1‘

l
4

1

MW?

lHllHil

w
yl
'

i
I

I
k
I

n»; ’
ow ll
OO\J

 

“THS

A STUDY OF THE ADEQUACY OF FOOD SUPPLY
AS lfiLATED T0 I’GTM FOG!) W108 OF
TWENTYoFGUR URBAN MECHSGAN $AMJLIES AS
REVEALED 3? FQCD PWCHASE fiCOfiDS
OF THESE FAMéLES

Thesis {or We Degree of M. S.
M‘Ci’ifis‘i SW”: EFQLE'EJEKSE? ‘

Edna Scott McArthur
1957

1". 911313;

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A Study of the Adequacy of Food Suoply
ts Related to Total Food Needs of
Twenty—Four Urban Michigan Families as
levealed by Food Purchase Records
Of These Families
presented by

Edna Scott Ncflrthur

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

\f

__l—'- S_. _ degree in Jifltrit 1.9“

A‘I7L’J'J fl 6/5163: fatal-f9

Major professor?”

 

Date MM

0-169

LIBRARY '

Michigan State
University

 

A STUDY OF THE ADEQUACY OF FOOD SUPPLY AS RELATED To
TOTAL FOOD NEEDS OF TWENTY-FOUR URBAN MICHIGAN
FAMILIES AS REVEALED BY-FOOD PURCHASE

RECORDS OF THESE FAMILIES ' ’

by
Edna Scott MoArthur

A.THESIS

Submitted to the College of Home Economics of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Foods and Nutrition

1957

AN.ABSTRACT EDNA SCOTT MCARTHUR

This study presents a summary by months of weekly food
purchase recordscfl‘twenty-four urban Michigan families accord-
ing'UDthe eleven food groups suggested by the Bureau of Human
Nutrition and Home Economics Of the United States Department
of.Agriculture. The adequacy of the food taken into the home
of each family was compared to the amount recommended by the
Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics.

Thedata fortflmzstudy were drawn from records collected
by the Department of.Agricultura1 Economics of Michigan State
University. TNuasample consisted of eight families of similar
membership-~father, mother, and two Children--selected from
each of three income levels--high, medium, and low.

The weekly food purchases of these families, recorded
for 1953, were classified into the following food groups:
leafy, green, and yellow vegetables; Citrus fruit and tomatoes;
potatoes and sweet potatoes; other fruits and vegetables; milk;
nmat,;poultny,and fish; eggs; flour and cereal; fats and oils;
dry peas and beans, nuts; and sugar, sirup, and preserves.

The standard for consumption for each of these food
groups was calculated at low- and moderate-cost menu levels
for each family as recommended by the Bureau of Human Nutri-
tion and Home Economics.

The yearly food purchases of each family were compared
to the calculated standard for that family and examined for

1

EDNA SCOTT MCARTHUR

adequacy and effect of income. The purchases of ten families
were studied to note seasonal variation in purchasing.

These data indicate inadequate levels of purchase of
all the protective foods except meat--specifically: leafy,
green, and yellow vegetables; citrus fruits and tomatoes;
potatoes and sweet potatoes; flour and cereal; milk; and eggs.
Purchases of sugar, sirup, and preserves were consistently
above recommended levels.

The families included in this study purchased similar
quantities of food regardless of income.

Analysis of the yearly purchases of ten families in-
dicated little seasonal variation of the food brought into

the home.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr.
Gerald Quackenbush, Professor of the Department of Agricul-
tural Economics of Michigan State University for furnishing
the original data used in this study; to Dr. Evelyn Jones,
Assistant Professorcfl‘the Department Of Foods and Nutrition
of Michigan State University for her most generous assist-
ance;znuito Dr. Dena Cederquist, Head of the Department of
Foods and Nutrition Of Michigan State University without
whose constant direction and encouragement this study would

not have been completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Food Consumption in the United States
Relationship of Income to Food Consumption

Seasonal Trends in Food Consumption in the
United States

PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Adequacy of Purchases . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Income on Adequacy of Purchases
Seasonal Trends of Purchases

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX .

iii

Page

exp-4:-

IO
30
30
39
In

is
LLB

Table

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

LIST OF TABLES

COMPOSITION OF FAMILIES INCLUDED IN THIS
STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MASTER FOOD PLAN AT LOW-COST. WEEKLY QUANTITIES
OF FOOD (AS PURCHASED) FOR 19 AGE, SEX, ACTIVITY
GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MASTER FOOD PLAN AT MODERATE-COST. WEEKLY

QUANTITIES OF FOOD (AS PURCHASED) FOR l9.AGE,
SEX, ACTIVITY GROUPS . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY NUMBER ONE
.AT LOW-COST MENU LEVEL . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY NUMBER ONE
AT MODERATE—COST MENU LEVEL . . . . . . . .

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY URBAN MICHIGAN
FAMILIES COMPARED TO CALCULATED STANDARDS FOR
EACH FAMILY AT LOW-COST MENU LEVEL . . . .

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY URBAN MICHIGAN
FAMILIES COMPARED TO CALCULATED STANDARDS FOR
EACH FAMILY.AT MODERATE-COST MENU LEVEL

SEASONAL TRENDS IN PURCHASES OF TEN URBAN
MICHIGAN FAMILIES . . . . . . . .

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY LOW-INCOME URBAN
MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED

STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY.AT LOW- AND MODERATE-
COST MENU LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY MEDIUM-INCOME URBAN
MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY AT LOW-AND MODERATE-
COST MENU LEVELS . . . . . . . . . .

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY HIGH-INCOME URBAN
MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY AT LOW-AND MODERATE-
COST MENU LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . .

SEASONAL PURCHASES OF TEN URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES

iv

Page

13

16

18

21

23

31+

35

DZ

61

63

65
68

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Total number of families in each income group
which met Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home
Economics food purchase recommendations for
eleven food groups at low-cost menu level

Total number of families in each income group
which met Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home
Economics food purchase recommendations for
eleven food groups at moderate-cost menu
level . . . . . . . . .

Adequacy of food purchased by urban Michigan
families as compared to calculated standards for
each family at low-cost menu level

Adequacy of food purchased by urban Michigan
families as compared to calculated standards for
each family at moderate-cost menu level

Comparison of mean food purchases during winter
months (Nov. 29--Feb. 21, 1953) to mean food
purchases during summer months (June lu--Sept.
S, 1953) by ten urban Michigan families

Page

31

32

36

37

N3

.. .mtnmrhnié.

  

INTRODUCTION

The nutritional status of the peoples of the world is
of universal interest. Public health workers, nutritionists,
and members of the medical profession are concerned with the
present state of nutrition of the people of the United States
(1). Dietary surveys have presented evidence which suggests
inadequate food intakes and varying degrees of malnutrition
in widespread areas of this country where the food supplyg on
a per capita basis, appears to be adequate (2,.3,bqf3,65'7,8,
9,10,11, la). An abundant food supply in a given area appar-
ently does not assure maximum or even adequate food intakes
by the inhabitants of this area (8, 12).

In order to satisfy the food needs of all persons, the
following conditions must be met:

1. Farmers must produce the needed food.

2. Consumers must have the means to Obtain enough

food to assure an adequate diet.
3. Consumers must be educated to desire or to demand
a nutritionally adequate diet (8, 13).

Neither under-production nor unequal distribution of
food are major contributing causes for inadequate food intakes
in the United States. Estimates of per capita food supplies
indicate that sufficient quantities are available to permit

the consumption of diets which would meet the recommended

I

 

 

LF‘

 

 

.L . V. IIBLLI-lnl Li. ‘1: it

2

dietary allowances of the National Research Council (12).
Although the food supply is distributed somewhat unequally
among the seasons of the year as well as the regions of the
country (12), recent advances in food preservation and mar-
keting are minimizing these variations (lb).

Income may be a limiting factor in the purchase of
adequate food (9,1CU. In 19h5,it was estimated that one-
fourth of the four-person families in the United States had
incomes under $2,000 (10). Generally, as incomes rise, the
amount of money spent for food increases, but the adequacy
of the dietaries does not necessarily improve. Stiebeling
(8) has indicated that there is room for improvement in the
diets of all income levels-~not merely those of low-income
families. When sufficient money is available, inadequate
dietaries are due'UJpoor buying practices and/or food habits
(10). Sinceindividual eating patterns are determined prima-
rily by customs and by food likes, it is difficult to alter
them. Education is an important factor in motivating the
homemaker to improve the nutritional status of her family.
The nutrition survey is an important tool for directing at-
tention toward ineffective nutrition.(US). Additional infor-
mation about food supplies and dietary intakescfi‘individuais
and of population groups is needed to define the extent of
inadequate diets in the United States.

Using data collected from twenty-four urban Michigan

families at varied income levels, the following study was

undertaken to determine whether or not these families brought
into their homes a sufficient supply Of food as judged by the
calculated standard of the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home
Economics to meet the calculated needs of each family group.
When appropriate data were available, seasonal trends in the
purchase or selection of foods by these families were evalu-

ated.

 

. I".u.. .. .nr.,|
‘JWHITWJK... I+

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Pett (15) has written, "The food supply is the first
necessity of mankind; and a satisfactory food supply is a
necessity of advancing civilization." liundley(1€fl.hasstated,
"Nutrition has contributed much to the present health and
happiness of American people-—but many opportunities exist
for nutrition to contribute to better and more buoyant health
in the future." Nutrition studies concerning food consumption

are of ever increasing interest.
Food Consumption in the United States

In 1916, Mendel (l7) commented that food supply and
availability were dependent upon a variety of factors among
which were food production, food preservation and consumption,
transportation facilities, customs in diet, and changing in-
dustrial and social conditions. Wells (13) in a study of
.America's changing food consumption patterns from 1909 to
l9hl pointed out the Chief characteristic of per capita food
consumption in America during the last few decades had been
stability rather than Change, although there had been a num-
ber of significant alterations within the rather stable total.
Per capita food consumption in 1909 was 1,576 pounds per per-
son per year; in 1952, it was 1,578 pounds per person. Wells

noted the following changes:

S

l..A downward trend in the consumption of potatoes
and cereal products.

2. An increase of 25 percent in the consumption of
sugar.

3. An increase in the consumption of dairy products.

u..A slight increase in the consumption of milk.
Stability of the total fresh fruit consumption,
with a shift from apples to citrus fruit.

6. An increase in the vegetable consumption with a
slight shift toward more leafy, green, and yellow
vegetables and tomatoes.

