Family Economics Review [1974, Number 2]

              HIGHLIGHTS I SPRING 1974
ANNUAL OUTLOOK ISSUE
• ' r"\1"' -~"-"'\1 ,.....,- ·-·-·­'
1\vrL . .. ..... ,,1L
MAY 21 1974
JN IVI:.f\..>11 Y 1.)~ 1'\.,l\ I M \...r\KULINA
AT GREENSBORO
r'ROff~iY Of THE
UBRARY
JUN 26 1S74
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT GREENSBORO
044(8
ARS-NE-36
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FAMILY 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.
DATE DUE
NI'IV 2 C::. ''7• {JJJJ
........
\ 1.,.
=--'"" ---
Authors are on the staff of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute unless otherwise noted.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett Assistant Editor: Marilyn Doss RufflJI
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
CONSUMER AFFAIRS IN THE USDA
by Nancy H. Steorts
Special Assistant to the Secretary for Consumer Affairs
This is the "Age of the Consumer."· The
consumer movement is one of the most vitally
important happenings in America today. It
.challenges industry and Government to reach
new levels of excellence, and it is involving
more and more people in the decision-making
p ocess in our country_
As Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs in
the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, I am
excited to be working with this movement. As
most of you know, my position was created
only last summer. I view my role as a dual one:
fu;st, to help the consumer understand what is
happening in the Nation today that is affecting
the home, the pocketbook, and the dinner
table; and second, to listen to what the con­sumer
is saying and then relay it to the Secre­tary,
the Assistant Secretaries, and to other
decisionmakers in Government. Whenever
possible, I would like to also relay consumer
concerns directly to agribusiness and to
industry .
To carry out my role, I have been assigned
some specific responsibilities. At the time of
m appointment, Secretary Butz announced
that I would serve a threefold purpose. First, I
would be responsible for representing-at the
highest levels of the Department-the concerns
of consumers as they relate to all USDA pro­grams.
Second, I would advise agency admini­strators
on issues and actions that concern
consumers. Third, but certainly not last, I
would serve as the consumer's special repre­sentative
in USDA.
As I see it, my role within USDA is getting
the Department to "think consumer." All over
the Department people have felt and are feeling
the need for a more coordinated approach to
the issues and programs that concern con­sumers.
Since coming to USDA, I've been particu­larly
impressed by the number of programs the
Department actually has in operation that
directly benefit the consumer. Let's look
briefly at a number of the consumer-oriented
programs now in effect.
The Extension Service, working with
Cooperative Extension Services in the States,
SPRING 1974
probably has more direct contact with con­sumers
than any other agency. Its programs
help consumers adjust to the problems of rising
living costs, new technology, and the changing
availability of goods and services.
At the national level, an Extension Con­sumer
Education Committee was appointed in
April1973 to focus attention on consumer
problems. Since then, newsletters have been
prepared for the State Home Economics Pro­gram
Leaders or State Consumer Education
Coordinator. A slide presentation, "Extension
Helps Today 's Food Shopper," has been pre­pared
and distributed.
At the State level, a highly intensified effort
has been undertaken to aid consumers who
have current food problems. Included in this
effort are: training professional and paraprofes­sional
staff to work with low-income families
on food and nutrition problems; preparing and
distributing of weekly food messages to the
local media, and the producing of radio and
television programs to reach people about cur­rent
food alternatives; distributing of USDA
and State Extension Service publications; the
sharing of educational materials among
States-including TV spots, fact sheets, corre­spondence
courses, and slide presentations on
food shopping; and developing of cooperative
programs with business.
Other agencies have also been doing their
part. The National Agricultural Library at
Beltsville, Md., has revised its automated
information retrieval system to enhance its
ability to retrieve consumer information. Over
4,000 such citations have been added during
the past 2 years.
. A major program of the Food and Nutrition
Service is the Food Stamp Program, which is
the prime delivery system for providing food
help to needy families all over the country. It is
currently reaching some 12.5 million Amer­icans.
As of January 1, 1974, the value of food
stamp coupons that a family can receive
increased. A participating family of four is now
eligible for $142 worth of food coupons
monthly, an increase of $26 over the past
$116. The maximum income that a fam ily of
3
four can have and still be eligible for food
stamps has now climbed to $473 monthly-an
increase of $86 over the former $387 ceiling.
These program changes have been made to help
needy families keep up with the higher costs of
food. The USDA-State Child Nutrition Pro­grams-
the largest of which is the National
School Lunch Program-help to underwrite the
cost of lunches for children, whether they can
pay or not. Of a total 24.4 million children
participating in the School Lunch Program in
October 1973, 8.t> million were from poor
families.
Another agency whose programs directly
affect the consumer is the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Under this
regulatory agency, new labeling regulations
covering hotdogs and other cooked sausages
went into effect on January 11974. Strict
limitations were placed upon the amount of
byproducts and nonmeat binders that can be
used. Packages of bacon that show at least 70
percent of a representative slice appeared on
grocery shelves this past fall as a result of
another change in regulations.
A newly proposed system for enforcing net
weights em meat and poultry products was
announced on November 30, 1973. It will pro­vide
for uniform labeling of net weights and
uniform procedures for checking the accuracy
of these net-weight declarations at both the
processor and the retail levels. Several other
labeling changes are also being proposed or
adapted. APHIS is also carrying out programs
to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis in
livestock. It continues to oversee many other
animal disease control activities that have an
impact on the consumer by keeping this
Nation's livestock healthy and free of any
diseases that might be passed on to man or that
might affect the quality of the meat we eat.
The Agricultural Marketing Service develops
food grade standards for quality grading of
foods. Uniform grading of all agricultural com­modities
is an important consumer-related
concern that must be improved. In many cases,
both the consumer and the producer would
like to see similar changes; a more meaningful
meat-grading system is one such area. AMS also
administers positive preventive programs to
control salmonella in eggs and egg products and
in nonfat dry milk. AMS sanitation require-
4
ments regulate processors of fruit, vegetables,
and dairy products.
Much research conducted by the Agricul­tural
Research Service ( ARS) has a direct
bearing on the well-being of consumers. This
includes work on development of new and
improved foods, feeds, fabrics, and industrial
products and processes for agricultural com­modities.
It also includes the processing, trans­porting,
storing, wholesaling, and retailing of
agricultural products. For example, a ground­meat
analyzer has been developed that gives an
instant reading of the fat content of a package
of ground beef. Commercial models are being
developed for use in grocery stores, thus
eliminating the "eyeball" test for fat content
of ground beef now commonly used by
butchers. The consumer will benefit by being
able to tell accurately what the product con­tains.
ARS also prepares research-based publica­tions
and guides to help families at various
income and age levels with money management
and the selection of nutritious foods. Specific
information provided includes budgeting at
various stages of the family life-cycle, selecting
and financing a home, money-saving recipes,
using selected foods in family meals, and
relating food to one's weight.
ARS scientists are compiling information on
the nutritive values of food and studying the
effects of low-fat diets on blood. Research is
underway to develop new high-protein foods
from cottonseed and by adding proteins to car­bonated
and noncarbonated beverages. This
opens new possibilities for the nutritional forti­fication
of snack foods.
A considerable amount of work in ARS has
gone into the development of treatments and
finishes for fabrics, including wash-and-wear
cottons, washable wools and leathers, and
flame-retardant finishes for fabrics used in
clothing, upholstery, and bedding.
The Economic Research Service gathers a
wide variety of information relating to agricul­tural
production, consumption of agricultural
products, and the agricultural sector in general.
This effort includes providing information to
enhance agricultural output and marketing and
to upgrade human nutrition and food-aid pro­grams.
For example, ERS economists are
examining the factors-such as family income
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
and background-that determine why eligible
recipients do or do not participate in food-aid
programs.
ERS information becomes the basis for
decisions by Congress, the Cost of Living
Council, and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service when farm and food
policies are formulated. ERS also conducts
surveys to determine consumer response to
food-marketing practices such as food dating
and labeling of meat cuts. ERS research is also
aimed at the economic development of rural
America and at improving living conditions of
rural people-those in small towns as well as on
farms.
The Cooperative State Research Service
administers Federal funds that support research
in State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Home economics research scientists at the sta­tions
study many consumer problems involving
basic human needs in food, housing, and
clothing. Agricultural scientists also keep the
welfare of the consumer in mind while
engaging in research to ensure an abundance of
high-quality foods and fibers.
I see the need for more cooperation and
planning between the USDA and other depart­ments
of the Government. My office has
started a Food Safety Campaign with the Food
and Drug Administration. I consider this
extremely important and the beginning of far
greater coordination and cooperation in the
future.
In the final analysis, how much useful
information we can disseminate to the con­sumers
who actually need it will be a large
measure of our success. If we want to serve the
consumers, we have to communicate with
them. This leads me right back to my overall
responsibility-to open a two-way flow of
information and dialogue with consumers. This
is my key role, and it is the central focus for
the consumer coordination efforts that we are
attempting.
The Department of Agriculture must make a
new thrust in the consumer's direction in the
coming months, seeking new channels and
methods of communication.
We must make every effort to know what
the consumers want, then work with them to
reach complimentary goals. Industry must be
involved in this, and the producers must play
their parts. Most of all, each agency within
USDA must make its individual effort to serve
consumers better, then make certain that these
individual efforts are coordinated into a
USDA-wide plan. Coordination, cooperation,
and communication are the three essential
factors in bringing this about. My .office will
continue to zero in on these factors as all of us
in USDA focus more closely on meeting con­sumer
needs in the future . We have a lot of
good things already going for the consumer
here in USDA, and we need to see that every­one
knows that they are available.
