Family Economics Review [1973, Number 1]

              .}T uilding Use Only
MICS
EW
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Servit·•·~
U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T 0 F A G R I ,., U L T U R E :gmHiiiti!ii!iiiiiiiiimiigiig!iiiiiiiiHmii!iilfiiE \J ':lli!:m!i::hm:::!:!:uiiiiilliiU:..:ffima::ill!illiiii
A quarterly report on current developments in family and food economics and economic aspects
of home management, prepared for home economics agents and home economics specialists of
the Cooperative Extension Service.
CONTENTS
HOW FAMILIES SPEND THEIR FOOD DOLLARS ----------------­FAMILY
EXPENDITURES FOR MEDICAL CARE -----------------­BACTERIOLOGY
OF COLD-WA'IER LAUNDERING 1 DRYCLEANING, AND
DISHWASHING --------------------------------------
TRENDS IN U.S. CONSUMPTION OF NUTRIENTS --------------­CHILD
CARE ARRANG:EMENTS OF THE NATION l S WORKING MOTHERS
HOUSEHOLD HELP IN U.S. HOMES --------------------------
WHY MARRIED WOMEN WORK--------------------------------
TELEPHONES IN U.S. HOMES -----------------------------­CONSUMER
PRICES --------------------------------------­COST
OF FOOD AT HOME ---------------------------------­INDEX
OF ARTICLES IN 1965 ISSUES ---------------------­SOME
NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS ----------------------------
l)ROf)ERl Y r;F THE
L!BRAPY
AP a.%~956
Page
3
6
11
13
14
15
16
18
18
20
23
24
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
This issue is made up, for the most part, of condensations of papers
prepared for the National Agricultural Outlook Conference, held in
Washington, D. C., February 20-24, 1973. For a copy of the complete
text, send your request-- giving the title and author of the article-­to
the Consumer and Food Economics Institute, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Center Building,
Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Please give your ZIP code with your return
address.
DATE DUE
I
NOV 2 6 '1_. ?'1/J
'
I.
-"
Family Economics Review is a quarterly report on research by the
Consumer and Food Economics Institute and on information from other
sources relating to economic aspects of family living. It is developed
by Katherine S. Tippett and Marilyn Doss Ruffin, family economists,
with the cooperation of other staff members of the Institute. It is
prepared primarily for home economics specialists of the Cooperative
Extension Service.
IMPLICATIONS OF POPULATION TRENDS FOR QUALITY OF LIFE
Calvin L. Beale, Economic Research Service
The size and distribution of our population have been subjects of public concern
at several points in our history, but the rapid rise of quality of life c·oncerns --dominated
by environmental issues-- has significantly reshaped our perspective on the implications
of current population trends.
Size of population. --I think it fair to say that an end to population growth for. the
nation-- and in time for the world-- is a widely accepted objective today. Ultimately
there are limits to the number of people the world can accommodate under any standard
of living. In the United States, there seems to be little sentiment for an actual decrease
in population. But the recent Presidential- Congressional Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future reported its strong conviction that it had "found no con­vincing
argument for continued national population growth. On the contrary, the plusses
seem to be on the side of slowing growth and eventually stopping it altogether. ".!/ The
Commission then went on to marshal evidence that slower growth would increase average
income, conserve energy, avert pollution, and provide "an opportunity to devote resources
to the quality of life rather than its quantity. ".!/
With the growth trend of the Nation in a state of change, a review of recent birth
trends seems in order. After a 2-year rise in 1969 and 1970, the birth rate turned
downward in April 1971. No one knows why a marked downward deflection took place at
that particular time, but in every month since then the number of births has been below
that of the same month in the preceding year . Other things being equal, the birth rate
would have increased in this period, because of rapid growth in the population of prime
childbearing age, as children born in the post-World War II baby boom came of age.
But clearly other things have not been equal. The crude birth rate fell from 18.2 births
per thousand total population in 1970 to 15. 7 per thousand in 1972. This is the lowest
crude birth rate in American history, and also the lowest when related solely to women
of childbearing age. If no further decline were to occur, the present rates would pro­vide
a level of childbearing just above that needed for parental replacement. But the
decline shows no sign of halting yet, and 1973's births may well be below the number
ultimately needed for replacement.
The decline in births is paralleled by a decline in expressed childbearing expec-tations.
During the 1950's and 1960's, expressed preferences and expectations about
family size were remarkably stable, commonly averaging out to about 3. 2 or 3. 3 chil­dren
per woman. These levels became observed in practice as well as in preference.
With only about 2. 1 children ever born per woman required for generational replacement,
such fertility led to growth rates of 50 percent per generation, and was the source of our
rapid national population increase from 1950 to 1970. But the number of births that
.!/ Population and the American Future, Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1972.
MARCH 1973 3
women say they expect to have has now dropped to 2. 4 per woman in 19 72, and 2. 3 among
wives under 25 years old. Y
Our society has thus undergone a major shift in its childbearing intentions in just
a few years. Given the human capacity to bear much larger numbers of children, a shift
from an average of 3. 3 children to 2. 3 is not major in absolute terms, but it is dramatic
in its effect on growth rates and on the potential future size of the U.S. population.
If the experience of other nations that have liberalized their abortion laws is any
model, one effect of the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion will be to further
lower the birth rate in this decade. But whatever the near term level of the birth rate,
it is necessary to keep in mind that the present young adult population is much larger
than the older population from which most deaths occur. Thus, the United States would
continue to grow in population beyond the end of this century, and exceed 250 million,
even if births occurred only at generational replacement levels from now on and net im­migration
ceased. But this is a decided shift downward from the prospect of 300 million
people by the year 2000 that seemed likely less than 10 years ago.
Despite a professional and lay consensus of reasonable proportions that growth
of the U.S. population is a serious problem, the measurable relationship between total
population size or growth and impairment of quality of life is by no means always direct,
major, or even clear. For example, our society is making strenuous efforts to combat
environmental pollution, and this problem is often linked with population growth. But,
notwithstanding the huge increase in the U.S. population since World War II, it is not
population growth that is the paramount cause of environmental quality problems. Per­haps
the best illustration of this contention is in the area of electric power. Since 1950,
electric energy consumption has increased by more than 350 percent. In the same period
population grew by just 3 7 percent. Thus, only one-ninth of the increased use of electric
energy-- with its serious attendant problems of air and water pollution, fossil fuel deple­tion,
and strip mining-- can be ascribed to population growth. The rest is the result of
enormously increased per capita usage. The projection of needs for the rest of the cen­tury
follows the same pattern. Major additions to present capacity will be needed, but
only a fraction of the need will stem from increased population.
Natural gas usage from 1950 to 1970 rose by 265 percent and use of crude petro­leum
by more than 110 percent. The number of cars and trucks in use has gone up about
120 percent since 1950. The percentage of families owning two or more cars rose from
7 percent in 1950 to 28 percent in 1971. It is the rising standard of living that is the
major source of our problems in the energy and vehicle-related environmental fields,
not the growth of population.
The volume of farm production rose only moderately above population growth--
52 percent against 37 percent. But to achieve this output, the application of fertilizers
was doubled, and that of pesticides apparently increased even more. Even in the case
of the U.S. mail-- a major service whose quality is widely thought to have declined -­three-
fifths of the increase in domestic work load since 1950 is accounted for by greater
Y Bureau of the Census, "Birth Expectations and Fertility: June 1972." Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 240, Sept. 1972 (in cooperation with National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development), p. 1.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
per capita ~se of the mails rat~er. than greater population. If the National and state parks
are becommg overcrowded, 1t 1s largely because overnight visits more than doubled in
just 10 years (1960-70) while population grew at one-sixth of that rate.
These are simple measures, but the wide disparity in growth rates between popu­lation
and consumption or service items leaves no question that the rapid growth in de­mand
for the items mentioned is due primarily to greater per capita usage. Neither the
~ecent nor potential growth of our to~al population is the crux of our environmental qual­Ity
problems, although population growth has contributed to them.
So far as general social and economic indicators of quality of life go, it is diffi­cult
to say that the total size of the U.S. population has thus far been an impediment to
overall progress, although the suddenness of growth has created stresses. Most mea­sures
relating to educational attainment, average money incomes, housing adequacy, or
leisure activities have advanced very rapidly despite steady population growth. The
health picture is somewhat mixed. There have been large increases in two decades in
the assets and personnel of hospitals, and in the proportion of the population covered by
health insurance. Yet, the expectation of life has been slow to increase further, espe­cially
for men. But this failure is not to my knowledge thought to be a result of larger
population. Lower future population growth should yield societal benefits, but will not
be a corrective for our quality-of-life problems.
