Family Economics Review [1981, Number 3]

              rn V(g , ' ' ; \ ~ \
IN THIS ISSUE:
For Bui\o\ng Use
SUMMER 1981
Depository
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
JUL 6 1981
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOOD INTAKES
HEALTH-RELATED FOOD CHOICES
TIME USE AND FAMILY LIFE
HOUSEHOLD ENERGY USE AND CONSUMPTION
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Science and Education Administration
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quar­terly
report on research relating to economic
aspects of family living. It is prepared pri­marily
for home economics agents and home
economics specialists of the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Editors: Kathleen K. Scholl
Katherine S. Tippett
Family Economics Research Group
Science and Education Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
Science and Education Administration, Family Economics Review, Summer 1981
Published by Science and Education Administration- Agricultural Research,
Northeastern Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOOD INTAKES: RESULTS FROM THE USDA
NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY 1977-78
Detailed information on the food intake of
individuals at home and away from home is
available from the USDA Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey 1977-78 (NFCS).1 The
first two articles in this issue of Family Eco­nomics
Review were developed from papers
presented at the Agricultural Outlook Confer­ence
in November 1980,2 and provide informa­tion
on the nutrient content of foods con­sumed
by individuals and from meals and
snacks of those individuals.
The data were collected on all foods and
beverages eaten at home and away from home
by members of a national sample of house­holds.
Information was collected from 1-day
recalls of 9,620 individuals living in 48 conter­minous
States in April to June 1977. Energy
and nutritive values of food intakes were calcu­lated
from composition data in Agriculture
Handbook No. 8,3 including recently revised
sections, and from data supplied by manufac­turers.
1 A detailed description of the purpose of the survey,
the methodology, and appropriate uses of the data
appears in the Fall 1978 issue of Family Economics
Reuiew.
2 Copies of the complete papers are available from
the Consumer Nutrition Center, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Room 325A, Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
3 Watt, B. K., and Merrill, A. L., 1963, Composition
of foods ... raw, processed, prepared. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 8 (rev.), 190 pp.
SUMMER 1981
The first article, "Nutrients in foods at home
and away," by Guenther and Chandler, des­scribes
nutrients in foods eaten at home and
away by men, women, and children of various
ages. Such information is of special importance
because eating out became so common be­tween
1965 and 1977. In 1965, meals and
snacks purchased and eaten away from home
accounted for 17 cents out of the household
food dollar; by 1977 this share had increased
to 24 cents.4 The second article, "Nutrients
from meals and snacks consumed by indi­viduals,"
by Pao and Mickle, describes the
nutrient content of meals and snacks. Such
data are important because people usually eat
combinations of foods rather than a single food
for a meal. Meal and snack patterns may be
changing, along with changes in life styles,
introduction of new foods into the market­place,
and the increase in eating away from
home. The effects of such changes should be
delineated. Therefore, the percentage of the
day's nutrient intake provided by the meal or
snack and the nutrient density (nutritive value
per 1,000 kcal) are used to describe meals and
snacks reported. Nutrient density is one measure
of nutrient quality of assortments of foods
selected.
4 See "Money value of food used by households in
the United States, 1977 ," 1980, Preliminary Report
No. 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer and
Food Economics Institute.
3
NUTRIENTS IN FOODS AT HOME AND AWAY1
By Patricia M. Guenther and Carolyn A. Chandler2
Foods eaten away from home make im­portant
contributions to nutrient intakes. On
the average, foods eaten out provided 19 per­cent
of energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate
and 15 to 18 percent of the vitamins and
minerals studied. The nutrient contribution of
food away from home varied with age of indi­viduals
from 1 to 2 percent of the day's intake
for infants up to 20 to 25 percent for young
adults (19 to 34 years). The nutrient contribu­tion
of food away then decreased with ad­vancing
age to about 10 percent.
Individuals Eating Away From Home
Of the individuals surveyed, 44 percent had
food or beverage away from home on the 24-
hour day preceding the interview. This propor­tion
increased progressively with age from 6
percent for infants to a peak among males of
60 percent at 23 to 34 years and . to a peak
among females of 55 percent at 12 to 14 years.
The percentage eating away from home then
decreased with advancing age to 23 percent
for men and women of 65 to 7 4 years and to
about 16 percent for those 75 and older.
Percentages for those eating out for males
under 22 and over 65 years were similar to
those for females. However, many more men
than women 23 to 64 years ate away from
home.
In a similar 1965 survey, 39 percent of the
individuals obtained and ate some food away
from home compared with 44 percent in 1977.
The sex-age group with the greatest increase
since 1965 was women at 23 to 34 years. In
1 "Food eaten out" or "food away from home"
refers to food that was obtained and eaten outside the
individual's home, for example, in a restaurant, at
school, at work, or at someone else's home. Food that
was purchased at a store and eaten away from home
is also considered "food away." Food that is carried
from the home and eaten elsewhere, such as bag
lunches and picnics, is from the home food supply and
is considered "food at home."
2 Consumer Nutrition Center, Human Nutrition,
Science and Education Administration, U.S. Depart·
ment of Agriculture.
4
1965, 35 percent of this group had food away
from home on the day surveyed; in 1977, close
to 50 percent had eaten out. The next largest
increase was for children 3 to 5 years; 24
percent of them had food away from home in
1965 compared with 33 percent in 1977.
These increases probably reflect the greater
numbers of young women in the work force
and the care of their children outside the home.
Energy From Food at Home and Away
The average shares of food energy and of
each of the energy-providing nutrients-fat,
protein, and carbohydrate-coming from food
away from home were almost identical to each
other for all individuals studied. The propor­tions,
however, varied considerably by the sex
and age of individuals (table 1). Non-breast-fed
infants received only 2 percent of their energy
intakes from foods eaten away from home, but
at 1 and 2 years about 10 percent came from
foods away from home. In general, the propor­tion
of energy provided by food away from
home increased with age to about 25 percent
for men and women 19 to 34 years, and then
declined with increasing age to about 7 percent
for those 7 5 and over.
About 80 percent of the day's energy intake
came from foods at home, and about 20
percent came from foods away from home
(table 2). The meat-egg group3 contributed
the largest proportion of energy in foods at
3 For this study, foods were classified into five
major groups: Milk and milk products, meat-egg,
grain products, fruits and vegetables, and fats-sweets·
beverages (or "other"). Milk and milk products include
cheese, yogurt, cream, and such milk product mixtures
as puddings and cheese sandwiches. The meat-egg
group also includes fish, poultry, and mixtures having
one of these foods as a main ingredient, such as sand·
wiches, stews, and TV dinners. The grain products
group includes breads, rolls, biscuits, other baked
goods, cereals, pastas, and their mixtures. The fruits
and vegetables group includes juices, legumes, nuts,
and seeds. The last group, "other," includes such
beverages as coffee, tea, soft drinks, fruit drinks, fruit
ades, and alcoholic drinks, and sweets, sugar, fats, and
oils that were reported separately by the respondent.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Cc:l:l Table 1. Nutritive value of food obtained and eaten away from home
~ tzj
[Percentage of day's1 intake per individual]
::0
..... Individuals <0 Pre- Vita- Vita· Vita- .0..0.. Sex and age Individuals eating Food Pro- Carbo- Cal- Magne- Phos· Vita- Thia- Ribo- Fat Iron formed min min min
(years) (number) away energy tein hydrate cium sium phorus min A min flavin niacin B6 B12 c
(percent)
Males and females:
Under 1 ..... 278 6.4 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.7 2.1
1-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 264 25.0 9.6 9.0 9.7 9.7 7.4 8.7 8.3 8.4 7.3 8.1 7.8 9.4 8.4 7.9 8.1
3-5 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 437 33.4 14.3 13.9 14.4 14.3 11.9 13.1 13.1 13.0 10.4 12.2 12.2 13.6 12.4 12.2 11.7
6-8 0 0 •••• 0. 0 469 49.7 19.6 19.8 20.2 19.1 20.5 17.0 18.7 19.8 17.0 16.7 18.7 17.6 17.0 19.6 17.3
Males:
9-11 0. 0 0 0. 0. 216 51.4 20.2 19.9 20.8 20.1 20.0 18.1 18.7 19.5 18.3 16.8 18.7 18.6 18.0 19.7 18.0
12-14 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 313 54.0 19.7 19.8 19.6 20.1 22.0 17.7 19.6 20.6 17.3 17.8 19.6 17.3 17.3 20.3 16.8
15-18 .. 0 0 • 0 0 400 55.0 21.2 20.7 21.5 21.4 20.6 19.0 19.4 20.8 16.0 18.6 19.7 19.3 17.9 20.6 15.3
19-22 0 0 •• 0 0. 287 52.3 24.3 23.4 23.8 24.3 20.7 22.8 22.0 22.8 20.7 20.6 21.1 22.9 22.7 21.9 21.9
23-34 . 0 • 0 0 0 0 770 60.4 26.6 25.7 26.5 26.7 24.3 25.8 25.0 25.6 22.0 24.5 24.7 26.3 24.7 25.4 21.1
35-50 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 784 54.3 22.0 21.5 21.6 22.3 20.6 21.1 21.1 21.5 19.5 20.2 21.1 22.1 20.7 21.4 19.1
51-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 634 39.0 15.2 15.2 15.0 15.3 14.1 14.5 14.0 14.8 13.8 13.5 14.5 15.1 14.3 14.9 11.8
65-74 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 295 23.1 10.5 10.7 11.0 9.8 7.7 9.7 8.8 9.4 8.7 8.1 8.2 10.5 9.4 9.4 8.4
75 and over ... 127 16.5 7.6 8.2 8.3 6.4 5.7 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.6 5.8 5.7 8.1 7.0 7.3 6.1
Females:
9-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 241 49.4 20.3 21.0 21.7 19.4 20.8 18.3 18.7 20.3 16.7 17.2 19.3 18.4 17.5 20.5 15.7
12-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 55.3 19.9 18.7 20.0 20.7 19.6 17.6 18.9 19.5 15.6 17.5 18.2 17.9 16.7 18.7 16.0
15-18 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 52.2 25.0 24.6 25.3 25.1 23.7 23.6 23.6 24.6 20.7 21.3 23.2 23.5 23.3 24.6 19.6
19-22 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 337 50.1 25.1 24.5 24.5 25.5 22.6 24.6 24.3 24.3 22.9 23.2 23.5 24.7 24.7 24.0 21.2
23-34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 949 47.5 23.6 23.0 24.1 22.9 21.5 23.0 22.2 22.6 21.4 22.3 21.8 23.1 22.4 22.0 21.0
35-50 0 •••• 0 0 942 40.6 18.0 17.5 18.3 17.6 16.8 17.1 16.4 17.3 15.9 16.5 16.6 17.1 16.8 16.7 15.1
51-64 . 0 •••• 0 792 32.8 13.3 12.9 13.9 12.8 11.9 12.2 11.8 12.6 11.9 11.6 12.0 12.4 11.9 12.8 9.9
65-74 0. 0 0 0 0. 377 23.1 11.6 12.1 12.4 10.4 9.9 10.7 9.7 11.0 10.7 9.5 10.4 11.2 10.6 11.4 7.1
75 and over ... 197 15.2 7.4 8.4 8.5 5.9 6.5 6.8 6.2 7.4 6.2 5.9 6.7 7.3 7.3 7.7 5.3
All individuals 0 0 0
4 9,620 43.7 18.8 18.5 19.0 18.6 17.5 17.6 17.5 18.2 16.2 16.7 17.3 18.0 17.2 17.9 15.4
1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
2 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
3 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants.
4 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, Food and nutrient intakes of
01 individuals in 1 day in the United States, spring 1977, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Preliminary Report 2, p. 96.
home and away. Foods in the meat-egg group
contributed 25 percent of the day's energy
intake at home and 6 percent away from home.
The next largest energy source was the grain
products group, with about 20 percent of the
day's energy coming from grain products at
home and 4 percent coming from grain products
eaten away. At home, fruits and vegetables
made a slightly greater contribution to energy
(14 percent) than did milk (12 percent) or the
foods in the "other" category (about 10 per­cent).
Away from home, the food energy from
these three food groups was evenly divided
(2 to 3 percent each).
The meat-egg group supplied the largest
proportion of protein in the diets, as would be
expected. Foods in this group at home provided
about 40 percent of protein. Within the group,
eggs provided 4 percent. The meat-egg group
eaten away from home supplied another 10
percent of protein. The contribution from eggs
away was only 0.5 percent. Milk and milk
products and grain products were equally im­portant
sources of protein among foods at
home and away; each supplied about 15 per­cent
of total protein intake at home and about
3 percent away from home. Fruits and vege­tables
at home were the source of about 10
percent of protein and provided less than 2 per­cent
of protein away from home.
The meat-egg group was also the major
source of fat in the diet. Foods in this group
contributed 37 percent of all fat at home and 9
percent away from home. The milk and milk
products group was the next most important
source of fat, contributing 14 percent at home
and 3 percent away from home. The other
three major food groups contributed similar
equal amounts of fat to the diet-9 to 12 per­cent
each in foods at home and 2 to 3 percent
in foods away.
Vitamins A, C, and B6 and Iron From Food
at Home and Away
Foods at home and foods away from home
differed more in their contents of vitamins
A and C than they did for any other nutrient.
Foods at home supplied a larger proportion of
vitamin A and vitamin C than energy nutrients.
For older adults (65 to 74), however, foods at
home supplied the same proportion of vitamin
A and energy.
6
Foods away from home supplied 10 percent
of the vitamin A for children 3 to 5 years, 16
percent for teenage boys (15 to 18 years), and
21 percent for teenage girls. The proportions
of vitamin A from foods away from home were
highest for women 19 to 22 years (23 percent)
and for men 23 to 34 years (22 percent). By
age 65 to 7 4 these proportions had fallen to
about 10 percent.
Fruits and vegetables supplied 35 percent of
the day's vitamin A intakes at home and
another 7 percent away from home. Tomatoes
and dark-green and deep yellow vegetables
were important sources of vitamin A. The
contribution of white potatoes to intake of
vitamin A came mainly from added butter or
margarine. Legumes, nuts, and seeds supplied
negligible amounts. The remaining vegetables
provided the largest proportion of vitamin A,
13 percent at home and 3 percent away.
The milk, meat-egg, and grain products
groups contributed 13 to 16 percent each to
intakes of vitamin A at home and 2 to 3 percent
each away. Eggs accounted for over a third of
the meat-egg group~s contribution at home
(4.8 percent of the 12.5 percent) and only a
fifth of this group's contribution away from
home (0.6 percent of the 3.2 percent). Eggs
were eaten much more frequently at home
than away from home.
Fruits and vegetables were major sources of
vitamin C. Those at home furnished nearly 60
percent of the total day's intake, and those
away furnished about 10 percent. Citrus fruits
and tomatoes supplied a fourth of the vitamin
C, most of it at home. Among all foods eaten
away, potatoes were the most important source
of vitamin C, supplying 4 percent of the total
intake. The remaining four major food groups
supplied 4 to 8 percent of vitamin C intake
from foods at home and 1 to 2 percent each
from foods away from home.