A similar study by Clark, gt 31. (12) evaluated trends
from 1909 to 19h5. The authors analyzed apparent per capita
food consumption by major food groups and observed that the
per capita nutrients in the food supply for the period of
World War II were above recommended allowances suggested by
the National Research Council. These authors stated, however,
that the food supply was unequally distributed among income
groups, seasons, and regions. Therefore, although the per
Capita food supply appeared adequate, there was no assurance
thatthe population of the United States as a whole consumed
Satisfactory quantities of essential foodstuffs. A.U9T9study
by Jolliffe, §_t_gl_..(2) of food brought into the homes by 2,000
citky families indicated that due to inadequate purchasing,
43.6 percent of the families failed to receive fair diets,

anfii 76.2 percent failed to receive good diets. .At the time

6

of this 1939 study, dietary inadequacies were a frequent oc-
currence in the United States. The Bureau of Human Nutrition
and Home Economics of the United States Department of Agricul-
ture (3) completed a study during the war year, l9u2, and es-
timated there were fewer families at that time than in 1936
which had diets furnishing less than the recommended allow-
ances for dietary essentials. The National Research Council
Bulletin Number 109 (u) published in l9u3 reported that every
nutrition survey of the previous decade had revealed widespread
consumption of diets below recommended standards. .A group of
9N3 Baltimore families studied by Downes and Baranovsky (5)
had inadequate consumptions of green and yellow vegetables,
citrus fruits and tomatoes, and milk; whereas the consumptions
of eggs and meat were satisfactory. Drake and Lamb (6) in a
study of food practices and dietaries of a group of sixty-
three families in a Texas town found 50 percent of the dietar-
ies needed improvement. Hardy (7) made a study Of the dietary
level of one hundred families and cited a need for increased
mmnsumption of milk and foods which contribute vitamin C and
‘Uliamine. Hardy observed two types of poor meals: one which
hari so few foods it could not supply an Optimum diet unless

th£3 foods were chosen carefully; and the other which had too

manyf'oods from the same group.
Relationship of Income To Food Consumption

.A study published in 19u1 by the United States Depart-

ment of Agriculture (18) on family food consumption showed

“A

t
A

an

 

 

9

.

A1. ['11.

7

income and family type affected the level of consumption of
some food groups more than others. In general, as incomes
rose, the greatest increases in per capita consumption were
found in fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and in meat, poultry,
and fish; the smallest increases, if not a decline, were found
in grain products and potatoes. Based on these data Stiebeling
(8) noted that fewer than one-fifth of the families in the
United States had food supplies in 1936 which met National
Research Council dietary recommendations for basic nutrients.
One-fourth of the farm families and one-seventh of the non-
farm families were in this category. The calculated diets of
low- and high-income groups differed mostly with respect to
calcium, vitamins A, C, and thiamine. Low-income families
tended to consume inadequate quantities of these foodstuffs
but all the poor diets were not found among low-income groups.
There were wide differences in adequacy of food consumption
among families of the same income level. Kruse's (9) study

in l9u8, of the place of nutrition in the relationship between
€WVironment and health revealed, in general, the nutritive
quality'of the diet varied with the income level. The poorest
dhats and the greatest percentage of poor diets were noted in
the lowest income groups. The data accumulated by Phipard(10)
“1 19h9 supported the thesis thattrxilittle income waszimajor
Cause of poor diets, but the author added that poor diets were
Often the reSult of poor food habits even when enough money

was available to buy an adequate supply of food. .A summary

8

by Sebrell (11) of the General Mills Survey covering nearly
60,000 children in thirty-eight states revealed the adequacy
of the child's diet was related closely to the occupation and
economic status of the parent; however, in one metropolitan
area four out of ten children from high-income families had
inadequate diets. Conclusions drawn by Sebrell from the
General Mills Survey were as follows:
1. Diets tend to become poorer as the child grows
older.
2. Fifty-two percent of high school girls' diets were
poor.
3. Diets of boys were notably deficient in fruits and
vegetables.
h. Adolescent girls drank too little milk.
Seasonal Trends in Food Consumption
in the United States
"Relatively little has been done in following a group
0f families or individuals through the various seasons and
Obtaining a measure of the adequacy of average diets at dif-
ferenn.seasons of the year" (National Research Council Bulle-
tifl No. 117) (19). .A United States Department of Agriculture
(11;) study published in 1939 showed that seasonal variations
hl food consumption, with few exceptions, were relatively
Small. Seasonal consumption of milk, fats, white potatoes,

carrots, and cabbage showed no marked trend. Consumption of

9

eggs increased in the spring; consumption of meat, poultry, and
fish increased in the winter. Larger amount of snapbeans,
corn, tomatoes, peas, sweet potatoes, and apples were consumed
at the time of harvest. 'Nuaauthors were of the opinion that
this conditioncfl‘slightseasonalvariation.hifood consumption
would not have been true hithe previous generation,tflnn5this
condition indicated progress in marketing and distribution.

Regarding the current nutritional status of the American
people, Sebrell (11) concluded,

The nutritive quality of diets in this country has
improved since World War 11, yet there are further oppor-
tunities ahead. ‘Just because the average man in the Unit-
ed States today obtains enough food to prevent serious
deficiency disease does not mean that he is obtaining
enough food of the right kind to give him optimum health,
to help his children to grow at the best rates, to prevent
chronic disease, to protect him against the added stress
of a severe illness, or to give him the extra stamina
needed to produce to capacity in today's intensely com-
petitive world.

PROCEDURE

In order to evaluate the adequacy of the food supply
of Specific families, the food purchase records should be
studied in relation to the composition of the family. Food
purchase records are generally not used in the United States
as a basis for nutrition studies (19). This type of record
is difficult to obtain since the homemaker must be willing
and able to keep an accurate account of all food brought into
the home. The data have limited value since the records pre-
sent no information relative to what an individual may consume
nor to what extent the food which is purchased is wasted. In
Spite of these limitations food purchase records can still
furnish valuable facts about family food supplies.

The Department of.Agricu1tura1 Economics of Michigan
State University is conducting an extensive study of the pur-

Chasing practices of 225 urban Michigan families through the

Inaintenance of a consumer marketing panel. Panel members

k88p continuous records of the weights Of all foods brought
into the home by purchase, gifts, or home production. Con-
tin‘uous records which cover a period of years are now avail-
able; for certain families. From these records the material
Was gathered for the following study.

This thesis presents a study of the food purchases of
twenty-four urban Michigan families. An attempt was made to

10

11

compare the quantity of food brought into the home with the
amount recommended for purchase by the Bureau of Human Nutri—
tion and Home Economics Of the United States Department of
Agriculture. The records used in this study were assumed to
be accurate since the method of collection was regulated by
an efficient system involving Clerical Checking and remunera-
tion to the homemakers.

Few studies have been reported wherein the seasonal
food purchases OfEigrouprsf families or individuals have been
Observed (19). Little information is available relative to
the extent to which family food habits are fixed. With the
data available from the Department of Agricultural Economics,
it was possible to draw a sample of families of similar type
who had completed food purchase records for the period of one
year thus presenting an opportunity to compare seasonal data.

Since food purchase records indicate the food choice
of the family as a whole, these records may suggest the pos-
Sibility of certain dietary deficiencies. However, with the
use of this type of data, the fact must be kept in mind that
these are purchase accounts and present no information rela-
tive to food consumed by any member of the family.

Twenty-four families whose records were used in this
Sttidy were selected from the consumer market pane1-—eight
frOmeach of three income levels defined as follows by the

Depamfirmnt of Agricultural Economics:

12

low-income ------ $0 through $3,999
medium-income---$h,000 through $5,199
high-income ————— $5,200 and above.
The following criteria were established as a basis for
selection of the twenty-four families:
1. Family composition. Each family to consist of
father, mother, and two Children of known ages
(Table I).1
2. Employment status of parents. Father to be employ-
ed; occupation of parents to be known in order that
approximate energy expenditure could be estimated.2
3. Special diets. No family member to be on a re-
stricted diet.3
h. Non-utilization of frozen food lockers or home
freezers. No family to utilize a frozen food
locker or home freezer.
5. Completeness of food purchase records. Forty-seven
or more weeks to be reported from a possible fifty-

u

two.

1Two families were increased in size by the birth of
Children.

2Note Appendix for definition of energy eXpenditure
aCCording to various occupations, p. 14.9.

3One member of one family was on a high protein diet;
One nmnmer of another family was on a soft diet.

LLEleven families reported 52 weeks, seven reported 51,
thm> reported 50, one reported N9, two reported N8, and one
I‘eIDO rted It7 .

Failure. .

13

TABLE I

COMPOSITION OF FAMILIES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

 

 

Family

 

 

 

Code Father Mother Children
No. Age Activity Age Activity Age Sex Age Sex
Years Class Years Class Years Years
1 35 sed. 3h mod.act. 3% M 10 mo. M
2 39 act. hi sed. 15 F 11 M
3 29 act. 30 mod.act. h M 2 M
u 32 sed. 27 mod.act. h F 9 mo. M
5 35 act. 32 mod.act. 5 F 2 M
6 53 act. D5 sed. 16 F 15 M
7 29 mod.act. 27 mod.act. F 2 M
8 31 act. 31 mod.act. 9 M 5 F
9 27 act. 22 mod.act. 3% F 10 mo. F
10 25 act. 2h mod.act. 6 F 3 M
11 39 act. 31 mod.act. 7 M 5 mo.‘3 M
12 2h act. 26 mod.act. h F 1h mo M
13 31 sed. 31 mod.act. h M 2 F
1h 51 act. uh sed. 18 M 16 F
15 28 sed. 28 mod.act. 7 M 5 F
16 36 act. 3h sed. In M 12 F
17 36 act. 3h mod.act. 11 M 6 F
18 DZ sed. D2 sed. 12 M 9 F
19 38 sed. 37 mod.act. 7 M 3% M
20 no act. 35 sed. 16 r 111 M
21 DB sed. N6 sed. 17 M 1h F
22 36 sed. 3h mod.act. 13 M 2 F
23 36 sed. 33 sed. 16 M 13 r
2H— 39 sed. 37 mod.act. 8 F 5 M
\
:PFegnant-week Li; baby-week LIO.
3pregnant-week 8; baby-week 14.11.

U3€d average values for 9-12 mo.

,L.
t“

 

 

1A

The food purchases of each family were recorded by
"as purchased” weight from diaries which had been submitted
by homemakers who were participating in the study. These
food purchases were Classified into the eleven food groups
described by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics
of the United States Department of Agriculture as follows:
leafy, green and yellow vegetables; Citrus fruits and tomatoes;
potatoes and sweet potatoes; other fruits and vegetables;1nilk;
meat, poultry, and fish; eggs; dry peas and beans, nuts; flour
and cereals; fats and oils; and sugar, sirup, and preserves.