Distribution of the population.-- The last decade has seen a marked development
of concern over the distributional trend of the population. There are those who believe
that the concentration of people in metropolitan centers is the source of more problems
than the total size or growth of the Nation. Problems of pollution, traffic, crime, social
alienation and dependency, and race relations are all felt to have been aggravated by the
increased massing of people in several major urban regions. This concern is comple­mented
by another concern--the presumed serious deterioration in the fabric of declin­ing
rural communities, caused by loss of population, especially loss of the better trained
young people.
The trend of concentration is beyond dispute. The total rural population-- that
is, people in open country and towns of less than 2, 500 inhabitants-- has been nearly
stationary since 1920, while the urban population has nearly tripled, increasing by 100
million. Perhaps more importantly, 71 million-- or 35 percent-- of our population now
live in urbanized areas that have over 1 million people each. And in the period since
World War II we have seen the development of the megalopolis or urban region concept,
in which one metropolitan area merges into another and a new level of aggregation evolves,
especially along the North Atlantic Coast, the Lower Great Lakes, and in California.
Is this good or bad? Given the utter inability of agricultural areas to provide
employment for their existing labor force, let alone their natural increase, and given
the aggregating advantages for employment, services, and income that metropolitan cities
have had in the recent past, the concentration may well have been inevitable, whether
good or bad. Major social and economic trends seldom move slowly enough for govern­ment
and society to cope with them in an ideal manner. Furthermore, the worldwide
nature of rural exodus and urban growth makes it clear that the process has completely
transcended national borders, political systems, and differences in agricultural policies.
MARCH 1973
5
The reaction of nations to the process of urbanization is, I suspect it is fair to
say, one of initial pleasure and pride at the emergence of great cities with the amenities,
broader life chances, and intellectual stimulation they afford. But if the residential bal­ance
shifts too fast or too far a reaction ensues, perhaps at first dominated by lingering
agrarian sentiments and then by apprehension that the very advantages of the city are
being degraded and lost by overwhelming growth and change.
A number of nations have adopted policies in recent years to attempt to moderate,
rationalize, or hopefully halt the drift to the cities, or to revitalize lagging regions.
France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil, and the United States are examples. In
recent U.S. legislation, such as the Rural Development Act of 1972 or the Agricultural
Act of 1970, the detrimental effect of rural-urban migration and the problems of major
cities are specifically asserted and identified as conditions to which the legislation is
addressed.
How is the quality of life affected by population distribution trends? There are
some things that can be said with reasonable certainty. Up to this time, the larger the
proportion of Americans who live in metropolitan-size communities-- the larger the pro­portion
who live with ready access to college education or medical facilities; the lower
the proportion who live in substandard housing or with poverty-level incomes; and the
higher the proportion of women who find opportunities for employment outside the home
at better than low-skilled jobs and subsistence wages.
On the other hand, the greater the metropolitan concentration, the greater the
percentage of the population engaged in or victimized by crimes, either of violence or
against property; the greater the proportion of youth susceptible to drug use; the greater
the exposure to air pollution; and the less the likelihood of owning one's home. In short,
there are trade-offs, and it is in large part a matter of personal judgment as to what the
net effects of population distribution patterns are on quality of life.
One unsettled issue is the effect of massing and density of population on human
beings. The noted scientist and writer Rene Dubos was cited by former Secretary Orville
Freeman as saying, "Some of the most profound effects of the environment created b·y
urban and technicized civilization may not be on physical health, but on behavioral pat­terns
and mental develepment." V After a review of the state of knowledge in this area,
the Population Commission concluded that "In general, the research on the effects of
population density on human behavior is sparse and the findings either inconclusive or
negative. Despite popular belief, the evidence is lacking to show that social pathology
is associated with density itself. ".!/
Aside from the conditions of life that can be quantitatively assessed, we must
also consider what people believe to be true, for beliefs-- however incorrectly held-­become
real in their effects, if acted upon. Several surveys in recent years have at­tempted
to determine residential preferences and to identify the advantages that people
perceive in urbanor rural life. In a national surveymade for the Commission on Popu­lation
Growth and the American Future, 56 percent of the population described themselves
V Freeman, Orville L., address at the annual convention of the National Association
of Counties, Detroit, Mich., Aug. 2, 1967, p. 8 .
.!/ See footnote 1 on p. 3, (p. 69).
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
as living in a medium or large city or in the suburbs of such a place, but only 35 percent
expressed a preference to live in such places. ,V The implication was that a net of about
21 percent of the adult population would prefer to live in the open country or a small town
or city, rather than in their present metro setting. Three-eighths of these people con­sidered
themselves very likely to make such a move within the next few years, and an
additional fourth thought they would make such a move in the more distant future. This
preference pattern I think we must .accept as a matter of fact. It iS supported by other
surveys. The net yearning of the people seems to be away from metro centers and sub­urbs
at the very time that metro concentration has reached new levels.
The forces that have produced metropolitanization are unlikely to be casually dis­placed,
however. Nor do we really yet know what the small town and open country pref­erence
consists of. Surveys in Washington and Wisconsin reveal that the predominant
preference of metropolitan residents in those States who want a change is for a locality
that is small-scale in character but that is not too far beyond the urbanized areas .Y
Thus, they appear to want accessibility to urban employment and services but not resi­dential
involvement in either the city or the suburbs. The implication would seem to be
even greater sprawl and a more dispersed form of metropolitanization.
The Washington survey and a national one 1/ have dealt with the images that peo­ple
have of urban and rural settings. These surveys seem to agree that, wherever they
live, the great majority of people believe that the availability of good jobs is best in
metropolitan cities. A majority perceive recreation -entertainment opportunities and
medical care to be best in the cities. On the other hand, even metro residents them­selves
believe that rural and small town people are friendlier, more likely to be in good
general or mental health, have more voice in community affairs, and that rural commu­nities
are the best places in which to rear children.
It also seems possible to detect some differences in attitudes and values on the
r>art of urban and rural people that are relevant for discussions of population distribution
policy. The sociologist Norval Glenn reviewed national opinion polls in which the views
of rural and urban residents were distinguished. §I On some issues, the two populations
showed no meaningful differences, but in other areas such as religion, the role of women,
,V Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, "Analysis of Com­mission's
Public Opinion Survey." Unpublished memorandum, Oct. 15, 1971.
6/ Dillman, Don A., and Russell P. Dubash, Preferences for Community Living and
Th~ir Implications for Population Redistribution. Washington Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 764, Pullman, 1972. Zuiches, James J., and Glenn V. Fuguitt, Resi­dential
Preferences: Implications for Population Redistribution in Nonmet:opolitan ~reas.
Paperpresented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadel-phia,
Pa., Dec. 28, 1971.
7 I National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, The Nation's View of Rural Amer­ic;
and Rural Electrification--A Summary. Washington, D.C., 1969.
8/ Glenn, Norval D., "Massification Versus Differentiation: Some Trend Data from
National Surveys," Social Forces, vol. 46, No. 2, Dec. 1967.
MARCH 1973 7
liquor laws, and corporal punishment in school, they differed significantly-- with rural
people in each case taking what might be termed a more conservative attitude.
Furthermore, voting patterns can still be sufficiently different between metro­politan
and nonmetropolitan residents to affect the outcome of major elections. In 1968,
nonmetropolitan voters cast only 30 percent of the total U.S. vote in the presidential
election, but it was .their wide preference for the Republican ticket that produced Presi­dent
Nixon's winning margin. The Democratic ticket had a narrow plurality in the metro
areas, where 70 percent of the vote was cast, but lost the election.
If more people from the metropolitan centers settled in the small cities and the
countryside, would their philosophical views and outlook change in the smaller-scale
communities? If more rural youth remained in the country, would the differences between
countryside and city be gradually widened? I don't think we can say with certainty. But
we should be aware that there are differences in the proportions of urban and rural people
who adhere to given values or viewpoints, and that population distribution policies do have
implications --whether implicit or explicit-- for the overall ideological outlook of the
Nation. Whatever the economic possibilities for the greater dispersal of the population
in smaller-scale communities, the belief that such a policy is desirable or not desirable
is a value judgment itself, determined as much by social heritage and personal convic­tions
as by facts objectively derived and impersonally viewed. There is no one optimum
population size or distribution.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Because Family Economics Review is a free publication, we are able to send only
one copy to each name on the mailing list. Please do not request additional copies. You
may, of course, duplicate copies to meet your needs.
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
OUTLOOK FOR FOOD PRICES, CONSUMPTION, AND EXPENDITURES
Economic and Statistical Analysis Division
Economic Research Service
Food prices.-- Food prices accelerated in 1972 despite wage and price controls.