Sources of vitamin B6 were more evenly
distributed among the food groups than were
sources of vitamin A and vitamin C. About 83
percent came from food at home-33 percent
from the meat-egg group, 22 percent from
fruits and vegetables, 17 percent from grain
products, 9 percent from milk and milk prod­ucts,
and 2 percent from fats, sweets, and
beverages. About 17 percent of vitamin B6
came from foods away from home-9 percent
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 2. Contribution of food groups at home and away to nutrient intakes
[Average per individual in a day] 1
Food
Protein Fat Calcium Iron
Vitamin
Food group
energy A
Home Away Home Away Home Away Home Away Home Away Home Away
Percent
Milk-milk products • ••• 0 •• • • 0 •• 0 11.6 2.2 15.1 2.6 14.1 2.7 39.0 6.9 3.0 0.6 15.9 3.1
Meat-egg . .... . . . .... . .... . . . 24.7 6.4 40.7 10.6 36.9 8.9 8.7 3.1 29.8 8.1 12.5 3.2
Grain products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 4.3 15.5 3 .2 11.7 3.1 18.7 4.0 28.6 4.4 14.3 2.1
Fruits-vegetables . ........ . . . . .. 13.6 2.7 9.4 1.8 9.3 2.7 12.4 2.2 16.6 3.2 35.2 7.0
Fats-sweets-beverages 10.5 3.2 .8 .3 9.0 1.6 3.7 1.3 4 .3 1.4 5.9 .8 .•• •• •. • • 0 .
All foods . . . .... . . . .. . .. .. ... 81.2 18.8 81.5 18.5 81.0 19.0 82.5 17.5 82.3 17.7 83.8 16.2
1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
Vitamin Vitamin
B6 c
Home Away Home Away
9.3 1.5 6.6 0.9
33.3 8.7 4.0 1.9
16.6 2.1 8.0 1.3
22.0 4 .1 59.1 10.6
1.6 .8 6.6 1.0
82.8 17.2 84.3 15.7
Source : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey 1977-78, 48 conterminous States, spring 1977 (preliminary).
from the meat-egg group and 8 percent from
the remaining food groups together.
Food eaten out provided about 18 percent
of the day's iron intake for all individuals
studied. These foods provided 13 percent
of the iron intake for children 3 to 5, about 25
percent for adults 23 to 34, and only 10 per­cent
for adults 65 to 74.
Among foods at home, the meat-egg and the
grain groups each furnished about 29 percent
of iron intake, and fruits and vegetables fur­nished
17 percent. Among foods eaten away,
the meat-egg group contributed another 8 per­cent
and the grain products contributed half
that much (4 percent).
Sources of iron differed greatly between in­fants
and other age groups. Infants received
98.5 percent of their iron at home. Grain
products provided 46 percent; milk products,
28 percent; fruits and vegetables (including
soy-based formulas), 16 percent; and the meat­egg
group, 8 percent.
Location of Eating Occasions Away
From Home
Of the eating occasions (meals and snacks)
reported, 77 percent were eaten at home.
Another 4 percent consisted entirely of foods
from home, such as bag lunches and picnics,
that were eaten away from home. In 18 per­cent
of occasions, foods were obtained and
eaten away from home, and in the remaining 1
percent, foods from home and away were
combined. Table 3 provides the percentage of
eating occasions in which all foods were ob­tained
and eaten away from home at various
types of eating places by selected sex -age
groups.
Teenagers 15 to 18 years ate about 22 per­cent
of their meals and snacks away from home,
and the largest proportion of these occasions
was at school--34 percent for boys and 27 per­cent
for girls. Fast-food places accounted for
18 percent of meals and snacks eaten out for
teenage boys and 24 percent for teenage girls.
Table 3. Eating occasions away from home1
Sex and Percent of occasions away from home
Percent of all
age
(years) occasions Fast- Someone Restaurant food Work School else's Store Other
place home
Children
3-5 ... .... ... .. 12 4 7 0 21 54 1 13
Males
15-18 ......... . 21 5 18 8 34 18 9 8
Females
15-18 .... .. . ... 23 13 24 3 27 17 6 10
Males
23-34 .......... 28 23 16 29 1 17 5 9
Females
23-34 ..... ..... 22 19 10 27 1 28 4 11
Males
65-74 ... ....... 8 37 8 7 1 27 4 16
Females
65-74 .......... 8 28 1 7 0 31 1 32
All individuals ' . . . . . . 18 18 13 21 11 20 4 13
1 Eating occasions include meals and snacks.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center,
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, 48 conterminous States, spring 1977 (preliminary).
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Another 17 to 18 percent of the away-from­home
eating occasions were at someone else's
home.
Men and women 23 to 34 years had about
28 percent of their away-from-home meals
and snacks at work. People in that group ate
more often in restaurants than in fast-food
places. Older men and women ate less than 10
percent of their meals and snacks away from
home. They were more likely to patronize a
restaurant or take a meal or snack in another
person's home than to eat at a fast-food place.
NUTRIENTS FROM MEALS AND SNACKS CONSUMED BY
INDIVIDUALS1
By Eleanor M. Pao and Sharon J. Mickle2
Meal Participation
Almost all children and older adults ate
breakfast, but only about three-fourths of the
teenage girls and young adults reported this
meal. Over three-fourths of the individuals had
lunch, plus a few others who reported the mid­day
meal ~s dinner. More participants reported
the evening meal as supper than as dinner. Over
one-half of the participants had at least one
snack.
Although 86 percent of the participants had
breakfast on the day surveyed, percentages for
various sex-age groups differed. Almost all
(over 95 percent) of the children and adults
65 years and over, ate breakfast. Groups with
the smallest fraction reporting breakfast were
girls 15 to 18 years (77 percent) persons of
both sexes 19 to 22 years (71 percent), and
adults 23 to 34 years (75 to 77 percent).
Of all participants, 77 percent reported
lunch. Of children 3 to 11 years, about 85 per­cent
had lunch, but percentages were lower for
1 Eating occasions-as named by the respondents-are
classified as breakfast, lunch (includes brunch), dinner,
supper, and snacks. Snacks include occasions identi­fied
as snacks and coffee or beverage breaks, as well as
those designated as "other" or "not reported." The
nutritive values presented for a specified meal are based
on food consumed at the meal by only those indi­viduals
who reported eating that meal. Values for snacks
are based on food consumed as snacks by only those
individuals who reported one or more snacking oc­casions
during the day surveyed. Therefore, the number
of individuals differs for breakfast ( 8,291 ), lunch
(7 ,409), dinner (4,703), supper (5,040), and snacks
( 5,859).
2 Consumer Nutrition Center, Human Nutrition,
Science and Education Administration, U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture.
SUMMER 1981
teenagers and adults and were lowest for the
elderly (64 to 73 percent). Some individuals
undoubtedly called the midday meal "dinner."
Nearly one-half of the survey participants
had dinner. More older adults (over 50 years)
than children had dinner, and only one-third of
the infants had dinner. Dinner may be either a
midday or evening meal, since time of eating
was not a criterion in the definition of meals in
this paper.
Over one-half (52 percent) of the individuals
surveyed reported supper. The percentages
ranged from highest for infants and children
under 6 years (61 to 65 percent) to lowest for
women 19 to 22 years (46 percent.)
Of the individuals surveyed, 61 percent had
at least one snack (all occasions not designated
as one of the four meals just discussed). Rela­tively
more children and teenagers (59 to 70
percent) than adults (55 to 64 percent) snacked.
About 40 percent of the oldest group of adults
reported snacks. Among infants, 86 percent
were categorized as snackers because their
eating occasions, reported as feedings, were so
frequent. Thus, snacks may be a misnomer for
many of these eating occasions. Of the persons
reporting snacks, 53 percent had only one
snack, 28 percent had two, 11 percent had
three, and 8 percent had four or more.
Percentage of the Day's Nutrients
The average proportion of the day's nutrients
from each of the day's meals varied from meal
to meal and among sex-age groups. In general,
children and the elderly apparently spread
energy and nutrient intakes more evenly among
their meals than other groups. Young and
middle-aged adults tended to derive less of the
9
day's intake from breakfast than other groups
and derived about half of most nutrients from
dinner or supper. Intakes were generally
similar for teenage girls and young women.
Nutrient contributions to the day's intake dif­fered
between snacks and meals. Snacks, on the
average, were the source of more of the day's
carbohydrate than of other nutrients. Young
children obtained a larger proportion of their
day's energy and nutrients from snacks than
did other groups.
At breakfast, adults 23 to 64 tended to con­sume
about one-fifth of the day's energy,
protein, and fat; infants, children, and the
elderly consumed closer to one-fourth of the
day's intake (table 1). Generally, infants,
children, and the elderly averaged a higher pro­portion
of the day's carbohydrate, minerals,
and vitamins from breakfast than adults 23 to
64 especially those 35 to 50.
At lunch, most age groups consumed about
one-third of the day's energy and nutrients, but
infants and children 1 to 2 years consumed
closer to one-fourth of their intakes (table 2).
At dinner and supper, adults under 65 years
averaged between two-fifths and one-half
of energy and most nutrients. Children and the
elderly averaged closer to one-third to two­fifths,
and infants closer to one-fifth to one­fourth
(tables 3 and 4).
Occasions classified as snacks (nonmeals)
provided 20 percent of the day's energy, 25
percent of the carbohydrate, 16 percent of the
fat, and 12 percent of the protein (table 5).
About 15 percent of the day's vitamins (13 to
17 percent) and iron (14 percent), but about
20 percent of the other three minerals (18 to
21 percent), came from snacks.
Nutrient Density
Nutrient density (nutrient per 1,000 kcal) of
meals and snacks indicates relationships that
are useful in evaluating the quality of diets. 3
In general, protein and fat densities averaged
lowest in snacks, and they became progres­sively
higher in breakfasts, lunches, suppers,
and dinners. Carbohydrate densities were the
reverse- lowest in dinners and highest in snacks.
3The data are descriptive and have not been tested
for significance.
10
Usually, average calcium densities were higher
for children than for adults except for snacks,
but iron and magnesium densities tended to be
higher for infants and adults than for children.
Densities of most vitamins studied were higher
for infants and children than for adults at
breakfast, but, except for thiamin and ribo­flavin,
tended to be higher for adults than for
children at lunch, dinner, and supper.
For breakfast, protein densities averaged
lower for women than for other groups. Men's
breakfasts had the highest average fat densities
but the lowest carbohydrate densities. Densities
of calcium and iron, as well as most vitamins,
averaged highest for infants and young children.
Vitamin densities tended to be lowest for
adults 23 to 64 years.
For lunch, protein densities averaged higher
for adults than for children and teenagers, but
carbohydrate densities were highest for infants
and children and lowest for adults. Men over
64 years had lunches with the highest average
fat densities. Densities of minerals and most
vitamins averaged highest for infants. Although
calcium density was highest in children's
lunches, iron and magnesium were highest in
lunches of infants and adults. Vitamin densities,
except for thiamin and riboflavin, tended to
be lower for children than for adults.
For dinner and supper, protein and fat
densities averaged highest for middle-aged
adults and lowest for infants and children, but
carbohydrate densities were highest for infants
and children and lowest for adults. Generally,
calcium and phosphorus densities were higher
for children than for adults, but iron and
magnesium densities were higher for infants
and adults than for children. Vitamin densities,
except for thiamin and riboflavin, tended to
average higher for adults over 50 years than for
younger groups.
For snacks, protein densities averaged highest
for infants, 1- to 2-year-olds, 9- to 14-year-old
boys, and the elderly. Infants, 1- to 2-year-olds,
and teenagers had snacks with the highest
average fat densities, while 3- to 11-year-olds
had snacks with the highest carbohydrate
densities. Mineral densities, except for calcium,
averaged higher for adults than for children
over 2 years, and vitamin densities, except for
niacin, tended to be higher for infants and the
elderly and low for young and middle-aged
adults.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Cll c:
~ Table 1. Nutritive value of breakfast
ttl [Percentage of a day 's1 ::0 intake per individual reporting breakfast, spring 1977, 48 States, all urbanizations, all incomes]
.....
0:0
0...0.. Individuals Vita- Pre- Vita- Vita- Vita- Sex and age Individuals Food Pro- Carbo- Cal- Magne- Phos- Thia- Ribo-reporting
Fat Iron min A formed min min min
(years) (number)
breakfast
energy tein hydrate cium sium phorus
value
min flavin
niacin B6 B12 c
Males and females:
Under 1 ..... 2 78 89.6 23.2 21.3 20.3 25.7 28.1 44.2 26.7 25.8 15.8 39.7 32.5 38.7 24.8 20.6 25.6
1-2 ......... 3 264 98.8 26.7 24.2 23.3 31.2 34.4 35.4 29.7 29.3 35.1 41.0 37.6 31.2 32.5 32.1 37.5
3-5 ......... 437 95.5 24.4 22.6 21.5 27.4 35.3 31.2 28.2 28.8 38.4 37.1 37.9 27.0 32.6 34.6 36.3
6-8 ......... 469 96.5 23.2 21.0 19.6 27.4 33.6 29.2 26.8 27.2 37.8 36.7 37.5 26.9 31.9 33.3 39.6
Males:
9-11 ........ 216 92.5 21.9 19.6 18.7 26.0 33.8 27.6 25.0 26.3 38.6 ' 37.0 37.9 26.9 31.6 32.8 36.4
12-14 ....... 313 92.2 22.5 19.4 19.1 26.9 33.4 27.0 24.9 25.6 33.7 34.6 34.7 23.7 26.0 30.8 32.9
15-18 .. ..... 400 86.1 20.4 18.4 18.0 24.1 29.4 24.8 24.2 23.8 32.1 31.5 31.4 21.9 25.1 28.1 32.9
19-22 ....... 287 70.6 22.4 20.9 21.8 25.8 35.4 24.1 26.5 26.2 31.0 31.6 33.1 20.1 21.5 30.8 28 .. 8
23-34 ....... 770 74.6 19.9 18.3 18.9 23.2 28.8 22.5 24.2 22.5 26.0 28.2 27.8 19.4 18.4 25.3 28.6
35-50 ....... 784 84.0 17.9 15.4 16.3 22.0 25.6 21.0 23.3 19.0 22.2 25.2 24.0 17.5 15.4 21.2 22.9
51-64 ....... 634 91.4 19.7 16.5 17.8 23.9 26.0 23.2 25.9 20.6 23.6 27.0 25.5 20.7 18.3 22.5 26.3
65-74 ....... 295 94.9 24.1 20.3 20.5 30.5 30.3 29.7 31.6 25.7 27.7 35.3 31.3 27.0 25.0 25.3 31.6
75 and over ... 127 98.3 26.9 22.5 23.7 32.2 31.3 30.6 33.2 27.9 27.2 35.1 32.8 26.2 25.5 29.3 27.9
Females:
9-11 ........ 241 95.4 21.7 18.9 17.8 26.2 33.1 26.4 25.4 25.2 36.0 36.1 35.6 24.7 29.5 31.9 37.9
12-14 ...... . 309 85.6 21.3 20.0 19.0 24.9 33.0 23.8 24.1 24.8 33.7 31.6 33.5 21.8 25.3 30.5 33.5
15-18 ....... 402 76.8 21.4 18.8 18.5 25.3 31.9 23.8 25.1 24.3 29.7 32.4 31.9 22.1 23.7 28.0 31.2
19-22 ....... 337 71.1 22.8 20.3 19.9 28.2 32.8 24.4 29.1 24.7 26.4 31.8 31.1 22.8 22.1 27.1 34.2
23-34 ....... 949 75.9 18.9 16.3 16.2 23.5 25.9 21.8 25.1 20.4 25.0 26.4 26.0 20.1 18.4 23.2 27.7
35-50 ... .. .. 942 85.4 18.5 14.9 15.2 24.3 26.5 21.3 27.1 19.7 21.9 26.5 24.6 19.9 16.7 19.9 26.8
51-64 ....... 792 90.2 19.6 15.7 15.8 26.4 26.9 23.0 28.5 21.0 22.1 28.3 25.2 21.5 17.9 21.1 30.1
65-74 ....... 377 96.4 22.8 19.0 18.3 29.0 29.2 27.4 31.7 24.5 25.3 32.8 28.4 25.2 23.4 23.7 32.5
75 and over ... 197 97.6 25.2 20.5 20.5 31.6 30.8 29.9 33.0 25.9 26.1 35.4 30.0 27.1 24.6 24.9 34.0
All individuals ... 4 9,620 86.2 21.1 18.3 18.2 25.8 29.6 25.1 26.7 23.3 27.8 30.9 29.7 22.6 22.3 25.9 30.7
1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
2 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
3 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants.
