Family Economics Review [1976, Number 3]

              For Building Uso Only I Oepositor'l
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
SEP?-91976
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
HIGHLIGHTS/SUMMER 1976
TSP AS A GROUND-BEEF EXTENDER
ORGANIC FOODS
COSTS OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
FOOD SAFETY IN THE HOME
ARS-NE-36
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FAMI:CY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute and on information from
other sources relating to economic aspects of
family living. It is prepared primarily for home
economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Authors are on the staff of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute unless otherwise noted.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett Editorial Assistant: herry Lowe
2
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. D partment of Agriculture
F deral Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
FAMILY E ONOMI REVIEW
TEXTURED SOY PROTEIN AS A GROUND BEEF EXTENDER
by Dianne Odland and Carolyn Adams
In times of high food prices, budget-minded
consumers are anxious to find ways to stretch
their food dollar. The use of textured soy pro­tein
{TSP) to extend the yield of main dish
items made with ground beef is one way to
save money.
To determine comparative cost and quality
of main dish items made with TSP-extended
ground beef or all ground beef, a study was
conducted in the foods laboratory of the Con­sumer
and Food Economics Institute. Three
main dish items were tested-ground beef pat­ties,
meatloaf, and chili con carne. Each item
was made with all ground beef (no TSP added),
with ground beef premixed with rehydrated
unseasoned TSP at the supermarket, and with
ground beef mixed with rehydrated unseasoned
TSP1 in the laboratory. Also, the patties were
made with a seasoned TSP product2 that is
sold specifically for use in ground beef patties,
and the meatloaf was made with seasoned TSP
product made specifically for meatloaf. Both
seasoned products were rehydrated and mixed
with ground beef in the laboratory.
Main dish items made with all ground beef,
the supermarket TSP-ground beef blend, or the
laboratory blend using unseasoned TSP were
prepared according to basic home recipes. An
equal weight of TSP-beef mixture was substi­tuted
for all ground beef. The patties and meat­loaf
made with seasoned TSP were prepared
according to directions given on the seasoned
TSP product label.
Uns asoned and seasoned TSP products were
purchased in the dehydrated form and were
rehydrated in the laboratory before mixing
with ground beef. Following package direc­tions,
unseasoned TSP (1.65 ounces) was mix­ed
with 2/3 cup water, allowed to stand 5
1 At th tim this article went to press, we
discovered th t the unseasoned TSP product tested in
thi study is no longer being manufactured.
1 At th time thi study was initiated, only one
brand of a on d T p w available in area supermar·
ket . Sine th n noth r brand h s been introduced.
This brand h not been te ted in our laboratory.
SUMMER 1976
minutes, stirred, and mixed with 1 pound
ground beef to yield about 1-1/2 pounds rehy­drated
TSP-beef mixture. One packet of TSP
with seasonings for either ground beef patties
or meatloaf ( 4 ounces TSP and seasonings) was
added to 1-1/2 cups water, stirred, allowed to
stand 15 minutes, and combined with 1 pound
ground beef to give a mixture weighing about
2 pounds. This mixture was used to make pat­ties
and meatloaf according to directions given
on the seasoned TSP product label. TSP forti­fied
with vitamins and minerals made up one­half
the ingredients in the seasoned TSP pro­duct
packet, and items such as wheat crumbs,
dried onions, nonfat dry milk, salt, pepper, and
other spices made up the other half.
Regular ground beef was used in the all-beef
main dish items and in combination with both
forms of TSP rehydrated in the laboratory.
Ground beef and TSP-ground beef blend were
obtained from the same supermarket to pro­vide
a similar basis for comparison.
Fihished products were weighed and evalu­ated
for appearance, texture, flavor, and overall
quality on a 5-point scale ranging from "very
good" to "very poor" by a trained taste panel
of six members.
Prices of required ingredients were obtained
in three supermarkets in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area in April 1976. The cost of
each main dish item was calculated by totaling
the average price for all ingredients. Cost per
serving was determined by dividing total cost
by the number of servings for each main dish
item.
Cost Comparisons
Cooked patties, meatloaf, and chili
containing TSP had a higher yield and a lower
cost per serving than the corresponding items
made with all ground beef (see table). All three
main dish items cost slightly less when made
with supermarket TSP-ground beef blend than
with unseasoned TSP rehydrated and mixed
with ground beef in the laboratory.
On a per serving basis, patties made with sea­soned
TSP cost less than patties made with the
3
Cost of main dish items made with all beef or a blend of textured
soy protein and ground beef l
Food tested
GROUND BEEF PATTIES
All ground beef (no TSP) ..
Supermarket TSP blend .....
Laboratory TSP blend:
Unseasoned ............. .
Seasoned ............... .
MEATLOAF
All ground beef (no TSP) ..
Supermarket TSP blend .....
Laboratory TSP blend:
Unseasoned ............. .
Seasoned ............... .
CHILI CON CARNE
All ground beef (no TSP) ..
Supermarket TSP blend .....
Laboratory TSP blend:
Unseasoned ............. .
Weight of
cooked main
dish i tern 2
Ounces
16.00
18.55
17.50
25.80
24.06
28.32
27.25
25.96
76.33
85.91
82.38
Number
of
servings 3
6.0
6.9
6.5
9.6
6.0
7.1
6.8
6.5
9.0
10.1
9.7
Total
cost
Cost per
serving
- - - Dollars - - -
1. 23
1. 04
1. 06
1. 24
1.44
1. 25
1. 27
1. 21
3.13
2.94
2.96
0.21
.15
. 16
.13
.24
.18
.19
.19
.35
.29
.31
1Prices from 3 Washington, D.C., area supermarkets, April 1976. Textured
soy protein products were not available in all 3 stores.
2Means of 3 tests for ground beef patties and 2 tests each for meatloaf
and chili con carne.