A number of factors combined to push up prices last year in the face of numerous efforts
on the part of the Price Commission and the food trade to hold the line. First of all there
was a decline in the per capita supply of meat. In addition, the fruit crop was down sig­nificantly
from 1971. The slackening in supplies came at an inopportune time, when in­comes
were rising rapidly and significant slowdowns in prices of many other ·items gave
consumers one of the sharpest boosts in purchasing power of the last several years.
The pattern of prices this year looks very much the same as a year ago. There
were large increases late in 1972, when we ordinarily expect decreases or at least some
stability. In January and February there were large increases in meat prices, perhaps
even larger than a year ago. To make the situation worse, there will likely be some
further increases in prices of most staple items. At this time there is little or no hope
that any broad based price decreases will occur this year. The only exceptions are
the expected decline in pork prices in the second half of the year and likely declines in
poultry prices after the first quarter. Even so, prices of poultry will remain mostly
above a year earlier. Because of the sharp increases late last year and early this year,
food prices likely will average around 6 percent higher than in 1972. Prices of food at
home may rise 6 to 6. 5 percent . Most of the rise will come from farm prices, which
likely will rise more than the 8. 7 percent of 1972.
After the sharp increases in food prices early last year, price control officials
and members of the food industry met to discuss potential ways of keeping food prices
from rising further. As a result of the discussion and an easing of farm prices during
the spring and early summer, retail prices were relatively stable. As the second half
of the year began, farm prices began rising and marketing margins were under pressure
from higher costs. Thus retail prices, farm prices, and marketing costs all began to
rise quite sharply. As the year came to a close, the seasonally adjusted index was rising
sharply with further increases on the horizon. Although food prices rose more than non­food
prices in 1972, food prices have risen less than nonfood since 1960 (fig. 1).
The rise in food prices in 1972 was concentrated among a few commodities. More
than 80 percent of the 4. 5 percent increase in cost of food at home was accounted for by
beef, pork, fish, and fresh fruits and vegetables. Pork alone accounted for more than
25 percent. Price increases for more staple items were mostlywithin the range of 1 to
2 percent.
Farm prices rose almost 9 percent last year and accounted for seven-tenths of
the increase in retail food prices. Wholesale prices of food rose about 5. 5 percent. The
farm-retail spread increased 2. 4 percent, significantly less than the 3. 4 percent rise in
wholesale prices of industrial commodities.
Food consumption.-- Per capita food consumption edged slightly lower in 1972
but is expected to rebound and set a new record in 19 73. Last year, consumption of meat
products fell nearly 2 percent as smaller pork supplies and a drop in veal consumption
MARCH 1973
9
10
CONSUMER PRICES: FOOD, SERVICES,
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
% OF 1960
SOURCE : SURE AU OF LA.BOR STATISTICS.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 5490 -731 21 ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
Figure 1
FOOD EXPENDITURE -INCOME TRENDS
%0 F1960
300
200
100
PERC
20
15
r--
1""'-
ENT
-
r-
10
1960
I
I
I
I
I
DispLable -
personal income ..,...,...
I ' ~----==-·-· -
____ ,
-------- I
I I 1
Food exptnditures
1 1 I I I 1 l _l
Food shar~ of income I I ' - -
I I I I I I I I I I
1964 1968 1972~ 1976
BASED OH OATA OF DEPARTMENT OF CO.tltMERCE.
A PREI...IMIHAR Y.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 8656-73 \2) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SE RVICE
Figure 2
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
more than offset small increases for beef and for lamb and mutton. Fruit consumption
also was lower in 1972 reflecting unfavorable growing conditions for grapes, pears, and
raisins.
Part of the decline for meat, eggs, and animal oils was offset by a rise for poul­try,
fish, and dairy products. On the crops side, the decline in fruit consumption was
completely offset by an increase in use of potatoes, vegetable oils, and miscellaneous
items.
Expenditures.-- Food expenditures in 1972 rose to $125 billion, 6 percent above
ayearearlier (fig. 2). Theincreasewas more than in 1971, but largelyreflected higher
prices; per capita consumption was about the same as in 1971. Expenditures on meals
eaten away from home rose almost 8 percent, twice the pace of a year earlier. The level
of expenditures in constant dollars advanced in 19 72; it had fallen in 19 71. Expenditures
for food eaten at home rose less than 6 percent in 1972. Much of the increase reflected
the sharp jump in expenditures for livestock-related food products, primarily red meats;
per capita consumption declined but was more than compensated by the very sharp price
advances. Expenditures for crop-related food products reflected a slight increase in
consumption and a moderate advance in prices.
Food accounted for 15. 7 percent of disposable income in 1972, declining from
15. 8 percent in 1971.
Consumers are likely to increase sharply their expenditures for food in 1973.
Disposable personal income, bolstered by an increase in employment and wages and a
large income tax refund from 1972, will be up almost 9. 5 percent. Per capita consump­tion
may rise above 1972 levels, and with a 6 percent increase in prices, food expendi­tures
will probably rise around 7. 5 percent. The brisker advance for disposable income,
however, will cause the share of income allocated to food to drop to 15. 5 percent.
Food programs.-- The value of USDA Food Programs rose almost 13 percent to
$3. 5 billion in 19 72. The percent of total food expenditures accounted for by Government
sponsored food programs, rose from 2. 7 percent in 1971 to 2. 8 percent in 1972. Most
of the increase came from the Food Stamp Program, which rose $293 million to almost
$2 billion. Part of this advance reflected the continuing shift from commodity distribu­tion
to the Food Stamp program. Changes in eligibility requirements, increases in the
allotment of bonus stamps, and increased participation in the wake of Hurricane Agnes
also contributed to the advance. The value of child nutrition programs went up over $181
million, primarily reflecting increases in the school lunch and breakfast programs.
Direct commodity donations to schools fell almost $16 million.
Five hundred thousand more people participated in family food programs in 1972,
bringing total participation to nearly 15 million people. The number of participants has
risen 9 million since 1967, but increases are slowing as the number of eligibles not par­ticipating
has been greatlyreduced. Among family food programs in 1972, participation
in commodity distribution fell by 600, 000 as more areas shifted to food stamps. Bonus
stamp participation rose 1.1 million. Participation in school lunch programs totaled
nearly 25 million children, up slightly from last year. However, participation in the
school breakfast program increased by 200, 000 to 1.1 million children.
MARCH 1973 11
CLOTIITNG AND TEXTILES: SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1973
Virginia Britton, Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Clothing expenditures and prices. --Consumers spent about $296 per person on
clothing and shoes in 1972, according to preliminary data. This was $21 higher than in
1971. Although part of the increase was caused by inflation, there was an increase of
almost 5 percent in terms of dollars of constant value (table 1).
The increase in the price level for apparel and upkeep in 1972 (at 2.1 percent)
was less than in any year since 1965. The rise for clothing continued to be less than for
the all-items index of the Consumer Price Index (table 2). Among the three apparel sub­groups,
footwear led the price advance, as it frequently does, and men's and boys' cloth­ing
increased least. According to reports from manufacturers, price increases in 1973
may be noteworthy for certain items. Prices of leather shoes and accessories for spring
1973 and leather outerwear for fall 1973 are expected to reflect higher leather prices in
1972. Prices of woolen garments in fall 1973 may be 10 percent or more higher than a
year· earlier because of sharply rising prices of wool in 1972.
With continued expansion of the economy in 1973 and some increase in prices,
the average person will spend more on clothing than in 1972, and his spending will also
advance in terms of dollars of constant value.
Suppliesofrawmaterials.--Useof all fibersby U.S. mills in 1972wasestimated
to have increased about 7. 5 percent over 1971 on a per capita basis. Most of the increase
was in manmade fibers. A total of 55. 5 pounds of fiber per capita were used in 1972,
including 18.5 of cotton, 1 of wool, and 36 of manmade fibers.
Fiber use per capita was 55 percent higher than in 1960, reflecting rising con­sumer
incomes (about 47 percent per capita in dollars of constant value). Use of cotton
decreased 21 percent per capita and that of wool decreased 53 percent, whereas use of
manmade fibers increased 245 percent.
Cotton supply in the United States is ample, because the 1972 cotton crop was
almost one-third larger than that of 1971. Wool production (apparel class) in the United
States is expected to decline further in 1973, despite increased prices of raw wool.
Larger imports of raw apparel wool in 1973 will help meet the demand, but at higher
prices than last year. Wool prices have staged a strong comeback after falling to De­pression
levels in 1971. The predicted revival of worsteds for fall 1973 suitings may
be restricted by the high prices of wool; wool-look polyesters may be used instead.
