Ser­vices.
1980. Nutrition and Your Health:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
29. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 1981. Surgeon General's
advisory on alcohol and pregnancy. FDA
Drug Bulletin 11(2).
30. , National Institutes of
Health. 1984. National Institutes of
Health Consensus Development Conference
Statement Lowering Blood Cholesterol,
December 10-12, 1984. [Draft.] Spon­sored
by the National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institute and NIH Office of
Medical Applications of Research.
31. , National Institutes of
Health. 1984. Osteoporosis Consensus
Development Conference Statement.
Journal of the American Medical
Association. 252 (6): 799-802.
32. , National Institutes of
Health, National Cancer Institute.
1984. Cancer Prevention.
33. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare [now known as U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services],
Public Health Service. 1979. Healthy
People--The Surgeon General's Report on
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.
34. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutri­tion
and Human Needs. 1977. Dietary
Goals for the United States. 2d edition.
35. Weidman, William, et al. 1983. Diet in
the healthy child. Circulation 67(6):
1411A-1414A.
36. Wolf, Isabel D., and Betty B. Peterkin.
1984. Dietary guidelines: The USDA per­spective.
Food Technology 38 (7): 80-86.
Some New USDA Charts
Chart 82
Adjustable Rate Mortgages as a
Percentage of Conventional Home Mortgages
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
1982 83
National averages for loans closed by all major lenders.
Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
Chart 135
84
Families with Health Care Coverage by Income
% of families Multi-person
11 14 9
fxx3
R%.9~~5 :XX: 11
16 18
12
XX36 2~~ 19 ?six ~'S<:
X
77
69
)(61
23
27
"':"• ><
>21
3~.
Chart 124
Annual Earnings of Families with Member
in Labor Force
Married
couple
$thousands
3.8
Female 11.5
householder 21.0 2 or more
earners
Insufficient data for male householder families with no employed earner.
1982 median family income data.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Single
person
7 ~~m 9 No coverage
6:XX ~3~ Public health
11 care only 14
r-Public and private
health care
82• 80 Private health
74)( insurance only
Less than $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000.$34,999 $35,000 and over
1980 data.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 25
N
(7\
..,
Ql
3 ,.._....
'< ,.,
n
0
:::>
0
3... ..
n
CD
::0
(I)
<.... .
(I)
"'
'J:l
CD
\II
z
0
"'
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, April 1985, U.S. average1
Cost for 1 week
Sex-age group
Thrifty Low-cost Moderate­plan
plan cost plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-50 years • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • $37.40
51 years and over.................. 35.30
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years................ 54.40
6-8 and 9-11 years............... 62.40
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
1-2 years ......................... .
3-5 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
6-8 years ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
9-11 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Male:
12-14 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
15-19 years
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over ••••••••••••••••••
Female:
12-19 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••
9.80
10.60
13.00
15.40
16.20
16.80
17.90
16.20
16.10
16.10
15.90
$47.10
45.10
67.60
79.60
11.80
13.00
17.20
19.60
22.20
23.10
22.80
21.60
19.20
20.00
19.40
$57.90
55.40
82.50
99.20
13 .so
16.10
21.50
25.10
27.60
28.50
28.40
26.50
23.20
24.20
23.90
Liberal
plan
$71.60
66.00
100.80
119.20
16.50
19.20
25.10
29.00
32.40
33.00
34.20
31.60
28.00
30.90
28.40
Thrifty
plan
$161.80
153.10
235.40
270.40
42.40
45.90
56.40
66.90
70.10
72.80
77.40
70.30
69.60
69.70
68.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$203.90
195.40
293.10
344.90
51.30
56.40
74.60
84.90
96.30
99.90
98.70
93.60
83.40
86.70
84.00
Moderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$251.10
240.00
357.60
430.30
59.70
69.60
93.20
108.80
119.70
123.30
123.30
114.70
100.70
105.00
103.50
$310.20
286.00
436.90
516.60
71.70
83.20
108.80
125.80
140.40
142.90
148.20
137.10
121.40
133.80
122.90
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1984 No. 1. Estimates for the other plans
were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983 No. 2. The costs of the food plans are
estimated by updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA
updates these survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Detailed Report, table 3) to estimate
the costs for the food plans.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments
are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
& a
9.
Q1
0
0. a.
l:Il
0
~
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [ 1967 = 100]
Group
All items ............................ o •••••••
Food •..•••......•..•.••..•.•••.•.•••.•.•••
Food at home ........................... .
Food away from home •••••••••••••.•..•••
Housing .................................. .
Shelter ........................... ~ ...... .
Rent, residential ..................... .
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ••••••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••••••••••••
Household furnishings and operation •••••
Apparel and upkeep •••••••••••••••••••••••
Men's and boys' ........................ .
Women's and girls' ...................... .
Footwear ............................... .
Transportation ........................... .
Private ................................. .
Public .................................. .
Medical care .............................. .
Entertainment ............................ .
Other goods and services •••.•••••••.•.••••
Personal care ........................... .
Apr.
1985
320.1
309.6
297.7
343.9
345.9
375.9
260.4
388.7
623.5
445.9
247.9
205.9
197.4
170.0
213.2
320.0
314.6
398.0
398.0
263.3
321.8
279.8
Mar.
1985
318.8
309.7
298.4
342.6
344.7
374.3
259.2
388.2
620.8
445.5
246.9
205.3
195.2
169.9
213.1
316.7
311.0
397.3
396.5
262.2
321.1
278.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Feb.
1985
317.4
309.5
298.6
341.4
343.6
373.3
258.4
386.5
623.4
443.3
246.2
201.8
192.8
164.1
210.1
314.3
308.7
394.4
393.8
261.3
320.5
278.2
Apr.
1984
308.8
302.3
292.8
330.9
333.2
357.8
246.4
380.9
650.7
432.3
242.3
199.2
190.6
163.2
208.9
309.6
304.8
377.1
375.7
253.8
302.8
268.9
1985 No.3 Family Economics Review 27
SUbscrlpUon Order Or
Change Of Address Form
Enclosed Iss, ____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
Order No _____ _
Make check payable to.
Superintendent ol Documents
CREDit' CARD ORDERS ONLY
(VIsa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiration Date Monthl Y ear
FAMILY Annual su.bscripUon Single copies
ECONOUICS $12.00 domestic $3.25 domestic
REVIEW ($15.00 foreign) ($4.10 foreign).
PleaM pl1Dt 01' type
Company or Personal Name
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional Address I Attention Une
I I I II I
Street Address
I I I I
City
I I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach mailing label here and
send this lorm when requesting a
change ol address.
UAILOIIDEII FORM TO.
SUpertDtendeDt of Doclllxwnb
Go?emment l'dDtiDQ Oftlce
W<DhiDgtoD. D.C.~
State ZIP Code
UJ II II
I I I
FOR OmCE USE ONLY
Quantity
___ Publications
Charges
___ Subscriptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
intematlonal Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Relund
28 Family Economics Review 1985 No.3
t: U.S. GOVERNMENT PJUNTINO OPPICE. 1985 - 527-962 - 814/30605