Family Economics Review [1969, Number 1]

              3 Diets of Low-Income Families
7 Diets of Men, Women, and Children
10 New Developments in USDA Food Programs
13 New Programs in Rural Housing
16 Clothing and Textiles: Supplies , Prices, and
Outlook for 196 9
19 Outlook for Food in 1969
21 Some New USDA Publications
22 Index of Articles in 1968 Issues
23 Consumer Prices
25 Cost of Food at Home
1-''?0PERTY OF THE
L ; --~>'C?Y
~PR 2 1969
D447A
ARS 62-5
March 1969
THE CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
The first four articles in this issue are condensed versions of talks given at the
46th Annual Agricultural Outlook Conference held in Washington, D. C . , February 17 to
19, 1969. If you wish the complete text of any of these papers, send your request with
the title and author of the article to the Consumer and Food Economics Research Divi­sion,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville, Md. ,
20782. Please give your ZIP code with your return address. The other two articles
(pages 16 to 21) are printed in full.
Trade names are used in this publication solely for the purpose of providing
specific information. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee or war­ranty
of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or an endorsement by the
Department over other products not mentioned.
Family Economics Review is a quarterly report on research of the
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division and on information
from other sources relating to economic aspects of family living. It
is developed by Dr. Emma G. Holmes, research family economist,
with the cooperation of other staff members of the Division. It is pre­pared
primarily for home economics agents and home economics spe­cialists
of the Cooperative Extension Service.
DIETS OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Juanita A. Eagles, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Several surveys of the U.S. Department of Agriculture give information about
the food of families with low incomes. The largest of these was a nationwide survey
made in spring 1965. In addition, 10 special surveys were conducted during 1961 to
1967 in six locations where USDA food assistance programs were available. The fami­lies
interviewed were eligible for assistance under these programs.
In this report, the families classified as "low income" in the 1965 survey are
those with money incomes after taxes under $3, 000. Not all of these may be termed
"hard core" poor. Some were small families; some may have had unusually low in­comes
the year of the survey but more other years; and some may have had nonmoney
in addition to money income. All families in the 10 special surveys are assumed to
have been poor, since they were eligible for a food assistance program.
Findings of the Nationwide Survey, Spring 1965
Food consumption. --In general, low-income families in spring 1965 used more
foods in the bread-cereal group but less of other foods than families with higher in­comes.
(The food groups are made up as follows: Bread-cereal group--flour, flour
mixes, ' cereals, bread and bakery products; meat group--meat, poultry, fish, eggs,
dry beans and peas, nuts, andmixtures mostly meat; milk group--milk, cream, cheese,
ice cream, and other frozen milk desserts; vegetable-fruit group-- all vegetables and
fruits and their juices; "other foods" --fats, oils, sugars, sweets, and miscellaneous
foods.)
The income groups differed less in their consumption of the meat group than of
the milk and vegetable-fruit groups. Possibly the selection of items within these groups
varied more, however. When families had more to spend, use of meat, poultry, and
fish increased.
Although low-income families spent less, on the average, than those with in­comes
of $7,000 to $10,000, they divided their food dollar among the food groups in a­bout
the same way. The vegetable-fruit group took 20 cents of the dollar at each level;
the meat group 37 and 38 cents, respectively; the milk and bread-cereal groups each,
1.3 .cents at the low and 12 cents at the high level; and other foods, 17 and l8 cents at the
respective income levels.
Quality of diets. --The nutritive content of the food used by each household was
compared with the Recommended Dietary Allowances (1963) of the Food and Nutrition
Board National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. Diets were rated
"good" if they furnished the recommended amounts of seven nutrients-- protein, cal­cium,
iron, vitamin A value, thiamine, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid. They were rated
"poor" if they furnished less than two-thirds of the recommended amount of one or more
of these nutrients.
In general, the higher the income of a family, the better the diet. However high
income does not assure a good diet nor low income a poor one. In the 1965 survey, 9
percent of the families with incomes of $10, 000 or more had diets rated poor and 37
percent of those with less than $3,000 had diets rated good (fig. 1).
MARCH 1969 3
INCOME INCOME
AND QUALITY OF DIETS AND DIETS BELOW ALLOWANCES
Under $3,000 Under $3,000
$3,000-4,999 $3,000 - 4,999
$5,000-6,999 $5,000 - 6,999 53%
$7,000-9,999
$7,000 - 9 ,999 56%
$10,000 and over
•MET RECOMMENDED DIETARY AllOWANCES fOR 7 NUTRIENTS RECOMMENDED OIElAAY ALLOWANCES
• HAD LESS THAN 213 AlLOW ... NCE FOR 1 TO 7 NUTRIENTS NATIONWIDE HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY. SPAtHG 196S
NATIONWIDE HOUSEHOlD FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY. SPRING 196S
Figure 1 Figure 2
Diets of 39 percent of the low-income (under $3, 000) compared with 21 percent
of the higher income group ( $7, 000 to $10, 000) were below recommended amounts in
two or more nutrients (fig. 2). They were most often low in calcium, vitamin A value,
and ascorbic acid. Low-income families used less of the chief sources of these nutri­ents--
milkandmilkproducts, vegetables and fruits--than families with higher incomes.
Compared with higher income families, those with low incomes received a greater t
nutritional return for their food dollar. The reason for this was that some of the less
expensive foods they used in larger. amounts --such as nonfat dry milk and enriched ce­reals--
have a high nutrient content in relation to cost.
Findings of Ten Food Assistance Program Surveys, 1961 to 1967
The surveys were made in Detroit, Mich.; Fayette County, Pa.; Choctaw County,
Okla.; Escambia County, Fla.; and Sunflower and Washington Counties, Miss. In the
first two locations, separate surveys were made when the Food Donation and Food Stamp
Programs were in operation. In Fayette County, separate urban and rural surveys were
made.
Although all families in these surveys were eligible for the food programs avail­able
at the time, they were not all participating. The proportion participating in the
Food Donation Program ranged from 30 percent in urban Fayette County to 78 percent
in Choctaw (table 1). Those participating in the Food Stamp Program ranged from 18
percent in urban Fayette to 40 percent in Washington County. Most of the Food Stamp
surveys were made nearer the time the program was introduced than were the Food
Donation surveys. Some families may not have known they were eligible or even that
the program existed.
The families surveyed had incomes per month averaging from $103 in Washing­ton
County to $152 in Detroit. Average family size ranged from 3. 0 persons in urban
Fayette and in Choctaw to 4. 6 in Sunflower County. About 9 percent of the households
in rural Fayette and 32 percent in Washington County were 1-person households. Fami­lies
of 7 or more made up 32 percent of those in Sunflower County but only 6 to 7 per­cent
in urban Fayette. (The data in this report of the 10 surveys refer to all families
interviewed whether they participated in the USDA Food Program or not.)
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1 . Average household size, income, and value of food used per person and percentage of house ­holds
participating in USDA food programs , 10 surveys of eligible families in 6 places 1961
to 1967 '
Households
Place and year of
survey, Partici - Average Income and type pating size Total per
of food program in food (per - month
available program sons) y
No . Pet . No. Dol.
Mich ., 1961 - -- - -- Detroit,
Donation -------- 454 56 4.2 148
Stamp ----------- 361 27 4.2 152
Fayette Co . , Pa. , 1961
Urban : Donat i on -------- 226 30 3.1 121
Stamp ----------- 117 18 3.0 131
Rural : Donation -------- 264 58 4.1 140
Stamp ----------- 264 35 3.9 137
Choctaw Co . , Okla., 1962
Donation -------- 510
Escambia Co ., Fla ., 1963
78 3.0 125
Donation -------- 224 59 3.8 137
Sunflower Co ., Miss ., 1967
Donation -------- 189 77 4.6 115
Washington Co ., Miss ., 1967
Stamp ----------- 295 40 3·7 103
1/ A person equals 21 meals from home food supplies .
gj Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
Money value of food used
Propor- per person per week 5/
tion of Without direct expense
income Pur- JH ome tif~ ~ Feder- for food Total chased Total pro- or ally
duced pay donated
-Pe-t . -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. -Do-l. Dol. --
58 5.40 4.86 0.54 0.02 0.07 0.44
68 6.00 5.81 .19 .06 .14 -
64 6.19 5·77 .41 .05 .12 .24
53 5.70 5·39 .31 .13 .18 -
61 6.00 4.93 1.08 .32 .09 .67
62 5·72 5.19 ·57 .38 .19 -
42 5·95 3.85 2.09 ·93 .16 1.00
45 3.99 3.60 .39 .05 .07 .28
47 4.02 2.62 1.40 .39 .06 ·95
62 4.08 3.71 .37 .19 .09 .09
Table 2. Household diets meeting Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA)Y for 8 nutrients and less than
two -thirds RDA for any one of the 8 and for each separately, families eligible for USDA food pro­grams
10 surveys 1961 to 1967 '
Place and year of
survey, and type
of food program
available
Detroit, Mich ., 1961
Donation -------
Stamp ----------
Fayette Co ., Pa ., 1961 I
:::: E:i:~~-=======j~ Stamp ---------­Choctaw
Co ., Okla., 1962
Donation ------­Escambia
Co ., Fla ., 1963
Donation ------­Sunflower
Co ., Miss ., 1967
Donation ------­Washington
Co ., Miss ., 1967
Stamp ----------
Met RDA
for 8
nutrients
-Pe-t.