For manmade fibers, U.S. producing capacity is expected to be 13 percent higher by
November 1974 than in November 1972. About one-half of the projected increases are
for polyester. J. P. Stevens and Co. predicted that existing manmade fibers will prob­ably
"enjoy all the growth potential in fabrics" in the next decade, with polyesters get­ting
55 percent of the U.S. market for noncellulosic fibers. U.S. production of hides
(chiefly from cattle) in 1973 will probably be somewhat larger than in 19'12, as more
stock goes to market. World supplies of leather may increase some by the end of 1973.
However, our supply of shoes is not dependent solely on our production of hides and
leather. U. S. production of shoes with nonleather uppers and our imports of shoes con­stitute
roughly one-half of the U.S. supply of shoes in recent years. Women's and misses'
shoes retailing at less than $10 will probably be all-vinyl.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1.--Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes
Percent of
Per capita expenditures Aggregate
YearsY expenditures for personal expenditures
consumption Billions Billions
1958 I Current 195e I Current of 1958 of current
dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars dollars
1929 --------- 149 77 13.0 12.1 18.2 9.4
1930-40 ------ 122 51 11.8 10.7 15.6 6.5
1941-46 ------ 151 100 11.8 12.9 20.7 13.7
1947-61 ------ 144 140 9.0 9.4 23.5 22.9
1962-65 ------ 160 170 8.4 8.3 30.6 32.4
1966 --------- 185 204 8.7 8.6 36.4 40.3
1967 ·--------- 184 213 8.5 8.6 36.6 42.3
1968 --------- 188 231 8.3 8.6 37.8 46.3
1969 51 ------- 191 248 8.3 8.7 38.8 50.2
1970 --------- 188 254 8.1 8.4 38.5 52.0
1971 if------- 196 275 8.2 8.6 40.6 56.9
1972 3 ------- 205 296 8.2 8.6 42.9 61.9
y Earlier years are grouped on basis of similarity in level of per capita
expenditures in 1958 dollars.
gj Revised data for 1969 to 1971.
]/ Preliminary figures.
Source: Department of Commerce.
Table 2.--Annual percentage change in selected indexes of consumer -prices
Index 1968 1972
Consumer Price Index ---~---------- +4.2 +5.4 +5.9 +4.3 +3.3
Apparel and Upkeep IndexY ------- +5.4 +5.8 +4.1 +3.2 +2.1
Men's and boys' clothing -------- +5.7 +6.3 +4.2 +2.7 +1.3
Women's and girls' clothing ----- +5.9 +5.5 +3.8 +3.5 +2.4
Footwear ------------------------ +5.3 +6.2 +5.3 +3.2 +2.8
y Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel up­keep
services, for which separate indexes are not available.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
MARCH 1973 13
Development of flammability standards and enforcement. -- Two flammability
standards become effective during 1973. All children's sleepwear garments sizes 0
through 6x, manufactured after July 1973, and all mattresses and mattress pads manu­factured
after May 1973 must meet flammability standards set by the U.S. Department
of Commerce under the Flammable Fabrics Act. The standards also contain plans for
pre-market testing of these items. Industry sources claim that following the specified
plan for pre-market testing of mattresses will increase costs 30 percent or more for
small manufacturers of private label mattresses, and that mattresses selling at retail
prices below $65 may be eliminated as they are generally made with a large amount of
cotton felt which does not meet the test requirements.
Flammability standards are being considered for children's sleepwear garments
in sizes 7 through 14 and for fabrics used in upholstered furniture.
On October 27, 1972, the President signed the Act that authorized establishment
of a five-man Consumer Product Safety Commission to assume jurisdiction over the
safety aspects of many consumer products. Included were flammable fabrics (apparel
and interior furnishings), which will ultimately be removed from the authority of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In the meantime, the FTC continues to enforce the
flammability standards established under the Flammable Fabrics Act. The new Com­mission
is to utilize the National Bureau of Standards for test development as far as
practicable. The transfer of functions will be effective either 150 days after the signing
of the Act or when three of the five Commissioners are appointed, whichever is later.
(No Commissioners had been appointed as of February 7, 1973.)
Development of flame-retardant finishes and fabrics. --With the present stress
on flammability standards for clothing and textiles, much of the current effort in product
development is in the area of flame-retardant finishes and fabrics. Recent reports from
USDA's Southern Regional Research Laboratory ( SRRL) include the development of flame­retardant
finishes for:
Mattress ticking and fillers. These can be made flame retardant
by coating the back of the mattress ticking and treating the cotton
batting mattress filler.
Upholstery, drapery, and other speciality fabrics that are laun­dered
infrequently. This finish was developed at SRRL in the
1950's and is now commercially available.
Other developments at SRRL have improved the washability of cotton fabrics and
garments treated with flame-retardant finishes. Some cotton garments are now being
treated commercially with finishes developed by SRRL. The aim of these finishes is to
improve durability under laundering conditions while retaining flame-retardant proper­ties,
avoiding odor and yellowing of fabric, and maintaining the soft hand and strength
of cotton. SRRL also reports that the flame-retardant finish on cotton garments can be
protected by rinsing treated garments in a mild acid solution (for example, 8 ounces of
white vinegar added to the rinse cycle in home laundering) after washing in hard water.
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Flame-retardant finishes developed by industry include those for treating silk
and polyester and for treating rugs (including shags of polyester, nylon, and wool), and
nylon draperies, upholstery, and bedspreads.
Industry has also announced several flame-resistant fabrics, primarily for chil­dren's
sleepwear and blankets. Some of these include fibers which are naturally flame­retardant,
such as modacrylic and vinyon, and some include fibers requiring flame-retar­dant
treatments. The flame-resistant fabrics include knit brushed cloth of modacrylic;
knit modacrylic; blends of 25 percent cotton for absorbency with a fiber composed of 50
percent vinyon and 50 percent vinal; cotton thermal weave and waffle pique; warp knits
of acetate; nylon, acetate, and acetate-polyester blends in brushed and unbrushed con­structions;
nylon warp knit; polyester with a flannel-like hand, polyester in light weight
broadcloth, batiste, and brushed fabrics.
Other product developments. --In addition to flame-retardant finishes and fabrics,
recent product developments have emphasized further improvement in durable press and
washability properties. USDA's SRRL has developed ways to increase the strength and
abrasion resistance of cotton fabrics while still maintaining durable-press properties
such as wrinkle resistance. The usual reaction of cotton and cotton blends to durable­pr~
s s treatments has been to weaken the fabric. Other work at SRRL includes the devel­opment
of a process for molding chemically treated stretch cotton fabric. Hats, fabric
covered dolls, bra cups, plastic-coated upholstery, and cloth parts of shoes can be shaped
by this technique. Woven stretch cottons produced by slack mercerization, developed
at SRRL, may soon be on the market in sheets and shirts of cotton and cotton-polyester
blends.
USDA's Western Regional Research Laboratory (WRRL) reports that the Wurset
shrink-resist treatment of woven wool fabrics, and WRRL's low-temperature plasma
treatment for machine washability for hand-knitting wool yarns are being tested for com­mercial
feasibility. Tests of WRRL's durable-press finish on a wool double-knit blend
have shown that the treated fabric retains its clear surface and good hand after repeated
washing. Also, a process developed at WRRL for durable-press wool and wool blend
fabrics is being used on fabrics and apparel slated for worldwide promotion and marketing.
Improvement of leather is promised by use of a process of graft polymerization
developed at USDA's Eastern Regional Research Laboratory. The process forms a syn­thetic
polymer within the leather which improves leather characteristics permanently
and to a greater extent than conventional surface treatments. By varying the conditions
of treatment or the acrylic compounds, the leather can be given more stretch (as for gar­ments)
or more f~rmness (so that sheepskins become usable for shoe uppers). Leathers
modified by the process were generally stronger and more uniform in thickness. Some
of the leathers could be dry cleaned without destroying the treatment. Research continues
into the technical and economic feasibility of the new process.
Industry has announced improvements in cotton, wool, and manmade fabrics.
These include shrinkage control, improved durable-press properties, and greater elas­ticity
forcotton; shrinkage control and greater elasticity for wool; and a number of new
or improved manmade fibers and blends. (Detailed information on these new develop­ments
is available in the complete text of this paper. To order see p. 2 for instructions. )
MARCH 1973 15
Other developments in standards and labels for textile products.-- The Federal
Trade Commission has excluded certain items (in addition to shoes, gloves, and hats)
from the requirement for permanent care labeling of textile wearing apparel which be­came
effective for articles manufactured on or after July 3, 19 72. Excluded were leather,
suede, and fur products (but not textile apparel trimmed with those products); decora­tive,
ornamental, Qr supportive items (as ties, handkerchiefs, belts, patches, and some
scarves); piece goods remnants, 10 yards or less in length, and cut at the manufacturing
level only; and piece goods sold as trim ( 5 inches or less in width). The FTC amended
the example Number 4 of acceptable labeling instructions to read "Dry clean only." The
original statement was: · ''Dry clean only. Do not use petroleum solvents, or the coin­operated
method of dry cleaning." The FTC interprets ''Dry clean only" to mean that any
solvent or any process normally and regularly used in drycleaning may be used without
substantial impairment of the garment; this includes home and coin-operated methods.