Food classified in the milk group were transposed to

the equivalent of one quart of whole milk and foods classified

in the flour group were transposed to the equivalent of flour

by use of the formulas suggested by the Bureau of Human Nutri-

tion and Home Economics, United States Department of Agricul-
ture (Appendix, p. 50 ) (20). .Also cited in the Appendix are
Values for specific foods which were determined by use of
United States Department of Agirculture Handbook Number63(p.
51) (20);.arbitrary values established for other specific
fOods (p. 52?) (20); and one group of foods not tabulated
Since the foods were of the condiment type (p. 53 ) (20).
Still another group of foods were not included for calcula-
tion (Appendix, p. 5b) (20). These foods were of the type
and quantity which in all probability were used by the home-
milkerfor purposes of home preservation and were, therefore,

reCIDrded for calculation at the time of consumption. For

Chill-1....

15

example, if a homemaker listed the purchase of one bushel of
tomatoes in a diary, this bushel was not recorded for calcula—
tion since the homemaker would probably preserve that quantity
of tomatoes for future use. In so doing, there was evidence

which suggested these same tomatoes were relisted in the diary

as they were consumed from the preserved state. FFT“
All weights recorded were "as purchased" with the ex-

ception of watermelon which was converted to "edible portion"

weight. When the purchase weight was not specified, the aver- f "

age can sizes and average ”as purchased" weights listed in blag

reference tables (21, 22, 23, 2b,, 25, 26, 27) were used.

Total yearly food allowances recommended for purchase
by each family were determined from the Master Food Plans
(Tables II and III) devised by the Bureau of Human Nutrition
and Home Economics (20). The food plans were at two cost
levels-~low and moderate--for 19 age, sex, and activity groups.
These food plans were based on the Recommended Daily Dietary
Allowances of the National Research Council, revised l9h8
(Appendix, p. 55) (28). An explanation of these allowances
and their utilization in the master food plans follows:

The dietary allowances for children were based on average
needs for the middle year in each age group and were for
children of normal activity and average weight and height.
For adults, the recommended allowances were based on the

needs of a lSh-pound man and a l23-pound woman, both of
average height (20).

The recommended allowances for adults also were adjusted ac-
C9r‘ciing to the activity of the individual as defined in the

APpendix.

 

 

16

TABLE

MASTER FOOD PLAN AT LOW-COST. WEEKLY QUANTITIES OF

 

Leafy,
. Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Family members Yellow Fruit, Sweet

Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes

 

lb. 02. 1b. 02. 1b. oz.

 

Children through 12 years:

9- 12 months 1 8 l 12 0 8
1- 3 years 1 12 1 12 1 0
h—6 years 1 12 l 12 1 8
7-9 years 2 0 2 O 2 8
10-12 years 2 u 2 u 3 0
Girls:
13-15 years 2 u 2 h 3 M
16-20 years 2 u 2 u 3 0
Boys:
13-15 years 2 8 2 8 h 0
16-20 years 2 12 2 8 5 0
Women:
sedentary 2 u 2 0 2 u
moderately active 2 h 2 0 3 0
very active 2 8 2 8 h 0
pregnant . . 3 0 2 8 2 8
nursing . . . 3 8 3 12 h 0
60 years or over5 2 8 2 h 2 8
Men:
sedentary . 2 u 2 0 3 0
physically active 2 8 2 8 h 0
with heavy work 2 8 2 8 6 0
60 years or over5 2 8 2 h 3 h

 

lOr its equivalent in cheese, evaporated milk, or dry milk.
2Count 1% lb. of bread as 1 lb. Of flour. Use as much as possible

For small children and pregnant and nursing women, cod liver‘
elderly persons or for persons who have no opportunity for
also desirable.

uTO meet iron allowance, 1 large or 2 small servings of liver‘

5

The nutritive content of the weekly food quantities for aman
Council's recommended daily allowances for the sedentanyinan

17

II

FOOD (AS PURCHASED) FOR 19 AGE, SEX, ACTIVITY GROUPS (20)

 

__ _ —_' "-

Other Meat, Dry Sugar,
Vege— l Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs 8 Peas, Cere- and Pre-

& Fruit Fish Nuts als2 Oils3 serves

 

lb. 02. qt. lb. 02. no. 1b. 02. lb. 02. 1b. 02. lb. oz.

 

-1- 1
I

1 0 6 0 11 5 0 l 0 10 0 1 0 1 _.

1 0 5 0 81+ 5 0 l 1 11 0 2 o 2

l 11 5 I 0 5 0 2 1 12 0 6 0 6 4
1 8 5 1 8 5 0 11 2 11 0 8 0 10
1 12 6 1 12 5 0 11 3 11 0 12 0 12
12 6% 2 01L 5 0 It 3 8 0 12 0 12
1 12 5 2 0LL 5 0 11 3 It 0 12 0 10
2 LI. 2 0 5 0 8 11 8 1 0 0 111
2 8 2 0 5 0 8 5 12 1 6 1 0
l 12 5 2 0 5 0 11 2 0 0 10 0 10
1 i2 5 2 0 5 0 h 3 b, 0 12 0 12
2 0 5 2 0 5 0 6 11 11 1 0 1 0
2 0 7 2 It“ 7 0 11 2 8 0 10 0 8
2 h 1 2 BL1 7 0 11 3 0 0 10 0 8
1 12 5 2 0 It 0 2 2 11 0 8 0 8
1 12 S 2 0 5 0 h 3 h 0 l2 0 12
2 0 5 2 0 5 0 6 11 11 1 0 l 0
2 8 5 2 0 5 0 10 7 12 1 111 .1 0
1 12 5 2 0 11 0 2 3 11 0 10 0 10

 

in tile form of whole-grain, enriched or restored products.

011 c>r some other source of vitamin D is also needed. For
eXPOESure to Clear sunshine, a small amount of vitamin D is

°F<31Lher organ meats should be served each week.

and ii woman 60 years or over were based on National Research
and Woman .

3 m. T5)
‘4‘

. , . ‘
.n v-.— . ’v- -=._.‘-.— ~,—--‘ -6: a.

A.

18

TABLE
MASTER FOOD PLAN AT MODERATE-COST. WEEKLY QUANTITIES OF

 

Leafy
. Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Family Members Yellow Fruit, Sweet

Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes

 

1b. 02. 1b. oz. lb. 02.

 

Children through 12 years:
9-12 months . . . .
1- 3 years
u-6 years
7-9 years
10-12 years

12
0
h
8
2

commun—
OODF‘OCI)
mmmmr—
mr—w—OO
PNOCDCO

1

Girls:
13-15 years . .
16-20 years .

12
12

(a)
(IDCO
NR.)
NR)
(13m

Boys:
13-15 years . . . .
16-20 years .

(:0
cc»
(AC/J
ans
$760
an»

Women:
sedentary
moderately active
very active
pregnant
nursing . . . .
60 years or over5

u¥iPcham
p—a
CDC>CHO<D¥T
rutrcooupro
niaxbcpaxp
NCANHARJH
CDCHTF7GNU

gin—A

Men:
sedentary . . .
physically active
with heavy work .
60 years or over5 . .

NGDOCD

LAP—Coca
O
macaw
mmcam
NHD¥703

 

lOr its equivalent in Cheese, evaporated milk, or dry milk.
2Count 1% lb. of bread as 1 lb. of flour. Use as much as possible

For small children and pregnant and nursing women, cod liver‘
elderly persons or for persons who have no Opportunity for~
also desirable.

uTo meet iron allowance, 1 large or 2 small servings of lidnar

S

The nutritive content of the weekly food quantities for'ainan
Council's recommended daily allowances for the sedentaryrinan

 

 

19

III

F‘OCDD (AS PURCHASED) FOR 19 AGE, SEX, ACTIVITY GROUPS (20)

 

Other Meat Dry Sugar,
Vege- 1 Poul- Beans ’ Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs 8 Peas, Cere- and 3 Pre-

8. Fruit Fish Nuts als2 Oils serves

 

lb- oz. qt. 1b. oz. no. lb. oz. lb. oz. lb. oz. lb. oz.

 

1 0 6 0 11 5 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 1
1 12 b 0 12L1 6 o 1 1 11 o 2 0 2
2 It 6 1 11 7 0 1 1 8 0 6 0 8
2 8 6% 1 12 7 0 2 2 0 0 8 0 12
2 8 7 2 11 7 0 2 2 l2 0 I2 0 111
3 8 7 2 121,: 7 0 2 2 12 0 111 0 111
3 8 6 2 12 7 0 2 2 8 0 12 0 111

8 7 3 0 7 0 It 11 0 1 2 1 2
3 8 7 3 11 7 0 5 11 1 6 1 11
3 11 5 2 8 7 0 1 1 12 0 10 1 12
3 8 5 2 12 7 0 2 2 8 0 111 0 111
b. 0 5 3 011 7 0 11 3 12 l 2 1 2
3 0 7 3 011 7 0 2 2 11 0 10 0 10
3 8 1 3 0 7 0 2 2 8 0 12 0 12
3 0 5 2 8 6 0 1 1 12 0 8 0 10
3 8 5 2 l2 7 0 2 2 8 0 111 0 111
L1 0 5 3 0 7 0 11 3 12 1 2 1 2
L1 1,, 5 3 8 7 0 6 7 0 2 0 1 11
3 0 5% 2 12 6 0 2 2 8 0 12 0 12

\

 

in the form of whole-grain, enriched or restored products.

011 or some other source of vitamin D is also needed. For-
exDosure to clear sunshine, a small amount of vitamin Dis

01‘ other organ meats should be served each week.

and a woman 60 years or over were based on National Research
and woman.

20

In the master food plans the recommended dietary allow-
ances are translated into terms of food. Foods are clas—
sified into eleven groups and the quantities needed weekly
are given for persons in each of 19 age, sex, and activity
groups. Both plans are flexible enough to fit various
seasons, places, and family tastes as well as to allow

for variety in meals. Classification of foods into eleven
groups is for convenience--a1though the foods in any one
group may differ somewhat in nutritive value they are more
like each other than like foods of other groups. The
groupings differ somewhat from the Basic 7 of the National
Food Guide (L-288). To make detailed account of food for
a family, a classification of all foods is needed. There-
fore, a group of energy foods--sugar, sirup, preserves—-
'which is not included in the Basic 7 is included in the
eleven food groups; for convenience the protein foods are
divided into three groups; and on the basis of their place
in the menu, potatoes and sweet potatoes grouped with
other fruits and vegetables in the Basic 7, are considered
separately (20).