28
35
25
28
28
31
41
20
20
17
Met less
than 2/3
RDA for 1 !Protein
or more
nutrients
-Pe-t . P-e-t.
39 2
42 5
46 5
41 4
43 3
36 4
37 3
57 7
61 3
59 5
Met less than 2/3 RDA for --
Calcium
Vitamin Thia- Ribo - Niacin Ascorbic Iron A value mine flavin acid
-Pe-t . -Pe-t . -Pe-t . P-e-t. -Pe-t . Pet. -Pe-t .
23 4 16 6 9 2 26
28 5 15 9 12 4 28
17 8 22 10 11 7 35
22 10 18 11 13 9 24
16 2 16 3 5 2 28
23 5 17 7 9 4 19
11 2 13 3 6 3 32
36 8 17 11 18 5 44
29 3 33 7 17 4 50
36 6 30 12 27 7 45
!, f1 Recommended Dietary Allowances of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Food
and Nutr ition Board (1958) .
MARCH 1969 5
Food consumption.-- The families in these studies averaged about the same
amount of foods in the bread-cereal group as the low-income families in the 1965 na­tionwide
study. Consumption of these foods was lowest in urban Fayette County, where
income per capita was highest, and highest in Sunflower County, where income was low­est.
Consumption of vegetables and fruits compared favorably with that of low-income
families in the nationwide survey, except in Escambia, Sunflower, and Washington
Counties.
Average consumption of milk and milk products in six of the studies was less
than in the low-income families in the nationwide study. Use of these products was low­est
in Washington, Sunflower, and Esc ambia Counties and in Detroit. Consumption of
foods in the meat group averaged below that for the low-income families in spring 1965.
It was highest in Detroit, lowest in urban Fayette.
Money value of food usedperpersonperweekaveraged from about $4 in Escam­bia
and Sunflower Counties to $6. 19 in urban Fayette--in surveys made when the Food
Donation Program was in effect. This amount includes the value of food obtained with­out
direct expense--donated, home produced, and received as gift or pay--and the cost
of purchased food.
Quality of diets.-- Diets of families in the 10 surveys were compared with the
National Academy of Sciences- National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board's
Recommended Dietary Allowances (1958) (NRC). They were rated good if they met the
allowances for eight nutrients, and poor if they failed to provide two-thirds of the allow­ance
for one or more of these nutrients. If the diets had been rated by the 1963 NRC
allowances used in rating diets in the 1965 survey; they probably would have rated
slightly higher.
Diets rated good ranged from about 20 percent in Escambia and the two counties
in Mississippi to 41 percent in Choctaw County (table 2). Diets rated poor ranged from
36 percent in rural Fayette to about 60 percent in Escambia and the two Mississippi
counties. No conclusions can be drawn about the existence of hunger or malnutrition,
however, because no information on the nutritional status of individuals was obtained.
Relatively few families had a problem obtaining enough protein. Those with food
furnishing the NRC allowance forprotein ranged from 69percent in Escambia County to
88 percent in Detroit (Donation Program Survey), rural Fayette (Donation Program),
and Choctaw County. From 2 to 7 percent of the households had less than two-thirds of
the NRC allowance for protein. The share of the protein that came from animal sources
ranged from 52 percent in Sunflower County to 63 percent in Detroit (Stamp Program). As in the low-income families in the 1965 survey, diets were most often below
the recommended levels for calcium, vitamin A value, and ascorbic acid. Only in rural
Fayette and in Choctaw Counties was calcium as high as in the diets of the low-income
families in the nationwide survey. In Sunflower County, where use of milk and milk ..
products was relatively low, the calcium level was relatively high because the kinds
and quantities of grain products used contributed to it.
In all of the special surveys except the two in Mississippi, the families had more
vitamin A than low-income families in the nationwide survey. Families in these four
areas had more vitamin A valuethanthe$7,000 to $10,000 groupinthenationwidesurvey.
Only the families in rural Fayette County had diets with ascorbic acid near the
average for low-income families nationally. From 31 percent of the households in Sun-
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
flower County to 60 percent in rural Fayette (Stamp Program Survey) had food that fur­nished
the recommended allowances for ascorbic acid. From 19 to 50 percent of the
households had food furnishing less than two-thirds of the allowances.
Families in the 10 surveys had even more of most nutrients for their food dol­lar,
on the average, than the low-income families in the 1965 survey. They made good
use of low-cost foods as a source of nutrients. For example, in Escambia, Sunflower,
and Washington Counties, where the amount of calcium from a dollar's worth of food
was highest, the percentage furnished by grain products ranged from 21 to 32 percent.
Dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables--generally less costly than many other sources
of vitamin A--furnished 60 percent. of the vitamin A value in Escambia and Choctaw
1 Counties, much more than in the other counties and in the nationwide sample. The
dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables were important contributors of ascorbic acid in
the four southern areas.
Implications
Findings of the nationwide survey and the 10 special surveys indicate that con­sumer
education programs for low-income families should--
•
•
•
Help families become aware of and make use of available food assistance
programs; encourage home gardens where practical.
Help families make the best use of the less expensive foods of high nutritive
value and understand the importance ofvaried diets; encourage them to sub­stitute
less expensive foods within the four food groups for more expensive
foods.
Emphasize the importance of increasing the use of milk and milk products
and fruits and vegetables to improve the quality of diets--especially in cal­cium,
vitamin A value, and ascorbic acid.
DIETS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN
Daniel A. Swope, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
In spring 1965, for the first time in a nationwide survey, information was ob­tained
on the food eaten by individual members of households. Heretofore, quality of
diets could be assessed only for households. The fact that a household used food that
met recommended allowances was no assurance that each person in the household had
an adequate diet.
As part of the u.S. Department of Agriculture's nationwide Food Consumption
Survey of 1965-66, information was obtained on the types and quantities of foods eaten
in 1 day by 14, 500 persons in 6, 200 households. Average diets of each of 22 sex-age
groups were appraised for nutritional adequacy by comparing calories and amounts of
seven nutrients they contained with the Recommended Dietary Allowances published in
1968 by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Re-search
Council.
MARCH 1969 7
Nutritive Value of Diets
Average diets of most of the sex-age groups were near or above recommended
allowances for protein, vitamin A value, thiamine, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid (see
figure). More groups had diets below allowances for calcium and iron than for any other
nutrients--as much as 30 percent or more below in some groups. Protein averaged a- ·
bove a Uowances for a 11 groups, ranging from 10 to 150 percent above. In general, diets
of women and girls were not as good as those of men and boys.
Children under 9 years had diets with calcium averaging above the recommended
allowances. At ages 9 and over, however, diets of all groups of females were Jelow the
recommended amounts in calcium--34 to 37 percent below for girls 15 to 17.!. and wo­men
35 and over. Males in age groups 9 years and over also had diets with calcium be­low
the allowances, except for men 18 to 34 years old.
Iron was often below recommended allowances. Groups with diets below allow- '
ances in iron were principally infants and children under 3 years, girls and women in
age groups 9 to 54, and boys 12 to 14.
Diets in Need of Improvement
Ranking sex-age groups according to their need for improved diets is difficult
becau§e ( 1) no one group appears decidedly worse off than any other, and ( 2) no com­posite
indicator of the dietary level of sex-age group is available. To develop such an '1
indicator it would be necessary to determine which nutrient is more important than any
other. It would also be necessary to know whether a certain level--say 20 percent-­below
the allowance is as significant for one nutrient as for another. However, if the
average intake of food for a sex-age group provides a nutrient in an average amount be- ·
lowthe recommended allowance, some persons inthe group are receiving amounts even
further below the allowance.
Groups with diets low in several nutrients may b~ regarded as needing improved
diets. These groups include--
•
•
Girls and women 9 to 64 years old. Their diets were at least 20 percent-­in
some groups over 30 percent--below the recommended allowances for cal­cium
and except for 55-to-64year olds, 30 percent or more below allowances
for iron. Diets of women and adolescent girls were also somewhat under the
allowances for thiamine.