"Dry cleanable" means that the item could also be washed. Any restriction should be
noted on the label, as, for example, "Professional dry clean only. "
Enforcement of the care labeling rule may be complicated by a U.S. District
Court ruling which says that the FTC has no substantive rulemaking power. The court
ruling has been appealed. In the interim, the FTC will continue to exercise all available
powers in order to insure compliance with the care labeling rule.
Recent announcements on voluntary standards' for body size measurements of
apparel by the National Bureau of Standards include the following:
16
Girls' apparel. Publication of standards was approved in 1972.
Single copies are available for slims, regulars, and chubbies,
in sizes 7 to 16.
Junior high girls' apparel. A draft has been submitted for a pro­posed
new standard.
Infants' and toddlers' apparel. A revision has been proposed of
the commercial standard published in 1951.
FAMILY ECONO:.MICS REVIEW
THE OUTLOOK FOR CONSUMER AFF AffiS
Lee Richardson, Office of Consumer Affairs
The consumer is being heard more than ever before. The volume of consumer
complaints, the vigor of consumer organizations' activities, and the unfinished consumer
business of Congress all attest to this fact. One of the chief changes in consumer affairs,
however, is that there is an increasing recognition of the need for sound economic ::mal­ysis
of the issues. As the depth of inquiry into consumer problems has increased in the
past few years, consumer advocates have discovered much broader implications for their
proposals than many of them had originally thought. Business groups have also seen the
significance of consumer issues and have recognized the need to deal with them through
changes in production, marketing, and financial practices.
Several new key developments in consumer affairs in Washington and in the States
are worthy of your professional attention and investigation. They include tough problem
areas for which the consuming public needs good information and sound consumer educa­tion.
You can help through manyof the programs in which you work or cooperate on the
Federal, State, and community levels.
Looking Back at Consumer Affairs
The legislative record of consumer advocates in the past is mixed, at best, but
it may reveal some ideas on the future course of similar proposals.
The most striking feature of successful consumer activism has been its occur­rence
in cycles. The Progressive era prior to World War I yielded the FTC Act, the
Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act, but the consumer legislation be­tween
1914 and the mid-1930's was insignificant. The Great Depression period produced
significant amendments to the FTC Act and strengthening of food and drug legislation,
but Congressional consumer activity again became dormant from the start of World War IT
until the 1960's.
Both of these earlier periods were characterized by private consumer action
groups as well as business responses to consumer activism. Better Business Bureaus
originated in the Progressive era, which also had its muckrackers, ad hoc consumer
committees, and two consumer leagues; which still exist. The 1930's produced Con­sumers
Union, plus numerous books that said among other things that all Americans
were guinea pigs for industry's products. Consumer groups were openly supported by
large retailers in an unsuccessful war against fair trade and antichainstore legislation.
Business Week did a feature articleon the consumer movement in 1939, a further signal
of the similarity between the 1930's period and the current wave which we now call con­sumerism.
The early 1960's first saw the thalidomide horrors followed by Congressional
action on drug efficacy in 1962. Jessica Mitford's American Way of Death and Ruth
Harmer's High Cost of Dying led to Congressional hearing on the funeral industry in
1964. President Kennedy created the Consumer Advisory Council and sent the first con­sumer
message to Congress in 1962. The biggest event in the 5-year period prior to
1965 was the advent of Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed that led to Congressional
hearings.
MARCH 1973 17
The legislation that passed between 1962 an
1
db1972 twas hsigdnbificFandt in t
1
ha
1
t it afTfectthed some promotional activities that had not previous y een ouc e y e era aw. ru -
in-lending was, in 1968, the first significant Federal venture into consumer credit. The
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971 was another milestone in credit information. Truth­in-
packaging, in 1966, prescribed certain information and other matters for packages
and labels in an effort to balance the powers of the buyers and sellers, primarily in the
convenience goods field.
Significant legislative actions were taken in the health and safety fields through
meat and poultry inspection and the creation of an independent product safety agency.
The latter act was the most significant consumer action of the 92d Congress.
The legislative record of the consumer movement in the past few years is im­pressive
by historical comparisons with decades past. It is even more impressive when
the structure of the consumer movement itself is analyzed. The formal structure of the
consumer movement, defined in terms of private consumer organizations, consists pri­marily
of voluntary action by persons in their roles as members of households, plus
some activists from universities, the legal profession, and labor unions.
The influence of consumer groups has been felt primarily through their general
appeal to the nonmember public. Congress and the Executive Branch have in turn found
public interest in many consumer issues to be high and have responded to these newly
recognized problems. The press has contributed a great deal to the movement, because
it, too, has found in its independent wisdom that consumerism is worthy of attention. In
a favorable climate, consumer leaders have also discovered allies to assist them in par­ticular
battles. In sum, the time has come for the U.S. consumer.
Looking Ahead for the Short Run
Predictions of State and local action.-- An exciting trend toward dealing with con­sumer
issues is now occuring in many statehouses. All but two States now have some
type of office of consumer affairs. The majority of States locate this activity in the office
of the Attorney General, while others place it in the Governor's office, Department of
Agriculture, or other location. Several States have two or more agencies, divisions, or
councils devoted to consumer problems. The growth of these offices has occurred mainly
in the past 5 years. It is very easy to predict that these new offices are going to be in­creasingly
effective as increased staffs and new authority are added by State legislatures.
Similar to State activity, but growing at an even faster rate, are the city and county con­sumer
offices. Today, there are 70 such offices and the potential is many thousand.
The activities of these State and local organizations can be expected to focus in
the near future on three major thrusts: ( 1) Consumer complaint handling. Consumer
offices will use a variety of remedies for aggrieved consumers: mediation, arbitration,
referrals, and legal action. ( 2) Trade practice regulation. The agencies will discover
the need for and obtain authority to handle various frauds and deceptive practices perpe­trated
against consumers. (3) Public information and consumer education. The more
permanent changes in the marketplace come through changes in consumer behavior.
More audio-visual aids will be used to reach the public. Cooperation with the established
educational systems will increase.
18 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Predictions of Federal action.-- The activities of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) have been variously described as "overzealous" and "too little, too late." The
potential effectiveness of the agency today, however, is seriously hindered by the fact
that it does not have the power to act swiftly against unfair and deceptive practices with
preliminary injunctions. Another important tool, the trade rule or regulation, was ques­tioned
by a recent court decision. This case is still awaiting appellate court action.
FTC's future ability to deal with ~fair and deceptive practices hinges on these two pow­ers.
If FTC lacks them, Congress may have to pass specific laws to deal with each un­fair
and deceptive practice.
No-fault automobile insurance almost slipped through in a crucial .Senate test in
1972, and renewed battle is likely in the 93dCongress. Thecrucialquestion surrounding
Federal no-fault legislation is the record of the States in passing laws of their own.
The reorganization of the entire financial system of the Nation should stir con­sumers.
Legislation is being prepared for early introduction by spring 1973 that will
expand the powers of thrift institutions. The Hunt Commission's report.!! in 1971 rec­ommended
that competition be emphasized as themeansof reforming the Nation's finan­cial
institutions. The thrust of this Presidential Commission's proposals was to give
powers to the various institutions that will tend to equalize them. Consumers will be
interested in legislation that may enable credit unions to have checking accounts or that
allows savings and loan associations or banks to pay rates as high as they wish on savings
accounts.
The final report of the National Commission on Consumer Finance (NCCF)V
appeared in January, and its recommendations in the field of consumer credit have al­readybegun
to trigger new debates on issues such as truth-in-lending, State usury laws,
holder-in-due course, and related problems. These consumer credit debates were also
fueled by a major report in November 1972 of the National Business Council for Consumer
Affairs. Y A revision of a model law, the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, is due for
release in 1973, and the UCCC is before several State legislatures right now.
A final indicator of the attention due this field is the stiff debate that other credit
bills received in the second session of the 92d Congress. In an announcement on Janu­ary
8, Secretary of the Treasury George Schultz said that the 85 recommendations of
NCCF would be considered along with the 89 recommendations of the Hunt Commission.
The Administration's task force developing legislative proposals from these combined
recommendations is working now to prepare what promises to be one of the most signif­icant
and complex legislative packages ever in the field of consumer finance .