4 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
..... Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, Food and nutrient intakes of ..... individuals in 1 day in the United States, spring 1977, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Preliminary Report 2, p. 96 .
......
~
Table 2. Nutritive value of lunch
[Percentage of a day's1 intake per individual reporting lunch, spring 1977, 48 States, all urbanizations, all incomes]
Sex and age Individuals Individuals
Food Pro- Carbo- Cal- Magne- Phos-
Vita-
Thia- Ribo-
Pre- Vita- Vita- Vita-reporting
Fat Iron min A formed min min min
(years) (number) lunch energy tein hydrate cium sium phorus
value
min flavin
niacin B6 B12 c
Males and females:
Under 1 • 0 0 ••
2 78 78.5 24.1 25.3 25.0 23.3 20.4 16.4 21.3 21.9 32.4 16.1 19.1 20.3 25.1 25.1 21.9
1-2 ......... 3 264 81.8 27.7 28.0 29.3 25.9 24.0 24.9 23.9 25.3 24.6 21.8 21.3 25.5 21.7 24.4 17.4
3-5 ......... 437 85.3 30.9 31.2 31.9 30.1 29.1 28.4 28.8 29.0 22.6 27.0 25.9 30.6 23.5 27.3 20.5
6-8 ......... 469 87.3 32.8 33.7 34.3 31.5 33.1 30.1 31.8 32.4 25.4 28.6 28.6 31.9 26.6 29.9 22.4
Males:
9-11 ........ 216 85.0 33.3 34.3 34.9 31.9 33.3 30.7 32.3 32.2 27.4 28.6 28.7 31.4 27.5 30.1 29.8
12-14 ....... 313 79.5 30.6 31.4 31.6 30.0 31.8 27.7 29.7 30.3 25.1 28.2 28.7 28.7 25.8 30.1 26.8
15-18 ....... 400 76.8 32.1 33.3 34.0 30.6 32.6 30.6 29.8 31.7 25.2 29.8 30.3 31.3 28.3 34.4 22.6
19-22 ....... 287 74.6 35.8 36.5 37.2 35.1 36.4 35.4 32.0 34.9 28.6 36.1 34.4 35.2 32.1 35.8 25.9
23·34 ....... 770 75.7 33.7 34.3 34.7 34.4 32.3 34.3 29.2 32.1 27.5 33.3 30.9 34.0 30.7 33.3 24.5
35-50 ....... 784 77.4 32.7 33.7 34.3 32.8 33.4 32.2 28.7 32.3 27.9 33.7 32.3 32.2 30.5 34.6 27.3
51-64 ....... 634 74.3 31.1 31.7 31.6 32.3 32.2 29.8 27.0 30.4 26.1 31.5 30.3 29.9 28.5 32.2 25.6
65-74 ....... 295 72.9 32.2 33.0 34.4 29.9 32.6 29.9 27.9 31.5 29.9 29.9 29.8 30.8 29.0 31.2 23.8
75 and over ... 127 64.1 31.9 33.4 34.6 28.9 33 .4 29.3 26.7 32.3 31.4 27.9 29.6 30.3 28.3 34.0 25.7
Females:
9-11 ........ 241 82.7 32.2 33.7 34.3 30.3 33.7 29.4 31.2 32.1 24.0 27.8 28.9 31.7 26.0 31.8 20.9
12-14 ....... 309 81.6 32.9 32.9 34.0 33.0 33.7 32.3 31.9 33.0 26.6 31.9 31.4 32.4 28.9 33.4 26.9
15-18 ....... 402 76.0 31.3 31.8 32.7 30.4 31.2 31.1 29.5 31.1 26.7 30.4 30.1 30.3 28.4 33.3 27.1
19-22 ....... 337 74.8 35.2 36.2 37.6 33.5 35.2 34.3 30.7 34.5 29.9 33.8 33.7 33.5 31.9 37.2 28.7
23-34 ....... 949 76.7 33.1 35.1 35.5 31.5 35.7 32.5 29.0 33.8 30.6 33.0 32.5 31.7 30.5 36.1 26.3
'"%j 35-50 ....... 942 76.4 32.6 34.0 34.4 31.4 33.8 31.7 28.1 32.7 29.4 32.3 32.6 31.5 30.8 35.7 24.4
> 51-64 ....... 792 74.5 31.0 33.3 32.3 30.2 32.1 29.8 26.7 31.4 28.2 30.2 30.6 30.3 29.8 33.4 25.0
is: - 65-74 ....... 377 70.3 33.5 35.1 36.3 30.6 32.5 31.5 28.9 32.6 30.7 30.3 31.1 32.3 30.9 31.6 25.7 t-< 75 and over ... 197 65.0 34.0 37.5 37.1 30.2 33.2 30.7 29.4 34.7 31.2 29.8 31.0 32.0 34.3 34.4 28.8 ><
tz:j
(j All individuals ... 4 9,620 77.0 32.3 33.5 33.9 31.4 32.7 31.0 28.9 31.9 27.6 30.8 30.5 31.3 29.0 33.0 25.0
0 z 0 1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
.i.s..:. 2 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
(j 3 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants. en
::0 4 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
tz:j .<.... Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, tz:j 1980, Food and nutrient intakes of :;: individuals in 1 day in the United States, spring 1977, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Preliminary Report 2, p. 104.
en c
s:: s:: Table 3. Nutritive value of dinner
t:%l
::0 [Percentage of a day's 1 intake per individual reporting dinner, spring 1977, 48 States, all urbanizations, all incomes]
~ co
(X)
~ Individuals Vita- Pre- Vita- Vita- Vita-
Sex and age Individuals reporting Food Pro-
Fat Carbo- Cal-
Iron
Magne- Phos-min
A
Thia- Ribo-formed
min min min
(years) (number)
dinner
energy tein hydrate cium sium phorus
value
min flavin
niacin B6 B1 2 c
Males and females:
Under 1 . .... 278 34.6 24.1 27.2 25.4 22 .3 23.4 18.8 23.5 24.1 33.1 18.5 22.3 21.9 25.4 25.3 21.7
1-2 . .. ... ... 3 264 42.7 31.1 37.4 35.5 25.0 24.6 29.6 29.7 30.5 33.1 24.6 25.7 34.3 33.7 30.9 26.7
3-5 . .. .. . . . . 437 41.8 36.9 43.7 41.1 30.7 28.6 36.9 34.8 36.3 36.1 31.3 30.8 41.6 40.7 34.7 33.5
6-8 . . .. . .. .. 469 45.0 36.8 42.5 41.0 30.5 26.0 36.7 34.4 34.8 33.3 29.9 28.2. 39.8 38 0 33.7 30.1
Males:
9-11 .. ... . .. 216 47.2 38.6 44.0 41.6 32.4 26.0 40.8 35 .4 35.7 31.9 32.1 29.6 40.2 39.9 38.4 28.2
12-14 . . . ... . 313 47.4 39.3 45.0 43.6 32 .6 28.8 39.4 37.7 38.4 38.0 30.8 30.2 40.3 42.1 34.6 35.2
15-18 .. . ... . 400 47.4 42.3 49.5 46.4 34.5 35.3 42.4 41.0 42.3 43.9 37.4 36.9 46.3 47.4 40.0 40.5
19-22 .... . . . 287 46.0 42.5 47.4 46.0 38.3 35.2 45.3 42.2 41.5 49.2 40.6 38.1 47.0 48.2 41.0 45.9
23-34 . ... . . . 770 49.3 46.2 51.9 49.3 40.2 41.2 47.8 44.3 45.7 52.2 44.1 43.7 49.0 52.5 46.5 48.2
35-50 .... . . . 784 49.9 47.6 54.2 51.3 41.3 39.0 50.2 43.1 47.3 54.1 45.6 44.3 50.3 55.2 48.1 52.3
51-64 ... . ... 634 51.9 48.0 54.5 52.0 39 .7 37.8 49.2 43.5 47.8 51.6 43.0 43.2 50.6 54.7 48.9 48.4
65-74 ...... . 295 51.2 45.1 50.9 48.9 38.3 34.6 43.9 40.1 43.3 46.7 37.8 38.4 46.7 48.4 43.0 42.6
75 and over ... 127 58.8 44.6 51.5 46.9 38.5 35.2 46.2 41.5 43.7 44.4 40.3 39.2 49.5 52.2 41.9 49.3
Females:
9-11 .. . .... . 241 48.1 40.3 45.8 44.3 34.1 30.5 41.3 38.6 39.3 38.9 34.9 32.6 41.6 43.3 35.7 37.7
12-14 . .. . . . . 309 40.5 40.6 47.0 44.0 32.4 30.2 43.2 38.9 39.4 41.9 35.5 32.9 46.6 45.5 36.9 35.8
15-18 ... . .. . 402 49.5 46.2 53.5 50.3 38.9 37.1 48.8 44.9 46.2 48.6 41.6 40.8 52.6 51.2 43.7 41.5
19-22 ....... 337 47.9 49.0 54.9 54.0 40.5 39.6 51.1 47 .0 48.7 51.6 45.6 44.8 55.2 55.8 47.2 43.7
23-34 . .. . ... 949 49.1 47.8 54.3 52.3 40.2 39.2 50.0 44.0 47.3 51.0 46.0 44.6 52.6 54.7 47.6 46.5
35-50 ....... 942 51.7 50.1 56.7 54.6 40.2 39.5 51.5 42.8 49.6 52.1 45.4 45.2 53.0 57.9 50.5 47.3
51-64 ...... . 792 50.8 48.2 54.0 53.3 39.3 36.8 49.2 41.4 46.7 51.8 43.4 42.9 50.5 54.4 47.4 44.0
65-74 .... . . . 377 54.6 46.5 -.'2.8 50.9 39.1 36.2 46.8 41.6 46.0 49.8 41.4 41.6 49.9 51.1 46.8 41.6
75 and over .. . 197 55.7 43.7 '. 3.7 49.1 36.2 33.4 44.4 38.8 42.5 50.7 36.1 39.4 47.0 49.5 47.0 42.8
All individuals . .. 4 9,620 48.9 45.0 51.2 49.1 37.6 35.7 46.2 41.3 44.2 47.6 40.5 39.9 48.3 50.6 44.1 43.1
1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
2 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
3 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants.
4 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
...... Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, Food and nutrient intakes of
c., individuals in 1 day in the United States, spring 1977, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Preliminary Report 2, p. 106.
......
*'" Table 4. Nutritive value of supper
[Percentage of a day's1 intake per individual reporting supper, spring 1977, 48 States, all urbanizations, all incomes]
Sex and age Individuals
Individuals
Food Pro- Carbo- Cal- Magne- Phos-
Vita-
Thia- Ribo-
Pre- Vita- Vita- Vita-reporting
Fat Iron min A formed min min min
(years) (number) energy tein hydrate cium sium phorus
value
min flavin supper niacin B6 B12 c
Males and females:
Under 1 ..... 278 65.1 21.7 22.5 20.6 23.7 16.8 19.1 23.1 19.6 24.3 18.3 17.6 23.5 22.4 17.6 25.4
1-2 ......... 3 264 60.5 32.9 38.1 35.5 28.0 23.4 33.4 32.2 31.1 28.4 27.6 25.5 40.2 36.4 28.0 31.5
3-5 ......... 437 60.6 35.5 42.0 39.2 30.1 28.1 35.5 35.8 36.0 31.7 30.7 29.2 38.2 37.9 32.9 32.7
6-8 ......... 469 56.1 36.3 42.4 40.0 30.7 26.8 37.9 35.1 35.1 32.2 32.2 29.1 39.4 39.1 33.5 32.2
Males:
9-11 ........ 216 53.7 36.3 42.5 39.3 31.0 28.3 36.5 33.8 36.1 29.4 31.0 29.4 38.3 36.3 33.0 30.7
12-14 ... .. .. 313 58.7 38.1 44.4 40.9 32.2 28.3 40.3 36.4 37.0 35.9 32.8 30.6 43.6 43.3 33.8 36.5
15-18 ....... 400 54.2 39.5 44.5 41.7 34.7 32.2 42.2 39.8 38.9 38.9 35.4 33.8 43.5 43.3 35.0 38.0
19-22 ....... 287 54.8 43.2 48.9 45.4 37.6 33.7 46.6 42.1 42.2 43.2 40.5 37.7 48.0 48.6 41.6 47.3
23-34 ....... 770 49.4 46.7 52.5 49.9 40.1 40.6 49.0 45.6 47.8 49.6 44.6 44.3 49.9 54.2 47.9 50.0
35-50 ....... 784 51.3 45.0 50.6 47.5 39.5 38.0 46.1 41.6 45.5 47.9 41.0 40.7 47.7 51.9 45.2 46.9
51-64 ....... 634 51.5 44.0 48.7 46.9 39.0 37.7 44.3 40.0 44.5 45.1 40.5 40.2 44.8 48.1 42.7 43.1
65-74 ....... 295 55.1 37.5 42.5 39.4 32.6 32.5 38.2 35.5 37.8 36.6 32.8 34.9 38.8 41.7 41.8 40.9
75 and over ... 127 54.2 37.5 38.4 39.2 35.1 35.1 35.2 34.0 35.6 41.3 33.7 34.4 37.6 37.3 34.6 39.6
Females:
9-11 ........ 241 54.8 35.9 42.9 38.1 30.4 26.3 37.8 33.6 35.7 32.8 30.6 29.3 39.4 38.6 33.3 30.5
12-14 ....... 309 57.2 38.9 46.1 40.9 33.2 30.8 41.9 39.2 39.6 36.0 35.8 34.1 44.1 45.6 36.6 37.1
15-18 ....... 402 50.8 44.1 50.7 47.1 38.5 37.4 46.1 42.9 44.2 41.5 40.5 39.8 49.1 48.7 42.7 39.3
19-22 ....... 337 45.7 45.3 52.4 47.1 39.3 38.9 49.6 45.2 47.0 47.5 44.0 44.1 51.1 53.8 47.7 42.4
23-34 ....... . 949 47.6 46.6 52.5 50.3 40.5 40.1 48.3 44.1 47.2 48.8 45.4 43.6 49.6 54.6 46.6 46.9
'"%j 35-50 ....... 942 48.5 44.1 49.4 46.6 39.2 36.4 44.5 38.8 44.3 44.8 40.7 40.1 45.8 49.5 44.1 43.9
> 51-64 ...... . 792 51.8 44.4 49.3 48.2 37.5 37.6 44.7 39.8 44.3 46.4 39.4 41.3 45.1 49.7 45.5 40.2 .s..:.:.: 65-74 ....... 377 51.7 38.0 41.7 40.4 33.7 33.5 37.6 33.1 37.7 38.8 32.3 35.2 38.9 40.6 40.0 36.7
>t"<' 75 and over ... 197 54.2 36.4 37.9 37.4 34.8 35.6 34.9 32.2 36.7 34.6 33.5 36.0 34.9 34.2 36.6 28.9
t<:l
0 All individuals 4 9,620 52.4 41.5 47.0 44.3 36.1 34.4 42.7 39.1 41.5 41.4 37.8 37.2 44.3 46.3 40.7 40.4 0 ...
z
0 1 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview. .s.:.:.:. 2 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
0 3 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants. Cll
~ 4 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
t<:l .<.... Source: t<:l U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, Food and nutrient intakes of
~ individuals in 1 day in the United States, spring 1977, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Preliminary Report 2, p. 108.