Older men and women. Women aged 65 and over had diets below the allow­ances
for more nutrients than younger women. Their diets were more than
30 percent below the recommended allowance for calcium. They were also
below allowances in thiamine, riboflavin, iron, and vitamin A value. Men
aged 75 and over had diets that averaged 24 percent below the allowance for
calcium and somewhat below in riboflavin, vitamin A value, and ascorbic acid.
!/ Age groups include persons of the first age up to and including those of the second
age listed. •
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW 1
-
•
NUTRIENTS LESS THAN THE
RECOMMENDED DIOARY ALLOWANCES ...
SEX AGE VITAMIN RIBO- ASCORBIC
(YEAH) PROTEIN CALCIUM IRON A VALUE THIAMINE FLAVIN ACID
MALE I AND FEMALE:
UNDER 1 ••• *I 1·2 l-5 * * * * 6-1 * *
MALE:
9-11 12-14 * 15-17 * * * * * * 11-19 * *
20-34
35 -54 55-64 * 65-74 * * 75 & OVER * * FEMALE: * * * * ** *
9·11 12-14 * * * * * * * * 15-17 * * * * * * * * * 11-19 * * * * * * * * * * 20-34 * * * * * * * * * 35-54 * * * * * * * * * 55-64 **** * * * * * * * 65-74 **** * * 75 & OVER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -1 THROUGH 10~ ** -II THROUGH 20~ *** -21 THROUGH 29\ **** -30\ OR MORE
•NAS-NRC. 1968
U.S DIETS Of MEN. WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. I DAY IN SPRING. 1965
US O£PUI1 111 lN1 Of loGII!CUllUIIH N{G o\IIS ~9)1 ~21 ,t,CII!CULTURAL lllSU.II(H Slll~l(f
Infants and children under 3 years. Iron in the diets of this age group aver­aged
about 50 percent under the recommended allowance. Other nutrients
were above--some well above. The food of infants under 1 year averaged
several times the recommended allowances for protein, calcium, vitamin A
value, and riboflavin.
Foods Consumed
Milk and milk products. --Children under 1 year used the most milk and milk
products, and boys age 9 to 19 came next. Boys and men used more of these products
than girls and women in all groups age 9 and over. Among females, consumption de­clined
after age 9 to 11, becoming lower in each successive age group through 35 to 54
years. This last age group averaged not quite 1 cup a day in terms of whole fluid milk
or the calcium equivalent of milk products. Among males, consumption of milk prod­ucts
declined beginning with age 20 to 34.
Meat, poultry, and fish. --Use of these protein foods was generally high. Ex­cept
for children under 1 year, over 85 percent of each sex-age group used some meat,
poultry, or fish on the day of the survey. The quantity used increased up to age 20 to
34, then declined. Men and boys used considerably larger quantities than women and
girls.
Grain products.-- The diets of practically every group included grain products,
mainly in the form of breadstuffs. In all groups age 9 years and over, boys and men
used more grain products than girls and women. Boys 15 to 19 ate the most--an equi­valent
of 6 slices of bread plus 7 ounces of other grain products.
Tomatoes and citrus fruits. --Tomatoes and citrus fruits--good sources of a­scorbic
acid--were used by from 19 percent of the infants under 1 year to 50 percent
MARCH 1969 9
of men and women 20 to 34 years old. Women 55 to 74 ate more tomatoes and citrus
fruits than men the same age. Girls used less of these foods at age 15 to 17 than at 12
to 14, but boys in these age groups used more.
Dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables. --Only 10 to 20 percent of those in the
various age groups ate any dark-green or deep-yellow vegetables in a day. Highest
users were men 65 to 74 years old.
Beverages other than milk and juices.--Consumption of coffee, tea, soft drinks,
and alcoholic beverages became successively higher with age until it reached a peak in
the age group 35-to-54. About one-third of the children and one-half of the adolescents
used soft drinks on the day of the survey. In general, average quantities of milk and
milk products used decr~ased as quantities of these other beverages increased.
Implications
No conclusions can be drawn from this study as to whether individuals were
suffering from hunger and malnutrition, because no information about their nutritional
status was obtained. The fact that some diets did not meet recommended dietary allow­ances
does not indicate a need for indiscriminate fortification of foods with minerals
and vitamins or for self-prescribed use of supplements.
Findings of the study indicate a need for expanded nutrition education. Nutrition
education programs might well emphasize improved diets for adolescent girls, women,
and older men. Foods needing emphasis are milk and nonfat milk products, fruits and
vegetables, and foods high in iron.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN USDA FOOD PROGRAMS
Howard P. Davis, Consumer and Marketing Service, USDA
For a number of years the Commodity Distribution Programs of the U.S. De­partment
of Agriculture (USDA) have provided families with food to use at home. Re­cently
USDA has also been working on a program to provide special supplementary foods
for pregnant and nursing mothers and small children, based on medical determinations.
Another relatively new group of programs is providing nutritious meals in group situa­tions
to children in and out of school.
The National School Lunch Program is designed to improve the nutrition of all
children, regardless of income. It aims to provide at least one-third of the daily re­quirements
of the basic nutrients and to teach good nutrition by serving well-balanced
meals and tying the lunch program into formal nutrition education in the school.
The School Lunch Act requires that lunches be served free or at reduced price
to children who cannot afford to pay. However, millions of poor children over the years
have not been in schools participating in the program. The Act was recently amended
to correct this. The newer programs under the Child Nutrition Act and provision for
group feeding in nonschool situations have been aimed toward reaching the poor children.
The Federal Government prescribes meal-type requirements for these programs
that insure nutritional adequacy. USDA provides technical help to States and schools,
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
casli re1m ursement for meals served, donated foods, and-- this year for the first
time--funds to help schools buy lunch room equipment and to strengthen the adminis­trative
staffs of State educational agencies.
The School Lunch programs are operated primarily through agreements with
State agencies, which select the schools that participate. Local school boards deter­mine
which children qualify for a free lunch. Federal funds go to the States, which re­imburse
the schools for lunches served. About one-fourth of the cost of the lunches
comes from Federal assistance, cash, and commodities ; one-fourth from State and local
sources; and one-half from children who can afford to pay.
The Commodity Distribution Program is operated through agreements with State
agencies, also. The Federal Go"vernment buys and packages the foods, delivers them
in carload lots, and prescribes general program regulations. The States order and ac­count
for the commodities and supervise operations in local areas. The local govern­ment--
usually the county--determines eligibility and distributes the commodities, and
usually bears the cost of this operation. Eligibility rules are set by the States with
USDA approval. They must generally be directly related to the State's public assist­ance
standards in regard to maximum income.
The supplemental food program for pregnant and nursing mothers and small
children is to be operated through health facilities serving the poor. Eligibility is based
on medical determinations that the mothers and children need supplemental foods.
The Food Stamp Program is operated through agreements with State public wel­fare
agencies, who are responsible for operation within the State. The Federal Gov­ernment
provides the coupons and pays the full cost of the subsidy plus about one-third
of the local administration cost. USDA is responsible for authorizing and supervising
the participating grocers. This program is designed to help families meeting essen­tially
the same eligibility standards as the Commodity Distribution Program. The fam­ilies
pay about what they would spend for food each month and receive food coupons
worth considerably more than that amount. On the average, these families pay about
$6 for $10 worth of coupons.
What progress is being made in USDA food programs? The Commodity Distri­bution
Program is now operating in 1,197 counties and independent cities and serving
3.8 million persons. Last June it was operating in 1,202 counties and serving 3.2 mil­lion.
This is a net figure, since some counties have switched to Food Stamps. Both
programs cannot operate in the same area.
About 22 commodities are now available for distribution. If these commodities
were all distributed every month and the families consumed them in the authorized a­mounts,
they would provide almost 100 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allow­ances
set by the National Research Council. They would provide well over the allow­ances
of protein but be slightly short on calories and vitamins A and C.
Commodities available in the supplemental program for expectant mothers and
children are evaporated milk, corn syrup, iron-fortified farina, fruit juice, and canned
meat and poultry. USDA is operating 71 such projects and hopes to reach 225,000 per-sons
by the end of 1969. . . . .