3~·ieight of cooked main dish item divided by weight per serving of th
all-beef main dish item. A single serving was defined as 1 ground beef
patty, 2.7 oz; 1 slice meatloaf, 4.0 oz; and 1 cup chili con carne, 8.5 oz.
Note: At the time this article went to press, we discovered that the
unseasoned TSP product tested in this study i no longer being manufa
Also, at the time this study was initiated only one brand of seasoned
was available in area supermarkets. Since then another brand has be n
introduced. This brand has not been tested ·n our laboratory.
4
u ed.
TSP
supermarket TSP-ground beef blend or unsea­soned
TSP. The cost of meatloaf made with
seasoned TSP was the same as meatloaf made
with unseasoned TSP.
One serving of ground beef patties costs
8 cents less, and one serving of meatloaf or
chili, 6 cents less when made with the least
expensive form of TSP than when made with
all ground beef. Thus, a significant saving may
be realized by using TSP extenders for these
main dish items.
Quality Comparisons
Each main dish item received a score of
"good" in all quality factors except patties
made with the supermarket TSP-ground beef
blend which received a rating of "fair" in fla­vor,
and patties made with seasoned TSP,
which received a rating of "fair" in flavor and
overall quality.
Judges comments indicated that compared
with the all-beef main dish item:
• Patties and meatloaf made with the super­market
TSP-ground beef blend were
grainy or mealy; patties had an off-flavor.
• Patties made with unseasoned TSP had an
off-flavor; meatloaf had a weak meat
flavor.
• Patti and meatloaf made with seasoned
T P \ r oft, crumbly, too moist, and
ff-flav r d.
•
These results indicate that the flavor of TSP
may be masked by strong-flavored ingredients
such as onions, tomatoes, and chili powder or
by the diluting effect of other ingredients. For
example, in chili, the combined weight of
ground beef plus rehydrated TSP accounted for
only 25 percent of the total weight of all
ingredients; in meatloaf, about 68 percent; and
in patties, nearly 100 percent, as no other
ingredients were added except spices.
Deciding Which Product to Use
Differences in both cost and eating quality
between main dish items made with all ground
beef and those made with TSP extenders are
important factors in deciding which product to
use. Although each main dish item made with
TSP was found to be less expensive than the
corresponding item prepared from all ground
beef according to a home recipe, some had a
less desirable flavor or texture.
Grocery purchased TSP-ground beef blend
or unseasoned TSP that is mixed with ground
beef at home are advantageous because they
can be substituted for all ground beef in your
own recipe for meat sauce, lasagna, tacos, slop­PY
joe sauce, or any other main dish item in
which ground beef is an ingredient. On the
other hand, the seasoned TSP product tested in
this study is convenient to use because all sea­sonings
required for preparation of a main dish
item are included in the packet. Seasoned TSP
and 1 pound ground beef are the only items
which must be purchased.
COSTS OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS AS
SOURCES OF CALCIUM- AN UPDATE
by Pamela lsom
lilk and f ou mad fr m milk are major
of th min ral alcium in the diet.
t.1f.H 1 7
f milk and milk products,
nd ·h , a our s of
ar ful s J ction an
D.C., in April 1976, equal amounts of calcium
from process American cheese cost one-half
more and ice cream twice as much as from
whol milk (see chart). As sources of calcium,
table cream, natural blue cheese, and cream
cheese cost from 6 to 10 times as much as milk
(see table). Some forms of milk (that provide
about the same amount of calcium) are more
5
COST OF CALCIUM
OF 1 CUP OF MILK
Whole fluid
milk 10¢
Nonfat American Ice
Dry Milk Cheese Cream
40¢
Yoghurt Cottage
Cheese
100¢
Cream Cheese
* PRICES FROM WASHINGTON D.C. SUPERMARKETS, APRIL 1976.
USDA
economical than others: A cup of milk mad
from nonfat drv milk cost 6 cents; fresh skim
milk, 9 cents; and reconstituted evap rawd
milk and whole milk, 10 cents.
ome change in cost relationships of milk
and certain milk produ ·ts hav occurrNl in thf'
last 4 years. 1 For example, in 1972 in\ a hing­lon,
D .. , a cup of reconslitut d vaporat.cd
milk cost about two-thirds as much as a r·up of
who! fluitl milk; now it costs as mu ·h as
whole milk. In 1972 ice milk cost only two­thirds
a much as icf' cn•am; now it cost·
almost as mu ·h. Of the milk and milk product·
pricPd, only plain yoghurt wa no high r in
prkP in 1976 than in 1972. Ev('n so, yoghurt
('(JOtinu£'s to he• an C>Xpen!>JVP sour<·<• of c-akium
compare<l with milk, ieP c·rPam, and mot
chi'C'Sf'S.
'S<•e Fomc/y Cconomwll li•·c•fl•w, D~>cr·mlwr 1 r 72,
pp 12- l;j ,
6
NEG. ARS 8030-78 (8)
Costs shown in th tabl hould not u d
to illustrate cost r lation hips in th country as
a whok. Pric of fr sh milk if" W hington,
D.C., u .d in pr paring th tab! diff r from
t.h in th(lr ar as. For . amrl , in pring of
197 th' pri · of half- •all on of fr . h who!
milk wru 85 · n in Washington, .. ,
69 · ·nts in Lo ngelcs, alii.; and c nts in
Atlanta, Ga. 2 T us local pr1c • to fi~ur c t
of milk and ·al ium C'quival nl portion. of
milk products, ins rt in c lumn 5 th · to a!
pric for the market unit· in t' lumn 2. h€'n,
<livid · th<• pric • in column 5 h Uw numl •r of
portions in c lumn 4. For in u nl' ·, ·upposP
t.lw co l of a half-gallon of i milk w s . 1.1 .
Writ 11 in eolumn 5 nd divid<• b th • 5.3
portions lislC'd in column 1. Tlw rP ·ull i · 22
c •nls- th • ·ost for t•akiurn quiv It nl porti n.