C/) Table 5. Nutritive value of snacks1 c:::
~
3:: [Percentage of a day's2 intake per individual reporting snacks, spring 1977, 48 States, all urbanizations, all incomes]
tzj
~
...... Individuals Vita- Pre- Vita- Vita- Vita- ~ Sex and age Individuals Food Pro- Carbo- Cal- Magne- Phos- Thia- Ribo- ():) ...... reporting Fat Iron min A formed min min min (years) (number) tein hydrate cium sium phorus min flavin
snacks
energy
value B6 B12 c
Males and females:
Under 1 ..... 3 78 85.8 35.7 34.3 37.3 33.4 37.7 25.6 33.8 36.4 30.7 31.1 34.4 23.2 32.2 39.4 33.2
1-2 ... . ..... 4 264 69.1 23.1 17.9 20.5 27.0 28.7 14.8 24.8 24.0 17.0 18.9 25.1 11.2 17.4 22.4 23.5
3-5 ......... 437 58.7 19.9 10.9 16.4 26.2 18.3 12.6 17.9 15.6 13.6 14.0 16.3 10.1 12.4 12.7 19.1
6-8 ......... 469 65.3 17.3 10.3 14.5 22.1 17.2 10.8 16.0 14.5 11.8 11.4 14.2 8.6 9.7 11.0 14.7
Males:
9-11 ........ 216 67.9 19.1 12.5 17.1 23.5 18.4 13.1 20.4 16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 12.0 12.4 11.5 14.4
12-14 ....... 313 63.0 20.7 14.1 18.7 25.4 20.2 15.7 20.9 18.2 14.7 17.3 19.1 15.2 14.8 17.1 15.4
15-18 ....... 400 65.1 22.6 14.7 19.0 28.9 21.4 16.6 21.1 19.4 15.4 17.9 19.2 15.4 14.3 15.4 18.2
19-22 ....... 287 55.4 22.9 14.8 16.9 28.5 21.1 15.9 23.9 21.1 16.0 15.3 20.2 18.3 19.0 15.2 19.6
23-34 ....... 770 62.5 19.7 11.9 14.4 24.9 19.7 12.9 22.6 18.0 12.8 13.2 17.5 15.1 14.0 12.0 14.6
35-50 ....... 784 60.5 18.4 10.6 13.6 22.5 19.8 12.0 22.5 17.1 10.4 12.5 17.1 15.2 12.8 10.6 10.5
51-64 ....... 634 57.9 16.8 10.7 12.7 20.6 19.9 11.6 19.7 16.0 12.3 12.0 16.0 13.7 12.4 10.7 12.3
65-74 .. .. .. . 295 56.1 15.6 10.6 13.4 19.0 19.1 9.6 15.2 15.1 12.1 11.1 15.4 9.8 11.0 12.0 10.8
75 and over ... 127 39.3 14.3 10.3 12.0 18.8 18.1 10.3 16.3 14.6 9.7 12.3 15.8 10.4 11.8 11.9 11.9
Females:
9-11 ........ 241 66.2 18.6 10.7 16.7 23.4 15.2 13.0 17.6 14.4 12.4 11.8 13.8 11.0 10.4 9.7 16.4
12-14 ....... 309 69.5 20.9 12.9 18.8 26.0 18.5 14.8 19.7 16.7 14.8 15.5 16.5 13.5 12.8 12.9 16.5
15-18 ....... 402 61.4 21.8 13.5 17.8 28.4 22.2 15.5 21.6 18.7 17.6 16.3 18.5 13.3 15.1 13.8 20.5
19-22 ....... 337 60.2 20.9 12.8 15.4 27.8 21.5 15.2 20.9 18.7 16.4 15.3 17.4 13.2 13.7 10.9 16.6
23-34 ....... 949 63.9 20.8 12.1 14.8 27.7 21.1 15.4 23.5 18.4 12.7 14.5 17.9 15.0 13.1 12.1 16.0
35-50 .... ... 942 61.8 17.6 10.5 13.6 22.9 20.1 13.4 21.4 16.0 14.1 13.3 16.1 13.2 11.1 10.2 15.1
51-64 ....... 792 59.0 18.0 11.7 14.6 22.2 21.0 13.2 20.1 16.6 12.3 14.5 16.9 13.7 12.1 11.9 14.5
65-74 ...... . 377 48.6 17.1 11.5 14.6 22.0 22.1 11.6 17.1 16.1 12.5 14.5 17.9 9.7 12.1 13.5 13.6
75 and over ... 197 41.9 17.8 13.3 15.4 21.1 21.1 13.8 19.2 16.6 13.4 15.1 18.1 14.6 13.9 13.5 14.3
All individuals ... 5 9,620 60.9 19.5 12.3 15.6 24.5 20.5 13.6 20.9 17.5 13.6 14.3 17.4 13.5 13.2 12.7 15.6
1 Includes all occasions other than breakfast, lunch, dinner, or supper.
2 Based on 24-hour dietary recall of day preceding interview.
3 Excludes 36 breast-fed infants.
4 Excludes 4 breast-fed infants.
5 Excludes 40 breast-fed infants.
'""'
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Consumer Nutrition Center, 1980, USDA Nationwide Food Consumption
(Jl Survey 1977-78, 48 conterminous States, spring 1977 (preliminary).
HEALTH-RELATED FOOD CHOICES1
By 1 udy Lea 1 ones and 1 on Weimer2
Approximately two-thirds of households
interviewed in the fall of 1979 reported di­etary
changes for reasons of health or nutrition
during the previous 3 years, according to a
survey conducted by USDA's Economics and
Statistics Service (ESS).3 The survey was
comprised of interviews in 1,353 households;
the respondent was the household member
identified as having major responsibility for
food preparation or food shopping. Survey
results also identified concerns about health­linked
nutrition and confusion about reconcil­ing
health and nutrition goals with dietary
practices.
Early in the interview, before the focus on
health- and nutrition-related concerns were
revealed, the respondent answered questions
regarding the household's current frequency-of­use
patterns for 37 food and beverage catego­ries.
The respondent was asked if the house­hold
had made any recent changes in the use
of specific foods for reasons of health or
nutrition. When describing household food
pattern changes, respondents indicated the
direction of specific changes and the kinds of
foods selected as substitutes.
The data in the ESS survey are on self­reported
dietary changes and are not consump­tion
figures. Despite the occasional appearance
of correspondence between those self-reported
changes and changes in national per capita
consumption of selected foods, the impact of
health and nutrition concerns on consumption
could not be accurately assessed. Of the house­holds
surveyed, for example, 16 percent re­ported
that for reasons of health or nutrition
they reduced their use of beef in the 3 years
1 This article is condensed from a paper presented at
the Agricultural Outlook Conference in November
1980 at Washington, D.C. Complete copies are avail­able
from National Economics Division, Economics
and Statistics Service, Room 260, 500 12th Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20250.
2 National Economics Division, Economics and
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
3 Survey conducted before the Dietary Guidelines
were published by the U.S. Department of Agricul­ture.
See "USDA/HEW release joint dietary guide­lines,"
Family Economics Review Spring 1980, p. 36.
16
prior to the survey. Coincidentally, per capita
consumption of beef fell approximately 17
percent from 1976 to 1979. During that
period, however, there was a drop in the beef
supply and an increase in average annual retail
beef prices. Obviously, price, income, and
taste preference interacted in determining
consumption patterns. Although concerns
about health and nutrition apparently were
salient, the extent of their influence on con­sumption
was not determined.
Food Pattern Change
Respondents were instructed to disregard,
to the degree possible, . concerns about price
and were asked what food changes, if any,
they had made for reasons of health or nutri­tion
in the past 3 years. These responses were
summarized (see table).
Fat and cholesterol. Roughly 15 to 20 per­cent
of the respondents reported that for
reasons of health or nutrition they had reduced
their use of bacon or sausage, hot dogs or
luncheon meats, eggs, beef, and fresh pork
during the past 3 years; conversely, similar
proportions reported increased use of poultry
and fish or shellfish. Of the 11 percent of the
households that changed the type or combina­tion
of types of milk used, 92 percent substi­tuted
a low-fat milk for milk with higher fat
content.
Respondents in 1 of 10 households reported
reduced use of butter and other fats and oils;
a somewhat smaller proportion increased use
of margarine, indicating some substitution of
margarine for butter. The net percentages do
suggest that some consumers are intent upon
reducing overall use of fats and oils. Finally,
roughly 1 in 10 households reported a recent
change in the type of margarine or other fats
and oils used; the direction of change was
toward the use of soft margarines and vegetable
oils.
Complex carbohydrates. Of the respondents,
25 percent reported increased use of fruits and
vegetables. One in 7 households substituted
whole-grain bread for white bread and 1 in 10
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Consumer perception of recent changes in household food-choice patterns
Food
Bacon, sausage . . . . . .. .. . .
Hot dogs, luncheon meats .. . .
Eggs .... .. . .. . .. . . .. . .
Beef .... ... .. . .... .. . .
Fresh pork . .... . . .. .... .
Poultry . .. ......... . .. .
Fish .. . .. ............ .
Shellfish .. . . ... . . . . .. . .
Milk . .. .
Cheese . . .. .
Butter . ... .. . . .
Margarine ..... ... .
Other fats and oils3
..
Fruits and vegetables . . . . . ..
Bread . ... . .
Cereals, grains. . . .
Refined sugar and
sugary foods 7
.• .
Soft drinks .. . .. ... . ... . .
Salty foods and snacks9
• .•• •
Never
used
4
7
1
*
8
1
7
28
*
2
30
6
1
*
*
1
1
8
5
No
change
71
73
79
80
75
81
78
67
82
84
61
81
81
74
77
82
69
72
73
Change
25
20
20
20
17
18
15
5
18
14
9
13
18
26
23
17
30
20
22
Type of change1
Stopped Decreased
Percent
4
3
1
1
3
*
*
*
*
*
Ia
1
*
*
*
*
1
1
1
*
1
4
5
3
[ill
1
ITQ]
4
Increased
*
*
3
2
* []
5
OJ
1
OJ
*
~
1
4
*
*
*
Used
different
type
*
2
*
1
*
*
*
*
2[!]
2
*
*
1 Percentages may add to more than 100 because change may include using more or less and a different kind.
2 92 percent of these households report substitution of a low-fat milk for one higher in fat ; other substitutions
include mother's milk, unpasteurized milk, acidophilus milk, and whole milk.
3 Other fats and oils include lard, vegetable shortening, and liquid oils.
4 75 percent of those households using a different type or combination of types of other fats and oils report
substitution of corn, safflower, and sunflower oil for unspecified vegetable oils; 55 percent report substitution of
liquid oils for solid fat (lard or shortening).
5 87 percent of those households using a different type or combination of types of bread report substitution of
whole-grain bread for white bread; other substitutions include homemade bread, diet bread, high-fiber bread, and
preservative-free bread.
6 69 percent of those households using a different type or combination of types of cereal report substitution of
unsweetened cereal for sweetened cereal; other substitutions include high-fiber cereal (19 percent), whole-grain
cereal (18 percent) hot cereal (9 percent), forti fied cereal (5 percent). 7 ,
Refined sugar and sugary foods, such as candy, sweet desserts, and sweet baked goods.
8 87 percent of these households report substitution of diet soft drinks for regular soft drinks ; 11 percent report
substitution of regular soft drinks for diet soft drinks.
9 Salty foods such as nuts, olives, pretzels, chips, and other salty snacks.
*Less than 0.5 percent.
SUMMER 1981 17
households reduced use of bread. Roughly 7
percent of the households shifted from high­sugar
cereals to those with less sugar.
Salt. For reasons of health or nutrition 22
percent of sample households reduced the use
of salty foods and snacks.
Sugar. Three in 10 households reduced use
of sugar and sugary foods such as candy,
sweet desserts, and sweet baked goods; many
of these households increased their use of fruit
and specifically mentioned substituting fruit
for "sweets." One in seven households reduced
use of soft drinks.
Health, Nutrition, and Safety Concerns
Of the sample households, 64 percent re­ported
that they made dietary changes for
reasons of health or nutrition in the 3 years
prior to the survey. A variety of specific health
or nutrition concerns were cited as reasons for
those changes.
Concern about excess sugar. More than half
(52 percent) of the households making diet
changes for reasons of health or nutrition
mentioned reducing sugar intake. This concern
was more prominent among high-income
groups and those with more schooling. Larger
households and those with children also were
more likely than others to mention concern
about sugar. Households concerned about
excess sugar were more likely than households
not concerned to report decreased use of regu­lar
soft drinks, sweet baked goods, sweetened
cereals, and candy with increased use of diet
soft drinks and unsweetened cereals.
Concern about calorie intake or weight
control. About 43 percent of the households
that made dietary changes cited weight con­trol
- as the primary reason for at least one
change. Weight control was the leading reason
given for decreasing use of beef, bacon or
sausage, hot dogs or luncheon meats, whole
milk, white bread, and cereals and grains. It
was also the primary reason given for increas­ing
use of poultry, cream substitutes, and
artificially sweetened foods and for substitut­ing
diet for regular soft drinks. People in high­income
households were more likely than
others to limit dietary intake to control weight.