Th F d Starn Program is operating in 1,377 counties and mdependent c1hes
e 00 P · 2 4 'll'
and servm· g 2 . 9 m1·1 11· 0n p ersons · Last June 1 •0 27 counties were servmg. . . m1. 1on
persons. Changes in theprogram make it better meet the needs ofpeople 1t 1s designed
MARCH 1969
11
to serve. Early in 1968 the minimum purchase requirement for coupons for families in
the lowest income group was reduced from $2 to $0. 50 a person a month, up to a max­imum
of $3 for a family of 6 or more. The coupons are sold at one-half of the regular
price for new participants during their first month in the program. The reason for this
reduction is to help them adjust their spending patterns. In most areas families may
buy their monthly quota of stamps in semimonthly installments, and in some they may
buy weekly. Families receiving a monthly check, such as public assistance or a pen­sion,
are encouraged to buy once a month when they get the check.
Many States are now putting into effect a change authorized by USDA some time
ago. It reduces the purchase price requirement and increases the coupons received by
families with incomes of less than $70 a month. USDA had proposed a similar change
for all families participating in the program, but the necessary funds were not appro­priated.
Funds for the child feeding programs were substantially increased for 1969.
USDA hopes to extend the School Lunch Program into more schools and serve about
1 million more needy children lunches free or at reduced prices. The breakfast pro­gram
has been growing, and it is hoped that by the end of the 1968-69 school year it will
be helping to provide breakfasts for over 200,000 children. A large proportion of these
are free; others cost 10 or 15 cents. Funds for the nonschool feeding program became
available about December 1, 1968. It is too soon to tell how this program will develop.
An important recent development was the provision for transferring $10 million
to the Extension Service to hire, train, and supervise program aides to work with poor
families on nutrition education, food buying, and preparation. This program may be
expanded in the future.
Despite progress made, many needs remain and the problems of meeting these
are great. Perhaps the greatest problem is motivating and securing support from local
communities to eliminate malnutrition. This is where Federal, State, local, and vol­untary
resources must help by providing homemakers with information on nutrition,
food buying, and preparation and serving of nutritious meals. Just making the pro­grams
available to those who need help is a big problem. Mter years of prodding, ca­joling,
and pressure about 480 counties and independent cities still have no family food
assistance available.
During the last 1 1/2 years, USDA has been able to get food programs in every
one of the 1, 000 lowest income counties in the United States. For some 180 counties
that could not or would not finance a program, funds for local administration were sup­plied.
In 46 counties, U. S. Department of Agriculture is running the program with
Federal personnel and funds.
The Commodity Distribution Program has some inherent problems. Buying in
large quantities and scheduling and shipping 22 commodities represent a major one.
Financing and managing enough distribution points so the participants do not have to
travel far to get the foods is also difficult. And even with 22 commodities, the lack of
variety, the inability to provide fresh perishable foods, and the unfamiliarity of marry
families with the foods distributed affect the acceptability and use of the foods by families.
The major problem with the Food Stamp Program has been a refusal by many to
accept the idea that it is designed to increase the food buying ability of families and,
therefore, requires them to spend as much for food as before. The feeling of the vocal
12 F AlVIIL Y ECONOlVIICS REVIEW
part of the public has been fliat the program should be largely an income supplement
rather than merely subsidizing increased food buying power. There can be no real ob­jection
to this, but the Congress would have to approve this sort of basic change in the
program.
~SDP.-- feels that to increase participation in the Food Stamp Program by the poor,
a reductwn lll purchase requirements and an increase in the bonus are needed. The De­partment
believes this program is the most effective way of getting more food to people
who need it. The problem now is largely one of appropriations.
The major problem in the child feeding programs is funds and local cooperation
in getting programs started. The greatest unmet need is in the crowded schools of
downtown urban areas. Here, ar·rangements must be made for central preparation,
with a minimum of food service facilities in the schools. It is hoped that convenience
foods and central commissaries developed by private industry can speed the meeting of
this need.
Since the Outlook Conference an experiment began in two counties in South Car­olina,
under which families previously paying the minimum charge of 50 cents a person
up to a maximum of $3.00 for a family of six or more receive their stamps free. The
aim is to find out how many families in this very low income group have not been able
to participate because they could not pay the 50 cents.
NEW PROGRAMS IN RURAL HOUSING
Louis D. Malotky, Farmers Home Administration, USDA
Several features of the Housing ahd Urban Development Act of 1968 were de­signed
to helprural families have adecent house. One newtool to aid low-income fam­ilies
is authorization for the Federal Government to help meet their mortgage payments.
This help is available to rural families ( 1) in connection with mortgages insured by the
Federal Housing Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop­ment
(FHA-HUD) under Section 235 of the 1968 Act; and (2) in connection with loans
made and insured by the Farmers Home Administration of the U. S. Department of A.gri-culture
(FHA-USDA).
Under an agreement made by the Secretaries of Housing and UrbanDevelopment
and of Agriculture, FHA- USDA will act as the authorized representative of FHA-HUD
for mortgages in rural areas insured under Section 235. (Rural areas in this paper in­clude
farms, open country, and towns with population up to 5, 500 that are rural in
character.) FHA-USDA's local office will perform about the same functions as FHA­HUD's
insuring office. A family may apply directly to FHA-USDA or be referred there
by realtors, builders, and sellers. FHA-USDA will evaluate the application, review
plans and specifications, and-- if the applicant appears eligible-- refer him to a local
approved mortgagee.
If the mortgagee favors the application, he will request FHA-USDA to appraise
the property. If applicant and property are qualified, FHA-USDA will refer the loan
MARCH 1969
13
docket to the approved mortgagee to close the loan. These loans will in other respects
be made and serviced the same as other home mortgages insured by FHA-HUD. FHA­USDA
will also make inspections during construction and counsel the applicants on the
type and cost of the home they might select and in the planning of their budgets. These
loans will in other respects be made and serviced the same as other home mortgages
insured by FHA-HUD.
FHA-USDA has a housing program designed to help families who cannot obtain
credit from other sources, including a FHA-HUD Section 235 insured mortgage. This
program focuses on single-family dwellings for owner-occupants. Most of these loans
have been for low- and moderate-income families, although a limited number are au­thorized
for families in more comfortable circumstances. Families with above-moder­ate
incomes pay the same interest rate as they would pay on a mortgage insured by FHA- HUD. However, the current rate for families with low and moderate incomes is 5 1/8
percent.
One phase of FHA -USDA's housing program for low-income families was changed
by the 1968 Act by providing for interest credits. Interest credits will put ownership
within the reach of rural low-income families by reducing their loan payments. A min­imum
requirement for such help is that the borrower does not have enough income to
pay his loan installment in full, but is able to pay at least the amount due after part of
the payment is made by the Government. The amount a low-income family must pay
will depend on its income and size. Maximum assistance for any family is a reduction
in the effective interest rate to 1 percent. Interest supplement agreements will be made
for not more than a 2-year period. At the end of the 2 years, adjustments will be made
if changes have occurred in the borrower's income and family size. To illustrate, as­sume
a $12,000 33-year rural housing loan. The regular amortized installment at
5 1/8 percent interest would be $761 a year. If the family consists of husband, wife,
and four children and has an income of $4,000 a year, the Government would pay $332
of the annual installment and the family the remaining $42 9.
Another phase of FHA-USDA's housing program relates to multifamily housing.
Good rental housing, economically designed and suited to a rural market, is an excep­tion
in small towns. However, this market has considerable potential. Loans for build­ing
rental housing for rural areas can be made to such legal entities as individuals,
partnerships, nonprofit organizations, and corporations. The interest rate is 5 1/8 per­cent
and the repayment period up to 50 years.
Nonprofit organizations and cooperatives providing housing for low-income fam­ilies
may qualify for interest credits. These have the effect of reducing loan costs to as
little as 1 percent interest, depending on the incomes and sizes of the occupant families.
Experience shows that the market for rental housing is somewhat different in
rural areas than in cities. For example, the primary interest in rental housing is from
young families and the elderly. Experience has also shown the importance of building
to suit a relatively inelastic market, both in terms of number of units and amount of
rent. The market is not for large high-rise apartments, but more likely for 6 to 12
units suited to local needs.
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 encourages self-help housing.
This phase of the program is designed to help low-income families reduce costs by do-
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
ing much of the work themselves. Under the mutual self-help method, 6 to 10 families
agree to help each other build homes. A construction supervisor works with the fami­lies
and shows them how to do various phases of home building. Such jobs as electri­cal
and plumbing work may be done by a contractor. By mutual self-help, families have
saved from 20 to 25 percent of the cost of their homes.
The 1968 Act also authorizes loans to qualified nonprofit organizations to develop
building sites to be sold at cost to families who want to build a home by the self-help
method. The Congress has made $600, 000 available for this purpose. This will help
solve a problem low-income families often face in rural areas--obtaining a satisfactory
building site at reasonable cost.