In both the low- and moderate-cost plan the same adjust-
Tneult; has been made for nutrient loss in cooking.
The plans differ in relative quantities of foods from the
different groups and in choice of foods within a group.
The low-cost plan relies heavily on the cheaper food
groups--potatoes, dry beans and peas, flour and cereals.
AJSO this plan is based on selection of the cheaper foods
'within the groups, for instance, the less expensive cuts
of meat and the lower priced vegetables and fruits. The
.moderate-cost plan allows for larger quantities from the
more expensive food groups such as meat and eggs. It

allows for some of the higher priced cuts of meat, a few
out-of—season foods (20).

(:CHSts of foods in these plans were based on June, 1952, city
NECNDd price levels. With reference to the Master Food Plans
(Df‘ the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics (Tables
11 and III), Tables IV and V, Recommended Food Purchases for
ITafllily Number One, illustrate the method used to determine
yeaI‘ly food allowances recommended for purchase by each of

ti“? twenty-four families in this study at both the low-and

I... r,
'\
,.

--_.»'_; "b a

21

TABLE
RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY

 

Leafy
Family Members Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Code Number One Yellow Fruit, Sweet

Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes

 

1b. oz. lb. 02. lb. oz.

 

 

 

 

Father (sedentary) 2 h 2 0 3 0
Mother (moderately active) 2 h 2 0 3 0
Son (3% years old) 1 12 l 12 l 8
Son (10 months Old) 1 8 l 12 0 8
Total per week 7 l2 7 8 8 0

Total per h-week period 31 0 3O 0 32 0

Total per year u03 O 390 O Ul6 0

 

lOr its equivalent in cheese, evaporated milk, or dry milk.
2Count 1% lb. of bread as 1 lb. of flour. Use as much as possible

For small children and pregnant and nursing women, cod liver
elderly persons or for persons who have no Opportunity for
also desirable.

uTo meet iron allowance, 1 large or 2 small servings of liver

5

The nutritive content of the weekly food quantities foraJnan
Council's recommended daily allowances for the sedentary RENT

 

IV

22

NUIVIBER ONE AT LOW—COST MENU LEVEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Meat Dry Sugars,
Vege- l Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs 8. Peas, Cere- and 3 Pre-
8. Fruit Fish Nuts a1s2 Oils serves
lb. oz. qt. lb. oz. no. 1b. oz. lb. oz. lb. oz. lb. oz.
1 12 5 O 5 0 11 3 11 0 12 O 12
l 12 5 2 O 5 0 LI 3 11 O 12 0 12
1 1+ 5% l O 5 0 2 1 12 0 6 O 6
1 O 6 O 11 5 O l l 10 O 1 O l
S 12 21% 5 11 20 0 11 8 111 1 15 1 15
23 O 86 21 0 80 2 12 35 8 7 12 7 12
299 O 1118 273 0 10110 35 12 1161 8 100 12 100 12

 

in the form of whole-grain, enriched or restored products.

oil or some other source of vitamin D is also needed.

For

exPosture to Clear sunshine, a small amount of vitamin D is

91“ other organ meats should be served each week.

and a woman 60 years or over were based on National Research

and Woman .

amiua.,

rill]...

 

 

 

23

TABLE
RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY

 

 

Leafy
Family Members Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Code Number One Yellow Fruit, Sweet

Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes

1b. oz. 1b. 02. 1b. oz.

 

 

 

 

Father (sedentary) 3 8 2 8 2 8
Mother (moderately active) . . 3 8 2 8 2 8
Son (3% years old) 2 N 2 N 1 0
Son (10 months Old) . . . . l 8 1 l2 0 8
Total per week 10 12 9 O 6 8

Total per N-week period N3 0 36 0 26 0
Total per year 559 0 N68 0 338 0

 

 

 

 

1Or it equivalent in cheese, evaporated milk, or dry milk.
2Count 1% lb. of bread as 1 lb. of flour. Use as much as possible

For small children and pregnant and nursing women, cod liver

elderly persons or for persons who have no opportunity for
also desirable.

“To meet iron allowance, 1 large or 2 small servings of liver‘

5The nutritive content of the weekly food quantities an‘aInan
Council's recommended daily allowances for the sedentary nmni

2b.

V

NUMBER ONE AT MODERATE-COST MENU LEVEL

 

_“ -._..- "-“m_”m“.-_‘w

 

Other Meat Dry Sugars,

Vege- 1 Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs 8 Peas, Cere- and 3 Pre-
& Fruit Fish Nuts als2 Oils serves

 

lb. oz. qt. lb. oz. no. lb. oz. lb. 02. lb. oz. lb. 02.

 

 

3 8 5 2 12 7 0 2 2 8 0 111 0 111
3 8 5 2 12 7 0 2 2 8 0 111 0 111
2 N b l N 7 0 I 1 8 O b 0 8
1 0 6 0 N 5 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 1
10 Li 22 7 0 26 0 6 7 2 2 3 2 5

 

111088280101118288 812 911

S33 0 llNN 3611 0 1352 19 8 370 8 113 12 120 N

in the form of whole-grain, enriched or restored products.

Oil or some other source of vitamin D is also needed. For
eXPOSUI‘e to clear sunshine, a small amount of vitamin D is

or Other organ meats should be served each week.
and a w

Oman 60 years or over were based on National Research

an.

25

the moderate-cost menu levels. For example, Family Number
One is composed Of a father who is engaged in a sedentary
type occupation;S a mother whose activities are of the mod-
erately active type;6 a son age three and a half years; and
a son age ten months. According to the recommendations of
the Bulwaau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, members of
Family Number One should purchase a weekly total of 5 pounds
N ounces of meat, poultry or fish to adequately meet their
needs at the low-cost menu level. For the food group includ-
ing flour'and cereal, the amount reCommended for weekly pur-
chase is 8 pounds lN ounces. At the moderate-cost menu level
the weekly recommendation for meat, poultry, and fish is 7
pounds; for cereal and flour it is 7 pounds 2 ounces. A com-
parison of these food weights illustrates one of the differ-
ences between the two Master Food Plans. While the low-cost
plan makes use of a larger quantity of low-cost cereal protein
(8 Pounds 1N ounces) supplemented with a smaller amount of
food from the meat group (5 pounds N ounces), the moderate-
Cost Plan uses a larger quantity of the higher-cost meat pro-
tern (7 pounds) and a smaller quantity of the cereal foods
(7 Pounds 2 ounces). Upon examination of both plans other
variations in their design may be noted, such as differences
in reCOMendations for the citrus fruit and tomato group and
\

5Refer to Appendix, p. N9.

Ibid.

(an :1

26

the foods classified as other fruits and vegetables. While
both Master Plans are designed to allow for the purchase of
sufficient food to adequately meet National Research Council
recommendations for each nutrient, the variations in relative
quantities of food recommended for purchase from the different
food groups enable these plans to be adapted to two income
levels. In the cases of the two families which were increased
in size by the addition of children, the recommended food al-
lowances were adjusted for the mothers' requirements of preg-
nancy and the food needs of the babies in accordance with the
recommendations of the National Research Council (28).

It was recognized that the recommended food purchases
for any given family assumed that all meals were eaten at home
and that the food available was equitably distributed between
the members of the family. Thus the recommended quantity of
food to be purchased for a family of four was based on the
assumption that three meals a day for four persons during 365
days in the year were prepared from the food brought into the
home, The addition of guests or meals eaten away from home
were talien into consideration in the evaluation of these data.
Since there was no notation as to which family member was
away nor was there a description of the guests included in
the records, no specific guide was available by which the
yearly food purchase recommendations could be corrected;
therefOI‘e, these variations were accounted for in the follow-

27

(a) If the difference between guest meals and meals

eaten away from home was less than five percent

of the total number of meals consumed by a family,

no adjustment was made in the final calculation.

(b) If the difference between guest meals and those

eaten away from home was more than five percent

of the total number Of meals consumed by a family,

correction was made.

.Example:

(1)

Family Number Twenty had 683 meals eaten
away from home in excess of the five
percent allowed.

To make correction for the 683 meal
variation the food purchase recommenda-
tions for one "average member" of Family
Number Twenty for one meal were deter-
mined at both menu levels using Tables

11 and III.

The food purchase recommendations for an
"average family member" for one meal were
multiplied by 683 (the difference of total
possible meals served per year and total
actual meals served, allowing a five per-
cent variation) to determine total food
consumed away from home by the "average

member" of Family Number Twenty.

(N) The resulting figures were subtracted

Anni“.
FEM“
2 Axial!
. le
.47]
n: W. .2? 1.1.41

E

28

from therecommended yearly food purchases
for Family Number Twenty to determine the
corrected yearly food purchase recommenda-
tions. (Calculation Cited in Appendix,
D. 57.)
l’amily food purchase records which were kept for less
than a yuaar were corrected to a fifty-two week record by using
as the (correction factor the average weekly food purchases
calculated from available data believed to be representative
of the fRsod purchases of the family.
lExample: (1) Family Number Ten reported forty-eight
of fifty-two weeks. The actual total
purchase of meat, poultry, and fish by
Family Number Ten for forty-eight weeks
was 368 pounds 11 ounceS--an average of
7 pounds 2 ounces per week.
(2) The average weekly purchase (7 pounds
2 ounces) was multiplied by the number
of weeks not reported (four) to deter-
mine the average amount of food purchased
but not reported (28 pounds 8 ounces).
(3) The average unreported food purchase
(28 pounds 8 ounces) was added to the
total actual purchase (368 pounds 11
ounces) in each food group (in this ex-

ample, meat) to determine the corrected

 

29

food purchase on a fifty-two week basis
(397 pounds 3 ounces).
It should be noted that the family records which required
this adjustment could not be used in analyzing seasonal pur-
chase trends since those records would not be accurate at the
monthly level.

After the above corrections had been made in the neces-
sary cases, the total year's purchases of foods in each group
were compared with the calculated standard for that family at
low- and moderate—cost menu levels. H,

To note possible trends in variation between amounts of
food purchased during summer and winter months, the records
of ten families were studied. These families had completed
food purchase records for fifty—two weeks. The remaining
records could not be used because the families had not com-
Pleted the records during a vacation or had had more guests
or more meals eaten away from home than the arbitrary percent-
age 31 lowed. In selecting the ten families, income was not a
determining factor. The families' purchases were totaled
during two twelve-week periods-~winter months, November 29
through February 21; summer months June 1N through September
5‘ The total purchases for each food group made during the
Winter period were compared with the total purchases made

during the summer period.

a ..L.o..r. ill .1 ll.,llllll 1..

I .