Not all households in which someone had
18
limited intake, however, reported consequent
changes in food use.
Concern about salt intake or blood pressure
control. In about 29 percent of the households
making dietary changes, respondents men­tioned
concern about reducing salt intake or
controlling blood pressure. These related con­cerns
were the reasons cited most often for
reducing household use of pork, shellfish, and
snack foods, such as potato chips, pretzels,
nuts, and olives. The incidence of concern
about salt intake and blood pressure control
was positively associated with the age of the
respondent and was high among blacks.
Surprisingly, the frequency-of-use patterns
of households concerned about salt intake or
blood pressure control did not differ signifi­cantly
from those of households not expressing
concern about salt or blood pressure control
with respect to such foods as bacon and sau­sage,
salted nuts, and commercially prepared
dinners and main dishes. Households concerned
about controlling blood pressure were more
likely than others to preclude the use of fresh
pork, even though uncured pork contains
about the same level of natural sodium as beef,
poultry, and fish.
Concern about fat intake. About 28 percent
of the households making dietary changes
wanted to reduce fat intake. Concern about fat
intake was the chief reason given for shifting
to lean beef and lean poultry and for substi­tuting
low-fat milk for milk with higher fat
content. Respondents with high levels of
education were more likely than others to
mention concern about fat intake.
Concern about cholesterol intake. About 23
percent of the households making dietary
changes were concerned about cholesterol.
Lowering the cholesterol intake was the pri­mary
reason cited for reducing use of eggs,
cheese, and butter and for substituting marga­rine
for butter. Concern about cholesterol
intake was more prominent among groups with
high education and high income than among
others.
Concern about food safety. Of those house­holds
that made at least one dietary change for
reasons of health or nutrition within the past
3 years, 12 percent specifically mentioned
reduction of nitrite intake; 5 percent men-
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
tioned reduction of saccharin intake. Ten
percent said that they had made a change in
food use in order to reduce intakes of preser­vatives,
colorings, or other (nonspecified)
additives.
In an earlier study conducted in 19744
respondents were asked to give their percep­tion
of the relative safety of a number of
ingredients that might be present in food. A
similar question appeared in the 1980 survey.
The proportion of respondents who considered
either nitrite or saccharin safe had dropped
significantly in the period between these two
surveys. Only 19 percent of the respondents in
1980 thought that nitrite was somewhat or
very safe (as opposed to 35 percent in 1974),
and 30 percent thought that saccharin was
somewhat or very safe (as opposed to 59 per­cent
in 1974). Respondents' perceptions of the
relative safety of those additives were conso­nant
with the frequencies-of-use of selected
products that they reported for their respective
households. For example, in the households of
those respondents who perceived nitrite as
either "not too safe" or "not at all safe," such
foods as bacon and sausage, luncheon meats
and hot dogs, and commercially prepared foods
were used less frequently than they were in
households where the respondent perceived
nitrite as safe. Similarly, in the households
of respondents who perceived saccharin as
either "not too safe" or "not at all safe," diet
soft drinks and artificial sweeteners were
used less frequently than in households where
the respondent perceived saccharin as safe.
Influential Information Sources5
Respondents from households that had
made recent dietary changes for reasons of
4 Jones, Judith Lea, and Jon P. Weimer, 1977,
Food Safety: Homemakers' Attitudes and Practices,
Agricultural Economic Report No. 360, U.S. Depart·
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and
Statistics Service National Economics Division, 1981,
Nutrition infor:nation-Perspective on consumers'
views, National Food Review, NFR-14.
SUMMER 1981
health or nutrition were asked what source(s)
of information, if any, influenced household
members to make a change. More than half
(56 percent) of those respondents cited the
health profession-doctors, dentists, and nurses;
the elderly and those with low educational
levels were more likely than others to cite
health professionals as the most influential
source of information. Because of this sub­stantial
influence, training in nutrition for
physicians and other health professionals
should have high priority, and nutritional
training and services should be promoted in
hospitals and clinics.
The professional group consisting of dieti­cians
and nutritionists, who are trained in the
nutritive aspects of food, was cited as an
influential source of information by 13 percent
of the respondents in households making diet
changes. Eight percent reported that govern­ment
publications or pamphlets influenced
household dietary changes; 4 percent referred
to other sources, such as an extension worker
or public health educator.
Magazines, newspapers, and television were
each cited as an influential source of informa­tion
by about one-third of the respondents in
households where food practices were changed
for reasons of health or nutrition; respondents
from households with high income and high
education were more likely than others to cite
those sources. Food and nutrition messages
presented in the mass media and in food
advertising are powerful influences on food
choices. The evidence suggests that structured
campaigns for distribution of information
about nutrition through multiple media could
positively influence food selections.
The survey indicated that people are con­cerned
about diet and its relation to health
and that they need information or guidance
to help clear up some misconceptions. The
fact that, to a large extent, they relied on
health professionals and the media for dietary
guidance suggests that the quality of informa­tion
available from these sources should be
given high priority.
19
TIME USE AND FAMILY LIFE1
By Karen P. Goebel2
The conventional wisdom is that the life­styles
of American families have changed sub­stantially
during the past two decades. The
changes in lifestyles reflect increased participa­tion
of women in the labor force, increased
diversity in family structures, decline in num­ber
of children per family, and increased
orientation toward self. These changes in life­style
have commanded the attention of social
scientists who are attempting to explain why
these lifestyles have evolved and to predict
future trends. An indicator of changing family
lifestyles that has received substantial attention
is the pattern of family time use.
Our affluent society has made available
alternative uses of time. Certain household
production activities, however, continue to
demand time. Food preparation and cleanup,
clothing care, care of family members, man­agement,
shopping, and maintenance of home
and family possessions are indispensable to
the functioning of families and society. One
source of family stress is the conflict between
"necessary" household work and alternative
uses of time. This paper briefly reviews studies
of the changes in the patterns of family time
use with emphasis on changes in household
work time. The major studies through the early
1970's are reviewed. The methodology and
preliminary findings are reported for a multi­State
family time-use study, An Interstate
Urban/Rural Comparison of Families' Time
Use, U.S. Department of Agriculture, North­east
Regional Project 113 (NE113). Implica­tions
of these studies for future educational
programs and research efforts are also pre­sented.
Why Measure Family Time-Use Patterns?
One area of interest in the evolving patterns
of time use is the attempt to "value" the non­market
home production activities. Lawyers
1 This article is condensed from a paper presented at
the Agricultural Outlook Conference in November
1980 at Washington, D.C. Complete copies are avail­able
from the Family Economics Research Group (see
p. 2 for address).
2 Assistant professor, Family and Consumer Eco­nomics,
School of Family Resources and Consumer
Sciences, University of Wisconsin- Extension.
20
and insurance companies have become well
aware of the need for accurate valuing of in­puts
to the maintenance of home and family as
they seek to estimate monetary loss to families
when a homemaker is incapacitated or killed.
For the estimation of monetary value of any
homemaking activity, the time used and the
"price" of that time must be known. Although
the method of pricing different household
activities has been somewhat debatable, the
time component must be measured accurately.
Thus, accurate time-use estimates provide a
strong foundation for alternate methods of
determining monetary value.
Studies of family time use generate stan­dards
with which families can compare their
own activities. These standards need not be
considered desirable goiUs, but they are an aid
for individual families in managing their time.
They also might enhance the appreciation of
family members for the current pattern of
distribution of work within the family and
provide a basis for examining the equity of the
pattern. This examination does not guarantee
that families will improve the distribution of
work, but it will provide a sensitivity to current
inequities.
National productivity measures based solely
on the market sector are deficient in regard to
nonmarket productivity. Therefore, improved
understanding of the extent of nonmarket
production activities is important. Family
time-use studies do not entirely fill the gap in
knowledge about nonmarket production, but
they begin to provide a sound knowledge base
for determining the importance of household
production activities.
Family Time-Use Studies Since 1920
The recognition of time as a valuable resource
and the measurement of time-use patterns have
a long history. This section concentrates on
studies in the United States after 1920 that are
grounded in home economics research. Ortiz ( 6)
briefly reviewed publications from other social
science disciplines.
In the twenties, the U.S. Bureau of Home
Economics developed guidelines for the study
of women's time use. The studies that used
these guidelines concentrated primarily on
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
farm women. Fortunately, farm work was
separated from homework, permitting later
comparisons with urban households. Wilson
(15) in 1929 reported that Oregon farm wives
averaged 53.5 hours per week in household
work. Data from Wilson's study and two other
early studies were compared with data collected
in 1953 in Wisconsin by Cowles and Dietz (1).
Wisconsin homemakers spent 53 hours per
week in household work. Total homemaking
time had remained remarkably constant in
spite of rapid technological changes. That
observation was confirmed by Vanek (12),
who reviewed 20 time-use studies that extended
from the twenties to the sixties. Vanek found
no difference between urban and rural women.
Women who were not employed outside the
home spent 52 hours per week in housework
in 1924 and 55 hours in the sixties. Employed
women spent 26 hours per week in housework
in the sixties. Vanek attempted to explain the
29-hour difference per week between em­ployed
and unemployed women by differences
in family characteristics, purchased household
services, and help from family members. She
found no support in the data of the sixties
for explanations based on these factors. Vanek
concluded (12, p.120), "It appears that modem
life has not shortened the women's work day.
Farmwork has been greatly reduced, but it has
been replaced by work in the labor force.
Indeed, for married women in full-time jobs
the work day is probably longer than it was for
their grandmothers.''
The 196 7 time-use study of New York
households, directed by Kathryn E. Walker of
Cornell University, has become a classic study
of family time use and its role in household
production (Walker and Woods 14). In a
preliminary report, Walker (13) summarized
findings regarding time-use patterns for house­hold
work and homemakers' employment at
the 1970 National Agricultural Outlook Con­ference.
The average time contributed by
husbands in household work was 11 hours per
week and 51 hours for wives. Walker found
that if the homemaker was employed 30 hours
or more per week, approximately 5 hours per
day were spent in household work, as compared
with 8 hours per day for full-time homemakers.
In contrast, the husband's time remained the
same, on the average, whether the homemaker
was not employed, employed part time, or
SUMMER 1981
employed 30 hours or more per week. Based
on the 1967 results, Walker (13) recommended
that future time-use studies consider four im­portant
variables: Number of children, age of
the youngest child, employment of wives,
and husband's hours of paid employment.
Interstate Urban/Rural Comparison of Families'
Time Use
On the basis of previous studies, Walker and
researchers in 11 States concluded that a more
comprehensive effort was needed. California,
Connecticut, North Carolina, Virginia, Wis­consin,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana,
and Utah joined New York to form the NE 113
Project: Interstate Urban-Rural Comparison of
Families' Time Use.
By use of the recommendations of the 1967
New York study, relatively small samples of
rural and urban families were randomly chosen
in each State. The samples were controlled for
family size (two-parent, two-child) and repre­sented
families in which the youngest child
was under 1, or was 1, 2 to 5, 6 to 11, or 12
to 17 years of age. This control of number and
age of children as important variables per­mitted
comparison across States. Standardized
procedures were developed so that day of the
week and time of the year could be equally
represented in the sample. In each State, 105
urban and 105 rural families were interviewed
by standardized recall and diary procedures.
Time was recorded in 5- to 10-minute blocks
for all family members over 6 years of age.
Data were collected during the 1977-78 time
period.
Space limitations do not permit an indepth
discussion of findings from all States. A limited
discussion is presented of raw time-use patterns
in housework and paid work across four States:
New York, Wisconsin, Utah, and Oregon.
Included is Sanik's work (10, 11) in testing
differences in rural and urban residence, geo­graphic
location, and a decade comparison
with the original New York study.
Minutes per day spent by all family members
in household work and paid work are shown in
table 1. Average time spent in all household
work by all family members was highest in
New York at 678 minutes per day, and lowest
in Utah at 569 minutes. Within household
tasks, raw scores differed markedly among
the four States in nonphysical care of family
21
members, shopping, house cleaning, and house­hold
maintenance. In paid work time, Wiscon­sin
led with 570 minutes per day, and New
York was the lowest with 482 minutes.
Details on homemaker and spouse contribu­tions
are provided in table 2. Homemakers
averaged 397 minutes (for all household work)
in Utah, 59 minutes lower than in New York.
Total household work by spouses averaged
145 minutes in New York and 38 minutes less
in Utah. Differences among homemakers were
greatest in housecleaning, nonphysical care,
and shopping. Differences among spouses were
greatest in maintenance of car, house, and pets;
nonphysical care; and shopping time. In paid
work, Wisconsin homemakers led with 117
minutes per day, 50 minutes higher than Ore­gon
homemakers. Wisconsin spouses also led
in paid work with 415 minutes per day, 21
minutes higher than Oregon spouses.
These comparisons of raw scores provide
only limited insight into family time-use
patterns. Sanik (11) has completed the most
detailed analysis to date of current time-use
patterns in New York and Oregon. She found
that a significant amount of variance in all
household work by all family members was
associated with State of residence. New York
families spent 11.3 hours per day, and Oregon
families spent 10.4 hours per day in all house-hold
work. New York homemakers spent 7.7
hours, and Oregon homemakers spent 6.8
hours per day in all household work.
Sanik also compared urban New York family
time-use patterns for 1967 and 1977, using
Walker's 1967 time-use study and the NE113
data for New York. Over the decade there was
no significant change in all household work by
all family members. For spouses, however,
nonphysical care of family members increased
significantly, as did contributions to all house­hold
work.
Recently, Sanik (1980) completed a new
analysis, using the data from the two time-use
studies (table 3). The more recent results,
which weight the data to conform with the
population, represent changes in two-parent,
two-child households over the decade. Overall,
she found that adjusted total family time in all
household work decreased slightly. Sanik's
results indicate that although homemakers'
time decreased, it continued to account for
nearly 70 percent of total family time in house­work;
spouses' time accounted for slightly over
17 percent. These findings are consistent with
those of previous studies and indicate that
distribution of tasks between spouses has not
changed markedly.
Scientists in the States affiliated with the
NE113 project have begun analyses of their
Table 1. Comparison of total family time-use patterns in household and paid work in selected
States (1977-78)
Task New York Wisconsin Utah Oregon
Maximum
difference
Minutes per day
Food preparation 1 105 89 93 97 16
Dish washing 145 44 38 36 9
House cleaning 76 54 1 93 68 39
Maintenance 96 80 92 1 112 32
Clothing care 1 40 36 25 28 15
Clothing construction I 21 16 17 19 5
Physical care 72 65 70 1 73 8
Nonphysical care 92 1 100 53 64 47
Shopping 105 88 63 1106 43
Management 26 1 39 29 33 13
All household work 1 678 611 569 636 109
Paid work 482 1 570 553 495 88
1 Greatest time use within category.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northeast Regional Project 113, An interstate urban/rural comparison
of families' time use (unpublished base data books).