The 1968 Act made minor changes in the farm labor housing authorizations of
FHA-USDA. Under this program, loans may be made to farmowners, associations of
farmers, and other nonprofit organizations to provide housing for farm workers. Loans
and grants may be made to organizations that will provide such housing as a community
service.
Two new authorizations in the 1968 Act would finance housing for rural trainees
and provide funds for nonprofit organizations to organize and administer rural self-help
housing. Neither of these programs has been funded.
What can the Extension Service do to help rural families improve their housing?
In one State, the Extension Service has had an ongoing housing education program that
has focused on stimulating families to improve their homes and giving local builders an
opportunity to increase theirknowledge and skill and update their building methods. To
start this program, a homebuilders' short course was given by the Extension Service
and Farmers Home Administration working cooperatively. FHA-USDA and local lum­ber
dealers provided a list of builders and others connected with the building industry,
and letters were sent to inform them of the short course. Newspaper publicity was
also used. Those who attended praised the course highly. Another homebuilder short
course was given 2 years later. About this same time, the State university developed
several low-cost house plans that were accepted enthusiastically by local builders.
Color slides of homes using university plans and financed by FHA-USDA were made
and shown to families and builders.
The Extension Service also arranged some home tours to promote interest in
both rental housing and home ownership. Homes that were open featured university
plans and showed good design at moderate cost. Each family explained features of its
home, and builders were present to answer questions on building techniques. Pictures
and feature stories on seven of the homes appeared in local papers. The interest shown
in this project shows that it is an effective way of reaching families who need better
housing, builders, and the public at large.
In recent years concern about where people live has increased. Whether fam-ilies
stay in rural areas will depend largely on the quality of life there--job opportuni­ties,
education, housing, and community facilities. Attention is being given to devel­oping
opportunities in the country, so that families who want to stay there may do so.
This requires the cooperation of · private industry; local, State, and Federal Govern­ments;
and the people who live in the communities. A start has been made but much
more needs to be done.
MARCH 1969
15
CLOTlllNG AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1969
Virginia Britton, Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Clothing expenditures.-- About $42 billion, 9 percent of personal consumption
expenditures, was used to purchase clothing and shoes in 1967. This amounted to $211
per capita. Per capita expenditure (in con~tant dollars) maintained the all-time high
reached in 1966 and was 50 percent above the average for 1930-40. The per capita fig­ure
for 1968 will probably set a new record . .Y
Consumer prices.-- The price level for apparel increased faster during 1967
and 1968 than at any time since the Korean crisis in 1951, according to the Consumer
Price Index ( CPI) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The apparel index was 4.0 percent
higher in 1967 than in 1966 and 5.4percent higher in 1968 than in 1967. Compared with
the 1957-59 average, the apparel index was up 20 percent in 1968 while the all-items
index was up 21 percent.
In 1968, for the first time in many years, prices for women's and girls' apparel
increased somewhat more than prices for men's and boys' apparel and for shoes. These
three subgroups of the apparel index increased 5.9, 5.7, and 5.3 percent, respectively,
from 1967 to 1968 (annual averages). The only major subgroup of the CPI that rose
more than women's and girls' apparel was medical care, which rose 6.1percent. Foot­wear
has usually led the apparel subgroups in price advances during the past two decades.
Wholesale prices of clothing and household textiles. --Recent wholesale prices
give some clues to probable future retail prices. The annual index of wholesale prices
of apparel was 3.3 percent higher in 1968 than in 1967. Infants' and children's apparel
was up 4.1 percent, men's and boys' apparel up 3. 4 percent, and women's, misses',
and juniors' apparel up 2.8percent. The index for leather footwear was up 4.8percent.
Children's footwear was up 7. 4 percent, men's and boys' up 3. 6 percent, and women's
and misses' footwear 5. 3 percent.
Wholesale prices of textile housefurnishings averaged 4.2 percent higher in 1968
than a year earlier. Cotton housefurnishings were up 5. 7 percent, all-wool blankets up
3. 8 percent, and housefurnishings of manmade fiber or blends were 1. 1 percent above
1967.
Prices and supplies of fabrics and raw materials.--Apparel manufacturers found
fabrics higher priced in 1968 than in 1967. Prices of broadwoven goods averaged 11.1
percent higher in manmade fibers, 3.5 percent higher in cotton, and 1.0 percent higher
in wool. Prices of knit goods in manmade fibers were down 1. 3 percent and those in
wool for outerwear remained unchanged. Leather was 2.1 percent higher than in 1967.
Fabric manufacturers in 1968 found cotton yarns up 8. 2 percent, wool yarns
down 1. 0 percent, and silk yarns up 6. 4 percent from the annual averages for 1967.
Rayon and acetate yarns and fibers were 1. 3 percent higher, while noncellulosic yarns
and fibers were 2. 0 percent lower.
Prices of some raw materials changed considerably between 1967 and 1968. The
annual average for hides and skins rose 5. 7 percent, but domestic apparel wool dropped
.Y Here and elsewhere in this article, estimates are given for 1968 because final
figures were not available when the material was prepared in January 1969.
16 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
2. 9 percent, and foreign apparel wool was down 2. 5 percent. Raw silk rose 5. 7 per­cent
and raw cotton, 7. 2 percent.
The quantity of fibers used by U.S. mills is expected to be about 8 percent higher
in 1968 than in 1967 and the per capita quantity, 6 percent higher (up from 45.1 pounds
to 48. 0). Most of the increase reflects the rise in manmade fibers which are expected
to surpass cotton for the first time. Manmade fibers are expected to be 53 percent of
the total, cotton 43 percent, and wool 4 percent.
The U.S. cotton crop in 1968-69 is estimated at slightly less than combined mill
consumption and exports. The deficit will be met from stocks. Use of cotton by mills
in the 1968-69 season is expected to be 6 percent lower than in the previous year be­cause
of expanded use of manmade fibers here and abroad, a probable decrease in mil­itary
orders, and increased foreign production of cotton. Cotton prices have firmed in
recent weeks but remain well below year-earlier levels.
U.S. mills used about 5 percent more wool in 1968 than in 1967. The reasons
for this increase were low beginning stocks of wool tops and fabrics, relatively low
wool prices, rising consumer incomes, and the use of wool in blends. World output in
the 1968-69 season will probably be 1 percent above the year-earlier record. Use will
also increase moderately, and prices will rise slightly.
U.S. mills used about 22 percent more manmade fibers in 1968 than in 1967.
Large-scale promotion and advertising, relatively lower prices, increased supplies,
improved fiber quality and suitability, and increased use of blends have added manmade
fibers in competition with cotton. U.S. producing capacity for manmade fibers is ex­pected
to increas~ 30 percent between November 1968 and November 1970. This will
include a 40 percent increase for noncellulosics and a 4 percent increase for rayon and
acetate. The noncellulosics (largely nylon and polyester) comprise over two-thirds of
the total manmades. Prices will undoubtedly continue to become more competitive with
cotton and wool.
U.S. hide production was up about 3 percent in 1968 to a record supply. Pro­duction
may increase almost as much in 1969, but prices may remain about the same
because of some increase in exports. Domestic use of leather is high because con­sumers
are buying the new styles in shoes, boots, coats, and other leather goods. How­ever,
leather faces increasing competition from leather substitutes--especially in shoes,
which take a large proportion of the leather output. Only 20 percent of shoes now have
leather soles and 70 percent leather uppers. About 25 million pairs of shoes a year
( 4 percent of U.S. production) are now made with uppers of poromerics (leather sub­stitutes
that are pliable, durable-finish, and breathable), up from only 1 million pairs
in 1964. Originally used only in higher priced shoes, the poromerics are now being
used in low- and middle-priced shoes. In all price ranges, shoes with synthetic uppers
are priced about the same as or lower than those with leather uppers. Price differ­ences
typically r~nge to about 10 percent.
New and improved products. --New improvements in ~abrics are geared lar~ely
to the trends to durable press items, knit goods, bonded fabr1cs, and nonwoven fabncs.
New manmade materials continue to come on the market.
Several finishes are being developed to improve the durable press properties of
cotton fabrics. USDA's Southern Utilization Research and Development Division (SURD)
has developed a new process that gives cottons excellent durable press properties and
MARCH 1969
17
unusually high strength retention. In this process, slack-mercerized cotton yarns are
restretched, woven into fabrics, and then given a conventional wash-wear finish. Fab­rics
finished in this way are not yet on the market, however. A new finish being de­veloped
to allow old creases and seams to be ironed out and new ones ironed in will
make alterations on durable press clothes simpler.