2 J>n ·• cullt·t·t~d b th Bur u of I thor St ti ti~ ,
11 • • D1•p rtm nL o 1 hur.
I· Mlt.Y E< 0 '0 11 Hf, lh
:X: --'I
....,.
li 1 k product
(1)
Nonfat dry milk
Fresh skim milk
Evaporated milk
Whole fluid milk ..... .
Cheese spread ........ .
Buttermilk ........... .
Grated parmesan cheese
Process American cheese
Natural cheddar cheese
Process American cheese
Natural Swiss cheese ..
Cheese food .......... .
Ice milk ............. .
Cheese spread ........ .
Ice cream ............ .
Cheese spread .... , ... .
Half-and-half ........ .
Plain yoghurt ........ .
Cottage cheese, creamed
Sour cream ........... .
Fruit-flavored yoghurt,
75% plain yoghurt ... .
Table cream .......... .
Natural blue cheese .. .
Cream cheese ......... .
Cost of milk and milk products as sources of calcium, April 1976
Market unit
(2)
38.4 oz (makes 12 qt)
1/2 gal
large can (1-2/3 cups)
1/2 gal
2 lb
1 qt
8 oz
12 oz
1 lb
1 lb
1 lb
8 oz
1/2 gal
1-lb jar
1/2 gal
5-oz jar
1 pt
8 oz
2 lb
16 oz
8 oz
1 cup
4 oz
8 oz
Portion that
provides as much
calcium as 1 cup
whole fluid milk
(3)
1/3 cup
(1 cup
1 cup
1/2 cup
1 cup
1-7/8 oz
1 cup
3/4 oz
dry
reconstituted)
(2-1/2 tbsp, packed)
1-1/2 oz
1-1/3 oz
1-1/2 oz
1-1/4 oz
1-7/8 oz
1-1/2 cups
1-7/8 oz
1-1/2 cups
1-7/8 oz
1-1/8 cups
9-1/2 oz (1 cup)
10-3/4 oz (1-1/3 cups)
10 oz (1-1/4 cups)
12-2/3 oz (1-1/3 cups)
1-1/4 cups
3-1/4 oz
17 oz
Calcium
equivalent
portions
per market
unit
(4)
Nwnber
48.0
8.0
3.7
8.0
17.1
4.0
10.7
8.0
12.0
10.7
12.8
4.3
5.3
8.5
5.3
2.7
1.8
.8
3.0
1.6
.6
. 8
1.2
.s
Price
per
market
unit 1
(5)
269
69
37
82
176
44
144
112
170
158
204
78
99
166
109
57
48
24
120
66
29
46
85
so
1Prices from 3 Washington, D.C., supermarkets, April 1976--store brand or least costly brand.
Cost of a
calcium­equivalent
portion
Cents
(6)
6
9
10
10
10
11
14
14
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
26
30
40
41
49
57
71
100
AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK NO. 456
Agriculture Handbook No. 456 "Nutritive
Value of American Foods in Common Units"
by Catherine F. Adams was published in
December 197 5. This publication provides
values for calories and nutrients supplied by
various household measures and market units
of foods. These values have been prepared to
serve the needs of the growing number of
research groups who conduct dietary surveys
and nutritional status studies on individuals
and household groups, as well as the needs of
other professional and technical personnel who
plan or evaluate diets and food supplies, includ­ing
personnel in food industries and health­related
professions.
The handbook includes data on approxi­mately
1,500 foods in the form of menu items,
snacks, and market products; some as ready­to-
eat foods, some that require pr paration in
varying degrees, and some that are used as
ingredients in preparing other products.
Although this information is primarily for use
with retail supplies and foods used or prepared
in the home, some of it applies to foods used in
institutional and other larae-scale operations.
The nutritive values on which data are pro­vided
include water, food nergy, prot.ein, fat,
carbohydrate, five mineral elements (calcium,
phosphorus, iron sodium, and potassium), five
vitamins (vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
and ascorbic acid), total saturat d fatty acids,
and two unsaturated fatty acids (oleic acid and
linoleic acid).
Development of suitabl data on weight-vol­ume
relationships for the measur s of th food
items has b n an es ential part of the prepara­tion
of the information pr nted. Proc dure
and probl m in arriving at the " eight-volum
relationships are discu ed.
To obtain copi of this handbook, . nd
check or mon y ord r (n ca h for 5.15 p r
copy to th up rintend nt of Do uments,
.. Gov rnm nt Printing ffic , \\ashington,
D.C. 20402. PI a e includ your ZIP cod . For
information on m ·hin -readabl tap of lh
data writ : Consum r and o d E onomic
Institut , urv y tatisti roup, R ,
USDA, Hyattsville, Md. 207 2.
ORGANIC FOODS-AN UPDATE
hy Cynthia romwcll
In 1972, USDA's study on ih ost of
organic foods indicated that families substitut­ing
organic foods for regular foods are lik ly to
pay more for a similar diet, but might r du
the amount paid for organic foods slightly by
comparison shopping. 1 A study in ehruary
1976 found that organic foods continu • to cost
more- 1-1/3 to 1-2/3 times as mu h as r gular
foods. Consumers continu to buy th(• mor •
expensiv organi · foods ven though th •y ar
1 romwell , , Organic food s, Famtly Economics
Revt w pp. 3·fi, S pl mb r I 97 5.
8
I A 111. h (
owned natural food store (store No. 2) .2 A
similar basket of regular foods cost considera­bly
less-$17 .49--at the supermarket. In each
store, the brand or package with the lowest
cost per unit was priced.