NATIONAL FOOD SITUATION 1
Average retail food prices are likely to post
sharper increases during the early months of
1974 than in late 1973. Grocery store food
prices this winter may average around 5 per­cent
above the fourth quarter of 1973. Prices
for practically all major categories of food will
be increasing, reflecting tightening supplies,
higher farm prices, and rising costs of proces­sing,
transporting, and distributing food prod­ucts.
1Summary of the NATIONAL FOOD SITUATION,
NFS-14 7, prepared by the Economic Research Service
of the Department. Copies of the complete text are
' available from Division of Information, Economic
Research Service, USDA, Washi ngton, D.C. 20250.
SPRING 1974
The outlook for food prices after the first
quarter is much less certain. Upward pressure
will continue to be exerted on food prices in
the form of higher marketing and distribution
costs, partly as a reflection of the energy situa­tion.
Reduced stocks of major farm commodi­ties
and processed food products, following 2
years in which total use exceeded production,
will add further strength to food prices, at least
until the size of new crops becomes apparent.
While food prices for all of 197 4 will average
higher than in 1973, the extent of increase will
depend on three major factors: How much
food output is stepped up this year, the
strength of foreign demand for food commodi-
5
ties, and conditions in the U.S. economy.
Under the expected or most likely condi­tions
for each of these factors, retail food
prices for all of 1974 may average about 12
percent above 1973, less than the 141/2 percent
increase a year earlier. In contrast to 1973,
most of the annual increase will result from
increased marketing costs. The rate of increase
is expected to slow during the spring with
second quarter prices averaging 2 to 3 percent
above the first quarter. Little change is antici­pated
in food-at-home prices during the third
quarter, likely followed by a small decline for
the last quarter. Away-from-home food prices
may continue upward throughout the year at a
rate of about 2 to 3 percent per quarter.
If food output increases much more than
present indications suggest and at the same
time foreign and domestic demand falls below
current indications, food prices for all of 197 4
may average about 8 percent above 1973 due
to the increases through midyear. On the other
hand, if 1974 food output turns out much
below what is now indicated and demand
proves to be stronger than expected, prices
could average as much as 15 percent higher for
the year.
In 1973, retail food prices averaged 141;2 per­cent
above the year-earlier average. This repre­sented
the largest increase in a quarter century.
Away-from-home food prices averaged almost
8 percent higher, while grocery store food
prices were up about 16 percent. A large part
of this rise reflected the 22 percent increase for
foods derived from livestock products. Prices
of crop related foods advanced at about half
that pace. Among livestock related products,
prices of poultry and eggs were up 40 to 50
percent, while red meat prices increased about
25 percent. Fish and dairy prices advanced less
sharply. Among crop related foods, fresh prod·
1974 (estimated)
Food price 1973 Most High I Low
likely i
Percent increase over
year earlier
Food at home .. . .. .. .. 16 12 16 8
Food away from home . . 8 12 14 10
All food . . . . . .. ... . . 14% 12 15 8
6
uce prices averaged 18 percent higher, while
cereal and bakery products were up 111;2 per­cent
due to a sharp increase in the fourth
quarter. Retail prices for fats and oils, sugar
and sweets and nonalcoholic beverages rose by
less than the average.
For all of 1973, food expenditures rose over
11 percent to $139 billion, the largest annual
increase since 1951. All of last year's advance
resulted from higher prices. After adjustment
for price increases, real food purchases showed
the sharpest decline in over four decades.
Monthly participation in the USDA family
food programs averaged 14.8 million persons,
the same as in 1972. Increases in Food Stamp
Program participation offset declines in the
family food distribution program participation.
The value of bonus stamps rose about 12 per­cent
to almost $2.2 billion, reflecting higher
participation and adjustments due to cost of
living increases.
Per capita food consumption declined 2
percent in 1973, with all of the decline due to
lower consumption of livestock related foods.
Consumption of crop foods rose 1 percent due
to increases for processed fruits and vegetables,
with restrained price rises for these items
encouraging at least some of the gain.
Per capita consumption of livestock related
food in 197 4 is expected to exceed the low
1973 levels. However, first quarter levels will
be less, due to reduced meat and dairy product
consumption. Poultry and egg consumption, as
well as meat after the first quarter, will pro­bably
gain over year-earlier rates by a progres­sively
wider margin throughout the year. Per
capita dairy supplies will about equal those of
last year.
Reduced domestic food use slowed the gain
in total net utilization of farm food commodi­ties
to 2.7 percent in 1973 from 3.2 percent a
year earlier. Exports were up a third compared
to a 22 percent gain in 1972. For commodities
having a predominantly direct food use, the
rise in exports was somewhat sharper. Produc­tion
of these commodities was unchanged from
a year earlier, although total production for all
commodities with any food use rose 21;2 per­cent.
The sharp increase in farm production
projected for 1974 will be heavily in feed-type
commodities. Still, production of commodities
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
directly pertinent to the supply of food avail­able
for consumption this year is also expected
to be up significantly. Total use of farm food
commodities should remain close to the 1973
level, with an increase in domestic food use
about balanced by reduced exports. Stock
levels are expected to rise somewhat by the end
of the year.
USDA MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION: CURRENT INTEREST
IN PRODUCT LABELING
by Harry Mussman
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Meat and Poultry Inspection Program of
the Department's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is mandated by two land­mark
pieces of consumer protection legisla­tion-
the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act. These laws
provide that only safe and wholesome products
be allowed in commerce.
Under these acts, well-defined inspection
procedures have been developed to ensure
safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry.
This consumer protection service is carried out
by a field operations force of approximately
8,000 inspectors, backed by an extensive scien­tific
and technical support group. Our inspec­tion
program calls for a rigid ante mortem and
post mortem inspection of each animal and
bird. Equally well-defined requirements make
high standards of sanitation mandatory in all
processing plants.
The meat and poultry inspection laws specif­ically
require that all labeling be truthful and
not misleading. The Department requires that
all labeling material be approved prior to use.
This ensures that misbranded products are kept
from the market. The label review procedure,
conducted by a Washington, D.C., staff, pro­vides
uniform interpretation and application of
labeling regulations. Such aspects as adherence
to standards and proper presentation of
information are essential to meet the require­ments
of the acts and to provide consumers
with mandatory information.
Requests for more informative labeling are
becoming widespread as consumers are
presented wi~h an increasing number of new
products. These new products, often featuring
added convenience or novel combinations, are
becoming more significant in the American diet
as they supplement or replace traditional, basic
foods.
SPRING 1974
Nutrition labeling, percentage labeling, label­ing
associated with vegetable protein use, and
open dating are examples of changes we can
expect in future labels on meat and poultry
products. As the nature of our food supply
changes and as new meat and poultry products
find their place in the American diet, other
new and informative methods of presenting
information by labeling will emerge.
Nutrition Labeling
As a regulatory agency, we are involved with
problems and interpretations relating to all
aspects of nutritional characterization. We are
constantly being asked by consumers and food
processors about the restoration, enrichment,
and fortification of meat anC: poultry products
with vitamins and minerals. Much of this
interest has evolved as a result of institutional
feeding programs in which supplementation has
been introduced successfully.
Meat and poultry processors have shown a
great deal of interest in nutrition labeling of
their products, and many are already active in
this area. A proposal to include specific nutri­tion
labeling specifications in the meat and
poultry regulations is being published. All
interested parties will be asked to comment on
this proposal. Until such regulations can be
made final, we are permitting nutrition labeling
similar to that required by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA); over 70 meat and
poultry product labels currently carry nutrition
labeling.
The USDA program differs from the FDA
program in several respects. The major program
differences are: (1) We require, because of
prior approval authority, that all label claims
be substantiated by adequate analytical base;
(2) we require that products that. are cooked
7
after purchase must declare the nutrition
information on an "as purchased" and on an
"as prepared" basis, with cooking instructions
adjacent to the nutrition information; and (3)
we require that processors have an approved
inplant quality control program that will
ensure that products meet the label declara­tion.
Percentage Labeling
Another fairly new labeling feature that is
receiving considerable attention is percentage
labeling. We have issued guidelines to the meat
and poultry industries regarding percentage
labeling practices and have prepared proposed
regulations for publication in the near future.
In the meantime, in order that information be
presented in a uniform, informative manner to
serve both the consumer and industry, we are
adhering to the following guidelines:
1. Percentage labeling, like nutrition
labeling, is voluntary.
2. Percentage labeling consists of a
declaration of quantities of signifi­cant,
characterizing components as a
percentage of total weight.
a. Significant characterizing ingre­dients
have a material bearing on
product character, consumer
acceptance, or price.
b. Listing must be in descending
order of predominance by weight.
c. All meat and/or poultry ingre­dients
must be listed.
d. Components of a like nature may
be grouped for purposes of list­ing,
provided such grouping is not
misleading.
3. Percentage labeling df ingredients
must be on the principal display panel
and adjacent to the product name.
4. Processors must have an approved
inplant quality control program that
will ensure that products meet the
label declaration.
Labeling of Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP)
In recent months, there has been an
increasing concern over the growing animal
8
protein shortage. Much attention has been
turned to vegetable protein--either as an
adjunct to animal protein, or substitute for it.
Recognizing the importance of vegetable pro­tein
as a means of bringing into balance the
total world protein supply, we developed a
series of three proposals for rulemaking on
TVP usage and published these in the Federal
Register in May 1973. Briefly, these proposals
covered beef patties with TVP, definition of
TVP itself, and regulations governing the manu­facture
of products that resemble familiar meat
products.
Comments on these proposals have been
numerous, and we are now evaluating them.