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
time-use data. Studies of meal preparation
and food purchases away from home have
been completed in Wisconsin and Utah (2 6
and 8). Goebel et. al. (3) and McCullough '(4)
studied the relationship between the structur­ing
of the household division of labor and
subjective satisfaction with the quality of life.
Children's contributions to household work
were studied in New York (5), Utah (7) and
Louisiana. 3 '
3 Personal correspondence with Fran Cogle, asso·
ciate professor, School of Home Economics, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Conclusions and Implications
Women continue to provide the largest
proportion of household work time, and total
family time devoted to household work appar­ently
is not changing significantly for two­parent
families with young children. In general,
the husband's total contribution to household
work apparently has not increased significantly
for these families.
The studies to date have several implications.
Conclusions will differ among time-use studies
depending on definitions of the sampling objec­tive.
These differences might be attributed
primarily to NE113's examination of a single
Table 2. Comparison of homemaker(H)/spouse(S) time-use patterns in household tasks and
paid work in selected States (1977-78)
Task New York Wisconsin Utah Oregon
Maximum
difference
Minutes per day
Food preparation . . . . . . . . .. H 1 83 72 79 78 11
s 8 110 7 7 3
Dish washing •••••• 0 •••••• H 138 36 31 29 9
s 3 14 2 3 2
House cleaning . . . . . . . ..... H 62 43 1 78 54 35
s 3 14 3 2 2
Maintenance •••••• • 0 ••• 0. H 24 28 29 I 37 13
s I 56 37 47 55 19
Clothing care . . . . . . . . ..... H I 37 132 24 25 13
s 1 2 0 1 2
Clothing construction ....... H 1 20 15 16 18 5
s 0 0 0 0 0
Physical care •••• • • 0 •••••• H 163 55 58 61 8
s 9 9 110 9 1
Nonphysical care ••••• 0 •• 0 0 H 60
166 34 39 32
s 1 31 30 14 21 17
Shopping • 0 0 0 0 ••••••••• 0 H 1 55 47 37 54 18
s 24 19 13 1 27 14
Management ............. H 16
123 15 19 8
s 10
113 11 11 3
All household work . . . . . . ... H
1456 416 397 414 59
s 1145 127 107 136 38
Paid work •• 0. 0 •••••• 0 ••• H 77 1 117 82 67 50
s 395 1 415 412 394 21
1 Greatest time use within category.
Source : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northeast Regional Project 113, An interstate urban/rural comparison
of families' time use (unpublished base data books).
SUMMER 1981 23
Table 3. Adjusted mean time spent in household work by family member (New York 1977; 1967)
Homemaker Spouse Total family 1
Task
Food preparation
Dish washing
House care ..
Clothing care ..
Shopping ..
Management . .
Care of family members .
Physical ..
Nonphysical
Total4 ...
1 Includes children.
2 Significantly different-D.05.
3 Less than 0.05 hour.
1977
.. 1.4
.6
1.5
.9
.9
. . .3
.6
.7
6.8
1967 1977 1967 1977 1967
Hours per day
1.5 .1 .1 1.6 1.6
2 .8 .05 .04 .8 2 .9
1.5 .7 .7 2.7 2.6
21.3 (3 ) (3) .9 21.3
.8 .3 .3 1.7 21.2
.2 .1 .2 .4 .4
2 .7 .1 .1 .7 .8
.6 .3 .3 1.0 1.2
2 7.4 1.7 1.7 9.8 10.0
4 Totals may not add up due to rounding when connecting minutes to hours.
Source: Sanik, Margaret M., 1980, Familial division of household work: A decade comparison (unpublished
working paper).
family structure. In other national time-use
studies (9), random samples included house­hold
structures other than two-parent families
with young children. As families become in­creasingly
diverse in structure, time use for
alternative structures should be examined. Pro­fessionals
in family economics and manage­ment
should give increasing attention to the
many potential problems in family functioning
which are created when time-use alternatives
interact with a fairly stable requirement for
household labor. Family management spe-cialists
should reemphasize effective time
management techniques and creatively explore
new time-use strategies.
Family economists should examine the
extent to which the possessions and the con­sumption
patterns of our affluent society have
actually increased household work. Energy
scarcity and inflation have led to several pro­posals
which imply increased home production.
Time-use studies suggest that any increase in
the level of production in the home would fall
disproportionately on the shoulders of women.
REFERENCES
1. Cowles, May L., and Ruth P. Dietz. 1956.
Time spent in homemaker activities by
a selected group of Wisconsin farm
homemakers. Journal of Home Eco­nomics
48(1):29-35.
2. Goebel, Karen P., and Charles Hennon.
1979. The relationship of time use pat­terns
to away from home meal expendi­tures.
In The Household as Producer­A
Look Beyond the Market. Proceedings
of the Family Economics-Home Manage­ment
Conference. [Lindenwood College,
I St. Charles, Mo.]
24
3. Goebel, Karen P., Charles Hennon, and
Norleen Ackerman. 1980. Time use
in family life: Does household division
of labor make a difference in perceived
quality of family life? Paper presented
at XIV International Federation for
Home Economics Congress, Manila,
Philippines, in July 1980.
4. McCullough, Jane L. 1980. Contributions
to household tasks by Utah husbands
and wives. [Doctoral dissertation.] Michi­gan
State University, East Lansing.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
5. O'Neill, Barbara M. 1978. Time-use pat­terns
of school-age children in household
tasks: A comparison of 1967-68 and
1977 data. [Master's thesis.] Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.
6. Ortiz, Bonnie P. 1979. Food consumption
habits: How families use time and re­sources.
[Master's thesis.] University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
7. Osbourne, Lundie L. 1979. Contributions
to household work by children in two­parent/
two-child families in Utah. [Mas­ter's
thesis.] Utah State University,
Logan.
8. Peterson, Brenda T. 1979. Family meal
patterns in Utah. [Master's thesis.] Utah
State University, Logan.
9. Robinson, John P. 1977. Changes in Amer­ican's
Use of Time: 1967-75. A Progress
Report. Communication Research Cen­ter,
Cleveland, Ohio.
10. Sanik, Margaret M. 1979. A twofold com­parison
of time spent in household work
in two-parent, two-child households:
Urban New York State in 1967-68 and
1977; urban-rural, New York-Oregon in
1977. [Doctoral dissertation.] Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.
11. 1980. Familial division of house-hold
work: A decade comparison. [Un­published
working paper.]
12. Vanek, Joann. 1974. Time spent in house­work.
Scientific American 231:116-120.
13. Walker, Kathryn E. 1970. Time-use pat­terns
for household work related to
homemakers' employment. Paper pre­sented
at the 1970 National Agricultural
Outlook Conference, Washington, D.C.,
in February 1970. [Mimeographed.]
14. Walker, Kathryn E., and Margaret E. Woods.
1976. Time Use: A Measure of House­hold
Production of Family Goods and
Services. The Center for the Family,
American Home Economics Association,
Washington, D.C.
15. Wilson, Maud. 1929. Use of Time by Ore­gon
Farm Homemakers. Bulletin No.
256. Oregon Agricultural Experiment
Station, Corvallis.
NEW INITIATIVES IN HOME ECONOMICS
In 1977, Congress called for new initiatives
to improve and expand research and extension
programs in home economics, human nutrition,
and family living. In response to this congres­sional
mandate, the Science and Education
Administration of the USDA, in cooperation
with representatives from the land-grant
college and university system, other institu­tions,
professional groups, and user organiza­tions,
developed a plan for strengthened
national effort in home economics. This plan,
"New Initiatives in Home Economics," pro­vides
a framework for directing program
effort to high-priority problems. It focuses
on population groups most in need of service
and presents recommendations on strengthen­ing
organizational arrangements to improve
coordination, cooperation, and integration of
activity among research, extension, and higher
education. The initiatives proposed in the
report are organized under four thrusts:
Family economic stability and security; energy
SUMMER 1981
and environment; food, nutrition, and health;
and family strengths and social environment.
Two publications are available for persons
interested in more information on the "New
Initiatives":
• Miscellaneous Publication No. 1401,
"Highlights of A Comprehensive N a­tiona!
Plan for New Initiatives in Home
Economics Research, Extension and
Higher Education," is a highlights and
summary brochure for popular or non­technical
use. This small leaflet is suit­able
for handouts.
• Miscellaneous Publication No. 1405, "A
Comprehensive National Plan for New
Initiatives in Home Research, Extension
and Higher Education," is intended for
use in program planning.
Single copies of both publications are avail­able
free from Science and Education Adminis­tration,
Information Staff, Room 6009, South
Building, Washington, D.C. 20250.
25
HOUSEHOLD ENERGY USE AND CONSERVATION1
By Carol B. Meeks2
ENERGY CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING homes in metropolitan areas; the only excep­Structural
Characteristics
Owner-occupied, detached, single-family
housing units are the highest energy users be­cause
of exterior surface areas exposed, air
infiltration, and internal load density (energy
requirements resulting from lights, appliances,
and occupants). Such units are the dominant
type of nonmetropolitan housing.
Home heating or cooling is the highest
energy user for most households, and size of
the housing unit is a major factor in energy use.
Today, larger housing units domina,te new
construction. Over 50 percent of all new 1979
U.S. housing units had floor areas of 1,600
square feet or more, with little regional varia­tion.
This housing, however, accounted for 41
percent of new nonmetropolitan units and 60
percent of new metropolitan units.
In housing, conservation devices, such as
storm doors and windows and insulation, have
been traditional. Investments in these items
were less cost-beneficial in earlier periods of
low-cost fuels than they are today. According
to the 1977 Annual Housing Survey,3 owner­occupied
homes in nonmetropolitan areas were
somewhat more likely to have one or more
storm doors or windows than were homes in
metropolitan areas. Owner-occupied homes in
metropolitan areas, however, were slightly
more likely to have attic or roof insulation.
Owner-occupied homes in nonmetropolitan
areas were more likely to have received in­creased
weather protection in 1977 than were
1 This article is condensed from a paper presented
at the Agricultural Outlook Conference in November
1980 at Washington, D.C. Complete copies are avail­able
from the Family Economics Research Group (see
p. 2 for address).
2 Housing program leader, Economic Development
Division, Economics and Statistics Service, U.S. De­partment
of Agriculture. Special thanks to John Hession
and Ron Kampe, Economic Development Division,
for providing background material and to James
Mikesell for his helpful comments. The views expressed
here are those of the author.
3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1979, General housing characteristics for the
United States and regions: 1977, Annual Housing
Survey: 1977, Part A, Current Housing Reports,
Series H-150-77.
26
tion was that metropolitan homes were slightly
more likely to have received weatherstripping
than were nonmetropolitan homes.
Although often criticized as a cause of heat
loss, fireplaces have increased in popularity;
in 1979, 67 percent of all new housing units
had at least one fireplace. New housing units
in the West and South were more likely to have
fireplaces than those in the Northeastern or
North Central regions, and new nonmetropoli­tan
houses were less likely to have fireplaces
than were new metropolitan homes.
Systems and Equipment
The type of fuel used in home heating
varies by metropolitan-nonmetropolitan loca­tion.
In 1979, both metropolitan and non­metropolitan
housing units were most likely to
be heated with utility gas. However, 61 percent
of metropolitan units, as compared with only
43 percent of nonrnetropolitan units, were
heated with utility gas. More nonmetropolitan
units than metropolitan units were heated with
electricity, bottled gas, coal, or wood. Distribu­tion
of fuels used in home heating has changed
somewhat since 1970. The use of electricity
has increased in both metropolitan and non­metropolitan
locations, while the use of fuel
oil has declined.
Electricity was the most popular type of
heating fuel used in new housing units in 1979.
Of new housing, 61 percent was heated by
electricity in nonmetropolitan areas, compared
with 46 percent in metropolitan areas. There
was great variation according to region in the
use of electricity in new housing-68 percent in
the South, 33 percent in the North Central
region, 35 percent in the Northeastern region,
and 46 percent in Western region. Over 25
percent of all new units in 1978 and 1979 had
electric heat pumps (data on heat pumps were
not collected prior to 1978). Although heat
pumps may be part of the energy solution,
maintenance costs may outweigh energy cost
savings over the long run.
In the last 5 years, new, single-family
housing units completed with central air­conditioning
increased from 46 to 60 percent.
In 1979, 85 percent of all new housing units in
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the South had air-conditioning; whereas, only
26 percent oJ new units in the Northeast had
air-conditioning. New nonmetropolitan hous­ing
units are less likely to have central air­conditioning
than are metropolitan units.
Expansion in the use of home appliances has
somewhat increased energy use. From 1970 to
1979, the number of homes with room air­conditioners,
dishwashers, clothes dryers, home
freezers, and color television sets increased by
60 percent or more.
ENERGY PRICES, QUANTITIES,
AND EXPENDITURES
Average residential energy prices in dollars
per million Btu's vary by fuel type; electricity
currently is the most costly and natural gas
the least costly (table 1). From April 1978 to
March 1979, rural households paid lower prices
than urban households for individual fuel types
per million Btu's but paid more per million
Btu's overall due to their greater use of elec­tricity.
Regional variation is considerable in
average amount of energy consumed and aver­age
expenditures per household (table 2).
Households in the North Central region con­sumed
an average of 180 million Btu's from
April 1978 to March 1979, with an average
expenditure of $821. Northeastern households
consumed an average of 166 million Btu's for
an average expenditure of $887. Southern
households consumed the least energy, but
western households had the lowest average ex­penditures.
A comparison of data collected by the De­partment
of Energy (DOE) with data collected
by the Rural Electric Administration (REA) on
average electric bills indicates that areas ser-
Table 1. Average energy prices in dollar/million Btu's (April1978-March 1979)
Electric LP gas Fuel oil or Natural
Area All
kerosene gas
United States .. . ..... ... ..... 5.25 12.10 5.09 3.93 2.74
Northeast ................ 5.33 15.34 7.93 3.98 3.42
North Central 0 •••••••••••• 4.57 13.64 4.55 3.82 2.57
South ............... ... . 6.81 11.75 5.16 3.94 2.85
West ............... .. ··· 4.27 8.28 4.18 3.77 2.30
Urban ................... 5.06 12.95 5.87 3.96 2.76
Rural 5.85 10.50 4.91 3.88 2.60
0 •••••••• 0 • ••• ••• ••
SMSA ................... 5.16 13.01 5.69 3.97 2.78
Non-SMSA • 0 ••• • ••• 0 •• 0 •• 5.46 10.71 4.79 3.86 2.64
Source: u.S. Department of Energy, 1980, Consumption and Expenditures, April1978 through March 1979.
Table 2. Average energy consumption and expenditures for all fuels per household
(Apri11978-March 1979)
Area Million Btu's
United States ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 138
Northeast .......... ..... . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 166
North Central .............. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 180
South ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
West .............. ··· ·· ····· · ·· ····· ····
99
110
Urban .............. . .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rural ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
141
128
SMSA ............... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Non-SMSA .. .......... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
142
129
Dollars
724
887
821
674
469
716
748
734
704
Source: U.S. Departmen t o f E nergy, 1980 , Consumption and Expenditures, April 19 78 through March 19 79.