SURD has made major progress in developing a durable soil-resistant and soil­release
finish forwash-wear and durable-press cottons. Two finishesbeingtested have
high resistance to oil but low resistaece to water and detergents. Other current re­search
indicates that durable press cotton can be made to absorb considerable bright­ener
(fluorescence) found in most detergents. Recent work at SURD showing that much
of the wear on durable-press cottons comes from laundering and drying and not from
use emphasizes the need for improved cleaning processes.
Another improved finish for cotton in prospect at SURD is a more economical
flame-retardant treatment. The treatment, which gives durable flame resistance with­out
reducing strength or changing the hand (feel; drapability) of the fabric, is useful on
lightweight fabrics for wearing apparel.
Durable press products recently marketed include men's suits of wool and cel­lulosic
fibers with polyester. These are lightweight year-round suits said to be wrinkle
resistant and comfortable to wear. Knit slacks for men, at $13 and $20 a pair, are
half polyester and half rayon, completely washable, with oven-baked durable press.
Durable press slacks in a washable wool blend are widely available, as are durable
press sheets of cotton and polyester and tablecloths of various blends.
Knit goods are increasing rapidly, and in 10 years may be used in half of the
apparel made. Fabrics are various combinations of cotton, wool, and manmade fibers.
Manufacturers of bonded fabrics are now setting standards for performance in bond and
wear as well as in washing and dry cleaning. These standards may mean that the big-
~ gest future for bonded fabrics is in such untapped fields as men's wear, home furnish-ings,
and industrial goods.
Throwaway underwear made of nonwoven viscose rayon is being introduced.
Manufacturers say the garments can be washed several times. Women's dresses, bi­kinis
, washcloths, towels, work clothes, hospital gowns and linens are other uses of
the nonwoven material. Disposable curtains are predicted. Throwaway outergarments
for doctors and workers are to be available in a plastic that breathes, for about one­fourth
of the price of the nonwoven garments.
A luxury nylon fiber, Qiana (kee-ahn-a), introduced recently in fine women's
apparel from the high-fashion houses, is expected to be used eventually in almost all
types of apparel, including hosiery. Qiana is said to have the feel and appearance of
silk and the desirable properties of manmade fibers--wash-and-wearability, crease
retention, wrinkle resistance, shrink resistance, durability, lightness of weight, and
breathability. Early prices of Qiana fiber are 3 to 5 times as much as nylon, but less
than silk. Production is expected to start early in 1969of a new nylon fiber to compete
with Qiana. The unnamed fiber is said to be more static resistant and absorptive. An­other
new fiber, Nomelle, is a cashmerelike acrylic yarn for apparel.
Another new luxury material, Source, being used initially in carpets at about
$14 a square yard, is said to have the wear resistance and resiliency of nylon and the
silken appearance of Oriental rugs. The fiber is a combination of a type of nylon and
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
polyester in liquid form before extrusion. A new nylon fiber for carpets, . Cadon, is
said to be more soil resistant and antistatic than regular nylon and to have a rich luster
and soft hand. Another new fiber for home furnishings is Verel which is a flame-re­sistant
modacrylic.
A new method of tanning hides by use of glutaraldehyde has been perfected at
USDA's Eastern Utilization Research and Development Division. It tans rapidly and
produces outstanding leather goods that are washable and resist acids, alkalis, and
perspiration. These properties have contributed to the popularity of leather garments
such as hats, jackets, vests, skirts, slacks, and boots.
New leather substitutes are being marketed. Among the newer poromerics for
use in men's shoes are Carlino--an import from Japan--and Aztran. Paron is one of
the especially scuff-resistantporomerics that are being developed for children's shoes.
Another new material, Dorzan, will appear in spring 1969 in the uppers ofwomen's and
children's casual and fashion shoes and may later be used in handbags, luggage, and
golf bags. Dorzan is woven from a special type of nylon and does not look like leather.
It is to sell for about half the price of Corfam. A molded plastic shoe made by injection
molding of SeilonAire has been introduced in two lines of boys' shoes priced under $5.
Outlook for 1969. --Supplies of fiber are large, and clothing production will be
high in 1969 in response to continuing high demand. Further improvements are antici­pated
in the end use properties of the natural and manmade materials. New manmade
fibers and blends and leather substitutes will be marketed to compete in specific uses
with cotton, wool, silk, and leather.
Prices for clothing are expected to increase during 1969. Prices on certain
kinds and styles of spring shoes may be up 2 to 5 percent, averaging about $1 a pair
more to consumers. Imported shoes, most common inlower and medium price ranges,
may comprise a fifth of the total. Spring garments will also be priced higher. Styles
requiring more fabric and labor will be higher priced than others. Imported garments
and textiles will be important. Fall garments and shoes will probably have somewhat
higher prices in 1969 than 1968.
OUTLOOK FOR FOOD IN 1969
Stephen J. Hiemstra, Economic Research Service, USDA
Retail food prices in 1968 averaged 3. 6 percent above those in 1967 (fig. 1).
The pace quickened from the 1 percent gain in 196 7. Prices for food purchased for use
at home rose an average of 3. 2 percent in 1968, and prices for food away from home
rose 5. 2 percent. The increase for food away from home was abo~t the sam.e as that
of 1967. However, the increase in food store prices compared w1th a fractwnal de-cline
in 1967. ·
Compared with 196~, retail food prices in 1968 averaged higher .for frmts, veg-etables,
potatoes, beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, dairy products, soft drmks, and cocoa
products; about the same for pork, sugar, tea, and cereal and bakery products; and
lower for fats and oils, turkey, and regular coffee·
MARCH 1969
19
SELECTED CONSUMER PRICES FOOD EXPENDITURES AND INCOME
%OF 1957-59
175
130 1---- t----
110
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1964 1965 1966 1967
MEG. IIU U l l • U11) fCO NOIII IC ltiU 4 1tC" UIIYICI
Figure 1 Figure 2
The price increase for eggs averaged 8 percent, following a 16 percent drop in
1967. Although egg prices were up in 1968, they were still 5percent below the 1957-59
average. The increase for fruits and vegetables-- also 8 percent-- resulted from re­duced
supplies of many fruits and fresh vegetables during the first half of 1968 and con­tinued
strong demand. Prices for fruits and vegetables--especially for fresh produce-­rose
more than those for most other foods over the past decade, and the rate of increase
stepped up during 1968.
The 3 1/ 2 percent increase in retail prices for food in 1968 compared with a
4 1/ 2 percent rise for all other consumer items. Higher retail food prices reflected a
strong demand for food stimulated by higher incomes. Consumption rose despite higher
prices.
196 9 Price Outlook
Early indications are that prices for food at home in the first quarter of 1969
are rising above those in the fourth quarter of 1968. But prices are not expected to
vary much during the rest of the year, aside from seasonal changes. Large supplies
of farm products and a slowing in the growthof consumer demand are expected to limit
increases in food price. Some seasonal rise is likely in the third quarter, as usual.
Since prices for food at home are expected to stabilize near the first-quarter
level, year-to-year comparisons are expected to show progressively smaller increases
as 1969 proceeds. Nevertheless, average annual prices for food at home may be 1 to
2 percent above those in 1968 because of the initial high level. Prices for all food may
average 2 to 2 1.;2 percent above 1968, because of higher restaurant food prices. Prices
for food away from home likely will continue upward at the annual rate of about 5 per­cent
that has prevailed in recent years.
•
•
•
20
Compared with 1968, retail food prices in 1969 likely will average
higher for beef, eggs; dairy products, cereal and bakery products,
soft drinks, and cocoa products;
about the same for fats and oils, potatoes, sugar, and coffee;
lower for fruits, vegetables, poultry, and pork .
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Food Expenditures
Food expenditures in 1968 topped those of 1967 by nearly 7 percent, totaling
$101 billion. The rate of increase was somewhat less than the nearly 8 percent boost
in disposable personal income. Thus, the percentage of income spent for food dropped
slightly (fig. 2).
Spending for food likely will gain about $5 billion in 1969 compared with the $6
billion gain in 1968. This drop will result, in part, from a slower rate of increase in
food prices. The rate of increase in income is not expected to match that of 1968.
In 1968 food expenditure_s advanced most strongly during the first half, when
sales by both retail food stores and eating and drinking places were rising sharply.
The leveling off in sales that began in the second half likely is continuing, but no actual
decline is expected.
Food Consumption
Per capita consumption of food in 1968 rose 0. 7 percent from 1967. Consump­tion
of crop products averaged the same as in 1967, but consumption of animal products
rose more than 1 percent.
Meat consumption exceeded year earlier levels throughout 1968, but increases
were particularly large during the third and fourth quarters. Consumption of poultry,
eggs, and animal fats dropped below year earlier levels in the second half of the year.