It's a bit early to get into a discussion of how
final regulations will be formulated; we are still
considering the comments. However, we can
make two specific points:
1. Vegetable protein is here to stay and is
being well accepted by consumers.
2. When TVP is used in traditional meat
products-as an adjunct or substitute-we
will require that its presence be identified
by appropriate labeling.
Open Dating
On March 21, 1973, the USDA published a
proposal to amend the meat and poultry prod­ucts
regulations to provide for open dating of
perishable products. As written, this proposal
required that whenever open dating was used,
it would provide precise information in a speci­fic
manner. This would be a voluntary pro­gram,
as are nutrition and percentage labeling.
The general response to the proposal was
favorable, with consumers overwhelmingly in
favor of a calendar date accompanied by a clear
statement of the meaning of the date. This is a
strong indication that consumers want to know
more about the food products they purchase.
The open dating requirements have since been
prepared for publication as a final regulation
and are in the process of receiving final admini­strative
clearance. This final rule will reflect the
many consumer comments that were received
in this matter.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FOOD ADDITIVES AND FORTIFICATION
by Corbin I. Miles
GRAS Review Branch
Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Administration
I believe it is apparent to all of us that we
are now in a new era of consumerism. This is
an era characterized by consumers and by a
public that questions the credibility and exper­tise
of persons and institutions at every level.
o longer can the food and medical industries,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or
any other institution, tell the public, "take it,
or eat it; it's good for you." The consuming
public asks: "Why is it good for me and what
are my alternatives?" The public expects
answers to these questions, and they want to
informed and to decide for themselves.
The FDA acts primarily to assure that our
food supply is safe. However, "safety" is a rela­tive
subject and can be measured and evaluated
only by the scientific technology of today.
'Ilherefore, as technology is refined and
becomes more highly developed, today's defini­tion
of safety will not be good enough for
tomorrow. For this reason, we will undoubt­edly
see a few of today's food additives and
ingredients of today removed or limited in the
foods of tomorrow. These anticipated actions
will not necessarily be cause for alarm, how­ever,
because there are generally large margins
of safety between consumer use and experi­mental
test levels.
The current FDA GRAS Review is an
example of FDA's efforts to update past defini­tions
of safety. GRAS stands for those food
ingredients that were defined as "Generally
Recognized as Safe" when the 1958 Food
Additives Amendment was enacted. These
GRAS ingredients were exempt from the legal
definition of "food additive," principally
because of their "demonstrated safe" historic
use in food. Therefore, they did not have to be
tested and were not subject to FDA preclear­ance,
as were all legally defined food additives
since 1958. However, when the cyclamate
problems occurred in 1969 (cyclamates were
considered GRAS), President Nixon gave the
FDA a mandate to reevaluate the safety of all
GRAS food ingredients. Since that time, the
GRAS review program has represented a large
SPRING 1974
part of FDA efforts. There are about 675 listed
GRAS food ingredients.
At the completion of the GRAS review, each
of these ingredients will have been the subject
of the following: a 50-year literature search;
studies designed to determine the exposure of
the population to the ingredient; animal feed­ing
studies; and an evaluation by a select com­mittee
of expert toxicologists, working as an
advisory committee to the Commissioner of
FDA. From this evaluation, these ingredients
will either be affirmed as GRAS, regulated with
limitations for use in foods, subjected to
further study, or removed from use in food.
Thus, all of these food ingredients will have
"safety," proved by today's standards, before
they can continue to be used in foods.
To date, the Commissioner of FDA has pro­posed
new regulatory action for five listed
GRAS food ingredients. Carob bean gum has
been proposed for regulation at current levels
of use as a food additive. This action was taken
primarily because there were inadequate
published safety data to permit the Commis­sioner
to foresee "safe" use of this ingredient
at higher levels of use than now practiced.
Carob bean gum has been used as a stabilizer
and thickener in many foods for over 50 years,
and carob beans are also eaten as a raw agricul­tural
commodity. Nevertheless, until the safety
of this substance can be demonstrated in the
published scientific literature at higher levels
than now tested, it is unlikely that this ingre­dient
will ever again be "generally recognized
as safe" for use in foods. This is the type of
limitation expected for some other ingredients
currently on the GRAS list. The limitation is
based on the absence of substantial evidence of
safety for human consumption at higher levels
of use than now practiced, and not on any
known hazard.
In other actions the Commissioner has pro­posed
affirmation of GRAS status for four
food ingredients. These proposals also include a
provision for limited use. Methyl and propyl
paraben·s are limited to one-tenth of one per-
9
cent when used in foods, because that is the
maximum amount needed to serve as a preser­vative
in food. There is demonstrated safety for
use of these compounds at considerably higher
levels than this, but because higher levels are
not necessary, there is no reason to sanction
such use. Thus, this is a good manufacturing
practice limitation. Mannitol and sorbitol also
have good manufacturing practice limitations
on their use for various food categories. Limita­tions
for specific food categories are based on
obvious evidence that there are extreme differ­ences
in amounts needed to accomplish an
intended effect in various food categories.
Thus, mannitol and sorbitol, which are used
principally as low-bulk sweeteners, would
naturally be used at different levels in candy
and bakery products. The important difference
is that good manufacturing practice limitations
are not limitations in the interest of safety.
They are limitations that provide a universal
definition of the levels of use that were con­sidered
when affirmation of "general recogni­tion
of safety" was granted. Expanded levels of
use will require further consideration of the
GRAS status of these ingredients.
In addition to the safety review of currently
listed GRAS substances, FDA has recently
established a petition procedure for adding sub­stances
to the list of those defined as "gener­ally
recognized as safe."
Beginning in 1974, FDA will begin to reeval­uate
the safety of presently regulated food
additives. By the time that this effort has been
completed, it will undoubtedly be time to
begin the evaluation of all food additives over
again. This effort will continue, with the pur­pose
of insuring the safety of the American
food supply by the most modern techniques
available. An important part of this evaluation
and reevaluation process, will include public
opportunity to present oral views and judg­ments
to the FDA Advisory Committee on
each ingredient. FDA wants to be sure that all
the evidence available on each food ingredient
is presented to all segments of the public, and
that the public has the opportunity to respond,
before any action is taken on that ingredient.
The same FDA public availability policy is
reflected in many other recent agency actions.
These actions are taken to provide consumers
10
with the nutritional and economic information
they want, and have a right to know. The
actions are also taken to eliminate deception
and misrepresentation of some food and food
supplement products, and to provide con­sumers
with sufficient information to make
wise choices of various foods.
Nutrition food labeling is an example of
such a recent action. Although recent regula­tions
specify that nutrition labeling will be
optional for most foods, current indications are
that many foods will contain this information
because of competitive pressures. The regula­tions
specify a format that must be used when­ever
nutrition labeling is used on a food prod­uct,
and require manufacturers to use this
labeling when they add any nutrient to the
food or make any nutritional claim for it on
the label. Other recent food labeling regula­tions
will: Require specific information on the
labels. of dietary supplements of vitamins and
minerals; outline conditions under which foods
may be labeled for saturated and unsaturated
fat content and cholesterol; and prescribe more
informative labeling of flavors and spices in
food-to tell the consumer whether the char­acterizing
flavor is natural or artificial, for
example.
The usefulness of these regulations will
depend on an informed public. Beginning in
the Spring of 1974, FDA will be using public
service media time to explain these programs
and many food companies will be conducting
their own educational campaigns.
We will still be faced with the task of
informing the public on other important
matters. Some of this information will bring
criticism, because age-old myths, and the
incomes of many who profit from these myths,
will be destroyed. For instance, we must
inform the public that "natural" is not neces·
sarily better, and that "imitation" or "synthe­tic"
vitamins, nutrients, and flavors are often
made by using the same constituents and
processes that are used in nature's laboratofY·
We must also inform the public that food
additives are not necessarily bad, that vitamins
in all doses are not necessarily good, and that
there are toxic levels of both food additives
and vitamins.
I!'AMIL Y ECONOMICS REVIEW
FREEZER FOOD CONCERNS
by josephine H. Lawyer
Extension Service
Rising living costs and inflation are affecting
onsumer buying, and many families had to
jnake changes in 1973. More families stored
food, and at times supplies of canning jars and
freezers were! depleted in some areas. The trend
to store food with the intent of extending
onomic resources is expected to continue
throughout 1974.
Many families will be interested in exploring
hether or not they can save money by storing
ood. If they choose to freeze food, it is impor­tant
that they make informed decisions-that
they
• Freeze foods the family prefers and will
eat, and ones that save the most money.
• Understand seasonality of meat, fruits,
and vegetables, and take advantage of sup­plies
and prices.
• Be familiar with beef grades and cuts.
• Know the freezing and storage capacity of
their appliances, and adhere to these when
buying food for freezing.
• Understand selling practices of firms that
sell freezer meat and freezer food plans,
and recognize misleading advertising.
• Deal with reliable businesses when select­ing
food, a freezer, or both.
f Grades and Cuts
Consumers may have problems with freezer
meats, particularly beef, because they do not
Uhderstand quality and yield grades and meat
cuts.
Beef quality grades range from USDA Prime,
which is highest, to USDA Canner, which is
lowest. These indicate degrees of tenderness,
j iciness, and flavor. Most beef in supermarkets
today is USDA Choice. However, some freezer
s highly advertise meat that is below USDA
oice. Yield Grade 1 reflects the highest yield
o closely trimmed retail cuts and the least
Waste; yield Grade 5 reflects the lowest yield.
It is important to understand this when reading
vertising and looking at wholesale cuts.