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Adequacy of Purchases

Total yearly purchases in each of eleven food groups
were determined for the individual families. These total pur-
chases were then compared to the calculated standard amounts
for purchase, and the resulting comparisons were expressed in
percentages (Appendix, Tables IX, X, XI).

Figure 1 presents data on the number of families at
each of the three income levels whose food purchases met the
recommended standard in each of the eleven food groups at the
low—cost menu level; Figure 2 presents similar data relative
t0 adequacy of purchases at the moderate-cost menu level.
Striking similarity in adequacy of purchase for the various
fOOd groups is Obvious. In Figure 1 at the low-cost menu
leVel, none of the families purchased adequate amounts of
leafy, green, and yellow vegetables; potatoes; and flour and
Cereal, In Figure 2 at moderate-cost menu level, no family
purchased enOugh leafy, green, and yellow vegetables; and
Only three families purchased sufficient potatoes; and flour
and cereal. Similar patterns of purchase may be noted for
Citrus fruits and tomatoes-~none of the families at the low-
Cost menu level and only two out of twenty-four at the modern-

ate~cost level purchased adequate amounts of foods in this

30

of Fanmttes

Number

 

31

 

 

 

I ’
. I
I . I
I r : I
It. I.
I _-. I.
I -. I . I
’:' ’ ‘ ’ 1
I u I. I
I-, I- I
In I -. I
I-, I-. I
"z ‘ "‘ I
. I:- . 7.,
I. I. I I I~
’3 A, f ’ I:
I,. I.. I I I ,-
Il' .0 ’ I ’ .0
’0. o. "O l .. ’ o
I 0' l I... I ’ g ’ O.
l n ’ I I ' I I . ’0.
I J I... ’0 I .0 ’70
. I s .- .- I I. f
I 0‘ r l .. ' I 0‘ I ’0 I 0'
I .j l ’, I; I I; f -,
i '0 I o. ’1. I I ' I 7"
’1, I ’3 If. I I. I1
1— ’ ’0 I .' ‘ l. I / '- ’z
’ '0 ’ I g. ’0. I l- ’ o
I: I l o. I 1. ’ a. I:
I ' I ‘ .0 I .. ’ C
’? I ’2. I ’ 9 f
’.e I '. ’1 ’ ’~. It:
i- , ’:. ’ . .‘ I ,. ’t‘
I ’4 I 1‘ If I 'I"- ’t-
I :- 5 .= :- C 3 I3
and cum-'7. Porno OTHER mm MEAT DRY no“ FAT SMAR
«am. Ton. r'r-veo. Pout“ EGGS PEAS CEREAL 0"- $11111?
1726. c m: 3531‘: PRES.
Fooo cnoups
a nchXI't'A‘EmE -
Fig. 1. Total number of families in each income

group which met Bureau of Human Nutrition
and Home Economics food purchase recom-
mendations for eleven food groups at
low—cost menu level.

Number- 04 'F Armh es

 

 

32

 

 

 

  

 

8r-
8r 7
a
I
7r- ’ r
g a
I
“r a 4 5
I I I
s. 4 4 4
4 I I
I I I
I I I
4. 4 4 . 4
I I . I
I I : I
I I . I
31L- ; 5 V 4
7 r2 .
4 4 II. I
I I I-. I
I I I I. I
I I ’ ’0‘ l
1‘ r r ’ ' I .- / ’5} I
f I I I ’2. I "d f
l I I I I I. I I, I
_ I I I I I; I I.- I
'1 . 4 4 I 4. 4 r 4. 4
I I I I I I“ I I I a I
5 5 ’ I 541‘ 5 I '~ I
d 4424 4444.4...
LIAF‘I up. 01070 o‘mCR Mil-k HEAT :66 DRY FLOR! FAT saga.
GR-‘IIL. 10H. Frills. 90mm! DIAS (ERIN. on. sumo
vu. mu sum pass.
Foal: one a.” 'W“
Mia‘éfillfg‘ifl‘
Fig. 2. Total number of families in each income

group which met Bureau of Human Nutrition
and Home Economics food purchase recom-
mendations for eleven food groups at
moderate-cost menu level.

33

group. Only five families purchased adequate quantities of
milk and milk products at either menu level; eggs were pur-
chased in adequate quantities by thirteen of the twenty-four
families at low-cost menu level and by four of the twenty-four
at moderate-cost menu level; whereas meat, the other source of
animal protein, was purchased in adequate amounts by the ma-
jority of families. At the low-cost menu level, twenty-three n

families purchased adequate quantities of foods in the group

- 402:4.‘rugf

labeled, other fruits and vegetables. It might be assumed
these purchases would compensate partially for the inadequate
purchases of leafy, green, and yellow vegetables and potatoes;
however, at the moderate-cost menu level, adequate purchases
of this food group were made by only one-quarter of the total
families. It follows that although, at low-cost menu level,
the purchase of foods in this group appears excessive, at the
moderate-costleveltfids is not the case. Therefore,pmrchases
in this group could hardly be assumed to compensate for inade-
quate purchases of foods high in vitamin C.

Tables VI and VII present mean purchases and ranges
for the various groups of food at three levels of income.
For example, the purchase of leafy, green, and yellow vege-
tables by low-income families at low-cost menu level ranged
from 8 to 81 percent of the recommended quantity with a mean
of 35 percent. The mean purchases presented in Figures 3 and
u reveal inadequate purchase levels of all of the protective

foods, with the exception of meat, at all income levels using

3M

TABLE VI

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES
COMPARED TO CALCULATED STANDARDS1 FOR EACH FAMILY

.AT LOW-COST MENU LEVEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Group Income Adequacy of Food Purchases
Level Mean Range
Percent Percent
Leafy, green Low 35 8- 81
and yellow Medium 25 13- AS
vegetables High 3M 2M— 51
Citrus fruits, Low 61 20-139
tomatoes Medium M9 12-111
High 73 31-120
Potatoes Low 67 MI- 95
sweet potatoes Medium 50 2h— 59
High 59 39- 90
Other fruits Low 1&8 108-258
and vegetables Medium 160 78-261
High 189 125-228
Low u8 26-122
Milk Medium 71 ua- 9h
High 87 65-119
Meat, Low 1&8 69-l8u
poultry, Medium luu 108-179
fish High lul 106-166
Low 110 u6-186
Eggs Medium 99 86-165
High 92 53-127
Dry peas and Low 131 80-207
beans, Medium 102 u3-16S
nuts High 137 55-273
Flour and Low 68 Su- 88
cereal Medium 6h 85- 83
High 63 37- 83
Fats and Low 112 78-161
oils Medium 101 66-156
High 86 éu-iiu
Sugar, Low 153 ilk-210
sirup, Medium 129 70-250
preserves High 131 68-186

 

1Suggested by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics

Misc. Pub. No. 662 (20).

35

TABLE VII

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES
COMPARED TO CALCULATED STANDARDS1 FOR EACH FAMILY
AT MODERATE-COST MENU LEVEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income Adequacy of Food Purchases
FOOd Group Level Mean . Range
. Percent Percent
Leafy, green Low 25 6- 56
and yellow Medium 18 9- 33
vegetables High 23 15- 36
Citrus fruits, Low 89 16-115
tomatoes Medium 53 10-108
High 59 26- 9S
Potatoes Low 85 50-122
sweet potatoes Medium 63 31- 89
High 72 87-108
Other fruits Low 81 56-188
and vegetables Medium 88 38-116
High 103 68-181
Low 75 22-116
Milk Medium 68 85- 88
High 81 61-111
Meat, Low 108 89-133
poultry, Medium 108 78-133
fish High 102 81-120
Low 81 38-183
Eggs Medium 72 36-126
High 85 38- 90
Dry peas and Low 227 150-338
beans, Medium 176 83-268
nuts High 259 100-538
Flour and Low 81 62-105
cereal Medium 75 55-108
High 75 50- 89
Fats and Low 101 68-182
oils Medium 91 68-181
High 79 58-102
Sugar, Low 129 97-176
sirup, Medium 108 57-210
preserves High 107 58-155

 

1Suggested by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics

Misc. Pub. No. 662 (20).

percent

Mm

36

  
  
 
       

  

  
   

 

tutu-LAT lo
STANOAM

é

 

8
1

 

  

 

mm\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\: k\\\\\\
M\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\* ;\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

C

ihfiRp§§NhhNRNahfihflfifihfi§§hfihfihfihfiflhfihfia

 

       

‘ aKusxxxuuxuvauxuuuuucususmxvssxssxssns

2
l.
I:
-.
I'. r
so II; I
.~ I
a "' I
no I If I
, I I. I
I I. I
I I.. I
. I I. I
I I,- I
I I. g
I ‘- I
. I 7; I -
LEAP! UT DRY FLouR FAT Susan

manna; oiun mm MEAT ea
mwu. Ton. III-M out CEREAL on. smuP
‘ v26. HS“ BEANS PRES.

~NuT3
FOOD GROuPS
WI: Low-moons

Htavluconi
- A E.

 

 

Fig. 3. .Adequacy of food purchased by urban Mich-

, igan families as compared to calculated
standards for each family at low-cost
menu level.

 

Mean per-cent

37

160'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.401.
22.0-
uwh
wo-
ibo} I
mob ‘
mo-
loo cALCuLATED 7.
STANDARD a:
L 7 , 5:: .
so - 1
I :- I I? 'i
I Is; I f ‘
60I- a f‘ g a? ,
'- I I~i -:
I I- I /L ,
I I I. I - . .
L I I I; I f: ; -
“0 I I I. I I; x -
I I I‘_ I /. -
I I I, I .
.5 a .- 5 I.
MI I I 9.; I a, ;:
I I I I I ’z '5
j I I ;- g I: 5: ,
°' LEAP] C.D|TFT,oTATo own \LK MEAT £6.65 6?: now: rm sauna
CRYSL. ToH. rm-veb. Pour!“ PEAS CEREAL on. SiRuD
VEG. risu BEANS Pats.
Fooo 6R0u95 'Nms
a V"

Fig. 8. .Adequacy of food purchased by urban Mich-
igan families as compared to calculated
standards for each family at moderate-
cost menu level.

38

both low— and moderate-cost menu plans. Therefore, it may be
assumed that these families purchased inadequate amounts of
leafy, green, and yellow vegetables; citrus fruits and toma-
toes; potatoes and sweet potatoes; and flour and cereal.
Purchases of milk and eggs were inadequate for the majority
of families. Inadequate purchases of these valuable protein
sources may be felt to be of minor importance since, in gen-
eral families made adequate purchases of meats; however, it
must be kept in mind that milk is one of the few rich sources
of calcium and riboflavin and eggs are a good source of vita-
min A. The amount of meat purchased by the majority of these
families is still not sufficient to assure the adequate in-
takes of calcium and vitamins A and riboflavin which are in-
sured by use of recommended amounts of milk and eggs.