The difference in cost between organic and
regular foods was greater for processed than for
unprocessed foods. The cost of 10 processed
organic foods in the basket, such as canned and
dried fruits and vegetables, cereals and bread,
and honey, averaged 1-2/3 times as much as
their regular counterparts. The 23 unprocessed
organic foods in the basket--all fresh fruits and
vegetables--averaged slightly less than 1-1/2
times as much as the regular produce. The cost
relationships for produce are expected to vary
from time to time and place to place because
the season and the nearness of the farmer to a
market will affect the cost.
While many organic foods cost over twice as
much as regular foods, a few organic foods cost
less. For example, organic-labeled chicken cost
2-1/3 to 3 times as much as regular chicken;
organic onions cost almost 3-1/2 times as much
as regular onions; but organic-labeled fresh
bru ls sprouts cost one-third less than regular
bru el sprouts· and organic-labeled wheat
real (to b cooked) also cost about one-third
than the regular wheat cereal.
Pric s of most organic foods in store No. 2
the oop ratively owned store) were lower
than in tore o. 1 (the large natural food
rganic lentils cost about the same in
o. 2 but ost 3-1/3 times as much in
. 1, a r gular lentils from the super­r
h organic tomato s cost about
mu h in tor o. 2, but twice as
t r o. 1, as r gular tomatoe .
r lationship ar imilar to the
1972 tu ly. In th 1972 and
1976 studies, the difference between the cost
of organic and regular foods was greater for
processed than unprocessed foods; cost rela­tionships
of organic and regular foods varied
considerably in the two natural food stores;
and the cooperatively owned natural food store
generally had lower prices than the larger natu­ral
food store. In the previous study, the group
of organic foods available in the natural food
stores cost 1-1/2 to 2 times as much as similar
regular foods from a supermarket. In this
study, a similar, but not identical, group of
organic foods cost 1-1/3 to 1-2/3 times as
much as its regular counterpart.
What is an organic food? There is no legal
definition for organic foods. Producers, manu­facturers,
and retailers, therefore, may use the
term loosely in advertising and labeling these
foods. Consumers generally expect organic
foods to be produced without pesticides and
artificial fertilizers and to be free of synthetic
additives, preservatives, hormones, and
antibiotics.
Contrary to some claims, food labeled organ­ic
is not necessarily more nutritious. According
to the 1974 YEARBOOK OF AGRICUL­TURE,
3 there is no scientific evidence that
plants grown with only organic fertilizers, or
meat from animals raised on only organically
fertilized feed, have greater nutritive value than
regular foods produced by the usual agricultur­al
methods.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began
public hearings in July 1976 on food advertis­ing,
including organic food claims. At issue is
whether there should be a regulation to pro­hibit
terms such as "organic" and "organically
grown" in advertising. Some relevant questions
to be discussed are: Is there confusion among
consumers about the meaning of these terms?
Does the use of the terms in advertising a food
imply that it is superior nutritionally or in
other respects to a similar food not so adver­tised;
and indt'ed is the "organic" food nutri­tionally
or otherwise superior? Under such
regulation, if enacted, label statements such as
"no pre ervatives or synthetic additives" would
continue to be allowed if the food does not
have uch ingredients.
'Leverton, R. M. Organic, inorganic: What they
mt-an. 1974 Yearbook of Agnculture, pp. 70-73. U.S.
Gov rnment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
9
......
0
~
-3:: t"' -<
ttl
0
·:) -;::'
::e
,. s
~
Cost of selected foods advertised as 11 0rganic 11 compared with cost of similar foods not
labeled 11 0rganic 11 (regular), Washington, D.C., February 1976 1
Foods
PROCESSED FOODS
Canned fruits and vegetables,
juices and preserves:
Apple juice ................... .
Apple sauce ................... .
Peach preserves ............... .
Pickles ....................... .
Tomatoes ...................... .
Dried fruits and vegetables:
Lentiles, hulled .............. .
Raisins ....................... .
Flour, cereals, pastas, and bread:
Cornmeal, yellow .............. .
Granola ....................... .
Grits ......................... .
Oats, rolled (not quick-cooking)
h'heat cereal .................. .
Whole wheat bread ............. .
Whole wheat flour ............. .
Other:
Honey ......................... .
Peanut butter •.................
Vinegar. cider ................ .
UNPROCESSED FOODS
eat and poultry:
Ground beef, regular .......... .
Chicken:
Fryer, whole ................ .
Unit
Qt
Lb
Lb
Qt
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Qt
Lb
Lb
Regular food
Supermarket
Dollars
0.45
.29
.87
1. 00
. 23
.37
. 78
.26
.69
.37
.52
.49
.55
.22
. 94
.79
.53
. 75
.65
Organic as percentage of regular food
Store No. 1 2
198
276
151
150
326
338
154
214
82
205
120
202
313
254
- Percent
Store No. 2 2
182
150
296
100
89
115
132
116
56
61
144
177
115
170
306
.;..
~ ::::
~
..........
Fryer, cut-up ............... .
Breast with rib ............. .
Leg ......................... .
Livers ...................... .
Eggs .......................... .
Fresh fruits and vegetables:
Apples ........................ .
Grapefruit .................... .
Oranges ....................... .
Tangerines .................... .
Broccoli ...................... .
Brussels sprouts .............. .
Cabbage, green ................ .
Cabbage, red .................. .
Carrots ....................... .
Celery, pascal ................ .
Cucumbers ..................... .
Garlic ........................ .
Green beans ................... .
Greer pepper .................. .
Greens (collards, kale) ....... .
Lettuce, head ................. .
Lettuce, romaine .............. .
Mushrooms ..................... .
Onions ........................ .
Potatoes, white ............... .
Spinach ....................... .
Squash, summer ................ .
Tomatoes ...................... .