.!/ Report of the President's Commission on Financial Structure and Regulations, 19 71.
173 pp. For sale for 75 cents by Supt. Doc. , U.S. Govt. Print. Off. , Washington, D.C.
20402.
2/ National Commission on Consumer Finance Report, Installment Credit Guide, "Con­su;_
er Credit in the U.S.," Issue No. 215, January 15, 1973. Available fromCommerce
Clearing House, Inc., 4025 West Peterson Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60646. $3. 00.
3/ "Financing the American Consumer--A Business Report on Consumer Credit. n
National Business Council for Consumer Affairs. November 1972. 26 pp. For sale for
$1.00 by U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. 20402.
MARCH 1973 19
The most important consumer legislation so far introduced in 1973 is the Inde­pendent
ConsumerProtectionAgency, which the last twoCongresseshaverejected. This
bill will create an advocate of consumer interests within the Federal Government. While
it would not have regulatory powers, this agency would serve as the primary focal point
for persons seeking to reform and revitalize consumer programs of dozens of existing
Federal agencies.
Predictions of industry action.--A recent poll of industry public relations depart­ments
indicated that in 1973 consumerism would be the issue receiving their greatest
attention. Much of that attention undoubtedly will be directed toward consumer legisla­tion,
notably independent consumer protection agency bills. Voluntary business action
can and will do much more to improve the welfare of more customers than in the past.
Industry has acted on unit pricing, open dating, development of complaint-handling of­fices,
cosmetic ingredient labelling, and other issues. More progress in voluntary re­form
can be expected in the near future.
Looking Ahead for the Long Run
Of the many possibilities for longrun change in consumer affairs, several are
especially interesting.
Insurance in many forms will become an important consumer issue. More Fed­eral
interest and increased State action are coming to deal with this most confusing area
of consumer purchasing. As $22 billion is spent on life insurance alone each year, it
would seem advisable to know how to compare policy costs. Unfortunately, consumers
are not getting the information they need to do so. Other insurance areas are getting
attention besides no-fault and life insurance. Mail order policies, health policies, inner
city property insurance, flood damage claims, and credit insurance are but a few of the
areas of developing consumer interest.
Reform of the Nation's $75 billion health delivery system will have to receive
serious attention. The fragmentation of the insurance, medical, and hospital segments·
of the industry has led to a series of monumental inefficiencies that have in turn nearly
tripled health costs in 12 years. Solutions really can't wait, but the problem is so large
that it will probably req~ire years of treatment.
The so-called energy crisis has only begun to affect consumers. Fierce debate
is . sure to rage concerning the real causes of our current and expected future energy
shortages and price increases. The ability of consumer interests to cope with the exten­sive
economic and natural resource questions involved will have an important bearing on
prices and quantities. Use of the automobile, future development of the public transpor­tation
system, production of many high energy goods such as aluminum, low-cost home
use of electricity, and many other consumer interests are at stake. Meanwhile, heating
fuel shortages, brownouts, blackouts, and rising prices are going to occur for a while,
at least regardless of the longterm outcome.
The State and local commitment to consumer affairs will lead to a reduction in
the many local plagues on consumers. This will come increasingly through direct con­sumer
participation in local and State advisory councils, regulatory boards, and similar
developments. Consumers will increasingly discover the importance of installing the
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
consumer interest in the mechanisms of government. Consumers and consumer agencies
will directly influence actions of tens of thousands of minor boards and agencies, including
building inspectors, public hospitals, utility commissions, health inspectors, licensing
boards, milk-price control boards, barber and beautician boards, mortician agencies,
and more. This prediction relies on a faith that consumers will take the necessary ini­tiatives
in the various States, cities, counties, and towns.
FTC RULES ON DOOR-TO-DOOR AND MAIL-ORDER SELLING
Door-to-door and mail-order sales are the focus of two new regulations of the
Federal TradeCommission (FTC). FTC hasdeferred announcement of an effective date
for the two rules, due to pending litigation. A Federal district court ruled that FTC does
not have the authority to make industrywide rules. This decision has been appealed to
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under the first rule, door-to-door sellers must give consumers a 3-day cooling­off
period in which they may cancel the sale without penalty or fee. The cancellation
rights are to be incorporated in the sales contract; in addition, the seller must provide
a written and oral explanation of the right to cancel. Only goods or services priced at
$25 or more and sold by uninvited door-to-door sellers are within the scope of this rule.
It does not cover securities sold by registered brokers, real estate, or insurance; sales
conducted entirely by mail or telephone; or sales stemming from prior negotiations at
a place of business.
The second rule lays down guidelines for "negative option" selling, commonly
used by book and record clubs and other merchandise plans. Under such plans the sub­scriber
receives announcements of "selections" that will be shipped to him unless he
notifies the supplier that he does not want them. The regulation requires suppliers to
allow subscribers at least 10 days in which to return forms rejecting offers of merchan­dise.
It also requires that promotional materials "clearly and conspicuously" state how
to notify the supplier not to ship a selection; any requirement for purchasing a certain
number of items in a time period; and the right of any subscriber to cancel his member­ship
in the plan.
MARCH 1973 21
ISSUES IN CONTROLLING POLLUTION
H. G. Geyer, Extension Service
"Environmental pollution is the unfavorable alteration of our surroundings,
wholly or largely as a by-product of man's actions, through direct or in­direct
effects of changes in energy patterns, radiation levels, chemical
and physical constitution and abundances of organisms. These changes
may affect man directly, or through his supplies of water and of agri­cultural
and other biological products, his objects or possessions, or his
opportunities for recr~ation and appreciation of nature.".!/
This definition, appearing in the 1965 White House Report, was an introduction
to a national concern that evolved into a continuing and increasingly aggressive effort to
improve the quality of life, both nationally and internationally. It brought into focus the
fact that there are specific interrelationships between the production of pollutants, tech­nology,
and standards of living. The vast amounts of diverse and novel materials gen­erated
by human activities degrade the quality of air, water, and land and in turn threaten
the health, livelihood, recreation, cleanliness, and physical conditions of man.
The words "pollution" and "quality of life" have a diversity of meanings. For
each, the interpretation will be influenced by education, knowledge, experience, occu­pation,
income, and place of residence. Likewise, the same influences make it most
difficult to arrive at unanimity of opinion or effort for program development and program
execution aimed at solvingor preventing environmental problems. Add to this the vast­ness
and complexity of our environmental universe, and it is littl.e wonder that frustra­tions
develop as we search for handles with which to grapple with the problems. It is
here that we should place the emphasis. A part cannot be attacked as an entity within
itself. It must be attacked with the resolve to understand its relationship to the total.
In other words, will our positive efforts at one Point result in negative effects at another?
Pollution, because of its pervasive nature, disregards political boundaries be
they State, national, or international. Recognition of this fact was reflected in 1972,
when representatives from a majority of the countries assembled in Stockholm, Sweden,
to address themselves to the international concern for the human environment. Actions
during the last several years by the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch have clearly
reflected an appreciation of these problems, but more importantly they have established
a mandate for their prevention and control.
Legislation. --Recognizing the profound impact that man's activities were having
on the natural environment, Congress enacted the Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Specifically identified were the influences of population growth, high-density urbaniza­tion,
industrial expansion, and resource exploitation. The purpose is clearly delineated
"to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
.!/ Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution
Panel, President's Advisory Committee, the White House, November 1965.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man."
Complementary fegislation then followed. The Environmental Quality Act of 1970
revised responsibilities for Federal agencies, to assure compliance with environmental
policies, and established the Council on Environmental Quality. The Environmental
Education Act of 1970 has as its purpose the establishment of "educational programs to
encourage understanding of policies and support of activities designed to enhance envi­ronmental
quality and maintain ecological balance."
Legislation dealing with specific types of pollution has included the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, better known as the Refuse Act, which was enacted to protect the
quality of navigable waters; the Federal Water Pollution Act, amended in 1972, with the
objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters;" the Water Resources Research and Water Resources Planning Acts;
the Clean Air Act of 1955, amended in 1970; and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965
and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, concerning problems of solid waste.
Other legislation with specific pollution and environmental concerns includes the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; National Materials Policy Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and Occupational Safety and Health Act.
In addition to these acts, there are an extensive number of Executive Orders and
.memoranda to further clarifyobjectives and goals. It is quite pertinent to point out that
it has become virtually necessary for the enactment of laws to protect man against him­self.
This was most succinctly brought into reality for all of us by the oft-quoted Pogo:
''We have met the enemy and he is us."