The consistently high purchases in the sugar group are
of interest. At both menu cost levels purchases by all income
groups were above the amounts recommended. If this trend of
purchasing is representative of that of the American homemaker,
it could well be the basis for the widespread public health
problem of today, overweight. From these data, one may assume
that these twenty-four families purchased the high caloric
foods classified in this group in amounts beyond their need.
Thus, they were obtaining concentrated calories from these
sources which are poor in nutrient content instead of using
larger quantities of protective foods which supply fewer cal-

ories, such as citrus fruits; leafy, green, and yellow

39

vegetables; potatoes; and milk. The high caloric value of
foods in the sugar group may be demonstrated by estimating
the calories available per person from this source, for ex-
ample, Family Number One used an average of 8 pounds 1 ounce
of foods from the sugar group per week. This was an average
of 1 pound per person which provided approximately 1,788 cal-

ories from this source but included no nutrients.
Effect of Income on Adequacy of Purchases

Although mean and ranges of purchase vary for both menu
cost levels and at the three income levels, the trend of pur—
chasing by these twenty-four families is similar. Referring
to Figures 1 and 2 the number of families which met recommended
standards for purchasing tended to be high or low depending
upon the type of food purchased not upon the income group they
represented. None of the families purchased adequate amounts
of leafy, green, and yellow vegetables at any income level--
and with the exception of one low-income family, all purchased
the recommended quantity of meats.

An examination of data at each of two menu cost levels
indiCates the families purchased similar quantities of food
I‘egardless of income (Tables VI and VII). The low-cost menu
was SPecifically designed to provide a nutritionally adequate
diet f0? low-income families. For example, it makes major use
Of low‘C-‘vost vegetable protein to be supplemented by higher-

COSt animal protein. Figure 3 reveals purchases of much more

L10

meat by low-income families than flour and cereal foods which
would indicate these families did not take advantage of the
use of lower-cost vegetable protein which would conform more
nearly to their level of income. At the moderate-cost menu
level, Figure 8, the families more nearly met amounts recom-
mended for purchase--even the low-income families. Therefore,
this low-income group purchased higher-cost foods in larger

quantities than their incomes could be expected to accommodate.

 

Figure 3 and 8 also indicate little variation in pur-
chasing practices between families at various income levels.
At both menu levels, the mean purchases of meat varied only
Six and seven percent. No notation was made as to the type
of meat purchased. Further study could possibly reveal that
low-income families purchased cheaper cuts of meat; however,
the fact remains, these families did not take advantage of
the use of vegetable protein.

Families with higher incomes could be expected to pur-
chase a greater quantity of fruit and vegetables than those
with lower incomes. This does not seem to be the case. The
range of purchases of leafy, green, and yellow vegetables by
low-income families at low-cost menu level was 8 to 81 percent;
by high-income families, 28 to 51 percent. The means were 35
percent and 38 percent, respectively. Some low-income fami-
lies purchased more of this food group than did any higher

income family.

81

Seasonal Trends of Purchases

In order to examine the accumulated data for evidence
of seasonal trends in purchasing, the food purchase records
were used for the ten families which had submitted complete
records for fifty-two weeks. The other fourteen families had
submitted incomplete records which had had to be corrected to
a fifty-two week basis. The manner of correction rendered
these data invalid at the monthly level, therefore, they were
of no significance for use in comparing seasonal purchases.7
Because of similarities in the purchasing habits of all groups
there was no apparent reason for not grouping the ten families
irrespective of their economic level.

Table V111 presents means and ranges of means for sum-
mer and winter purchases, whereas Table XII (Appendix) lists
summer and winter purchases for each of these ten families.

As may be readily seen (Figure 5) there is little variation
between mean food purchases for these seasons except in the
group labeled, other fruits and vegetables. Such similarity
may be due to greater availability of foods made possible by
improved marketing and preservation techniques. Seasons

appear to have little effect upon the type of food purchased

by these ten families.

 

7Refer to page 23.

 

82

TABLE VIII

SEASONALl TRENDS IN PURCHASES OF TEN URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Group Mean Purchase Rangecfl‘Purchases
' Summer Winter Summer Winter

Leafy, green
and yellow 33 lb. 81 1b. 17- 78 lb. 15- 99 lb.
vegetables
Citrus fruits,
tomatoes 50 lb. 68 1b. 18- 96 lb. 30-118 1b.
Potatoes,
sweet potatoes 68 lb. 76 1b. 32-105 1b. 23-189 1b.
Other fruits
and vegetables 189 1b. 103 lb. 76-230 1b. 85-188 1b.
Milk 170 qt. 202 qt. 60-307 qt. 63-333 qt.
Meat, poultry,
fish 113 1b. 121 lb. 59-162 1b. 60-168 1b.
Eggs 261 280 132-888 108-388
Dry peas and
beans, nuts 13 lb. 18 lb. 6- 32 lb. 6- 19 lb.
Flour and
cereal 83 1b. 97 1b. 52-107 lb. 68-131 1b.
Fats and oils 30 1b. 33 1b. 19- 85 lb. 21- 55 1b.
Sugar, sirup,
preserves 86 1b.. 80 1b 17- 82 lb. 22- 56 lb.

 

1Winter months defined as Nov. 29--Feb. 21, 1953;
summer months defined as June 18--Sept. 5, 1953.

 

   

 

 

83

 

A
ifiiil§$fiflg;

           

 

 

L‘.‘\.\‘\\‘\‘
O... 0.... 9.. Q‘-

  

L‘\\“\\‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

Fig. 5.

    

 

LEAF-Y cum. PoTATO when Him MEAT each my small PAT aux—ii—
olvlu. 70H. fi'rm. P014111 921.: CEREAL OIL new
as. FISH 8&5 ms.

F000 69-91495

1 M|Lk in quarts; eggs m numbars.

Comparison of mean food purchases during
winter months (Nov. 29--Feb. 21, 1953)
to mean food purchases during summer
months (June 18—-Sept. 5, 1953) by ten
urban Michigan families.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Weekly food purchase records of twenty-four urban Mich-
igan families were studied. The data were drawn from records
collected by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michi-
gan State University. The sample consisted of eight families
of similar membership--father, mother, and two children--se-
lected from each of three income groups--high, medium, and low.

The weekly food purchases of these families, recorded
for 1953, were classified into the following food groups:
leafy, green, and yellow vegetables; citrus fruits and toma-
toes; potatoes and sweet potatoes; other fruits and vegetables;
Hulk; meat, poultry and fish; eggs; flour and cereal; fatsand
oils;dry peas and beans, nuts; and sugar, sirup, and preserves.

The recommended purchases for each of these food groups
were calculated at low- and moderate-cost menu levels for each
family using the amounts of food suggested by the Bureau of
Human Nutrition and Home Economics.

The yearly food purchases of each family were compared
to the calculated quantities for that family and examined for
adequacy, effect of income, and seasonal variations in pur-
chasing.

These data indicate inadequate purchasing of all pro-

tective foods except meat-—5pecifically; leafy, green, and

ML

115’
yellow vegetables; citrus fruits and tomatoes; potatoes and
sweet potatoes; flour and cereal; milk; and eggs.

At both menu cost levels purchases of sugar, sirup,
and preserves by all income groups were above the recommended
amounts.

The families included in this study purchased similar
quantities of food at both menu levels regardless of income.

An analyses of the yearly purchases of ten families

 

indicated little seasonal variation in the food brought into

the home.

10.
ll.

12.

LITERATURE CITED

Todhunter, E. N. 1982 The evaluation of nutritional
status. J. Am. Diet. Assn., ‘18z79.

Jolliffe, N., McLester, J. 8., and Sherman, H. C. 1982
The prevalence of malnutrition. J. Am. Med.Assn., l

118:988.

Family food consumption in the United States. 1988
Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home EConomics, U.S.
Dept..Agr. Misc. Pub. No. 550.

Inadequate diets and nutritional deficiencies in the
United States. 1983 National Research Council
Bull. No. 109.

Downes, J.,and Baranovsky, A. 1988 Food habits of fam-
ilies in the eastern health district of Baltimore
in the winter and Spring of 1983. Milbank Mem.
Fund Quart., 22:161.

Drake, P.,and Lamb, M. W. 1988 Study of the dietary and
food practices of 63 families in Lubbock, Texas.

J. Am. Diet. Assn., 29:528.

Hardy, F. 1985 Study of the dietary level of 100 fam-
lies. J. Home Econ., ‘QZ:351.

Stiebeling, H. K. 1982 Food consumption studies and
dietary recommendations. Fed. Proc., 1:327.

Kruse, H. D. 1988 The place of nutrition in the rela-
tionship between environment and health. Milbank

Mem. Fund Quart., 26:81.

Phipard, E. F., and Stiebeling, H. K. 1989 Adequacy of
American diets. J. Am. Med..Assn., 139:579.

Sebrell, W. H. 1955 Nutrition at the shopping center.
Pub. Health Rep., .Zgz56l.

Clark, F., Friend, B., and Burk, M. C. 1987 Nutritive

value of the per capita food supply 1909-1985.
U.S. Dept..Agr. Misc. Pub. No. 616.

86

 

 

‘ nag-'M‘I‘

1mm - . .—........ .

13.

18.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

28.

25.

26.

27.

28.

87

Wells, O. V. 1982 America's changing food consumption,
1909-1981. J. Home Econ., 28:863.

Stiebeling, H. K.,and Phipard, E. F. 1939 Diets of fam-
ilies of employed wage earners and clerical workers
in cities. U.S. Dept. Agr. Circ. No. 507.

Pett, L. B. 1987 A new outlook for community nutrition.
J. Am. Diet. Assn., 22:13.

Hundley, J. M. 1958 The importance of nutrition. J.
Home Econ., .82‘307-

Mendel, L. B. 1932 The changing diet of the American
people. J. Am. Med. Assn., 22:117.

Stiebeling, H. K., Monroe, D., Phipard, E. F., Adelson,
F., and Clark, F. 1981 Family food consumption
and dietary levels. U.S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub.

No. 852.

Nutrition surveys: their techniques and value. 1989
National Research Council Bull. No. 117.

Helping families plan food budgets. 1952 U.S. Dept.
Agr. Misc. Pub. No. 662.

Dahl, J. O.,and Breland, J. H. 1985 Food standards
handbook for quantity cookery. Dahl Publishing
Co., Stamford, Conn.