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Doz
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
.69
.89
. 79
1.19
. 79
.33
.17
.18
.21
.55
1. 26
.10
.33
.23
.44
.53
2.45
.59
.53
.39
.39
.49
.69
.23
.33
1.10
.59
.52
304
235
265
176
165
173
288
228
186
125
66
550
179
183
148
160
90
151
236
144
164
131
326
343
179
95
169
208
142
124
117
143
129
67
430
152
152
109
160
65
180
200
233
144
129
261
343
142
82
114
138
lrf a variety of brands or package sizes were available, the price of the best buy was chosen.
2store No. 1 is a large natural food store that sells food, vitamins, cosmetics, and literature.
Store No. 2 is a natural--almost completely organic--food store owned cooperatively by the workers.
Many foods are purchased in bulk. Some are repackaged at the store in smaller containers; some are
sold in the customer's own container .
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Population Growth
The total population of the United States
was almost 215 million on January 1, 1976, an
increase of four-fifths of 1 percent over a year
earlier. The rate of population growth in 1975
was slightly higher than in 1974 but considera­bly
lower than in 1970. About 2.1 children per
woman are required for population replace­ment
in the absence of population growth
through net immigration. However, both the
birth rate (14.9 births per 1,000 population in
1975) and the total fertility rate (1,800 chil­dren
per 1,000 women in 1975) imply less than
two children per woman. By far the strongest
preference among wives under 25 is for a two­child
family. In 1975 married women under 25
years of age reported that they expect to have
an average of 2.2 children in their lieftimes;
those 35 to 39 years old expect to have 3.1
children.
Contrary to historic trends, metropolitan
areas as a whole are no longer gaining popula­tion
through migration from nonmetropolitan
areas in the United States. Only two of the
eight largest metropolitan areas (Washington,
D.C., and San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose)
grew by as much as 3 percent between 1970
and 1974. The rate of decline in the farm
population has diminished from 5 p rcent per
year in the 1960's to 2 percent in the 1970's.
Since 1970, the Mountain States have been the
fastest growing area of the United States; fol­lowed
by the South Atlantic States. Changes in
the population of Florida account for one­quarter
of the South's population growth since
1970 and one-half of its net immigration.
The black population numb red approxi­mately
24 million in March 1975 and com­prised
11 percent of the total U.S. population.
More blacks are moving to the South, and few­er
blacks are leaving the South. The 11 million
rsons of Spanish origin accounted for 5 p r­cent
of the population in 1975.
Household and Family Characteristics
The charact ristiCs of hous holds and
families in the United States hav • b en und<•r­going
substantial chang in n•c nt years. For
12
example, nearly three-fourths of all households
in 1960 included a h ad and spouse, but by
1975 this figure had dropped to two-thirds.
During this period, the proportion of house­holds
comprised of persons living alone or with
nonrelatives and of families headed by women
with no husband present increased.'
Average household size has been steadily
declining since the early 1960's wh n it had
remained constant at about 3.33 persons for
several years. In 1974 th average dropped
below 3 persons for the first time-to 2.97 per­sons-
and in 1975 declined further-to 2.94
persons. Between 1960 and 1975, family size
decreased from 3.67 persons to 3.42 persons.
Since 1960, th proportion of families with no
own children under 18 years has increased and
the proportion with th or mar own chil­dren
has declined.
The declining birthrate has contribut d to
the decrease in family siz , and caus most
households ontain families al o to th
d crease in household size. ne of the prin ipal
causes for th d clin in hou hold size has
been th incr as in the numb r of in ividuals
living alone as on -person hou hold . B tw n
1960 and 1975 th numb r of on -p rson
households dou I d from 7 million to 14 mil­lion;
as a proportion of all hou hold tho e
with one p rson incr a d from 13 t 20 r­cent.
Men and worn n und r th ag of 35 hav
accounted for n arly half f the growth in thi
type of household sin 1970, r fl ·ting th
tendency for unmarried young p r. on t t
up a h usehold of th ir own. Th . int rr l tion­ship
betwe n av rag hou hold iz and
av rage family iz is uch that as oung dult
AMII.Y M 0 '0.11
leave families to establish nonfamily house­holds
the average size of both households and
families becomes smaller.
High rates of divorce and separation and the
tendency of young couples to delay childbear­ing
have also contributed to the declining
family size. In 1975, the number of divorces
exceeded 1 million for the first time in U.S.
history, whereas the number of marriages
dropped to the lowest level since 1969.
The education of the family head has a rela­tionship
to the family size. The average size in
1975 for families where the head has com­pleted
at least 1 year of college was 3.55 per­sons
compared with an average size of 4.42
persons for families where the head has com­pleted
8 or fewer years of school. This inverse
relationship between size of family and educa­tion
of the head holds for both black and white
famili s.
Money I nco me
Median family income rose 7 percent in
1974 to $12 840. This increase, however, was
le s than the rise in pnces, resulting in a net
lo in real purchasing power. After adjusting
for price increases the 197 4 median mcome
a tually de reas d by about 4 percent between
1973 and 1974. While the decline in real medi­an
incom d dined for all families in general,
the income of famili s where the head worked
full time y ar round ($16,070 in 1974), kept
pa e with th increas in prices.
Both white and black families experienced a
d lin in real median income between 197 3
and 197 4. Th median income of white fami­li
w 13,360 and of black families, $7,810.
The d('cr a. in r •al income was 4 percent for
whit and 3 p r nt for black when expressed
in con ·t.ant dollars.
f ll p r ns 1 years old and over about
93 p r' nt of th m n and 71 percent of the
women received income in 197 4. Among per­sons
who received income in 1974 the median
income for men was $8,380 and for women
$3,080.
In March 1975, 13 percent of all families
were headed by a female and 3 percent by a
male with no spouse present. The 1974 median
income of these families was $6,400 and
$11,740, respectively. About 30 percent of all
families headed by a female had incomes below
$4,000 in 1974 compared with 11 percent for
male heads with no wife present and 6 percent
for husband-wife families.
Median family income is highly correlated
with the number of earners per family. The
median income for families with three or more
earners was $20,460 in 1974; for families with
two earners, $14,750; and for families with one
earner, $10,960.