Thus, the increase in consumption of total animal products was limited.
Per capita consumption of food in 1969 may increase nearly 1 percent over the
1968 record level. Increases are likely for both animal and crop products. Compared
with 1968, per capita consumption in 1969 likely will be
•
•
•
higher for beef, pork, chicken, citrus fruit, canned noncitrus fruits, and
processed vegetables;
about the same for fish, turkey, fats and oils, fresh vegetables, sugar,
coffee, and cereal and bakery products;
lower for veal, lamb, eggs, dairy products, and cocoa products .
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, washington, D.C. 20402: (Please give your ZIP code.)
FOOD SELECTION FOR GOOD NUTRITION IN GROUP FEEDING, HERR No. 35.
40 cents.
NUTRITION ... Food at Work for You. Separate 1 (reprinted from HG No. 1,
Family Fare). 10 cents.
REMOVING STAINS FROM FABRICS ... Home Methods. HG No. 62. Revised
1968. 20 cents.
MARCH 1969
21
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1968 ISSUES
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Changes in Body Sizes of Young Women Since 1940 -------­Clothing
Expenditures for Individuals -------------------­Considerations
in Buying Women's Clothing -------------­Purchases
of Various Types of Clothing for Men, Women,
andChildren --------------------------------------­Textile
Fibers in Clothing and Home Furnishings --------­U.
S. Clothing Expenditures Increasing------------------­Use
of Manmade Textile Fibers Increasing ---------------
FAMILY FINANCE
A New Poverty Statistic -------------------------------­Consumer
Prices-------------------------------------­Consumer
Prices--------------------------------------
Consumer Prices--------------------------------------
Consumer Prices-------------------------------------­Differences
in Pay Between Men and Women Workers ----­Education
and Lifetime Earnings -----------------------­Food
Prices in Chainstores in High- and Low-Income
Areas of Six Cities ---------------------------------­Homeownership
and Rent in the Consumer Price Index----­Installment
Credit and Sales Practices of Retailers in the
District of Columbia -------------------------------­Married
Women in the Labor Force --------------------­Moonlighting
-----------------------------------------­More
on Education and Lifetime Earnings ---------------­New
Index of Prices for One-Family Houses-------------­Retired
Couple's Budget for a Moderate Living Standard--­Social
Security Amendments of 1967 --------------------­Spending
for Foreign Travel ---------------------------­Spending
for Nonfood Items in Grocery Stores -----------­Spending
for Services ---------------------------------­The
New City Worker's Family Budget------------------­Unemployment
in Urban Poverty Neighborhoods----------­U.
S. Family Income Up, Poverty Down in 1967-----------
FOOD
Changing Patterns of Potato Consumption ---------------­Cost
of Week's Food for Seven Types of Families --------­Cost
of Food at Home, December 1967, U.S. Average and
Four Regions---------------------------------------
Cost of Food at Home, March 1968 ---------------------­Cost
of Food at Home, June 1968 -----------------------­Cost
of Food at Home, September 1968 -----------------­Cost
of Food at Home Has a New Base ------------------­Food
Expenditures in the South--------------------------
Page
6
8
8
5
11
13
8
21
22
24
24
24
21
19
11
16
16
22
20
15
19
18
13
21
6
14
16
18
21
7
16
19
13
23
23
12
3
Issue
December
March
December
September
December
March
December
September
March
June
September
December
June
September
September
June
September
June
December
December
December
June
March
September
June
September
March
December
December
June
December
March
June
September
December
June
December
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FOOD (continued)
Food Use in Farm and Urban Households in 1955 and 1965 -
Nutrients From a Dollar's Worth of Food, Northeast Region
Quality of Diets in U.S. Households in Spring 1965 -------­The
Cost of Cooked Lean in Selected Cuts of Meat--------­The
Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 ------------­What
Consumers Know About Meat ----------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Consumer Legislation---------------------------------­Families
Then and Now--------------------------------­Family
Economics Review's Twenty-Fifth Anniversary---­Home
Economists Contribute to Rural Development ------­Index
of Articles in 1967 Issues ------------------------­Levels
of Living of Farm Operator Families ------------­Outlook
Conference to be Held in February 1969 ---------­Ownership
of Household Equipment in 1967 -------------­Some
New USDA Publications --------------------------­Some
New USDA Publications --------------------------­Some
New USDA Publications --------------------------­Some
New USDA Publications --------------------------­The
Educational Level of U.S. Workers ----------------­The
Years Ahead: Focus on Consumers -----------------
CONSUMER PRICES
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
~ OF 1957-59
120L-------4-------~-------
~
3
3
6
12
21
15
15
3
3
13
23
16
14
18
23
23
22
22
22
9
U. $... D IEPARTIII ENT OF AGRICULTURE
MfG. ARS 5M.c-n (I) AGRICULTURAl RESEARCH SERVICE
MARCH 1969
Issue
September
June
March
September
December
June
March
March
March
December
March
December
September
September
March
June
September
December
September
June
23
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(including single workers)
(1957-59 = 100)
Group
All items
Food -------------------------------·
Food at home ---------------------~~
Food away from home ---------------
Housing -----------------------------
Shelter --------------------------­Rent
----------------------------
Homeownership ------------------­Fuel
and utilities ---------------­Fuel
oil and coal --------------­Gas
and electricity ------------­Household
furnishings and operation
Apparel and upkeep -----------------­Men's
and boys' ------------------­Women's
and girls' ----------------
Footwear --------------------------
Transportation ---------------------­Private
---------------------------
Public ----------------------------
Health and recreation --------------­Medical
care ---------------------­Personal
care --------------------­Reading
and recreation -----------­Other
goods and services ----------
Jan. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
1968 1968 1968 1968 1969
~------~----~----__ ._ ____ 118.6 122.9 123.4 123.7 124.1
117.0 120.9 120.5 121.2 122.0
113.8 117.2 116.6 117.4 118.3
132.9 138.9 139.4 139·9 140.3
116.4 120.9 121.7 122.3 122.7
120.2 126.0 126.9 127.6 128.2
113.7 116.0 116.3 116.7 116.9
122.9 130.0 131.1 132.0 132.7
109.5 110.4 111.3 111.5 111.7
113.7 115.9 115.9 116.2 116.7
108.9 109.1 109.9 110.0 110.2
110.6 114.2 114.8 115.1 115.2
115.9 123.3 124.0 124.3 123.4
116.3 124.1 125.0 125.3 124.9
111.4 120.1 120.7 120.8 118.7
128.1 134.9 135.7 136.3 136.3
118.7 120.6 121.2 120.2 120.7
116.6 118.4 118.9 117.5 117.9
135.5 138.7 139.4 144.3 144.8
127.1 131.9 132.4 132.8 133.3
141.2 147.4 148.2 149.1 150.2
117.6 122.1 122.8 123.4 123.7
122.7 127.5 128.0 128.2 128.4
121.9 125.1 125.4 125.6 125.6
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers fo r Family Living Items
(1957-59 = 100 )
Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. t Items Jan. Feb. 1968 1968 1968 1968 1968 .• 1969 1969 '
All items ----------------- 116 118 119 119 119 120 120
Food and tobacco -------- 120 -- -- 120 -- --
Clothing ---------------- 132 -- -- 135 -- --
Household operation ----- 117 -- -- 118 -- --
Household furnishings i --- 103 -- -- 103 -- --
Building materials, house . 115 -- -- 119 -- --
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
it
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Table 1.--Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at
3 co st levels , December 1968, U. S. average 1/
Sex -age groups g/
Cost for l week Cost for l month
low-co st ~Moderate - ~ Liberal I Low -cost I Moderate - ! Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan l cost plan I plan
FAMILIES ! Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
i
i Family of 2: 1
20 t o 35 years 3/---J
55 to 75 years ~--- ~
Family of 4 : 1
Preschool childr en ~
School children 5/ -- ~
- !