SUMMER 1981 27
viced by REA typically had higher average
costs for all kilowatt-hours of usage.
As measured by the Consumer Price Index,
price increases from 1970 to 1980 were 127
percent for electricity, 221 percent for natural
gas, and 421 percent for oil. These increases are
important to consumers in their choices of
fuel and equipment for their homes.
CONSERVATION INCENTIVES
Prices
A study of 90 natural gas (NG) users and
129 liquid petroleum gas (LPG) users in rural
Indiana indicates the response of households
to price increases.4 In 1971 the price of LPG
was twice that of NG, and in 1973-74 the price
of LPG doubled, whereas NG changed only
slightly. LPG households increased their fuel­use
efficiency in 197 3-7 4 and maintained and
improved the increase in the following years,
while NG users made only slight changes. LPG
users had more insulation than NG users, and
more often adopted and maintained energy
conservation activities, such as closing off a
room and turning down the thermostat. Struc­tural
changes-attic and wall insulation, adding
storm doors or windows, caulking, and weather­stripping-
were reported by more LPG house­holds
than NG households. The study con­cludes
that a substantial economic incentive
is required to create a significant and sustained
energy conservation response.
Tax Credits
One Federal approach to inducing conserva­tion
is through tax credits or deductions. The
Federal personal income tax credit· permits
deduction of 15 percent of the first $2,000
expended on qualified items. A recently com­pleted
survey of expenditures for conservation
and renewable resource measures that were
reported on 1978 Individual Tax Return
(1040) forms gives information on residential
conservation activities. 5 Tax credit expendi-
4 Ogus, Margo Rich, 1980, Residential energy con­servation
and price response, doctoral dissertation,
Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford,
Calif.
5 U.S. Department of Treasury, 1980, 1978 Indi­vidual
Income Tax RetUrns, Preliminary Report, Pub.
No. 198 table 4.
28
tures were reported on 5.9 million returns,
representing 6.6 percent of the total number of
1978 individual tax returns. A total of $4.2
billion, or an average of $708 per return report­ing
the expenditure, was reported to the Inter­nal
Revenue Service as expended for these
purposes. In general, conservation activity
was greatest in the Northeastern, North Central,
and West Central regions and least in the
Southern and Western regions.
The low usage of tax credits could indicate
that the 15-percent credit is an ineffective
incentive. Many low-income households prob­ably
do not have the capital for investments
in energy-saving items. In addition, the long
tax form must be completed to claim the
deduction. Expenditures for caulking, weather­stripping,
and so forth, are relatively small, and
a minimum $10 tax credit ($67 actual cost)
is allowed. (Small expenditures, however, can
be accumulated over several years and claimed
when the total is great enough.) Furthermore,
the improvements must last for 3 years or
more; temporary items, such as plastic sheeting
used as storm windows, are not eligible. Since
the law was passed in 1978, retroactive to
1977, 1978 tax returns may not accurately
indicate the extent of tax credits. Greater use
of the tax credits may have taken place in
more recent years, for which data are not yet
available.
Building Energy Performance Standards
Regulation is another type of incentive.
Building Energy Performance Standards
(BEPS) were mandated by Congress to achieve
energy efficiency in buildings. Through BEPS,
the reduction in energy consumed is expected
to exceed that created by market forces alone.
DOE has responsibility for developing and
issuing standards for new buildings that are to
be implemented at the State and local levels
through building codes. Interim standards that
are applicable only to direct Federal construc­tion
will be published by August 1981, with
final standards and a report to Congress ex­pected
by April 1983. The standards will
contain Design Energy Budgets that establish
for builders how many Btu's per square foot a
building can use. The standards apply to build­ing
design, not operation or maintenance.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEYS1
By Wendel Thompson2
Most of the statistics on energy that have
been collected by the Government in the past
were for the supply and production of energy.
Times have changed, and new information is
required about the use of energy by the final
consumer. The Office of the Consumption
Data System, Energy Information Adminis­tration,
in the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), is developing procedures for collecting
data about the use of energy in the residential,
commercial, transportation, and industrial
sectors of the economy. This report describes
the National Interim Energy Consumption
Survey (NIECS), a preliminary survey of resi­dential
energy consumption, and plans for
future annual residential surveys.
The residential sector3 consumes about one­fifth
of the energy used by consumers.4 In
designing a data-collection effort for this
sector, DOE gave top priority to satisfying a
multitude of interests that grew out of this
country's increasing concern with energy in
general. The result was a design to collect
data from individual households and to collect
billing records from the household's fuel sup­pliers.
A subsample of households also kept
diaries on vehicle energy use. Data can be used
to fully or partially address the following
interests:
• Burden of energy costs on low-income,
minority, and elderly persons and
families.
• Changing housing stock and use of fuels
as they affect forecasts of future energy
use.
• Influence of rising energy costs on con­sumption
and conservation activities.
1 This article is condensed from a paper presented at
the Agricultural Outlook Conference in November
1980 at Washington, D.C. Complete copies are avail·
able from the Family Economics Research Group
(see p. 2 for address). The opinions and conclusions
expressed herein are solely those of the author, and
should not be construed as representing the opinions
or ~olicy of any Agency of the U.S. Government.
Survey statistician, Energy Information Adminis·
tration, U.S. Department of Energy. .
3 Residential consumption does not include gasolme
used for household vehicles.
4 "Consumers" also includes all end users of energy
in industry, business, and transportation.
SUMMER 1981
• Use of automobiles and changes in their
fuel efficiency.
• Potential for solar applications.
• Energy use in apartments where house­holds
have little direct control over
energy use.
• Energy standards for new houses.
• Usefulness of tax credits to promote
conservation.
The National Interim Energy Consumption
Surveys
The first survey undertaken was called
"interim" because some planned features of
the Residential Energy Consumption Surveys
were not yet in place when data were collected
from households in October and November
of 1978. The NIECS was a national probability
sample of 4,081 successfully completed house­hold
interviews. The number of completed
interviews represented a response rate of 90.5
percent of all eligible housing units and was
achieved through a multiwave, multicontact
attempt to reach households, culminating in
the use of mail to reach the last 5.3 percent.
A $2 incentive was given to each household
to encourage cooperation throughout the
whole interview. The 44-minute interview
covered: Structural features of the house re­lated
to energy, such as size, insulation, and
openings; the heating and cooling systems;
fuels used and what they were used for; energy
conservation efforts; household appliances and
vehicles; and demographic data on the house­hold.
Near the end of the interview households
that paid fuel bills directly to a supplier were
asked to sign an authorization that would
permit fuel suppliers to provide the house­hold's
fuel records for a 15-month period. Most
households signed the authorization.
Contacting the fuel suppliers, the next step
in data collection, was most important because
the use of the actual fuel consumption records
for each household made this system of data
5 Response Analysis Corporation, Princeton, N.J.,
conducted the fieldwork, including the followup
surveys, and played an important role in designing the
survey.
29
collection unique.6 All electric and gas utility
suppliers cooperated, and data were ultimately
received for 89 percent of the electrical bills
paid directly to the company by the household
and for 85 percent of the natural gas bills. Data
were collected by mail following initial contacts
by telephone or in person. The frequent reasons
for missing utility bills were unsigned autho­rizations
and failure to match the authorization
with a utility company record. Contacts were
less successful for the other fuels; records were
acquired for only 64 percent of the fuel oil/
kerosene bills and 64 percent of the liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) bills. Contacts with these
fuel suppliers typically involved requests for
one or two households, and data were collected,
after the supplier had received the . signed
authorizations, by telephone rather than by
mail as with the gas and electric companies.
Followup survey efforts were directed to
improving the accuracy of data in situations
where the household lacked the information,
where specially trained interviewers. were re­.
quired, or where maintenance of records was
needed in the absence of existing records.
In large apartment buildings, for example,
renters may not know what fuels are used to
heat the building because the fuel bills are
hidden costs in their rent. In these cases, an
interviewer contacted the rental agent for addi­tional
information, which was later incorporated
into the data set, and improved the accuracy of
the data for rental units.
In another followup effort, a trained tech­nician
was sent to 44 households to measure
and observe such items as the square footage of
living space, temperatures of the hot and cold
water, insulation in the walls and attic, and
siting of the house. Data from these households
will be extremely useful for methodological
analyses and improving the data-gathering
procedures.
From the sample of households in NIECS, a
subsample was designated by DOE to provide
information on the personal use of household
vehicles. 7 Households in the subsample (House-
6 For households whose energy costs were included
in their rent or who did not otherwise pay directly,
energy consumption was estimated from the data for
households that had similar characteristics.
7 Including company cars and cars not owned by
the household.
30
hold Transportation Panel) reported fuel
purchases, odometer readings, and fuel gauge
readings for a 2-month period. Then, 4 months
later, households in the panel again reported
these data for another 2-month period. Diaries
were mailed to households, and data usually
were collected by telephone within a few days
after the end of each period. This design
yielded annual estimates of miles driven,
gallons of fuel purchased and consumed, and
the efficiency of the vehicle fleet (miles per
gallon). Since all vehicles in the household
were included with information on year, make,
and model of each vehicle, the analysis can
focus on the relative usage of vehicles in the
same household. In addition, the changing
efficiencies of the vehicle fleet, the use of
leaded fuels in vehicles designed for unleaded
fuels, and the reaction of drivers to the in­creasing
price of gasoline can be examined.
Data from the first reports of the Household
Transportation Panel, beginning in June 1979,
are now becoming available. During the sum­mer
of 1979, some parts of the country exper­ienced
shortages of ~asoline. The effects of
these shortages on driving habits should be
reflected in the data.
Residential Energy Consumption Surveys
Future residential energy consumption
surveys will have the following features that
will distinguish them from the interim survey:
• Increased coverage of housing units to in
include those in Alsaka and Hawaii and
those on military bases and Indian
reservations.
• Interviews will be repeated after 2 years
for a portion of the sample households
to provide data on changes in energy
statistics.
• Improved accuracy of important data
elements, including actual measurement
of the square footage of living space.
• Improved methods of estimating fuel
consumption for rental apartments.
• Inclusion of data about the consumption
of wood for home heating.
• Use of a specially designed sample of
131 primary sampling locations selected,
in part, on the basis of the dominant
heating fuel and sampled to produce
reliable estimates for 10 Federal regions
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
or 9 census regions when data from 2
survey years are combined.
• Increased sample size of 5,000 house­holds.
• Inclusion of an additional annual sample
of 500 households for special method­ological
studies.
One of the most important projected ac­tivities
is the development of methods for
breaking down fuel records into their most
important component end uses (space heating,
space cooling, and water heating) for a measure
of efficiency for some components. By com­bining
the actual square footage with weather
data for the individual household, for example,
a figure for the consumption of Btu per square
foot per heating degree day could be derived. 8
Engineers could use that figure in evaluating
building designs and operations. Then, DOE
could chart the changing efficiencies over
time, relate these efficiencies to housing and
demographic characteristics, and provide data
on the relative payoffs of improving the effi­ciency
of household energy use.
Public Availability of NIECS Data
The following reports can be ordered from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov-
8 Measure of how far the daily average temperature
falls below 65 degrees.
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402:
• Residential Energy Consumption Sur­vey:
Conservation, February 1980, DOE/
EIA-0207 /3, GPO No. 061-003-00087-8,
$6.
• Residential Energy Consumption Sur­vey:
Characteristics of the Housing
Stock and Households, 1978, February
1980, DOE/EIA-0207 /2, GPO No.
061-003-00093-2, $4.25.
• Single Family Households: Fuel Inven­tories
and Expenditures: National In­terim
Energy Consumption Survey,
December 1979, DOE/EIA-0207 /1, GPO
No. 061-003-0075-4, $1.75.
• Residential Energy Consumption Sur­vey:
Consumption and Expenditures,
April 1978 through March 1979, July
1980, DOE/EIA-0207 /5, GPO No.
061-003-00031-9, $6.50.
• Residential Energy Consumption Sur­vey:
Consumption Patterns of House­hold
Vehicles, June to August 1979,
June 1980, DOE-EIA-0207 /4, GPO No.
061-003-001560-4, $3.75.
The data set with individual household
records on magnetic tape can be ordered from
the National Technical Information Services
for $125 (accession No. PB81-108714). Con­tact
Stu Wiseman at (703) 487-4808.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of­fice,
Washington, D.C. 20402:
• IDEAS FOR BETTER EATING-MENUS AND RECIPES TO MAKE USE OF THE DI­ETARY
GUIDELINES. January 1981.$2.25.
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Please
address your request to the office indicated:
From Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• FAMILy FOOD BUDGETING-FOR GOOD MEALS AND GOOD NUTRITION. Revised
November 1980.
• SELECTING AND FINANCING A HOME. G 182. Revised August 1980.
• GROWING VEGETABLES IN THE HOME GARDEN. G 202. Revised September 1980.
C E t
ounty x ens1· 0n Sta ff : Whe n ordering publications use E. xtensio. n Publications Shipping Order Form ES-91A
and follow instructions from your State Publications DistributiOn Officer.
SUMMER 1981
31
FAMILIES MAINTAINED BY FEMALE HOUSEHOLDERS, 1970-79
Female householders with no husband pres­ent
maintained 15 percent (8.5 million) of all
U.S. families in 1979. 1 Between 1970 and
1979, the number of these families increased
51 percent but total number of U.S. families
increased only 12 percent. Almost two-thirds
of the families maintained by female house­holders
were single-parent families (families
comprised of a mother and at least one child
under 18 with or without other relatives).
These mother-child families increased by 81
percent from 1970 to 1979. This increase
might be attributed to such factors as child­bearing
outside of marriage; the dissolution
of nuclear families through separation, di­vorce,
and widowhood; or the desire and
ability of women to establish and maintain
independent families.
Families maintained by female householders
with no husband present were concentrated at
the low end of the economic scale. The pov­erty
rate for persons living in these families
was 36 percent in 1978 (down from 38 per­cent
in 1969), compared with a 10-percent
rate for all persons in families. In 1978, the
median income of $8,540 for families main­tained
by female householders was less than
half of the median income of $17,640 for all
families. In 1978 constant dollars, the median
income for all families rose 5 percent from
1969 to 1978, while the median income for
families maintained by women did not in­crease.
The presence of children had a negative
effect on the level of family income (see table).
In 1979, three out of five female house­holders
who maintained families with no
husband present were in the labor force, either
employed or looking for employment. The
unemployment rate for these women rose from
3 percent in 1970 to 5 percent in 1979. Among
female householders who were employed in
1979, most were clerical and service workers.
1 " Families maintained by female householders
with no husband present" replaces the former Bureau
of the Census term "female-headed families."
32
Only one-fifth of female householders held
professional and managerial positions, although
the number of women in each of those occupa­tional
groups had doubled during the seventies.
The increase in the percent of women who
entered professional or managerial positions
reflected the percent of female householders
who attained higher levels of education. In
1970, half of all female householders had
finished high school. In 1979, 60 percent had
completed at least high school and 23 percent
had attended college.