Areas of concern.-- Approximately 215 million tons of air pollutants are dis­charged
into the atmosphere annually. Illness and death have occurred from occupational
or accidental exposure to toxic fumes, smoke, vapors, pesticide aerosols, and high con­centrations
of dust. Illness and discomfort stem from a diversity of allergens-- plant
pollens, household dusts, pet hair, and dandruff. Communicable diseases (the common
cold, tuberculosis, and influenza) may be transmitted by airborne micro-organisms, and
atmospheric pollutants may also aggravate asthma and cause transient eye and respira­tory
infections.
Water is subject to pollution by a variety of micro-organisms, pesticides, and
other toxic materials. Present water treatment methods evolve from efforts to control
diseases such as typhoid fever, cholera, and dysentery, prevalent a century ago. In
spite of this progress, many of our communities are consuming water of unknown qual­ity,
since they are not covered by U.S. public health standards. Even in those that are
covered, the standards may need updating, especially with regard to chemical contami­nants.
Viruses (such as hepatitis) and bacterial pathogens still merit serious concern.
There is need for increased monitoring of ground water for nitrates because of the health
implications, especially for infants. There is need for constant reassessment of those
pollutants emanating from both urban and industrial areas for their contribution to eutro­phication,
fish kills, and impairment of aesthetic and recreational value of streams.
A small number of human deaths from accidental poisoning, misuse, or deliberate
ingestion of pesticides are reported annually. Of greater concern, however, are the
long-range implications for human health of low-level ingestion of these compounds or
MARCH 1973 23
exposure to them singly or in combination. Also at issue is the use of pesticides in the
home. We should first ask, ''Why are they used?" The logical answer is, to solve a
problem. But why the problem? A pest problem becomes a pollution problem only if an
environment is created that is conducive to the pest's survival. Thus, the logical and
most practical approach to pest control is the maintenance of an environment that is
resistant to pest survival.
Hearing is one of man's most vital senses. When jeopardized or impaired, it can
affect ability to function as a social being. Extended exposure to high noise-levels can
cause hearing loss. The Labor Department has established standards under which the
maximum allowable continuous noise exposure during an average working day shall not
exceed 90 decibles weighted ( dBA). Although this level satisfies Labor Department reg­ulations,
continuous exposure at this level will result in 15 percent of the exposed popu­lation's
developing a hearing handicap. Also with respect to noise pollution, additional
attention needs to be given to the home environment. What acute or subtle changes may
result from exposure to the ever increasing use of noise producing appliances in the home?
How frequently do we consider the potential pathological implications of such exposure
to both adults and youth? It must be kept in mind that responses to environmental forces
cannot be weighed only from the standpoint of the present, but must also be considered in
light of their future consequences.
As a Nation, we generate approximately 4. 5 billion tons of solid wastes annually.
Agriculture contributes over 50 percent; mineral waste represents about 40 percent;
residential, commercial, and institutional wastes are combined for 6 percent; and indus­trial
waste is about 3 percent. Refuse collected in urban areas has increased from
2. 75 pounds per person per day in 1920 to 5 pounds in 1970 with an expected 8 pounds in
1980. Y However, only about three-fourths of the residential, commercial, and insti­tutional
solid waste was collected. Y Equally significant are the following average daily
rates for haulaway trash: hospitals--8 pounds per bed, schools--10 pounds per room
plus one pound per four pupils, apartments--5 pounds per unit plus one pound per bed­room,
office space--1 pound per square foot. i/
In addition to the foregoing, there are a variety of social, psychological and aes­thetic
pollutants that impinge on human development, health, and welfare. The solution
to pollution problems depends on an understanding of their effects on the environmental
forces that directly and indirectly affect the welfare of man.
Y Environmental Quality: The First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), Washington, D. C., August 1970, p. 106.
y Ibid.' p. 107.
Y Grounds Maintenance, March 1971, p. 34.
24 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS INCREASE
Beneficiaries of the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance
program (OASDID) received increases of approximately 20 percent in their monthly
checks as of September 1972. These increases, resulting from' July 1972 amendments
to the Social Security Act, mean an additional $7. 9 billion a year for the 28. 1 million
persons receiving Social Security .at the end of August last year.
The average monthly cash benefit increased $27. 75 for retired-worker benefi­ciaries.
Among survivor beneficiaries the average benefit increase ranged from $18. 34
for the children of insured deceased workers to $23.31 for nondisabled widows and wid­owers.
The average monthly cash benefit under old and new rates by type of beneficiary
is shown below:
Type of beneficiary
Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired workers and dependents - - -
Retired workers - - - - - - - - - -
Wives and husbands- - - - - - - - -
Childr@---------------
Disabled workers and dependents - -
Disabled workers - - - - - - - - - -
Wives and husbands------ --­Chil~@---------------
Survivors of deceased workers - - -
Widowed mothers - - - - - - - - - -
Children- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Widows and widowers, nondisabled­Widows
and widowers, disabled -­Parents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Special age - 72 beneficiaries - - - -
Primary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Persons receiving
benefits
28, 109,567
17, 692,490
14,392,459
2, 727,021
573,010
3, 148, 718
1,776,402
335 , 821
1,036, 495
6,841,421
540,655
2, 802 , 967
3,409,605
61,766
26,428
426,938
418,342
8,596
Average amount received
Old rates New rates
Dollars Dollars
133.62 161.47
68.73 83.76
49.81 59.80
148.65 178.64
45.63 55.14
41.50 49.98
95.97 115.21
91.50 109. 84
114.43 137.74
89.70 109.65
115. 39 138.50
48.07 57.70
24. 17 28.95
In October 1972, the President signed into law additional amendments to the Social
Security Act. These amendments liberalized several of the cash benefit provisions,
made substantial changes in Medicare, revised the contribution schedule, amended some
coverage provisions, and established a new Federal security income program for the
needy, aged, blind, and disabled.
Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Admin­istration.
Social Security Bulletin. January 1973.
MARCH 1973 25
NEW REPORTS FROM THE 1965-66 HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY
Five new reports in the 1965-66 Household Food Consumption Survey series are
now available from USDA. Single copies are free from ARS Information, Room 346,
Federal Center Building #1, Hyattsville, Md. 20782. When ordering, please refer to
the series, report number(s), and title(s) as listed below.
26
1965-66 Household Food Consumption Survey Series
Report No. 13.
Report No. 14.
Report No. 15.
Report No. 16.
Report No. 17.
Food Consumption of Households in the Northeast,
Seasons and Year, 1965-66.
Food Consumption of Households in the North Central
Region, Seasons and Year, 1965-66.
Food Consumption of Households in the South, Seasons
and Year, 1965-66.
Food Consumption of Households in the West, Seasons
and Year, 1965-66.
Food Consumption of Households by Money Value of
Food and Quality of Diet--United States, North, South.
FAlY.IILY ECONOlY.IICS REVIEW
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you o_rder these.)
The following publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing· Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
COMO COMPRAR LOS HUEVOS (How to Buy Eggs). G-144-S.
September 1972. 10 cents.
BE WISE--CONSUMERS' QUICK CREDIT GUIDE. (Unnumbered).
October 1972. 5 cents.
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agri­culture,
Washington, D.C. 20250. Please address your request to the office indicated.
From Office of Communication:
BE SAFE FROM INSECTS IN RECREATION AREAS. G 200.
October 1972.
GROWING VEGETABLES IN THE HOME GARDEN. G 202.
December 1972.
MAINTAINING SUBSURFACE DRAINS. L 557. October 1972.
From Information Division, Office of Management Services:
FOOD RETAILING IN THE CLEVELAND, OHIO, METROPOLITAN
AREA--WITH EMPHASIS ON THE INNER CITY. MRR 976.
October 1972.
FOOD DATING: SHOPPERS' REACTIONS AND THE IMPACT ON
RETAIL FOOD STORES. MRR 984. January 1973.
MARCH 1973 27
COST OF FoOD AT HOME
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three
cost levels, December 1972, U.S. average!/
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 tt~onth
Sex-age groups 2/ Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years 3/----- 19.90 25.40 31.10 86.10 110.20 135.10
55 to 75 years 11----- 16.30 21.20 25.50 70.50 92.10 110.50
Family of 4:
Preschool children 4/- 28.80 36.80 44.70 124.90 159.70 194.20
School children i/-=-- 33.50 43.00 52.60 145.00 186.30 228.40
INDIVIDUALS §../
Children, under 1 year - 3.80 4.80 5.40 16.70 21.00 23.50
1 to 3 years --------- 4.90 6.20 7.40 21.30 26.80 32.20
3 to 6 years --------- 5.80 7.50 9.00 25.30 32.70 39.20
6 to 9 years -------- 7.10 9.20 11.40 30.80 39.70 49.50
Girls, 9 to 12 years --- 8.10 10.50 12.30 35.00 45.50 53.30
12 to 15 years ------- 8.90 11.60 14.10 38.60 50.40 61.00
15 to 20 years ------- 9.lo · 11.60 13.80 39.50 50.10 59.60
Boys, 9 to 12 years ---- 8.30 10.70 12.90 35.90 '•6. 40 56.10
12 to 15 years ------- 9.70 12.80 15.20 41.90 55.40 66.10
15 to 20 years ------- 11.20 14.30 17.20 48.40 61.80 74.60
Women, 20 to 35 years -- 8.40 10.70 12.90 36.40 46.60 56.00
35 to 55 years ------- 8.10 10.40 12.50 34.90 44.90 54.00
55 to 75 years ------- 6.80 8.90 10.60 29.50 38.60 46.00
75 years and over ---- 6.20 7.90 9.70 26.80 34.20 41.90
Pregnant ------------- 10.00 12.50 14.80 43.20 54.30 64.20
Nursing -------------- 11.50 14.40 16.80 50.00 62.30 72.90
Men, 20 to 35 years ---- 9.70 12.40 15.40 41.90 53.60 66.80
35 to 55 years ------- 9.00 11.50 14.10 39.00 49.80 60.90
55 to 75 years ------- 8.00 10.40 12.60 34.60 45.10 54.50
75 years and over ---- 7.50 10.00 12.10 32.30 43.50 52.40
!/ 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.
JJ Persons of the first age listed up to but not includinr the second age.
11 10 percent added for family size adjustment.
!I Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children 1 to 3 and 3 to 6 years.
i/ Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; child 6 to 9; and boy 9 to 12 years.
§_/ Costs given for 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 per­cent;
5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person, subtract 10 percent.
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
~ 0
:::I::
f-'
(0
-.:1
C.:>
1:\:1
(0
Table 2.--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost
levels, December 1972, for Northeast and North Central Regions l/
Sex-age groups 11
1
Low-cost
1 plan
FAMILIES
I Dollars
I
Family of two, 20 to 35 years 3/ ---­Family
of two, 55 to 75 years J/ ---­Family
of four, preschool children 4/
Family of four, school children 11 ~-
INDIVIDUALS 6/' I
Children, under 1 year -------------- 1 to 3 years ----------------------
3 to 6 years ----------------------
6 to 9 years ---------------------- J
Girls, 9 to 12 years ---------------- I
12 to 15 years --------------------
15 to 20 years -------------------­Boys,
9 to 12 years -----------------
12 to 15 years -------------------- ,
15 to 20 years -------------------- .j
Women, 20 to 35 years ---------------
35 to 55 years -------------------- I
55 to 75 years --------------------
75 years and over -----------------
Pregnant -------------------------­Nursing
--------------------------- 1
Men, 20 to 35 years ----------------- i
35 to 55 years --------------------
55 to 75 years --------------------
75 years and over -----------------
See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1, p.
22.10
18.00
32.00
37.20
4.20
5.40
6.50
7.90
9.00
9.90
10.10
9.20
10.80
12.50
9. 30
9.00
7.50
6.80
11.00
12.80
10.80
10.00
8.90
8.30
Northeast
Moderate- I Liberal
cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars
28.20
23.40
40.90
47.80
5.40
6.90
8.40
10.20
11.70
13:oo
12.90
12.00
14.30
15.90
11.90
11.50
9.80
8.70
13.90
16.00
13.70
12.80
11.50
11.10
33.20
27.30
47.90
56.30
5.80
8.00
9. 70
12.30
13.20
15.20
14.80
13.80
16.30
18.40
13.80
13 •. 30
11.40
10.40
15.80
18.00
16.40
15.00
13.40
12.90
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
19.80
16.30
28.70
33.30
3.80
4.90
5.80
7.10
8.00
8.80
9.00
8.20
9.60
11.20
8.30
8.00
6.80
6.20
9.90
11.60
9.70
9.00
8.00
7.50
North Central
Moderate-, Liberal
cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars
24.40
20.30
35.30
41.10
4.60
5.90
7.20
8.70
10.00
11.00
11.00
10.20
12.20
13.60
10.30
9.90
8.50
7.50
12.00
13.80
11.90
11.00
10.00
9.60
30.10
24.40
43.30
50.90
5.20
7.20
8.70
11.00
11.90
13.50
13.20
12.50
14.80
16.80
12.40
11.90
10.10
9.20
14.20
16.30
15.00
13.60
12.10
11.60
c,.,
0
~ >
~
~
~
0
0 a
~ w
~
~
~
~
Table 3.--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost
levels, December 1972, for Southern and Western Regions l/
South West
Sex-age groups 2/
Low-co.st
Another
low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- plan plan 7/ cost plan plan plan cost plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20 to 35 years 11 ---- 18.50 17.70 ' 23.90 29.00 20.30 24.70
Family of two, 55 to 75 years 11 ---- 15.10 14.20 20.00 23.80 16.60 20.80
Family of four, preschool children!/ 26.80 25.80 34.60 41.90 29.60 36.00
Family of four, school children 11 -- 31.10 29.90 40.30 49.20 34.40 41.90
INDIVIDUALS 6/
Children, under 1 year -------------- 3.60 3.50 4.60 5.20 3.90 4.70
1 to 3 years ---------------------- 4.60 4.40 5.80 7.00 5.10 6.10
3 to 6 years ---------------------- 5.40 5.30 7.10 8.50 6.00 7.40
6 to 9 years ---------------------- 6.60 6.50 8.60 10.70 7.30 8.90
Girls, 9 to 12 years ---------------- 7.50 7.10 9.90 11.50 8.30 10.30
12 to 15 years -------------------- 8.30 7.90 11.00 13.30 9.20 11.40
15 to 20 years -------------------- 8.50 8.10 11.00 13.00 9.30 11.30
Boys, 9 to 12 years ----------------- 7.70 7.30 10.00 12.10 8.60 10.50
12 to 15 years -------------------- 9.00 8.80 12.00 14.30 10.00 12.50
15 to 20 years -------------------- 10.40 10.00 13.40 16.10 11.50 13.90
Women, 20 to 35 years --------------- 7.80 7.50 10.10 12.10 8.60 10.50
35 to 55 years -------------------- 7.50 7.10 9.80 11.70 8.20 10.10
55 to 75 years -------------------- 6.30 5.80 8.40 9.90 6.90 8.70
75 years and over ----------------- 5.80 5.40 7.50 9.10 6.30 7.70
Pregnant -------------------------- 9.30 9.00 11.80 13.90 10.20 12.20
Nursing --------------------------- 10.80 10.50 13.50 15.70 11.80 14.00
Men, 20 to 35 years ~---------------- 9.00 8.60 11.60 14.30 9.90 12.00
35 to 55 years· -------------------- 8.40 8.00 10.80 13.00 9.20 11.20
55 to 75 years -------------------- 7.40 7.10 9.80 11 •. 70 8.20 10.20
75 years and over ----------------- 7.00 6.70 9.50 1. 1.30 7.60 9.80
~ See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1, p.
Liberal
plan
Dollars
30.60
25.00
43.80
51.50
5.20
7.20
8.80
11.10
12.00
13.70
13.40
12.60
14.80
16.70
12.70
12.30
10.40
9.50
14.50
16.40
15.10
13.80
12.30
11.90
11 ~pecial adaptation of low-cost plan especially suitable for food habits in the Southeastern States.
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967 = 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.
1973
127.7
128.6
127.2
134.2
131 .2
136.9
121.5
142.6
122.8
120.7
124.1
122.2
123.0
123.5
122.2
126.6
121 .0
118.5
144.3
127.8
134.9
121.8
124.1
126.7
Dec.
1972
127.3
126.0
124.1
133.7
131 • 4
136.8
121.0
142.6
121.9
119.4
122.5
122.3
125.0
124.8
126.4
127.3
121.3
118.9
144.5
127.5
134.4
121.5
124.0
126.5
126.9
125.4
123.4
133.3
130.8
136.2
120.5
142.0
121.7
119.3
122.2
122.1
125.0
124.8
126.5
127.1
121.4
119.0
144.1
127.4
134.1
121.0
124.1
126.4
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1967 = 100)
Item
All items ------------------­Food
and tobacco ----------
Clothing -----------------­Household
operation -------
Household furnishings ----­Building
materials, house -
129
Jan.
1972
123.2
120.3
118.2
128.6
127.3
132.3
117.1
137.8
118.7
118.7
119.0
119.5
120.2
119.9
120.2
122.7
119.0
116.4
143.4
124.3
130.5
118.1
121 .4
123.5
eb.
1972
123
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
MARCH 1973 31
1> U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 0- Sll-981 (!S-105)
- -~