Martin, M. H. Ca. 1950 Todays canned foods. Libby,
McNeill and Libby, Chicago, Ill.

Weyant, 2. H. 1950 Kerr home canning book. Kerr Glass
Manu. Corp., Sand Springs, Okla. .

Wooster, H. A. and Blank, F. C. 1950 Nutrition data.
Heinz Nutrition Research Division Mellon Institu-
te, Pittsburg, Pa.

Handbook of food preparation. 1986 American Home Eco-
nomics Assn., Washington, D. C.

Managers' order guide. (Mimeo.) Board of Education
City of Detroit, Detroit, Mich.

Watt, B. K.,and Merrill, A” L. 1950 .Agricultural Hand-
book No. 8: Composition of foods--raw, processed
prepared. U.S. Dept. of Agr., Washington, D. C.

Recommended dietary allowances. Revised 1988 National
Research Council Reprint and Circular Series No.

129.

APPENDIX

DEFINITION OF STATE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ACCORDING
TO OCCUPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONVERSION TABLE--SUGGESTED BY THE BUREAU OF HUMAN
NUTRITION.AND HOME ECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . .

VALUES DETERMINED FOR SPECIFIC FOODS BY USE OF UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK NUMBER
EIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOODS FOR WHICH ARBITRARY VALUES WERE ESTABLISHED .

CONDIMENT-TYPE FOODS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED FROM THE
FOOD PURCHASE DIARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WEIGHTS OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARBITRARILY
DETERMINED TO BE OMITTED FROM FOOD PURCHASE RECORDS
DURING THE SEASON WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED DAILY DIETARY ALLOWANCES

METHOD OF CORRECTION OF YEARLY FOOD PURCHASE RECOMMENDA-
TIONS TO-ACCOUNT FOR GUEST MEALS SERVED OR MEALS EATEN
AWAY FROM HOME ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY NUMBER TWENTY AT
MODERATE-COSTMENULEVEL ........ . . . . ..

TABLE IX -- ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY LOW-INCOME
URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY AT LOW-AND MODERATE- COST
MENU LEVELS . . . . . . . . .

TABLE X -- ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY MEDIUM-INCOME
URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY AT LOW-AND MODERATE-COST
MENU LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE XI -- ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY HIGH-INCOME
URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
STANDARDS FOR EACH FAMILY AT LOW-AND MODERATE- COST
MENU LEVELS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE XII —- SEASONAL PURCHASES OF TEN URBAN MICHIGAN
FAMILIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

Page

89

50

51
52

53

58
S6

57

57

61

63

65

68

89

DEFINTION OF STATE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION (20)

"Sedentary" persons do office work, clerking in a store, or
housekeeping for a small family--the kind of
work that calls for comparatively little muscu-

lar effort.

”Active" men do work like carpentering, ordinary farm labor,

or factory work.

"Moderately active" women do work such as waiting on tables

or housekeeping for a moderate-sized family.

Men at "heavy work" spend eight hours or more a day at such
work as lumbering, ditch-digging, or heavy farm

labor.

"Very active" women do work such as heavy housework at least

eight hours a day.

 

50

CONVERSION TABLE

SUGGESTED BY THE BUREAU OF HUMAN NUTRITION
AND HOME ECONOMICS (20)

 

 

17 oz. by weight evaporated milk 1 qt. whole milk

5 oz. by weight Cheddar cheese 2 1 qt. whole milk
3 1b. by weight cottage Cheese = 1 qt. whole milk
2 qt. by weight ice cream = 1 qt. whole milk

Bread, baked goods 2/3 flour by weight

51

VALUES DETERMINED FOR SPECIFIC FOODS
BY USE OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK
NUMBER EIGHT (27)

 

 

 

02.
pt.
pt.

pt.
f1.

cream cheese 2 1.3 02.
light cream 2 3.2 oz.
heavy cream = 6.8 oz.
salad dressing = 6.0 02.

oz. carbonated beverage = 2 tbsp.

fat
fat
fat
fat

sugar

...—1c...- ...- ...— .V’IY‘

1"“

S2

FOODS FOR WHICH ARBITRARY VALUES WERE ESTABLISHED

 

Chili
Ravioli

Hash

Fruit pie

Meat pie

Meat soup
Vegetable soup
Cream soup
Noodle soup

Baby food: meat

Frozen juicesl

1/2 meat by weight; 1/2 beans by weight.
1/8 meat by weight; 3/8 flour by weight.

1/8 meat by weight; 1/8 carrots by weight;
1/8 potatoes by weight.

10 oz. fruit; 8 oz. flour.
8 oz. meat; 8 oz. flour.

2 oz. meat per can.

1 can vegetable by weight.
1/2 qt. milk per 21 oz.

1/2 flour by weight.

vegetable mixture =

1 oz. meat per 7 oz. can.

converted to reconstituted juice weight =

28 oz. juice per 6 oz. concentrate.

 

1Except lemon juice which is not concentrated.

53

CONDIMENT-TYPE FOODS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED
FROM THE FOOD PURCHASE DIARIES

 

 

Condiments -- tea, coffee, cocoa, ketchup, Olives, pickles
Alcoholic beverages
Gelatin :“SJ

Soups -- pepperpot, gumbo, consommé

58

WEIGHTS OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARBITRARILY
DETERMINED TO BE OMITTED FROM FOOD PURCHASE
RECORDS DURING THE SEASON WHEN THEY
COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR

PRESERVATION PURPOSES

 

Strawberries . . . . .
Raspberries

Blueberries

Peaches . . . . . . . . .
Plums . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crabapples

Pears . . . . . . . . . . .

Grapes, Concord . .
Beans, string .

Cucumbers

1 pk.

1/2 bu.

.,1

u
h- ‘

4F

“...-.31 m. :77. ; an In . win—1‘
.

1

55

RECOMMENDED DAILY

 

 

 

Food
Family Members Energy Protein Calcium Iron
Cal. Gms. Gms. (Mg.
Children up to 12 years:
Under 1 year . . . . . (2) (3) 1.0 6
1- 3 years (27 lb.) . . . . 1,200 80 1.0 7
8-6 years (82 1b. . . . . 1,600 50 1.0 8
7-9 years (58 1b.) . . . . 2,000 60 1.0 10
10-12 years (78 1b.) 2,500 70 1.2 12
Girls:
13-15 years (108 1b.) . 2,600 80 1.3 15
16-20 years (122 lb.) 2,800 75 1.0 15
Boys:
13-15 years (108 1b.) 3,200 85 1.8 15
16-20 years (188 1b.) 3,800 100 1.8 15
Women: (123 lbs.)
sedentary . . . 2,000 60 1.0 12
moderately active 2,800 60 1.0 12
very active . 3,000 60 1.0 12
pregnancy . . . . . 2,800 85 1.5 15
lactation . 3,000 100 2.0 15
Men: (158 lb.)
sedentary . 2,800 70 1.0 12
physically active . 3,000 70 1.0 12
with heavy work . . 8,500 70 1.0 12

 

1Source:

2110 ca1./2.2 lb.

Recommended Dietary Allowances, National Research

(1 kg.) body weight at 6 months.
100 cal./2.2 1b. at 1 year.)

33.5 gm./2.2 1b. (lkg.) body weight.

For persons who have no opportunity for exposurett>sunshine
vitamin D may be desirable.

(Energy

5The value Of2,800 cal. represents the allowance for pregnant,
needed.

56

DIETARY ALLOWANCES1

 

 

 

Vitamin Ascorbic Vitamin
A Thiamine Riboflavin Niacin .Acid D
I. U. Mg. Mg. Mg. Mg. 1. U.
1,500 0.8 0.6 8 30 800
2,000 0.6 0.9 6 35 800
2,500 0.8 1.2 8 50 800
3,500 1.0 1.5 10 60 800
8,500 1.2 1.8 12 75 800
5,000 .3 2.0 13 80 800
5,000 1.2 1.8 12 80 800
5,000 1.5 2.0 15 90 800
6,000 1.7 2.5 17 100 800-
5,000 1.0 1.5 10 70 (8)
5,000 1.2 1.5 12 70 (8)
5.000 1.5 1.5 15 70 (8)
6,000 1.5 2.5 15 100 800
8,000 1.5 3.0 15 150 800
5,000 1.2 1.8 12 75 (8)
5,000 1.5 1.8 15 75 (8)
5,000 1.8 1.8 18 7S (8)

 

Council Reprint and Circular Series NO. 129, revised 1988.

requirements are 120 ca1./2.2 lb. in early infancy and

and for elderly persons, the ingestion of small amounts of

sedentary women. If more active, additional calories may be

5““ .-...-
1

‘
1
jar —-
v V'

57

METHOD OF CORRECTION OF YEARLY FOOD PURCHASE RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ACCOUNT FOR GUEST MEALS SERVED OR MEALS

EATEN AWAY FROM HOME

 

Example: Family Number Twenty

(a)

(b)
i (c)

u}, £th a:

Total possible meals served per year--8380 meals.
Five percent allowable variation--2l9 meals.

Family Number Twenty had 1035 meals eaten away
from home and 133 guest meals which equals 902
meals variation (20 percent) from total possible
meals served; 15 percent above the allowed
variation.

The 20 percent variation minus the 5 percent.
allowed variation equals 683 meals variation.

To determine food purchase recommendations for
one average member Of Family Number Twenty for
one meal at both menu levels, Tables 11 and III
were used as follows:

RECOMMENDED FOOD PURCHASES FOR FAMILY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leafy
Family Members Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Code Number Twenty Yellow Fruit, Sweet
Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes
1b. oz. 1b. 02. 1b. 02.
Father (active) . . . . . . . 3 l2 3 O 3 8
Mother (sedentary) . . . . . 3 8 2 8 1 12
Daughter (16 years old) . . . 3 8 2 12 2 8
Son (18 years Old) . . . 3 8 3 0 3 8
Total per week 18 0 11 8 11 0
Average for one
person per week 3 8 2 13 2 12
Average for one
person per day . 0 8 0 6.8 0 6.2
Average for one
person per meal 0 2.6 0 2.1 0 2

 

NUMBER TWENTY AT MODERATE-COST MENU LEVEL

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Meat, Dry Sugars,

Vege- Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs 8 Peas, Cere- and Pre-

& Fruit Fish Nuts als Oils serves
1b. oz. qt. 1b. oz. no. 1b. oz. 1b. oz. 1b. oz. 1b. oz.
8 O 5 3 O 7 0 8 3 12 1 2 1 2
3 8 5 2 8 7 0 1 1 12 0 10 O 12
3 8 6 2 12 7 O 2 2 8 0 12 0 l8
3 8 7 3 0 7 0 8 8 0 1 2 1 2
18 8 23 11 8 28 0 11 12 0 3 10 3 l8
3 ‘9 5.75 2 13 7 0 3 3 0 0 15 l 0
0 8 82 (3 6 8 l 0 0 6.8 0 2.1 0 2.
0 2.6 .27 (D .2.1 0 0 2.2 0 .7 0

 

g1

g1

. “MQH‘

l“:— W ;¢o‘:.. .rbz‘ _

 

{PE-3.- 1.71.3:- ‘thlfl-‘E- -.'.—- -MW

59

(f) To determine in this case the total food consumed
away from home the food purchase recommendations
for one average family member were multiplied by
the difference of total possible meals served per
year and the total actual meals served allowing
five percent variation (683 meals).