'
INDIVIDUALS §} j
Childr en, under l year !
l to 3 years -------- ~
3 to 6 years ------- -~
6 to 9 years - ------- ~
Girls , 9 to 12 years - ~
12 to 15 years ------ ~ I
15 to 20 years ------ ~
Boys , 9 to 12 years --1
12 to 15 years ---- - - ~
15 to 20 years __ ____ J
Women, 20 to 35 years J I
35 to 55 years ------l
55 to 75 years ----- -~
75 years and over --- ~
Preg~ant ----- -- ----- ~
Nurs1ng ------- - -- - - -~
Men, 20 to 35 years - -~
35 to 55 years ------ ~
55 to 75 years - - --- -~
75 years and over --- ~
17.00
13 .90
24.70
28.70
3 -30
4 .20
5.00
6.10
7.00
7-70
7.80
7.10
8.30
9 .60
7-20
6 .90
5 .80
5.30
8 . 50
9-90
8 .30
7 -70
6 .80
6 .40
21.60
17.90
31.40
36.50
4.20
5.30
6.50
7.80
8.90
9-90
9.80
9-10
10.90
12 .10
9.10
8.70
7-50
6 .70
10.60
12.20
10 . 50
9-70
8.80
8 .50
26.40
21.40
38.00
44.70
4.70
6.30
7-70
9-70
10 .40
11.90
11.60
11.00
13.00
14.60
10.90
10.50
8.90
8 .20
12.50
14 .30
13 .10
11 .90
10.60
10 .20
73-50
60.30
106 .90
124.20
14 .40
18.30
21.80
26.50
30.20
33-30
33-90
30.90
36.10
41 . 50
31 .00
29.80
25 .30
22.90
36 .90
42.90
35 .80
33 .20
29 .50
27.60
93 .20
77 -70
135.60
158.00
18 .10
23.00
27 -90
33-90
38 .70
42 .90
42 . 50
39-50
47.10
52.50
39 -30
37 -90
32.50
28 .90
45.90
53.00
45 .40
42 .20
38 .10
36 .70
114 .10
93 -30
164 .70
193 .40
20 .30
27 . 50
33 . 50
42 .10
45.20
51-70
50 .40
47 .60
56.10
63.20
47 .20
45 .40
38 .70
35 .40
54 .20
61 .90
56.50
51 . 50
46.10
44 .30
Y Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Eco­nomics
Review, October 1964 . Costs of the plans were first estimated by using
average price per pound of each food group paid by urban survey families at 3
income levels in 1965 . These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of
Retail Food Prices by Cities , released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
gj Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age . 2/ 10 percent added for family size adjustment . For derivation of factors
for adjustment , see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, USDA, HERR No . 20.
4/ Man and woman 20 to 35 years; children l to 3 and 3 to 6 years .
5/ Man and woman' 20 to 35 years; child 6 to 9; and boy 9 to 12 years .
§/ Costs given f~r persons in families of 4. For other size families , adjust
thus : 1 -person, add 20 percent; 2-person, add 10 percent; 3-person, add 5 per ­cent;
5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or -more -person, subtract 10 percent.
MARCH 1969
25
r
~
0')
~ >
~
~
tr:l
0
0 a
~ r.n
!:tl
tr:l s tr:l :a
Table 2.--Cost of l week's food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost
levels, December 1968, for Northeast and North Central Regions ~
Sex-age groups gj
FAMILIES
1
Family of two, 20 to 35 years d/----·
Family of two, 55 to 75 years ~---- 1
Family of four,preschool children~ ;
Family of four,school children 2/---
INDIVIDUALS §}
Children, under l year -------------
1 to 3 years --------------------- ~
3 to 6 years ---------------------:
6 to 9 years ---------------------•
Girls, 9 to 12 years ---------------
12 to 15 years -------------------
15 to 20 years ------------------- ~
Boys 9 to 12 years ----------------
' I 12 to 15 years -------------------,·
15 to 20 years -------------------
Women, 20 to 35 years --------------
35 to 55 years -------------------.
55 to 75 years -------------------
75 years and over ----------------
Pregnant -------------------------,
Nursing --------------------------
Men, 20 to 35 years ----------------1
35 to 55 years -------------------,
55 to 75 years -------------------·
75 years and over ----------------
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
18.60
15.30
27.00
31.40
3.60
4.60
5.50
6.70
7.60
8.40
8.60
7.80
9.10
10.50
7.90
7.50
6.40
5.80
9.30
10.80
9.00
8.40
7.50
7.00
See footnotes l to 6 of table 1, p. 25.
Northeast
Moderate- I Liberal 'I Low-cost
cost plan plan plan
Dollars
23.60
19.70
34.40
40.30
4.60
5.90
7.00
8.70
9.90
11.00
10.90
10.10
12.10
13.40
10.00
9.60
8.20
7.30
11.60
13.40
11.50
10.70
9.70
9.30
Dollars
27.70
22.80
40.20
47.10
5.00
6.80
8.20
10.30
11.10
12.80
12.40
11.60
13.70
15.40
11.50
11.10
9.50
8.70
13.20
15.10
13.70
12.50
11.20
10.80
Dollars
17.20
14.20
25.00
29.00
3.40
4.30
5.10
6.20
7.00
7.70
7.90
7.20
8.50
9.80
7.20
6.90
5.90
5.40
8.70
10.10
8.40
7.80
7.00
6.50
North Central
Moderate- I Liberal
cost plan plan
Dollars
21.10
17.60
30.60
35.70
4.00
5.10
6.30
7.60
8.70
9.60
9.50
8.90
10.60
11.80
8.90
8.60
7.30
6.50
10.40
12.00
10.30
9.60
8.70
8.30
Dollars
26.10
21.30
37.60
44.30
4.60
6.30
7.60
9.70
10.40
11.80
11.40
10.90
12.90
14.60
10.70
10.30
8.80
8.00
12.30
14.20
13.00
11.80
10.60
10.10
~ Q
::r:
.....
t.O
0')
t.O
..
~
!"
Cl
0 < ""z''
;:
~..,,
"z.,'
z Cl
0..,,
r;
.".'
""'' "' ~ ..-
"~'
~
~
t--:l
~
Table 3.--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels,
December 1968, for Southern and Western Regions ~
South West
Sex-age groups s/ Lo w-cos t'1A nother Moderate - Liberal Low-cost Moderate -
p1a n 1 low-cost cost plan plan plan cost plan I tplan 7
I Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars I Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES I
Family of two, 20 to 35 years l(---- I 15.50 15 .00 19.90 24.10 I 17.50 21.10
Family of two, 55 to 75 years l/---- iI 12.60 12.00 16.70 19.70 i 14.30 17.70 I Family of four, preschool children41 iI 22.50 21.80 28.90 34.80 I 25.50 30.70 Family of four, school children 2/~- 26.20 25.30 33.70 40.90 I 29.60 35.90 '
INDIVIDUALS 6 I
Children, under l year ------------- 3.00 3.00 3.90 4.40 I 3.40 4 .10 l
l to 3 years --------------------- 3.80 3.70 4.90 5.80 4.40 5.20
3 to 6 years --------------------- 4.60 4.50 5.90 7.10 l 5.20 6.30 6 to 9 years --------------------- 5.60 5.50 7.20 8 .90 I 6 .30 7.70
Girls, 9 to 12 years --------------- 6.30 6 .00 8 .20 9 .60 I 7.20 8 .80 I 12 to 15 years ------------------- 7.00 6.70 9.10 11.00 I 8 .00 9.70
15 to 20 years ---------~--------- 7.10 6 .80 9 .10 10.80 I 8 .10 9 . 60 Boys, 9 to 12 years ---------------- 6 .50 6.20 8 .40 10.10 I 7.40 9.00
12 to 15 years ------------------- 7.50 7.40 10.00 11.80 : 8 .70 10.70
15 to 20 years ------------------- 8 .70 8 .40 11.10 13.30
I 9.90 11.90
Women, 20 to 35 years -------------- l 6 .60 6 .30 8 .50 10.00 7.40 8 .90
35 to 55 years ------------------- ( 6 .30 6 .00 8.20 9.70 I 7.10 8 .60
55 to 75 years ------------------- 5.30 4.90 7.00 8 .20 6 .00 7.40
75 years and over ---------------- 4.80 4.60 6 .30 7.60 ! 5.40 6 .60
Pregnant ------------------------- 7.80 7.60 9·90 11.50 ! 8 .80 10.40
Nursing -------------------------- 9.00 8 .80 11.30 13.10 10.20 12.00
Men, 20 to 35 years ---------------- , 7.50 7.30 9.60 11.90 8.50 10 .30
35 to 55 years ------------------- 7.00 6 .70 9.00 10.80 7 .90 9.60
55 to 75 years ------------------- 6 .20 6 .00 8 .20 9.70 7.00 8.70
75 years and over ------------- --- 5.80 5.60 7 .90 9.40 6 .60 8 .40
Liberal
plan
Dollars
26 .30
21.40
37.70
44.30
4.50
6.20
7.60
9.60
10.30
11.80
11.50
10.80
12.70
14.40
10.90
10 .50
8 .90
8 .10
12 .40
14 .10
13.00
11.80
10 .60
10.20
See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1, p. 25.
I/ Special adaptation of low-cost plan especially sui table for food habits in the Southeastern States.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782
United States Department of Agriculture