A 1,000-pound Choice steer yields about
600 pounds carcass weight or 300 pounds per
RING 1974
side. Each side is divided into a hindquarter
and a frontquarter. The consumer can count on
approximately 25-percent waste as a Choice
grade side is cut into retail or take-home cuts.
For example, the consumer paying $1.00 per
pound for a side is actually paying $1.25 for
the cuts he takes home.
Cuts in the hindquarter include the round,
short loin, sirloin, rump, flank steak, and
ground meat; the short loin is divided into por­terhouse,
T-bone, and club steaks. The fore­quarter
includes the chuck, ground beef, rib
roast, brisket, and short ribs.
Wise Buying
Meat supplies differ through a calendar year,
with more beef and pork generally available
during winter months. When supplies are
largest, prices are generally lower than at other
times; however, consumer demand and prefer­ence
for specific cuts also affect price. During
periods when steaks are on "special," a con­sumer
could save money by freezing them for
later use. The same principle applies to chuck
roasts. Consumers will usually find chuck and
perhaps other long cooking roasts at lower
prices in July and August. Chicken supplies are
relatively constant; however, consumers may
save by watching for "special" prices and
freezing a supply at those times.
If a consumer uses credit to purchase meat
in quantity, the finance charges need to be
added to determine total cost. Only then is it
possible to make an accurate comparison of
prices with those in the supermarket.
Another factor in making a decision to buy
meat for freezing is the space available. A con­sumer
needs about 31h cubic feet of freezer
space to store 100 pounds of meat. A side of
beef may be stored in a full-sized freezer, but it
might not fit into a refrigerator-freezer com­bination.
Other questions are: How much can a family
afford to invest all at once for meat? Is the
family willing to eat all the retail cuts from a
wholesale cut it might purchase for freezing?
11
Freezer Meat Firms
Freezer meat sales can be reliable, or very
misleading, depending on the owner-operator.
Some firms have processed and sold freezer
meat successfully over a number of years in
their respective communities. Satisfied cus­tomers,
service, and reputable business ethics
are reasons for their success.
A Federal Trade Commission survey of
freezer meat firms in early 1973 indicates that
there has been much misleading advertising
across the Nation. The extent of such advertis­ing
indicates that many consumers are unaware
and uninformed. The uninformed consumer, at
all income and education levels, can be victim­ized
by unethical firms that resort to mislead­ing
advertising; "bait-and-switch" selling;
inadequate information on trim loss and on
finance charges; and short weight, grade substi­tution,
and failure to deliver some cuts.
Misleading advertising usually sounds too
good to be true-and this should be a warning.
For example: "beef sides," "freezer packs,"
"free," "special bonus," "bundles," and "no
money down" tell the consumer little about
what he will get or how much he will pay.
Meat advertised at a "low price" may be of
low-quality and low-yield grade-undesirable in
appearance and appeal to the prospective cus­tomer.
Consumers asking about the advertised
meat are frequently shown meat of higher
quality and of a higher price.
Information given the consumer may be
confusing. It is difficult to know how much
beef sold as a "bundle," or by "hanging
weight," or with additional "bonuses of
chicken or bacon" actually costs.
Unscrupulous freezer meat firms sometimes
deliver short weight or a product of lower value
than the customer was led to believe he was
purchasing.
Consumers are often reluctant to report
problems they encounter when buying freezer
meat. They are somewhat embarrassed to
admit their gullibility in getting involved. The
Federal Trade Commission indicates that con­sumers
most often complain about finance
charges of freezer food concerns. The annual
percentage rate is usually higher than what
they might have paid had they borrowed from
some other source.
12
Freezer Food Plans
Freezer food plans generally involve the sale
of a freezer along with frozen foods at
"discount" prices. Usually, a package program
is sold. Such a package might include the
freezer, "free" cookware, and a "lifetime"
membership allowing the customer special
discounts on food purchases. These plans also
involve finance charges.
Consumers investing in such plans usually
pay more for the freezer than for one of com·
parable size and quality from a department,
appliance, or mail order store. The "lifetime"
agreement may represent the period of time
the firm is in business in that particular area.
Consumer complaints about these plans
include late or irregular delivery dates; high
overall costs (freezer, food, and financing);
inadequate food for the family's needs;
delivery of short quantity or weight; and varia·
tion between quality ordered and that received.
Families buying freezer food plans have a
substantial investment in equipment and food
far into their future. Before becoming com·
mitted to the financial obligations, it is impor·
tant that they
• Consider other alternatives for buying
food.
• Compare freezer costs from several
sources, and consider the cost of operat·
ing a freezer.
• Investigate credit availability and cost
from other sources.
• Analyze whether they can afford the
initial cost and payments for an extended
period.
Consumer Protection and Recourse
Reliable businesses and consumers have a
right to protection from unethical businesses.
Starting at the local level, misrepresentation
and questionable practices should be reported
as written complaints to better business
bureaus, consumer affairs offices, city jcountY
attorneys, department of weights and measures
(if applicable), and other appropriate agencies.
If State consumer protection laws are insuf·
ficient, consumers can work with local govern·
ment to pass ordinances controlling unethic~
business practices. Consumers can also work to
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
get needed State consumer protection legisla­tion.
Within State Government, consumers may
direct concerns to the division of consumer
protection in the State attorney general's
office, the department of agriculture, and the
department of health, if applicable.
The Federal Trade Commission is respon­sible
for regulating false and deceptive advertis­ing
and selling practices if interstate commerce
is irivolved. The U.S. Department of Agricul­tqre
is the agency with authority over sanita­tion,
wholesomeness, inspection, and grading
of meat and poultry products that cross state
lines.
It is important that a consumer recognize
misleading advertising and selling practices in
freezer meats and freezer food plans that may
exist in his community. The consumer's right
to information on which to base economic and
management decisions is automatically
canceled if he is unaware and uninformed of
marketplace problems.
References
1. "Buying Beef For Your Freezer"­Self-
Teaching Program (without
slides), Cornell University, Mailing
Room, Building 7, Research Park,
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. $1.50.
Complete Program Kit with 40 35-mm
color slides, Cornell University, Visual
Communications, Communication
Arts, 412 Roberts Hall, Ithaca, N.Y.
14850. $10.00.
2. • Bargain? Freezer Meats. Trans­parency
Masters
3.
• Freezer Meat Bargains. Consumer
Bulletin No. 5
• Freezer Meat Bargains. FTC
Buyer's Guide No.5
Federal Trade Commission, 6th Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580.
• "How to Buy Meat For The
Freezer"-HG 166, 20 cents.
• "How to Buy Beef
Steaks"-HG 145, 10 cents.
• "How To Buy Beef
Roasts"-HG 146, 10 cents.
• "How To Buy Lamb"-HG 195,
15 cents.
• "USDA Yield Grades for
Beef"-Marketing Bulletin 45, 15
cents.
Consumer and Marketing Service,
USDA. For sale by Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
4. USDA Color Film-"Buying Meat For
The Freezer"- 4 min. 13 s. Cooperat­ing
Film Libraries located at land­grant
universities.
ENERGY OUTLOOK AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY
by Marilyn Dos<> Ruffin
Energy supplies fell short of needs this past
winter and may be even further strained this
summer when gasoline and electricity con­sumption
reach their seasonal peaks. The
immediate concern is petroleum, which sup­plies
46 percent of our energy needs and serves
as the raw material, or "feedstock," for a long
list of synthetic organic "petrochemicals." The
remainder of our energy is supplied by natural
gas-32 percent, coal-17 percent, hydro­power-
4 percent, and nuclear power-1 per­cent.
The President has asked Congress to pass
SPRING 1974
legislation to establish a new agency, the
Federal Energy Administration, to consolidate
Federal energy activities. Federal energy efforts
now are being coordinated by the Federal
Energy Office, established by Executive order
on December 4, 1973.
The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-159) authorizes manda­tory
allocation programs for petroleum and
petroleum products. Regulations for crude oil,
propane, butane, motor gasoline, middle distil­lates,
aviation fuels, residual fuel oil, and petro-
13
chemical feedstocks were published in the
Federal Register on January 15, 1974. Gener­ally
speaking, priority is being given to fuel
production activities, public passenger trans­portation,
food production and processing, and
essential community services. 1
Conservation of energy is an important part
of the strategy for dealing with the crisis.
Policy for the short term is: "to minimize the
impact of energy shortages on the economy, to
maintain production and employment to the
maximum extent possible, and to spread the
impact of shortages over less essential energy
consuming activities. " 2 Over the longer term,
energy self-sufficiency is the goal.
The real concern, of course, goes beyond
being comfortable in our homes and having
enough gas for our cars. Energy means fuel and
fertilizer for farming and fuel for processing
1 For more specific information see FEDERAL
REGISTER, v. 39, No. 10, January 15, 1974, pp.
1924-1949.
2The White House, Fact Sheet on Federal Energy
Organization, December 4, 1973.
and transporting -our food supply. It means
electricity for our homes and businesses. 3 It
means the ability to produce goods and serv­ices,
including vital community services such as
education, health services, and protection of
our homes and communities. Energy means
Gross National Product. Energy means jobs.
For the family, the energy crisis has broad
implications. It will mean inconvenience and
discomfort. For some, it will mean loss of
income. It will mean confusion, as patterns
we've become accustomed to are questioned. It
will mean rethinking the family budget as price
relationships change. Specifically, it will
mean-
• Higher prices for fuel and electricity.
Prices for fuel oil and coal, as measured
by the consumer price index, have risen
sharply (see table). In many areas rate
3 For information on electricity, see "Electric
Power: A Crisis Ahead?", FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW, September 1972.