 

 

 

Leafy
Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Yellow Fruit, Sweet

Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes

lb. 02. 1b. oz. 1b. 02.

 

Average amount recommended
for one person per meal . . . O 2.6 0 2.1 O 2

 

Total food eaten away from
home . . . . . . . . . . . .110 18 89 10 83 8

 

(9) To determine the corrected yearly food purchase
recommendationstfluzvalues for total food consumed
away from home were subtracted from the family's
recommended yearly purchases.h1this casecfi‘excess
meals eaten away from home. (In case of excess
guest meals, add the corrected values to the yearly
food purchase recommendations.)

 

.4
A4-

 

 

 

Leafy
Green, and Citrus Potatoes
Yellow ‘Fruit, Sweet
Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes
1b. oz. lb. 02. 1b. oz.
Recommended yearly ‘-
purchases . . . . . . . . 707 0 567 12 558 0
Food eaten away from home 110 18 89 10 83 8

Corrected recommended
yearly food purchases . . 596 2 878 2 870 8

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Meat Dry Sugars,
Vege- Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs & Peas, Cere- and Pre-
& Fruit Fish Nuts als Oils serves
1b. 02. qt.. 1b. 02. no. 1b. 02. 1b. oz. 1b. 02. 1b. oz.
0 2.6 .27 0 2.1 .3 O 1 0 2 0 0 .7
110 18 188 89 10 205 8 5 93 13 29 13 29 13
Other Meat Dry Sugars,
Vege- Poul- Beans Flour, Fats Sirups,
tables Milk try, Eggs & Peas, Cere- and Pre-
& Fruit Fish Nuts als Oils serves
1b. 02. qt. 1b. oz. no. lb. oz. 1b. oz. 1b. 02. 1b. oz.
720 O 1157 567 12 1818 38 10 608 8 182 18 195 8
110 18 188 89 10 205 8 S 93 13 29 13 29 13
609 2 973 878 2 1209 30 5 512 11 153 1 165 11

 

 

1a-r.‘ L .- -.
.I
fin.“
I
1‘1

 

 

61

TABLE

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY LOW-INCOME URBAN
STANDARDS1 FOR EACH FAMILY.AT LOW

 

Leafy, - Other
Green, and Citrus Potatoes Vege-
Low- Yellow Fruit, Sweet tables Milk

Income Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes and Fruit
Fami-
lies Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod.

Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

 

 

Code
No.

l 83 31 83 35 91 112 181 101 108 102

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

 

 

 

 

2 81 56 37 28 57 73 120 65 26 22
8 6 20 16 75 99 108 56 78 71
38 28 139 115 81 50 258 188 108 101
25 18 37 27 61 80 139 72 6O 58
29 20 85 70 61 73 110 60 122 116
20 15 38 28 51 69 120 67 69 67

axiom-[Tm

38 28 90 72 95 122 151 81 68 63

 

1Suggested by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics,
(20).

62

IX

MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
AND MODERATE-COST MENU LEVELS

 

Dry Sugar,
Meat, Beans Fats Sirups,
Poultry, Eggs and Peas, Flour, and Pre-
Fish Nuts Cereals Oils serves

 

Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod.
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

 

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

168 126 185 111 88 150 76 95 161, 182 210 176

 

 

 

 

178 129 119 85 82 165 77 92 120 119 139 120
111 78 68 87 207 338 58 67 91 82 172 187
177 133 186 183 116 210 56 69 150 131 118 97
188 131 86 38 193 311 62 73 100 90 178 152
69 89 189 98 80 158 75 86 78 68 125 101
150 108 89 80 197 331 58 62 97 88 126 108
150 112 122 87 87 158 88 105 106 97 162 136

 

United States Department of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. NO. 662

'1"

. - 1 w M -
1-- .11: .c——- c 'L “f “.1 “ if . -... .7
f‘ ‘

“ta

 

63

TABLE

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY MEDIUM-INCOME
STANDARDS1 FOR EACH FAMILY AT

 

 

 

Leafy, Other
Green, and Citrus Potatoes Vege-
Medium Yellow Fruit, Sweet tables Milk

Income Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes and Fruit
Fami-
lies Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low .Mod.

Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cfide Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
O.

9 31 23 71 60 59 73 128 71 88 87
10 28 18 72 59 53 68 180 77 51 85
11 85 33 52 88 71 89 261 113 87 83
12 13 9 12 10 58 76 78 38 58 55
13 29 20 63 51 28 31 129 68 82 59
l8 19 13 68 50 33 39 186 81 66 60

15 28 17 111 108 85 58 218 116 83 78
16 16 11 58 88 57 71 187 109 98 88

 

1Suggested by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics,
(20).

68

X

URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
LOW-AND MODERATE-COST MENU LEVELS

 

Dry Sugar,
Meat, Beans Fats Sirups,
Poultry Eggs and Peas, Flour, and Pre-
Fish Nuts Cereals Oils serves

my.) 1!]: now..— i"

 

Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod.
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

 

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

 

 

 

 

108 78 72 55 165 268 63 78 116 103 117 99
183 103 86 36 112 180 58 61 127 117 95 80
179 133 165 126 91 155 83 108 77 70 177 151
186 103 110 81 107 173 69 80 111 100 250 210
139 102 75 58 97 175 85 55 81 72 70 59
163 118 150 107 89 152 51 59 66 68 71 57
125 96 51 37 115 230 68 88 156 181 122 102
153 108 123 85 83 83 82 82 70 65 133 111

 

United States Department Of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. No. 662

,1
‘- .
31.2,; .

i119. 55;" Wm}- ' an”. 141
l

65

TABLE

ADEQUACY OF FOOD PURCHASED BY HIGH-INCOME
STANDARDS1 FOR EACH FAMILY AT

 

 

—._ ‘—

 

Leafy, Other
Green, and Citrus Potatoes Vege-
High Yellow Fruit, Sweet tables Milk

Income Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes and Fruit
Fami-
lies Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod.

Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

 

 

Code
NO.

17 26 18 71 58 ' 68 82 180 88 65 61
18 28 17 96 75 68 78 228 121 76 70

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

 

 

 

19 80 28 120 95 82 58 218 116 119 111
20 80 27 31 26 90 108 125 68 80 75
21 30 20 87 68 55 67 178 98 76 73
22 51 36 86 71 39 87 301 181 115 106
23 28 15 55 83 50 60 132 78 7O 67
28 31 22 81 32 63 82 153 81 93 87

 

1Suggested by the Bureau Of Human Nutrition and Home Economics,
(20).

 

 

 

11133.3 XI
#HIE URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES AS COMPARED TO CALCULATED
$118 LOW-AND MODERATE-COST MENU LEVELS
Dry Sugar,
Meat, Beans Fats Sirups,
Hug Poultry Eggs and Peas, Flour, and Pre-
Fish n Nuts Cereals Oils serves

8 mi LOw Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod.

 

 

 

 

 

giafi Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
5mg Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

____——’

3 g 187 107 53 38 188 258 78 89 68 62 106 90

. N L 166 120 127 90 - 108 186 83 87 98 82 100 82

, H, 106 81 121 87 181 282 68 83 111 93 186 155

1 x 150 105 106 78 128 280 37 50 68 58 68 58
J W i 160 118 109 77 55 100 59 70 108 97 130 108
153 108 58 82 185 275 68 76 86 76 165 129
. 109 77 96 68 109 197 58 69 65 68 181 117
. 137 105 66 87 273 538 63 78 118 102 150 121

 

United States Department of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. NO. 662

‘3.
U

 

' 3? ‘4'"..m “a"
' I~L !

‘W';i
J

1T1.-nV-i_ 2
u

67

TABLE
SEASONAL1 PURCHASES OF TEN

 

 

 

Leafy, Other
Green and Citrus Potatoes, Vege-
Family Yellow Fruit, Sweet tables Milk
Code Vegetables Tomatoes Potatoes and Fruit

 

Number Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum-

ter mer ter mer ter mer ter mer ter mer

 

lb. 1b. 1b. 1b. lb. lb. 1b. lb. qt. qt.

 

19 30 38 98 78 30 32 85 188 287 307
20 81 23 37 81 189 78 80 187 183 130
23 15 17 30 28 23 87 85 172 201 138
21 38 27 99 96 70 76 188 177 226 210
17 35 37 58 25 113 72 103 106 168 168
18 28 28 118 76 62 105 136 215 190 197
11 58 25 66 51 68 93 187 230 237 208
9 37 20 78 57 58 85 71 80 138 87
1 30 88 68 18 92 76 98 100 333 208
2 99 78 36 83 102 55 117 76 63 60

1Winter months defined as Nov. 29--Feb. 21, 1953; summer

XII

URBAN MICHIGAN FAMILIES

 

68

 

 

 

 

Dry Sugars,
Meat, Beans Fats Sirups,
Poultry Eggs and Peas, Flour, and Pre-
Fish Nuts Cereal Oils serves
Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum- Win- Sum-
ter mer ter mer ter mer . ter mer ter mer ter mer
1b. ID. no. no. 1b. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. 1b.
98 79 252 360 19 8 75 103 28 3O 85 82
138 105 192 180 ll 32 68 53 21 19 22 17
88 106 228 166 18 16 101 71 28 23 81 71
160 138 238 268 10 6 105 78 53 38 50 85
123 110 108 132 15 17 106 107 28 28 88 29
138 162 268 372 18 9 110 103 25 85 29 37
119 126 318 888 19 18 119 88 21 22 87 61
60 59 138 156 19 10 80 52 28 20 28 28
129 90 388 300 6 8 78 85 81 37 35 52
151 288 280 9 18 131 91 55 38 56 82

168

 

months defined as June l8—-Sept. 5,

1953.

 

 

5’2”” [-15

89.21.3111“? Q,“ F.,LY
ing

Date Due

 

 

[)emco-293

”'11111111181[11111111111111 111181111“