During the seventies, the number of female
householders under age 45 grew more rapidly
than the number of older female householders,
thus lowering the median age of female house­holders
from 48 years in 1970 to 42 in 1979.
This change in age c9mposition altered the
composition of the group by marital status;
the proportion of widows decreased and the
proportion of never-married and divorced
women increased. Families maintained by
women in 1979 were more likely than compar­able
families in 1970 to include children, but
the average number of children per family
declined from 2.29 to 1.86.
Type of family Median income
All female householders,
no husband present . . . . . . . . . . . $8,540
No children under 18 years . . . . . 11,970
With children under 18 years. . . . 7,040
All 6 to 17 years. . . . . . . . . . . 8,690
Some under 6, some 6 to 17
years ......... . .. . .... . 4,930
All under 6 ....... . , . .. . . . 4,500
Source : Rawlings, Steve W., 1980, Families main­tained
by female householders 1970-79, Current
Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23,
No. 107, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
NUTRIENT CONTENT OF THE NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY
"The nutrient content of the national food
supply," by Ruth M. Marston and Susan 0.
Welsh, was published in the Winter 1981 issue
of the Natinnal Food Review (NRD-13).
Changes from 1979 to 1980 include 1 to 4
percent increases for food energy (calories),
vitamin B 12 , ascorbic acid, vitamin A, fat,
and thiamin; and 1 percent decreases for
calcium and magnesium. Because of these
increases, food energy, fat, and thiamin are
now at peak levels. Greater consumption of
pork, edible offals, and citrus products con­tributed
to the higher nutrient levels, while
decreased consumption of some dairy prod­ucts,
potatoes, and coffee contributed to the
lower levels.
Levels and sources of zinc in the Nation's
diet were reported for the first time. The zinc
level, now 12.5 mg per capita per day, has
fluctuated between 11 and 13 mg per day
since the period 1909-13. Sources of zinc
have changed markedly over the past 70 years
because of shifts in consumption of foods
from three major food groups that together
account for around three-fourths of the zinc
in the food supply.
Reprints of this article may be obtained free
from the Consumer Nutrition Center, HN­SEA-
USDA, room 326, 6505 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Ask for reprint
CNC(Adm.)299-15.
WHO ARE THE UNINSURED?
During the first months of 1977, 26.6 mil­lion
Americans or approximately 13 percent
of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized popula­tion
had no health insurance coverage. Young
adults 18 to 24 years were more likely than
other age groups to be uninsured and the
elderly, many of whom were eligible for Medi­care
benefits, were least likely to be uninsured
(see table).
When data were classified by families, only
6 percent of the families had no family mem­ber
insured, 13 percent had at least one mem­ber
insured, and 81 percent had all members
insured. Public health insurance programs, such
as Medicaid and Medicare, insure only eligible
family members, thereby resulting in un­insured
persons in the family. Families enrolled
in some private plans may choose between
family and individual coverage. Not all
employment-related health insurance plans
offer family coverage.
Source: Kasper Judith A., Daniel C. Waldon, and
• . d?
Gail R. Wilensky, 1980, Who are the umnsure · ,
NCHSR National Health Care Expenditures Study,
Data Preview 1, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. N ational Center for Heal th Services Research .
SUMMER 1981
Characteristic
Age
Less than 6 years . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-17 years . .. ...... . ..... .
18-24 years .... . ..... . ... .
25 ·54 years .... . .. . ... . . . .
55-64 years . .. ... . ....... .
65 or more years ... . . . ..... .
Sex
Male ........ . ......... . .
Female . ... . .......... . . .
Color
White ... .. ..... . .. . .... .
Nonwhite .. ...... . . . . . .. . .
Years of education
0-11 .............. .. ... .
12 ... . ..... .. . . ....... .
13 or more . ... . . . .. . .. . .. .
U.S. census region
Northeast ... . . .......... . .
North Central ... .. .... . . . . .
South ...... ... . · · · · · · · · ·
West .... .... . . .... . . . .. .
Percent of
group uninsured
12
13
22
12
11
4
13
12
12
18
16
12
9
8
9
16
16
See Family Economics Review Spring 1981 issue,
p. 36, for dental visits survey from the National Medical
Care Expense Survey.
33
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, March 1981, U. S. average 1
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2:3
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over ...... .
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
chi ldren - -
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 yea rs
INDIVIDUALS'+
Chi 1 d:
7 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 ... .. . .
Female:
12-19 years ............ .
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over . . .... .
Pregnant ....... . ....... .
Nursing ............... . .
Thrifty
plan 2
$32.90
29.60
46.70
56.30
6. 70
7.60
9.20
11.70
14.70
15.70
17.20
16.50
14.70
13.90
13.40
12.20
16.80
17.90
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
$42.50
37.80
59.60
72.10
8. 10
9 . 60
11 . 40
14 .90
18 .60
19.70
21.80
21.30
18.80
17.60
17.30
15.60
21 . 40
22.60
$53.00
47.00
74.10
90. 10
9.90
11 .80
14. 10
18.60
23.30
24.70
27.20
26.80
23.40
21.80
21.40
19.30
26.30
28. 10
Libera 1
plan
$6 3. 50
55.90
88.50
107.70
11.60
13 .90
16.90
22.20
27.80
29 . 40
32.60
32.20
28.00
25.90
25.50
22.80
31. 10
33.40
Thrifty
plan2
$142.60
128.40
202.30
244. 10
29. 10
32.80
39.90
50 .80
63.70
67.90
74 . 30
71 . 40
63.70
60.20
58.20
53.00
73.00
77. 5o
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
$183.80
164.20
258 .10
312.20
35.00
41.40
49.60
64.50
80.60
85.60
94.30
92.30
81.60
76.40
74.80
67.70
92.50
98. 10
$230. 10
20 3. 20
321.40
390.80
42.80
50.90
61.30
80.60
101.00
106.90
118.00
116.30
101.30
94.50
92.90
83.40
113.70
121.90
Libera l
plan
$275.00
241.90
383.80
466.80
50.40
60.40
73.40
96.30
120.50
127.50
141.30
139.50
121.20
112.40
110.50
98.70
134.80
144.50
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each plan
were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal plans) issues of Family 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 at 4 selected levels.
USDA updates these survey prices to est imate the current costs for the food plans using information from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics: "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" from 1965-66 to 1977 and "CPI Detailed Report," tables 3
and 9, after 1977.
2Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
310 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
4The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individual s in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; ]-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person-­subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
0 en
-f
,0
cs
0 c
~
:I:
0
3:
.m.
c
en
l>
2 c
::IJ
m
-G) 0
2
en
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at
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
INDIVIDUALS 3
Chi 1 d:
7 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 ...... .
Female:
12-19 years ............ .
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over ...... .
Pregnant ............ ... .
Nursing ................ .
Northeast regionl
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$44. 50
39.50
62.30
75.50
8.20
9.90
11.90
15.60
19.40
20.70
22.80
22.40
19.70
18.40
18.10
16.20
22.30
23.70
Moderate­cost
plan
$57.20
so. 30
79.60
96.80
10.30
12.50
15.10
19.90
24.90
26.40
29.20
28.90
25.10
23.30
23.10
20.60
28. 10
30.20
Libera I
plan
$69.00
60.50
96.00
116.70
12.30
15.00
18.30
24.00
30.00
31.90
35.30
35.00
30.40
28.00
27.70
24.60
33.70
36.10
3 cost levels, March 1981,
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$192.90
171. 50
270.20
326.90
35.70
43.00
51.80
67.40
84.10
89.70
98.90
97.00
85.50
79.60
78.40
70.40
96.60
102.60
Moderate­cost
plan
$247.80
217.80
344.90
419. 10
44.80
54.20
65.40
86.00
107.80
114.60
126 .60
125.30
108.90
101.10
100.00
89.10
121.70
130.70
Libera I
plan
$299.00
262.10
416.10
505.60
53.20
65. 10
79.20
103.80
130.00
138.00
153.00
151. 80
131. 70
121.40
120.00
106.60
145.90
156.60
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the Northeast from the USDA's Household Food Consumption
Survey with food costs at 3 selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated
Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Boston; New York, northeastern New Jersey; Philadelphia) released
monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; s- or 6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person--
subtract 10 percent.
SUMMER 1981
35
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1981,
North Central regionl
Sex- age_ groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2:2
20-54 years ............. .
55 years and over ....... .
Familyof4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 years
INDIVIDUALS 3
Chi 1 d:
7 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 ....... .
Female:
12-19 years ............. .
20-54 years ............. .
55 years and over ....... .
Pregnant ................ .
Nursing ................. .
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
$43.70
38.90
61.50
74.50
8.30
9.90
11.90
15.50
19.30
20.50
22.50
21.90
19.30
18.30
17.80
16.10
21.90
23.30
$53-70
47.40
75.30
91.60
9.90
12.00
14.50
19.00
23.80
25.20
27.70
27.10
23.60
22.20
21.70
19.50
26.50
28.40
Liberal
plan
$64.90
57.30
90.80
110.60
11.70
14.30
17.50
22.90
28.70
30.40
33.60
32.90
28.70
26.70
26. 10
23.40
31.90
34.20
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
$188.80
168.70
265.90
322.30
35.90
42.80
51.50
67 .oo
83.70
88.90
97.60
94.70
83.80
79. 10
76.90
69.60
95.00
100.70
$232.50
205.50
325.90
397.00
43.10
51.80
62.70
82.40
103.20
109.20
120.20
117.50
102.40
96.30
93-90
84.40
115.00
123.20
Liberal
plan
$281.50
247.90
393.40
479.80
50.90
61.80
75.70
99.40
124.50
131.70
145.50
142.70
124.20
115.80
113.20
101. 20
]38. 20
148. 10
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published In the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the North Central region from the USDA's Household
Food Consumption Survey with food costs at 3 selected levels. These prices are updated by
use of "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis)
released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: !-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.
36 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1981,
Southern regionl
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:2
20-54 years •••• 0 •••••• 0 0 $42.60 $53.00 $62.90 $184.30 $229.60 $273.10
55 years and over 0 0 •• 0 •• 37.70 46.40 55.00 163.50 201. 10 238.30
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years 59.50 73.70 87.50 257.60 319.30 379.70
6-8 and 9-11 years 72.10 89.70 106.60 312 . 00 388.80 462.30
INDIVIDUALS 3
Chi 1 d:
7 months to 1 year •• 0 ••• 7.90 9. 70 11.30 34.40 41.90 49.00
1-2 years • 0. 0 0 ••••••• 0 0. 9.40 11.50 13.60 40.90 50.00 59.00
3-5 years • 0 0 ••••• 0 0 ••••• 11.40 14.00 16.70 49.20 60.60 72.40
6-8 years 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 ••• 0 14.80 18.40 21.90 64.10 79.90 95.00
9-11 years • 0 ••• 0 •••••• 0. 18.60 23. 10 27.50 80 . 40 100 .20 119 .00
Male:
12-14 years •••••• 0. 0 •••• 19.80 24.60 29.20 85.70 106.40 126.60
15-19 years • 0 ••• 0. 0 0 •• 0. 21.90 27.20 32.40 94.70 117 .80 140.50
20-54 years I I o 0 o o o o o o 0 o 0 21.30 26.70 31.80 92.20 115.60 138.00
55 years and over 0 •••••• 18.70 23. 10 27.50 81.00 100.00 119. 10
Female:
12-19 years ••••• 0. 0 • • 0. 0 17.80 21.80 25.90 77.10 94.70 112. 10
20-54 years • 0. 0 0 •••• 0. 0 0 17.40 21.50 25.40 75.30 93. 10 110.30
55 years and over • 0 ••••• 15.60 19.10 22.50 67.60 82.80 97.50
Pregnant ••••• 0 •••• ~ •• 0 • 0 21.50 26.30 31.10 93.10 114.20 134.80
Nursing •• 0 •••••• 0 •• • 0 ••• 22.80 28.20 33.30 98.70 122.20 144.30
1Assumes that food for al 1 meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the South from the USDA's Household Food Consumption
Survey with food costs at 3 selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated
Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Atlanta; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Maryland; Virginia)
released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person--
subtract 10 percent.
SUMMER 1981 37
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1981,
Western region 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
\
Sex-age groups
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:2
20-54 years 0 ••• • 0 ••••••• $43.00 $53.90 $65.00 $186.20 $233.30 $281.70
55 years and over ...•• 0. 38.40 47.40 57.20 166.30 205.70 247.60
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and chi 1 dren--
1-2 and 3-5 years 60.70 75.50 91.30 262.90 326.90 395.70
6-8 and 9-11 years 73.70 92.00 111.30 319.00 398. 50 482.30
INDIVIDUALS 3
Chi 1 d:
7 months to 1 year 0 ••••• 8.20 9.90 12. 10 35.70 42.90 52.50
1-2 years 0 ••••••••••••• 0 9.80 12.00 14.50 42.50 51.90 62.90
3-5 years ••••••••••• 0 .... 11.80 14.50 17.70 51. 10 62.90 76.70
6-8 years ••• 0 0 0 ••• 0 •• 0 •• 15.40 19.10 23.20 66.50 82.70 100.50
9-11 years 0 0 ••••• 0 0 0. 0 •• 19.20 23.90 29.00 83.20 103.70 125.70
Male:
12-14 years •• 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0 0 20.40 25.40 30.70 88.30 109.90 133.20
15-19 years • 0 ....... 0 •• 0. 22.30 27.80 33.80 96.50 120.50 146.50
20-54 years ............. 21.60 2].20 32.90 93.50 117.80 142.60
55 years and over ....... 19. 10 23.60 28.60 82.60 102.50 123.80
Female:
12-19 years •••••••• 0 0 ••• 18. 10 22.40 2].00 78.60 96.90 117.20
20-54 years ••• 0. 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 1].50 21.80 26.20 75.80 94.30 113.50
55 years and over 0. 0 ..... 15.80 19.50 23.40 68.60 84.50 101. 30
Pregnant ••• 0 •••••• 0 •• 0. 0 21.60 26.70 32.00 93.70 115.60 138.80
Nursing ••••••• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 22.90 28.60 34.30 99.30 123.80 148.70
lAssumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the West from the USDA's Household Food Consumption
Survey with food costs at 3 selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated
Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland) released monthly by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person-­subtract
10 percent .
38 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
(1967 = 100)
Group
A 11 i terns ................... .
Food ...................... .
Food at home ............ .
Food away from home ..... .
Housing ................... .
She 1 te r ................. .
Rent ........... . ...... .
Homeownersh i p ......... .
Fuel and other utilities
Fuel oi 1, coal, and
bottled gas .......... .
Gas (piped) and
electricity ....... . .. .
Household furnishings
and operation .......... .
Apparel and upkeep ..•......
Men 1s and boys 1 apparel ..
Women 1s and girls 1 apparel
Footwear ..........•... . ..
Transportation ............ .
Private ...............•. .
Pub 1 i c .................. ·
Medica 1 care ........ . ..... .
Entertainment ............. .
Other goods and services .. .
Personal care ........... .
Mar.
1981
265. 1
2]2.2
268.6
286. 1
282.6
301.6
203.0
336