Consumer Price Index, for selected energy-related items,
U.S. city average
(1967=100)
Percent
change
Item Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Jan. from
1974 1973 1973 1973 1973 Jan. 1973
to
Jan. 1974
ALL ITEMS ................ 139.7 138.5 137.6 136.6 127.7 9.4
Housing
Fuel oil and coal ......... 194.6 172.8 155.6 141.1 120.7 61.2
Gas and electricity ........ 134.3 131.0 129.8 127.4 124.1 8.2
Electricity ............. 133.5 129.0 127.5 126.5 122.1 9.3
Gas .................. 135.1 133.1 132.3 128.4 126.2 7.1
Transportation 128.1 126.7 125.8 125.0 121.0 5.9
Private ... . ............. 126.2 124.6 123.8 122.9 118.5 6.5
Gasoline, regular
and premium ......... 140.1 131.9 126.3 121.8 110.7 26.6
Motor oil, premium ..... 134.9 132.1 130.4 129.2 125.1 7.8
Parking fees ........... 155.8 154.4 155.5 153.8 149.7 4.1
Public ................. 146.0 146.5 144.6 145.2 144.3 1.2
Local transit fares .... .. 148.4 149.2 149.2 150.2 150.6 -1.5
Taxicab fares .... .. .... 145.3 145.3 138.3 138.3 135.6 7.2
Railroad fares, coach .... 126.8 126.7 122.6 122.6 122.2 3.8
Airplane fares,
chiefly coach ......... 141.4 141.4 137.1 137.1 132.1 7.0
Bus fares, intercity ...... 150.9 150.9 145.9 145.9 144.0 4.8
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
increases for electricity have been granted;
the policy of discounts to volume users is
under scrutiny. The Administration is
considering surcharges to discourage
excessive use of gas and electricity.
• Reduced supplies of gasoline, higher
prices, perhaps rationing. Families will
need to reduce their consumption of gaso­line.
Rationing at the consumer level is a
possibility. A December 4, 1973 White
House press release stated that measures
being considered include "Use of
coupons, price increases, taxes, or a com­bination
of the three, to bring gasoline
consumption in line with demand at the
lower levels of expected supply." A gaso­line-
rationing contingency plan was pub­lished
in the Federal Register on
January 16 "as a vehicle for further com­ment
and discussion."
• Higher prices and tighter supplies for
many consumer goods. Particularly
affected are products with high energy
inputs in production or transportation as
well as the synthetics made from petro­leum
or natural gas. These include paints
and varnishes, glues, dyes and colorings,
medicinal chemicals, flavorings, perfumes,
plastics, synthetic rubber, agricultural
chemicals, surface active ingredients used
in detergents, and the synthetic fibers
used in textiles.
In the year ahead, families will need
information on how their consuming activities
relate to petroleum and to the total energy
picture. As they look for ways to reduce their
energy consumption, they will need guidance
materials on careful selection and use of house­hold
equipment and automobiles, and on
energy-saving improvements to housing. They
will need to be aware of the possibility of
shortages and the need for better management.
They will need to rework the total family
budget as they adjust to rising prices and
changing consumption needs.
RECOMMENDED READING
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2 402.
• ELEVEN WAYS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND INCREASE COMFORT IN
HOUSEHOLD COOLING.l972. Stock Number 0303-0876. 30 cents.
• ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT-ELECTRIC POWER. 1973. Stock Number
4111-00019. 85 cents.
• SEVEN WAYS TO REDUCE FUEL CONSUMPTION IN HOUSEHOLD HEATING
THROUGH ENERGY CONSERVATION.l972. Stock Number 0303-01086.35 cents.
• THE POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION, A STAFF STUDY. 1972. Stock
Number 4102-00009. $3.00. (Technical report)
• CITIZEN ACTION GUIDE TO ENERGY CONSERVATION. 1973. Stock Number
4000-00300. $1.75.
Single copies available free:
From Public Affairs Office, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transporta­tion.
• THE EFFECT OF SPEED ON AUTOMOBILE GASOLINE CONSUMPTION RATES. 1973.
From Circulation Branch, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
• 1974 GAS MILEAGE GUIDE FOR CAR BUYERS. (1975 GAS MILEAGE GUIDE FOR
CAR BUYERS. Available August 1974)
From the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Mail Room, Hutcheson Hall, Virginia Poly­technic
Institute ru1d State University (VPI&SU), Blacksburg, VA. 24061.
HOW TO SAVE ON YOUR ELECTRIC BILL. 1972. CES 512.
SPRING 1974 15
ENERGY CONSERVATION IN AND AROUND THE HOME
by Glenda Pifer
Extension Service
The energy crunch is forcing all sectors of
the economy to utilize energy more efficiently.
In and around the home, there are many areas
of energy use by the family where reductions
are possible.
Temperature Control in the Home ·
Climate control, in the form of heating and
cooling the home, is the largest energy con­sumption
category. Turning the thermostat
down in winter and up in summer will mean
lower heating and cooling bills. In winter,
maintaining a humidity level of 30 to 35 per­cent,
or in very cold weather about 15 points
higher than the outside temperature reading,
will increase comfort at the lowered tempera­ture.
Keep the heating and air-conditioning
systems clean and in good operating condition
for maximum efficiency.
Adequate insulation and tight-fitting storm
or double-glazed windows and doors will
increase comfort and save energy both winter
and summer. Loose-fitting window panes
should be caulked, and loose-fitting window
and door frames should be weatherstripped.
Unused outside doors can be sealed. Unused
rooms should be closed off. Closing draperies
or shades at night or in unused rooms will be
helpful. Where there is a sunny exposure, open
draperies or shades in the daytime to take
advantage of solar heat in winter; in summer,
close shades to keep heat out. If the garage is
attached to the house, keep the garage door
closed.
If you are selecting an air conditioner, check
the Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER )-the energy
used by the appliance relative to its output of
service. The higher the EER of a given sized
unit, the more efficiently it will operate.
Food Storage and Preparation
Refrigerators and freezers are big energy
consumers in the home. These units will use
less energy if located away from the range,
hot-air register, or other heat sources. Placing
the freezer in a location cooler than the
kitchen is desirable. Also, there should be a
16
free flow of air around the motors and com­pressors
of both appliances. Refrigerator or
freezer doors sometimes need to be adjusted so
that they close tightly. You can test the door
fit and the gasket seal by closing the door on a
dollar bill; if the bill can be removed, check the
gasket and door fit. If the gasket around the
door has become damaged or is otherwise
ineffective, replace it.
Avoid unnecessarily opening the refrigerator
and freezer by removing several items for the
meal at the same time. If you defrost manually,
do it before frost buildup is greater than one­fourth
inch. If you are going to be away from
home for an extended period of time, unplug
the refrigerator, empty it, clean it, and leave
the door open.
Food preparation usually involves the use of
heat-producing appliances, which generally
require more energy than motor-driven or
motion appliances. When using the range, place
the utensil on the burner before turning on the
heat. Start most foods at a higher temperature,
then reduce the heat to maintain the desired
cooking temperature. Use utensils that fit the
range burners or surface units; pans with flat
bottoms will absorb more heat. Less heat will
be lost in cooking if tight-fitting lids are used
on pans. Food will usually continue to cook 3
to 5 minutes after the electrical unit is turned
off.
If using the oven, plan to use it to capacity.
When preparing only one item, a small, port­able
appliance may be more efficient. Unneces­sary
opening of the oven door lowers the
temperature, prolongs the cooking or baking
time, and may cause a less desirable finished
product. Preheating is unnecessary for some
foods. Ovens that self-clean (pyrolytic method)
should be cleaned following use to take advan­tage
of the heat already there. In any oven, the
frequency and amount of cleaning may be
reduced by using the correct size baking
utensils.
Heating Water
Heating water for various household and
personal uses accounts for a large part of the
SPRING 1974
energy used in the home. A temperature setting
that provides water at a minimum of 140° F
for the dishwasher and for laundering is essen­tial.
Conserving energy can be accomplished
more effectively other ways.
The water heater should be located near the
area where the hottest water is needed. If the
house is large and plumbing is needed at
extreme ends, a second water heater may
improve the efficiency of the system. Leaking
faucets should be given prompt attention. It is
amazing how much water can be wasted this
way.
If you wash dishes by hand, you may find
that you can limit washing dishes to once a
day , thus saving more energy by using less hot
water and less of your time, too. If you have a
dishwasher, wash full loads to conserve hot
water and operational costs. Don't wash the
dishes by hand before putting them in the dish­washer.
Miscellaneous Uses
When using the clothes dryer, avoid over­drying
or drying only one or two items at one
time.
If you use a car to take laundry to a coin­operated
laundry, avoid extra trips to conserve
both gasoline and your time.
Reduce ironing as much as possible. Don't
heat the iron to iron only one piece at a time.
Vacuum cleaners are far more efficient if the
dust bag is emptied or replaced frequently and
filters are kept clean. Some vacuum cleaners
have belts and brushes that need to be exam­ined
from time to time.
Do household tasks that require more light
during daylight hours. In some instances, it
may help to move a task to a different loca­tion-
such as moving the sewing machine into a
room where there is a sunny exposure. This
will take advantage of both the extra heat and
light.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
• MAJOR USES OF LAND IN THE UNITED STATES-SUMMARY FOR 1969.
AER 247. December 1973. 85 cents.
• TREES FOR POLLUTED AIR. M 1230. October 1973. 25 cents.
• COOKING FOR TWO. PA 1043. November 1973. $1.10.
• HANDBOOK FOR THE HOME. 1973 Yearbook of Agriculture. $5.70 (hardback).