The number of poor persons in the United
States declined by about 15 million during the
1960's, but the number in 1974 (24 million)
was not significantly different from that in
1969. About 16 million white persons, 8 mil­lion
black persons, and 3 million persons of
Spanish origin (mostly white) were below the
poverty level in 1974. These numbers repre­sented
12 percent of all persons, 9 percent of
white persons, 31 percent of black persons, and
23 percent of persons of Spanish origin.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Current Population Reports, Population
Characteristics. Household and Family Characteristics:
March 1975, Series P-20, No. 291, Febt·uary 1976;
Population Profile of the United State~. 1975, Series
P-20, No. 292, March 1976. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income, Money Income in 1974 of
Families and Persons in the United States, Series P-60,
No. 101, January 1976; Characteristics of the Popula·
tion Below the Poverty Level: 1974, Series P-60,
No. 102, January 1976.
13
FOOD SAFETY IN THE HOME 1
by Judith jones and jon Weimer
Economic Research Service
Federal and State inspection laws have been
designed to assure the consumer that food pro­ducts
are wholesome and properly labeled, thus
helping to guard against foodborne illness
caused by bacteria or insanitary processing.
Nevertheless, the incidence of food borne illness
continues to be of great concern. The U.S.
Public Health Service reported 23,448 cases of
microbial food poisoning in 1970.2 Most food­related
illnesses are probably not reported,
however, and estimates of such illnesses range
from 2 to 10 million cases per year. A sizable
proportion of those that are reported have
been traced to foods prepared or eaten in the
home. The Economic Research Service of the
USDA conducted a survey during summer of
1974 to evaluate consumer awareness of and
attitudes toward food safety practices in the
home with selected food items. This survey was
conducted as an aid in planning consumer edu­cation
programs on food safety and to identify
those groups of people having the greatest need
for food safety information. Data were collect­ed
from personal interviews with approximate­ly
2,200 homemakers in the United States.
Two general types of information were
sought from the homemaker: "behavioral"­what
the homemaker actually does in the
kitchen-and "awareness "-her opinions, ideas,
and knowledge concerning specific food saf ty
practices and principles. The interviewer ask d
the homemaker to think about the last time
she cooked a specific food product, and then
asked her a series of qu stions about her hav­ior
in preparing that produ t. Qu stions wer
' Conden d from a pap r pr nt d at th annual
Agricultural Outlook Conf r nc , USDA, Novemb r
1975.
'"Foodborne Outbreaks- Annual Summary," 1 70,
U.S. Department of H alth Education and W lfar
Public Health S rvic , C ~t.<>r for o· • ase C ntrol:
Atlanta, Ga. 30333.
14
asked about beef roast, pork roast, turkey,
chicken, hamburger paties, and salad sand­wiches-
food products that are commonly
incriminated as sources of food poisoning. The
homemaker was then asked about her opinions
and knowledge on a variety of food safety
principles and issues.
Based on their answers to a select number of
these "behavioral" and "awareness" questions,
homemakers were group d as to whether their
behavior in preparing and storing food consti­tutes
a hie:h or low risk of spawning foodborne
illness in the household. hous hold was con­sid
red to b "high risk" if the hom mak r did
on or more of the following:
• Cooked hamburg rs rar .
• Left cooked meat and poultry at room
temperature for mor than 24 hour .
• L ft poultry, gg or fi h salad sandwiches
at room temp ra ur for mor than
2 hours.
• Kept m at or poultry l ftov rs in the
r frigerator wh r th t m ratur , a
above 45° F.
• tuffcd a turk y a day or mor in advanc
of roasting it.
• Cook d a turkey par ially at on tim and
compl d th ooking at • no h r tim
• Stored 1 ft v r tuffing in a turkey.
Th fa ·t tha
The demographic profile revealed that older
homemakers (65 and older), homemakers with
grade school educations only, those from
households with low incomes, and those resid­ing
in rural areas are less likely than corre­sponding
subgroups to represent "high risk"
households. Homemakers from these small and
often low-income families are not as apt to
serve a whole turkey or beef and pork roasts,
therefore reducing the risk of foodborne
illness.
Of the "high risk" homemakers, 66 percent
were classified as such solely because they left
cooked meat or salad sandwiches at room tem­perature
for more than 2 hours. For this reason
perhaps the main focus of future consumer
education programs should be to warn home­makers
of the danger inherent in holding sus­ceptible
foods at room temperature.
Homemakers were also grouped on their
awareness of specific food safety facts. To be
considered knowledgeable, a homemaker must
be cognizant of the risk of cross-contamination
and be concerned about leaving cooked meat at
room temperature for over 2 hours. Seventy­eight
percent of the homemakers sampled were
classified "unaware" of important food safety
principl s b cause:
• Th y would not wash hands, utensils, and
working surfaces with soap and water
aft r utting up fresh meat and before
hopping v getables to be eaten raw.
• Th y would b "not too concerned" or
"no on rned at all ' about cooked meat
or poultry standing at room temperature
for 2 to 3 hours.
lth u h th crit ria for identifying a home-mak
r "una' ar " w re not a comprehen-
·v a , an thu not parallel ' ith, the criteria
for d ·i n tin a hom ma.k r as "high risk," it
s
ibl to bro dl Ia if ea h homemaker
n off ur b havior/awar ness categories:
Awareness
Behavior
Aware Unaware
Percent
Low risk ..... 9 28
High risk .... 13 50
Homemakers whose sound knowledge of food
safety principles and concepts are reflected in
their behavior in the kitchen constituted only
9 percent of the homemakers sampled. An
additional 28 percent seemingly did the right
thing without knowing why. It may be difficult
to effect any change in the behavior of the 13
percent who are knowledgeable about food
safety principles but who proceed to actually
practice unsafe procedures. An education pro­gram
should be most effective for the largest
group-50 percent-who are not aware of cer­tain
food safety principles and subject their
families to increased risk.
Since there is a need to inform the home­make~
on how to improve safety in storing,
handling, and preparing foods, respondents
were asked what they thought was the one best
way to get this kind of information to them.
Television spots received the most votes­approximately
26 percent of the homemakers
cited TV as the preferred manner to get food
safety information communicated to them.
Food labels were cited by :m additional 24 per­cent
of the homemakers. Radio spots were
cited by only 3 percent.
For additional information on food safety
see "Keeping Food Safe to Eat," Home and
Garden Bulletin No. 162. A single free copy is
available from Office of Communication, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
20250.
15
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE OLDER POPULATION 1974
Since the tum of the century, the older
population has grown rapidly as a proportion
of the total population. In 1974, persons 65
years and over numbered 22 million persons
and made up 10 percent of the total popula­tion.
In 1900, they constituted only 4 percent.
The employment patterns of persons over 65
years reflect the tendency towards early retire­ment.
Since 1940, the employment rate of old­er
persons has declined from 24 percent to 14
percent. Of older persons who were employed
in 1974, the highest percentage were working
in white-collar occupations. Older workers with
more education were more likely to stay in the
work force longer than those with less
education.
The social and economic characteristics of
the older population often differ from the total
population. For example:
• Older persons are more likely to fall
below the low-income level (18.6 percent
compared with 11.9 percent in 1972).
• Older persons suffer fewer injuries than
the total population, but are more likely
to have a limitation of activity because of
a health or physical condition.
• A higher percentage of the older popula­tion
register to vote (76 percent compared
with 62 percent) and, having registered,
are also more likely to vote (64 percent
compared with 45 percent).
• A greater percentage of older persons live
in owner-occupied homes and a smaller
percentage live in renter-occupied homes.
• Older persons change residence less
frequently.
Older persons tend to live in metropolitan
areas in small groups and with relative . Most
older men are heads of hou holds and 70 per­cent
are marri d with a wife pres .nt. However,
the most common situation for older worn n is
widowhood. Of the 1 million eld rly who live
in institutions, 80 p rcent live in home for th
aged. Twice as many older worn n than men
live in institutions.
Source : U.S. D partm nt of ommerc , Bur au f
the Census . ocral and Ecnnomu: Characterr.~lic of the
Older Population I 9 1·1. ( urr nl Population R rt ,
Special Studi s ri s P-23, o . 57) \\'.shin ton, D. .,
1975.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP cod in your r turn addr wh n you ord r th . )
Single copies of the following are availabl fr from th ffir of 'ommuni tion,
D partment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• HOME HEATING-8YSTEMS, FUELS, CONTR L . FB 2235. R 'vied 1ay 1 7r. .
• ROSES FOR THE HOME. G 25. R vis d ctob r 1975.
• BETTER LAWNS. G 51. R vis>cl Octob r 1975.
• SUBTERRANEAN TERMITES- THEIR PREVENTI N A 0 0 'IR I. 1. B ILDI G, .
G 64 . R vis d July 1975.
• CONTROLLING HOUSEHOLD PE T . 96. R vi f d Man:h 1 7
16
f Mli.Y · 0 Ml H ~ VI \\
TIME USE: A MEASURE OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION
OF GOODS AND SERVICES
A monograph titled "Time Use: A Measure
of Household Production of Family Goods and
Services," by Kathryn E. Walker and Marga­ret
E. Woods, has been published by the Center
for the Family of the American Home Eco­nomics
Association.
The monograph, which is designed as a refer­ence
tool, is based on data collected from
1 296 families in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1967-68 as
part of a study at Cornell University. These
data provide information on the amount of
time spent on specific household tasks by men,
women, and children in the United States.
The major part of the monograph is devoted
to the presentation of detailed information on
the total time used by all family members for
all hous hold work and for each separate
household work activity. There is an extensive
amoun of descriptive data on each kind of
household work in relation to family character­istics
u h as age of children, number of chil­dren,
family typ , employment status of the
wife u ation of the husband and wife, and
husband's hours of employment. Also included
in the monograph are discussions on the need
for and ways of measuring household produc­tion,
previous studies of time spent on house­hold
work, and information on the methodolo­gy
used in the 1967-68 study.
The study on which this monograph is based
was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Several articles on the study
have appeared previously in FAMILY ECO­NOMICS
REVIEW .1
The monograph is available for $15.00 from
the American Home Economics Association,
2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington,
D.C. 20036.
'Walker, K. E., Time spent in household work by
homemakers, Family Economics Review, pp. 5-6, Sep­tember
1969; and Walker, K. E., Time used by hus·
bands for household work, Family Economics Review,
pp. 8·11, June 1970.
NEW YORK FAMILY BUDGET ANNUAL PRICE SURVEY
ommunity ouncil of Greater New
i:sue<.l it "Annual Price Surve " that
r fl· t budg l co t in tober 1975 for self-upportin~
famili sin ew York ity. The ur­v
• ·, vhich is U( ated and publi hed each year,
gh·l s · t da for th "Family Budget Stan-dard''
r" ised by th ommunity Coun il in
1. 7 . h bud t · 1 ptation ofth 1966
Bunnu of L.1l>or 't.atistk Cit; Worller 's Fami-
1 • Bud t for fou.r-p rson family and the
ouple 's Budget. It pr vide · budget
nt u ·h a. foo l, •lathing, med1cal
kind ~ of good. and r­lh
t'O t of th budget
are typical of purchases made by families with
moderate income.
The "Family Budget Standard" provides a
basis for (1) assessing the economic status of
the family, (2) counseling families on money
management, and ( 3) determining either the
eligibility of families for free social and health
services or fees for these services based on abili­ty
to pay.
The "Annual Price Survey" is available for
$6, and the "Family Budget Standard" for $4
from the Commtmity Council of Greater New
York, 225 Park Avenue South, New York,
.Y.10003.
17
.....
00
'r. >
,r
1-<
0
::e
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, June 1976, U.S. average I
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2 .
20-54 years ............. .
55-years and over ....... .
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children--
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 years
INDI\'IOUALS 3
Child:
i months to 1 year ...... .
1-2 years ......•.........
3-5 years ............... .
6-8 years ............... .
9-11 years ............. ..
Male:
12-14 years ............. .
15-19 years ............ ..
20-54 years ............. .
55-years and over ....... .
FCGale:
12-19 years ............ ..
20-54 years ......•.......
55 years and over ....... .
Pregnant ................ .
Nursin2 ................. .
Thrifty
plan
22.30
19.90
31.60
38.30
4.50
5.10
6.20
8.00
10.00
10 . 70
11.70
11.20
9.90
9.50
9.10
8.20
11.40
12.20
Cost for 1 week
l Low-cost l Moderate- ~
plan cost plan
Do'Lla:r>s
29.30
25.80
41.10
49.70
5.60
6.60
7.90
10.30
12.80
13.70
15.10
14.70
12.90
12.20
11.90
10.60
14.70
15.60
36. 70
32.10
51.30
62.40
6.80
8.10
9.80
12.90
16.10
17.10
19.00
18.60
16.10
15.10
14.80
13.10
18.10
19.40
Liberal
plan
44.20
38.60
61.70
75.10
8.10
9.70
11.80
15.50
19.40
20.60
22.90
22 . 50
19.40
18.10
17.70
15.70
21.60
23.20
Thrifty
plan
97.10
86.70
137.60
166.00
19.60
22.30
27.00
34.50
43.20
46.20
50.80
48.70
43.10
41.10
39.60
35.70
49.60
52.70
Cost for 1 month
I Low-cost I Moderate- I plan cost plan
Do Z'Lars
126.70
112.20
178.00
215.30
24.20
28 . 60
34.20
44 . 50
55.60
59 . 30
65.50
63.80
55.90
52.90
51.40
46.10
63.60
67.60
159 . 20
139.20
222.40
270.30
29 . 60
35.30
42.40
55 . 80
69.80
74.30
82.10
80.60
69.60
65.60
64.10
56 . 90
78.40
84 . 00
Liberal
plan
191.60
166.90
267.50
325 . 20
35.00
42.10
51 . 20
67 . 10
83 . 90
89.30
99.00
97.40
83 . 90
78.50
76.80
67.80
93 . 60
100.30
s that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at. the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each
re computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost,
tc-cost, and liberal plans) issues of Fami'Ly Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first
estimated using prices paid in 1965-66 by households from USDA's Household Food Consumption Survey with food costs
four selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" released
nthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 10 percent added for family she adjustment. See footnote 3.
3 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustgcnts are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-
person--subtract 5 percent; 7-or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
Q e...n..
Q
"'"
"Q'"
Q c
~
::z:
Q
3:
m
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers
(1967 = 100)
Group June 1976 May 1976 Apr. 1976 June 1975
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 . ..... .
1en' s and boys ' ....... .
\\'omen's and girls' .... .
Footwear .............. .
Transportation .......... .
Private ............... .
Public ................ .
Health and recreation ... .
Medical care .......... .
Personal care . ... ... .. .
Reading and recreation
Other goods and services
170.1
180.9
179.7
185.6
176.5
178.2
144.4
190.7
181.7
247.3
188.5
168.5
146.9
146.7
140.9
149.5
165.9
165.0
173.6
162.8
183.7
159.8
150.9
153.2
169.2
. 180.0
178.8
184.8
175.6
177.3
143.8
189.6
180.2
246.2
186.1
167.9
146.8
147.3
140.6
149.6
163.5
162.5
172.4
162.1
182.6
158.9
150.3
152.9
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
168.2
179.2
178.1
183.8
174.9
176.6
143.2
188.9
179.3
246.6
184.4
167.4
145.7
146.0
139.2
149.0
161.3
160.1
172.4
161.4
181.6
158.3
149.5
152.5
Index of prices paid by farmers for family living items
(1967 = 100)
June May Apr. June
Item 1976 1976 1976 1975
11 i m:-o 175 174 174 166
•••••••• 9 ~ •••••••••
Food 184 --- --- 179
0 •••••••••••••••••••• t
Clothing .................. --- 185 --- ---
176 176 167
llousing ............ ' ....... 177
182 181 167
!edic 1 nd h lth ........ 183
lldul ttion, r creation, 152 147
md other .......... 153 152 ~ .....
Sour u.s. llt•p rtmcnt of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
May
1975
164
---
174
167
166
146
160.6
174.4
174.9
173.1
166.4
169.4
136.9
181.4
166.9
230.6
169.4
158.1
141.4
142.1
136.3
143.8
149.8
149.3
154.1
153.2
168.1
150.3
144.1
147.3
Apr.
1975
163
---
---
166
165
146
,-
0 Hou in includ s: hou·ehold operation, household furnishings, and building
t ri 1 . Th categories were previously given separately.
19
t u n 1
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SUMMER 1976
CONTENTS
Page
Textured Soy Protein as a Ground Beef Extender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dianne Odland and Carolyn Adams
Costs of Milk and Milk Products as Sources of Calcium-an Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Pamela Isom
Agriculture Handbook No. 456 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Organic Foods-An Update . . .. .. ..... . ...... ........ ......... .. ..... ... ..... 8
Cynthia Cromwell
Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Food Safety in the Horne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Judith Jones and Jon Weimer
Social and Economic Characteristics of the Older Population 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Goods and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
New York Family Budget Annual Price Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Regular Feature
Some New USDA Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cost of Food •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 0 ••• 0 ••••••• 0 •• 0 ••• 0 18
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ugu t 197 .
20
MII.Y