Single copies of the following are available free:
From Office of Communication, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• LAWN DISEASES. G 61. Revised December 1973.
• GROWING LILACS. G 199. August 1973.
From Economic Research Service, Division of Information, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• CONSUMERS' BUYING PRACTICES, USES, AND PREFERENCES FOR FIBERS IN
RETAIL PIECE GOODS. MRR 1013. February 1974.
FTom Consumer Product Information Center-Nutrition, Pueblo, Colo. 81009:
• FOOD IS MORE THAN JUST SOMETHING TO EAT. (Prepared jointly by USDA and
HEW in cooperation with the Grocery Manufacturers of America and The Advertising
Council.)
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW 17
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES:
SUPPLIES, PRICES, AND OUTLOOK FOR 1974
by Virginia Britton
Clothing Expenditures and Prices
Consumers spent $332 per person on cloth­ing
and shoes in 1973, according to preliminary
figures. This was $34 higher than in 1972.
Although part of the increase was caused by
higher price levels in 1973, there was in
increase of about 6 percent in terms of dollars
of constant value (table 1).
The price level for apparel and upkeep aver­aged
3.7 percent higher in 1973 than in 1972.
As usual, the rise for clothing was less than for
the all-items index of the Consumer Price
Index (table 2).
Among the three apparel subgroups, foot­wear
continued to lead the price advance. The
price level for footwear averaged 4.2 percent
higher in 1973 than in 1972. Increases were
somewhat less for men's and boys' clothing and
for women's and girls' clothing.
Recent reports from trade sources anticipate
changing clothing purchases as a result of fuel
cutbacks: Heat reductions last winter increased
purchases of heavier garments for indoor use,
such as pantsuits, sweaters, and heavyweight
hosiery, underwear, pajamas, and robes, as well
as blankets. Decreases in gasoline for travel this
summer could decrease purchases of sports­wear.
FueLeutbacks may decrease apparel pur­chases,
in general, if retail stores are required to
operate fewer hours, if people cannot go
shopping because of gasoline shortages, and if
employment and incomes decline. Shopping
will be concentrated at shopping centers in the
midst of populated areas.
Trade sources have recently noted probable
price changes during the year ahead: Some
department stores curtailed traditional January
"white sales." Prices for cotton outerwear,
underwear, towels, and other items are
expected to be higher by fall 197 4 than in fall
1973. Consumers may resist these increased
prices by postponing purchases when they have
supplies of towels or underwear that they can
continue to use.
Trade papers report that clothing manufac­turers
expect higher costs of fabrics and
perhaps labor for garments for fall 1974 than
Table 1. -Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes
Percent of
Per capita expenditures Aggregate
expenditures for personal expenditures
Years consumption
1958 ·Current 1958 Current Billions Bi!Jions
dollars dollars dollars dollars of 1958 of current
dollars dollars
1929 ........... 149 77 13.0 12.1 18.2 9.4
1930-40 0 ........ 122 51 11.8 10.7 15.6 6.5
1941-46 ........ 151 100 11.8 12.9 20.7 13.7
194 7-61 ••• 0 •••• 144 140 9.0 9.4 23.5 22.9
1962-65 .... 0. 0. 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 ........... 191 248 8.3 8.7 38.8 50.2
19702
••••••.•.• 191 258 8.2 8.6 39.1 52.8
1971 ........... 197 276 8.2 8.6 40.7 57.0
1972 ........... 208 298 8.2 8.6 43.4 62.3
19733
.•........ 221 332 8.4 8.7 46.5 69.8
1 Earlier years are grouped on basis of similarity in level of per capita expenditures in 1958 dollars.
2 Revised data for 1970 to 1972.
3 Preliminary figures.
18 SPRING 1974
Table 2. -Annual percentage change in selected indexes of consumer prices
Index 1969 l 1970 I 1971 I 1972 l 1973
Consumer Price Index ............ . +5.4 +5.9 +4.3 +3.3 +6.2
Apparel and Upkeep Index2
...... . +5.8 +4.1 +3.2 +2.1 +3.7
Men's and boys' clothing ....... . +6.3 +4.2 +2.7 +1.3 +3.7
Women's and girls' clothing ..... . +5.5 +3.8 +3.5 +2.4 +3.5
Footwear . . .. .. ............. . +6.2 +5.3 +3.2 +2.8 +4.2
1 Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel upkeep services, for which separate
indexes are not available.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
for fall 1973. Some manufacturers of men's
clothing expect to "remerchandise" their lines
to maintain certain price lines as much as pos­sible,
which may require economizing on
fabrics and tailoring. Manufacturers of
women's clothing say they will have to raise
prices, particularly because of increases in
fabric prices that they can no longer absorb,
and they may have to omit lower priced lines.
It appears, then, that we can expect some
increase in retail price levels for clothing in
1974-but perhaps less than the industry would
like. Because of other pressures on consumer
incomes, discretionary spending on clothing
may be curtailed. The average person may
spend no more or even less on clothing in 1974
than in 1973 in terms of dollars of constant
value.
Supplies of Raw Materials
U.S. mill use of total fibers in 1973 was
about 7.7 percent higher than in 1972 on a per
capita basis. The preliminary estimate is a total
mill use of 60 pounds of fiber per capita in the
calendar year 1973 including about 17 pounds
of cotton, 1 pound of wool, and 42 pounds of
manmade fibers.
U.S. cotton supplies of the medium and
longer staples (used for printcloth, blends, and
100-percent cotton fabrics) will be much
tighter during the crop year August 1, 1973, to
July 31, 1974, than in the previous year. U.S.
output is expected to be smaller because of
spring flooding in the Delta; also, stocks on last
August 1 were relatively small. Tight supplies
and high prices may result in some reduction in
U.S. mill use of cotton for textiles. Mounting
foreign demand for U.S. cotton reflects limited
stocks of manmade fibers and rising competi­tion
for land from food crops. Some U.S. mills
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
have been lobbying for restrictions on U.S.
cotton exports to enlarge supplies available for
domestic use.
Mills are faced with cutbacks in supplies of
manmade fibers because of limited supplies of
petrochemical and other inputs-a reversal
from the dependable supplies of recent years.
U.S. mills, as well as mills in Europe and Japan,
from which we import textiles and apparel, are
affected. Eastman Chemical Products reduced
polyester production 18 percent in June 1973,
and several other producers followed_ On
November 8, 1973, DuPont announced a cut of
about 10 percent in production of polyester
for November, December, and January because
of the "overall tight supply situation in oil and
natural gas." DuPont had earlier slowed pro­duction
of chemicals needed for the manufac­ture
of nylon.
A Shell Chemical manager was quoted in
September 1973 as saying that the United
States will be short of petrochemical products
for years to come because of problems with
feedstock supplies, fuel shortages, and con­struction,
and because the prices of petro­chemicals
are bound to soar. A general energy
shortage would affect all industries, and the
textile industry is energy intensive. Further­more,
the textile-dyeing-and-finishing-plant
operators need natural gas, propane, and
heating oil as raw materials and say there is no
point in the mills producing gray goods if
finishing plants cannot operate_ In addition,
the shortage of petroleum as a raw material
feestock would affect clothing and textiles
through curtailment of production of impor­tant
manmade fibers for fabrics, threads, and
zippers. Examples of such fibers are polyester
(the major manmade fiber), acrylics, and nylon
66 (from products derived from coal, gas, and
19
seawater). Cuts in petroleum feedstocks would
affect plastics such as inyl for shoe uppers and
products for nonleather shoe soles, and synthe­tic
rubber for footwear and foam for coats and
furniture. Also of importance to consumers of
clothing and textiles are the uses of petroleum
feedstocks for detergents and drycleaning
fluids, as well as for fertilizers important in
cotton production.
U.S. wool production (apparel class) in 1973
dropped about 9 percent from the previous
year, the 13th successive annual drop. High
prices of U.S. and imported wool are expected
to reduce use of wool by U.S. mills. World pro­duction
of wool seems likely to stabilize or
increase only slightly in 1973-74. Although
world growers are delighted by high wool
prices, they are uncertain whether they would
do better to cash in on high meat prices by
slaughtering sheep or by switching to cattle.
U.S. production of hides (chiefly from
cattle) in the fall of 1973 was less than in the
fall of 1972 as fewer cattle went to market.
However, this was 10 percent more than in the
summer of 1973. Cattle marketings last winter
were down from fall and year-earlier levels, but
are expected to rise sharply in spring 1974.
In 1972, U.S. producers sold nearly 37 mil­lion
cattle hides-20 million to the domestic
tanning industry and 17 million as exports.
U.S. tanners and producers of shoes and other
leather goods want restricted exports of hides
since the United States, the world's largest
producer, is now the only major cattle-raising
country that imposes no export quotas on
hides. Shoe producers claim that they have not
been able to pass along to consumers the total
increases in leather costs.
Conclusion
What does this mean to us as consumers?
Some things seem rather obvious. We need to
take special care of the clothing and household
textiles we have and make fullest use of them,
at the same time conserving water, fuel, energy,
detergents, and cleaning fluids. We need to plan
thoughtfully any purchases necessary to
supplement the wardrobes of various family
members to fit the purchases into our budgets.
Then we must shop wisely for fabrics, styles,
and tailoring that are appropriately durable
without using an excess of gasoline for our
shopping trips. Saving our money and the
Nation's scarce resources may mean that .we
have to use more of our own time and energy,
acquire more knowledge and skills, and
simplify our standards.
FTC ISSUES GUIDES FOR HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE INDUSTRY
The Federal Trade Commission has issued
new guides for the Household Furniture
Industry. The guides, which are a revision of
the 1963 trade practice rules for industry,
became effective March 21, 1974.
20
The guides include provisions for:
• Disclosing the use of materials such as
plastic, vinyl, or marble dust that simulate
wood, leather, marble, or slate.
• Eliminating the practice among retailers
of removing manufacturer's tags and
labels that disclose information about the
construction and composition of furni­ture.
• Describing the style of furniture. For
example, furniture in Danish style manu-factured
in the United States may not be
referred to as "Danish," but may be
described as "Danish design" or "Danish
style." The guides would permit use of
commonly accepted terms such as
"Chinese Chippendale," "French Provin­cial,"
and "Italian Provincial."
• Disclosing test results, in layman's langu­age,
when a representation is made that an
upholstery fabric has been tested. Adver­tisers
making claims for the performance
characteristics of fabrics may be required
to submit documentation to the FTC
substantiating such claims.
Copies of the guides are available from the
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580.
SPRING 1974
FTC TRADE REGULATION RULES
Two new trade regulation rules issued by the
Federal Trade Commission will become effec­tive
on June 7, 1974: a Cooling-Off Period for
Door-to-Door Sales and the Use of Negative
Option Plans by Sellers in Commerce. ·
The Door-to-Door Sales Rule requires door­to-
door sellers and others who make sales out­side
their places of business to give consumers a
3-day period in which they may elect to cancel
a sale without penalty or fee. The rule applies
to sales of consumer goods or services that have
a purchase price of $25 or more.
The Negative Option Sales Rule applies to
merchandising plans where a subscriber is noti­fied
of the periodic selection of merchandise
that will be shipped unless the subscriber
instructs that the merchandise not be shipped.
Book and record clubs frequently use this mer­chandising
method. The rule requires: that all
promotional material clearly disclose the terms
of the plan; that the subscriber be given a mini­mum
of 10 days in which to instruct the seller
not to mail the selection; and that the seller
give full credit and guarantee postage for mer­chandise
returned by subscribers who were not
obligated to receive it.
Source: U.S . Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, HEW
NEWS. October 12, 1973.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY REGION
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has
developed a new set of consumer price indexes
that measure price changes in urban areas
grouped by regions. The new indexes will be
published for March, June, September, and
December. For each region, indexes will be
available for all items and for food, housing,
apparel and upkeep, transportation, and health
and recreation. The indexes cannot be used to
determine differences in price level among
regions at any particular time. They indicate
only that prices in a region have changed more
I ( 1967=
I United
Item States
All items
December 1967 ................. 101.6
December 1973 ................. 138.5
Food
December 1967 ................. 100.9
December 1973 ......... .. .. .... 151.3
Housing
December 1967 ................. 101.5
December 1973 ................. 140.5
Apparel and upkeep
December 1967 . ....... . . ....... 102.5
December 1973 ..... . ...... ... · · 130.5
Transportation
December 1967 .... . ............ 101.7
December 1973 ............... · · 126.7
Health and recreation
December 1967 .......... . .. .. .. 102.3
December 197 3 .. ........ ..... · · 133.0
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
than, less than, or as much as in another region.
The regional indexes for December 1967 and
December 1973 are shown below.
The indexes for all items and for all sub­groups
of goods and services except apparel
and upkeep increased more (in percentage
terms) in the Northeast than in the other
regions over the 6-year period. The indexes for
apparel and upkeep increased most in the
South. The smallest increases were in the West
except for housing which increased least in the
North Central region.
100)
North- North South east Central West
101.4 101.9 101.6 101.7
142.5 136.6 138.8 134.0
100.7 100.9 100.7 101.9
152.9 151.5 153.1 145.6
101.0 101.6 101.9 101.3
146.9 134.4 141.8 138.2
102.3 102.9 101.8 102.3
131.2 130.4 131.5 127.1
101.7 102.3 101.9 100.8
131.4 127.1 123.5 122.1
102.0 102.8 102.0 102.3
136.2 133.6 132.9 126.6
21
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967 = 100)
Jan. 1974 Dec. 1973 I Nov. 1973
All items ...................... 139.7 138.5 137.6
Food ....................... 153.7 151.3 150.0
Food at home ............... 154.3 151.5 150.1
Food away from home ........ 151.6 150.7 149.7
Housing ........ . ............ 142.2 140.6 139.4
Shelter ••• 0 ••••••• 0 0 0. 0 0. 0. 147.4 146.4 145.6
Rent ••••• 0. 0 ............. 127.3 126.9 126.3
Homeownership ••• 0 ...... 0 0 154.8 153.6 152.6
Fuel and utilities 0. 0. 0 ••• 0 •• 0 140.8 135.9 132.1
Fuel oil and coal ••• 0 ••• 0. 0 0 194.6 172.8 155.6
Gas and electricity .......... 134.3 131.0 129.8
Household furnishings and
operations ................ 129.0 128.0 127.5
Apparel and upkeep •• 0 ••••••• 0 128.8 130.5 130.5
Men's and boys' ••••••• 0 •• 0 •• 127.7 129.1 128.9
Women's and girls' • 0 •••••• 0 •• 127.8 131.8 132.2
Footwear • 0 •••••• 0 ••• 0 ••••• 133.0 132.6 132.6
Transportation ••••••••• 0 0 •• 0 0 128.1 126.7 125.8
Private ••••• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 0 •••• 126.2 124.6 123.8
Public ..................... 146.0 146.5 144.6
Health and recreation 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 133.7 133.0 132.6
Medical care ................ 142.2 141.4 140.9
Personal care ••• 0. 0 ••••••••• 129.8 129.2 128.1
Reading and recreation ........ 128.3 127.6 127.5
Other goods and services • 0 •••• 131.8 131.3 130.8
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1967 = 1 00)
Item Feb. Jan Dec. Nov. Oct.
1974 1974 1973 1973 1973
All items .................... 153 149 147 146 142
Food and tobacco ........... 151
Clothing ••••••• 0 ••• 0. 0. 0 •• 154
Household operation ......... 135
Household furnishings ........ 130
Building materials, house ...... 163
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
22
I
Sept.
1973
142
146
148
129
127
159
Jan. 1973
127.7
128.6
127.2
134.2
131.4
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
Feb.
1973
-'
131
__.
SPRINGlg'
COST OF FOOD AT HOME, U.S. AND REGIONS
Cost of Food at Home, I Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels,
January 1974, U.S. average
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex·age groups2
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
I Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years3
..... . ...... 24.70 31.50 38.20 107.50 136.00 165.00
55 to 75 years3
...•.. ...... 20.10 26.20 31.20 87.70 113.60 135.00
Family of 4:
Preschool children 4
. ...•.... 35.90 45.60 55.00 155.70 197.10 237.60
School children 5
• ••. . .•••.• 41.70 53.20 64.60 180.80 230.00 279.40
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year ........ 4.80 6.00 6.70 20.80 26.00 28.90
1 to 3 years ............... 6.10 7.70 9.20 26.50 33.20 39.70
3 to 6 years ...... ......... 7.30 9.30 11.10 31.50 40.30 47.90
6 to 9 years ............... 8.90 11.30 14.00 38.40 48.90 60.60
Girls, 9 to 12 years . . ... .. . ... 10.10 13.00 15.10 43.70 56.30 65.30
12 to 15 years ............. 11.10 14.40 17.20 47.90 62.20 74.70
15 to 20 years .... . ........ 11.30 14.20 16.80 49.00 61.70 72.80
Boys, 9 to 12 years ..... . .... 10.30 13.30 15.90 44.70 57.50 68.80
12 to 15 years ...... ....... 12.00 15.80 18.70 52.20 68.60 81.00
15 to 20 years ............ . 13.90 17.70 21.10 60.40 76.60 91.50
Women, 20 to 35 years ....... 10.40 13.30 15.80 45.30 57.40 68.30
35 to 55 years ............. 10.00 12.80 15.20 43.50 55.50 65.90
55 to 75 years ... ....... ... 8.40 11.00 13.00 36.60 47.60 56.20
75 years and over .......... 7.70 9.70 11.80 33.20 42.10 51.20
P egnant . . .......... .... . 12.30 15.50 18.10 53.50 66.90 78.50
Nursing ....... ........... 14.30 17.80 20.60 62.10 77.00 89.20
Men, 20-35 years ............ 12.10 15.30 18.90 52.40 66.20 81.70
35 to 55 years ............. 11.20 14.20 17.20 48.70 61.70 74.50
55 to 75 years ............. 9.90 12.80 15.40 43.10 55.70 66.50
75 years and over .......... 9.30 12.40 14.80 40.30 53.70 64.10
I These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review,
October 1964. The costs of the food plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food
group paid by urban survey families at three selected income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up to but not including those of the second age listed.
3 Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
4 Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5 Man and woman, 20-35; child, 6-9 and boy 9-12 years.
6 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent?
5-person--subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW 23
Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home1 Estimated for Food Plans
at Three Cost Levels, January 1974, for Northeast Region
Sex-age groups2
FAMILIES
Family of two :
20 to 35 years3
.. . ... . .•.. .
55 to 75 years3
.•...... . . . .
Family of 4:
Preschool children4
•. • •.. . ••
School children 5
.. . . .. • • • •.
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year . . ... . . .
1 to 3 years .............. .
3 to 6 years ... . ..... . ... . .
6 to 9 years . .. .... . .. .. .. .
Girls, 9 to 12 years ... . . . . ... .
12 to 15 years . . . ..... . . . . .
15 to 20 years . . ....... . .. .
Boys, 9 to 12 years ....... .. . .
12 to 15 years .. .. ... . . . .. .
15 to 20 years ........ . ... .
Women, 20 to 35 years .... . .. .
35 to 55 years .... .. . .. ... .
55 to 75 years .......... . . .
75 years and over .......... .
Pregnant . . .... .. . .. . . . . . .
Nursing .. .... .... .. .... . .
Men, 20 to 35 years .. . .. . .. . .
35 to 55 years . ........ . .. .
55 to 75 years .. ... ...... . .
7 5 years and over .. . . . .. .. . .
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
Dollars Dollars
27.40 34.50
22.30 28.70
39.60 50.10
46.10 58.60
5.20 6.60
6.70 8.40
8.00 10.30
9.80 12.50
11.10 14.40
12.20 15.90
12.40 15.70
11.40 14.70
13.30 17.60
15.50 19.60
11.50 14.50
11.00 14.10
9.30 12.00
8.40 10.60
13.50 17.00
15.70 19.60
13.40 16.90
12.40 15.70
11.00 14.10
10.20 13.60
Liberal
plan
Dollars
40.60
33.10
58.40
68.70
7.10
9.70
11.80
14.90
16.00
18.50
18.00
16.90
20.00
22.50
16.80
16.20
13.80
12.60
19.20
21.90
20.10
18.30
16.30
15.70
1 These estimates were computed from quantitties of food plans published in Family Economics Review,
October 1964_ The costs of the food plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food
group paid by urban survey families at three selected income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities (Boston) released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up to but not including those of the second age listed.
3 Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
4 Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5Man and woman, 20-35 years; child, 6-9 and boy, 9-12.
6 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent;
5-person-subtract 5 percent ; 6-or-more-subtract 10 percent.
24 SPRING 1974
( )
Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home1 Estimated for Food Plans
at Three Cost Levels, January 1974, for North Central Region
Sex-age groups2
I.
FAMILIES
Family of two:
20 to 35 years3
.. . ..•.•....
55 to 75 years3
... • . ••.....
Family of four:
Preschool children4
.•... . . . .
School children 5
... • .......
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year ....... .
1 to 3 years .. . . .. . .. ..... .
3 to 6 years ...... . ..... . . .
6 to 9 years . .. ..... .. .. .. .
Girls, 9 to 12 years ... .. . .. .. .
12 to 15 years .. ... ....... .
15 to 20 years .... ... . . .... .
Boys, 9 to 12 years ..... . .. .. .
12 to 15 years ..... ... . ... .
15 to 20 years ......... ... .
Women, 20 to 35 years . . ..... .
35 to 55 years . ... ....... . .
55 to 75 years ............ .
75 years and over .......... .
Pregnant ................ .
Nursing ......... . ....... .
Men, 20 to 35 years . ........ .
35 to 75 years ............ .
55 to 75 years . .. ... . ..... .
75 years and over ... ....... .
Low-cost
plan
Dol{ars
24.50
20.10
35.60
41.20
4.70
6.10
7.20
8.70
9.90
10.90
11.10
10.20
11.90
13.80
10.30
9.90
8.40
7.60
12.30
14.30
12.00
11.20
9.90
9.30
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
30.10
25.10
43.50
50.70
5.70
7.30
8.80
10.70
12.30
13.60
13.50
12.60
15.10
16.80
12.70
12.20
10.50
9.30
14.70
17.00
14.70
13.60
12.30
11.90
Liberal
plan
Dollars
36.50
29.70
52.60
61.90
6.40
8.80
10.60
13.40
14.40
16.40
16.00
15.30
18.00
20.40
15.00
14.50
12.30
11.20
17.30
19.80
18.20
16.60
14.70
14.20
1 These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review,
October 1964. The costs of the food plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food
group paid by urban survey families at three selected income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities (St. Louis) released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up to but not including those of the second age listed.
3 Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
4Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5Man and woman, 20-35 years; child, 6-9 and boy, 9-12 years.
6 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested : 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent;
5-person-subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-subtract 10 percent.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW 25
Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home1 Estimated for Food Plans
at Different Cost Levels, January 1974, for Southern Region
Sex-age groups Low-cost Another Moderate·
Sex-age groups2 plan low-cost cost plan
plan3
Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of two:
20 to 35 years4
• 0 •••••• 0 •• 23.20 22.10 29.50
55 to 7 5 years4
• 0 ••• 0 0 •• 0. 18.90 17.70 24.70
Family of 4:
Preschool childre~ 5
•••••••• 33.60 32.20 42.80
School children6
• 0 ••• 0 •• 0. 39.10 37.30 49.90
INDIVIDUALS7
Children, under 1 year ....... 4.50 4.40 5.70
1 to 3 years .............. 5.70 5.50 7.20
3 to 6 years .............. 6.80 6.60 8.80
6 to 9 years ... . .......... 8.30 8.10 10.60
Girls, 9 to 12 years .......... 9.40 8.90 12.30
12 to 15 years ............ 10.40 9.90 13.60
15 to 20 years ............ 10.60 10.10 13.60
Boys, 9 to 12 years .......... 9.70 9.10 12.50
12 to 15 years •• 0 •••••• 0 •• 11.20 11.00 14.90
15 to 20 years ............ 13.00 12.50 16.60
Women, 20 to 35 years ....... 9.80 9.30 12.50
35 to 55 years ............ 9.40 8.90 12.10
55 to 75 years ........... . 7.90 7.20 10.40
7 5 years and over ••• 0 0 •••• 7.20 6.70 9.30
Pregnant ••••••• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 11.60 11.30 14.60
Nursing ••• 0 ••••••••• 0 ••• 13.40 13.10 16.80
Men, 20 to 35 years 0 •• 0 ••••• 11.30 10.80 14.30
35 to 55 years ............ 10.50 10.10 13.40
55 to 75 years ... ......... 9.30 8.90 12.10
7 5 years and over • 0 ••••••• 8.70 8.30 11.70
Liberal
cost plan
Dollars
35.70
29.30
51.70
60.70
6.40
8.70
10.50
13.20
14.20
16.40
16.00
15.00
17.60
19.90
14.90
14.40
12.20
11.20
17.10
19.30
17.60
16.10
14.40
13.90
1 These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review,
October 1964. The costs of the food plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food
group paid by urban survey families at three selected income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities (Atlanta) released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up to but not including those of the second age listed.
3 Special adaptation of low-cost plan especially suitable for food habits of families in the Southeastern States.
4 Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
5 Man and woman, 20·35 years; children, 1·3 and 3-6 years.
6 Man and woman, 20·35 years; child, 6·9 and boy, 9·12.
7 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent;
5-person~ubtract 5 percent; 6-or·more person~ubtract 10 percent.
26 SPRING 1974
Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home1 Estimated for Food Plans
at Three Cost Levels, January 1974, for Western Region
Sex-age groups2
I
FAMILIES
Family of two:
20 to 35 years3
........... .
55 to 75 years3
•.••....•..•
Family of 4:
Preschool children4
•. ••.•..•
School children 5
•..• ...• . • .
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year . ...... .
1 to 3 years .......... .... .
3 to 6 years . . ............ .
6 to 9 years .... . ......... .
Girls, 9 to 12 years .......... .
12 to 15 years .......... . . .
15 to 20 years .. . . ... ... . . .
Boys, 9 to 12 years ... ....... .
12 to 15 years ............ .
15 to 20 years .......... .. .
Women, 20 to 35 years .. ..... .
35 to 55 years . . .......... .
55 to 75 years ... . ......... .
75 years and over .......... .
Pregnant ......... . ...... .
Nursing ........ . ........ .
Men, 20 to 35 years ......... .
35 to 55 years ....... .... . .
55 to 75 years ............ .
75 years and over ....... . .. .
Low-cost
plan
Doll.ars
25.30
20.60
36.70
42.70
4.90
6.30
7.40
9.10
10.30
11.30
11.40
10.60
12.30
14.20
10.60
10.20
8.60
7.70
12.60
14.60
12.40
11.50
10.10
9.50
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
30.80
25.70
44.60
52.00
5.80
7.50
9.10
11.00
12.70
14.00
13.90
13.00
15.50
17.20
13.00
12.60
10.80
9.50
15.10
17.30
15.00
13.90
12.60
12.20
Liberal
plan
Dollars
37.60
30.70
53.90
63.30
6.30
8.90
10.80
13.60
14.70
16.90
16.40
15.50
18.20
20.60
15.60
15.10
12.80
11.70
17.80
20.10
18.60
16.90
15.10
14.60
1 These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Review,
October 1964. The costs of the {ood plans were first estimated by using the average price per pound of each food
group paid by urban survey families at three selected income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities (Los Angeles) released periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up to but not including those of the second age listed.
3 Ten percent added for family size adjustment.
4 Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5Man and woman, 20-35 years; child, 6-9 and boy, 9-12.
6 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent;
5-person-subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-subtract 10 percent.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW 27
Consumer Affairs in the USDA
Nancy H. Steorts
CONTENTS
National Food Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .
USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection: Current Interest in Product Labeling
Harry Mussman
Food Additives and Fortification
Corbin I. Miles
Freezer Food Concerns ..... .
Josephine H. Lawyer
Energy Outlook and Implications for the Family
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Energy Conservation in and Around the Home
Glenda Pifer
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1974
Virginia Britton
FTC Issues Guides for Household Furniture Industry
FTC Trade Regulation Rules ...
Consumer Price Index by Region
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications .....
Page
3
5
7
9
11
13
16
18
20
21
21
17
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Cost of Food at Home, U.S. and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
28
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.,
December 17-19, 1973. For a free copy of the complete text, send your
request-giving title and author of the Article-to the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Building, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Please give your ZIP
code with your return address.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW