Search

The Loss-Adjusted Food Availability (LAFA) data and the dietary intake surveys conducted by Federal agencies supply key data for monitoring Americans’ food and nutrient consumption. The LAFA data, compiled by USDA, Economic Research Service, provide estimates of the annual loss-adjusted availability for more than 200 food commodities dating back to 1970. The data are for the Nation as a whole but are not broken down by demographics or food source (grocery store, school, restaurant, fast food, community food programs, etc.). The dietary intake surveys—conducted by the USDA, Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics—give detailed data on food and beverage intakes by demographics and food source. In this study, ERS researchers convert food and beverages reported in dietary intake surveys into commodities as reported in the LAFA data, use the converted data to estimate commodity consumption patterns, and then apply the estimated patterns to disaggregate the LAFA data for 1994-2008 by household income, age, gender, adult education, and race/ethnicity. More recent LAFA data are available, but we use the 1994-2008 LAFA data because the database to convert foods into commodities is currently available for 1994-2008 only.

ERS examines how using updated supermarket shrink-loss data in the agency's Loss-Adjusted Food Availability series would affect estimates of U.S. fresh food items available for consumption.

ERS’ Loss-Adjusted Food Availability (LAFA) data and Federal dietary intake surveys supply key data for monitoring Americans’ food and nutrient consumption. The LAFA data provide estimates for more than 200 food commodities back to 1970. The data are for the Nation as a whole and are not disaggregated by food source (at home and away from home). The dietary intake surveys, conducted by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service in conjunction with the National Center for Health Statistics, provide detailed data on food obtained and eaten by Americans at various locations. ARS has developed databases, in conjunction with ERS, to translate foods reported in dietary intake surveys into ERS food commodities. These databases enable ERS researchers to disaggregate LAFA availability data by demographics and by food source in this study. Consistent with ERS data indi - cating that the at-home market accounts for 58 percent of food expenditures and 68 percent of caloric intake, over half of all food commodities acquired over 1994-2008 were for at-home use. On average, over 80 percent of total fruits, dairy, and nuts—and 61 percent of all meats and fish—were acquired for at-home use. The at-home share of some commodi - ties (e.g., berries, fluid milk, caloric sweeteners, and nuts) rose over 1994-2008 while the share for others (e.g., chicken and wheat flour) declined.

This report provides the latest estimates by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) on the amount and value of food loss in the United States. These estimates are for more than 200 individual foods using ERS’s Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data. In 2010, an estimated 31 percent or 133 billion pounds of the 430 billion pounds of food produced was not available for human consumption at the retail and consumer levels. This amount of loss totaled an estimated $161.6 billion, as purchased at retail prices. For the first time, ERS estimates of the calories associated with food loss are presented in this report. An estimated 141 trillion calories per year, or 1,249 calories per capita per day, in the food supply in 2010 went uneaten. The top three food groups in terms of share of total value of food loss are meat, poultry, and fish (30 percent); vegetables (19 percent); and dairy products (17 percent). The report also provides a brief discussion of the economic issues behind postharvest food loss.

Federal dietary guidance advises Americans to consume more vegetables and fruits because most Americans do not consume the recommended quantities or variety. Food prices, along with taste, convenience, income, and awareness of the link between diet and health, shape food choices. We used 2008 Nielsen Homescan data to estimate the average price at retail stores of a pound and an edible cup equivalent (or, for juices, a pint and an edible cup equivalent) of 153 commonly consumed fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. We found that average prices ranged from less than 20 cents per edible cup equivalent to more than $2 per edible cup equivalent. We also found that, in 2008, an adult on a 2,000- calorie diet could satisfy recommendations for vegetable and fruit consumption in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (amounts and variety) at an average price of $2 to $2.50 per day, or approximately 50 cents per edible cup equivalent.

This report updates the Canned Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in the United States: Report to the United States Congress (September 2008), using more recent data through 2008, where available. Both reports were prepared and published in response to requests from Congress. We used data from the Economic Research Service’s Food Availability Data System, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Surveys, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food intake surveys to study U.S. consumption of and spending on canned fruits and vegetables. Data since 1970 suggest that the share of canned fruit out of total fruit consumed will continue to be fairly constant at around 6 percent in the short term, while the share of canned vegetables out of total vegetables consumed will continue to fl uctuate—but mostly decline—from the 24 percent share in 2008. The analysis tracks the changes in canned fruit and vegetable expenditures since the previous report, and breaks down these expenditures by demographic characteristics of households, including age and ethnicity.

USDA’s Economic Research Service maintains the only time-series data on U.S. food availability in the country, a series that now spans 100 years. The data play a key role in monitoring the potential for the food supply to meet the nutritional needs of Americans and in examining historical consumption trends. A look at 100 years of American eating reveals the technological, political, social, and economic forces affecting food availability.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) increased attention to food imports from China is an indicator of safety concerns as imported food becomes more common in the United States. U.S. food imports from China more than tripled in value between 2001 and 2008. Addressing safety risks associated with these imports is difficult because of the vast array of products from China, China’s weak enforcement of food safety standards, its heavy use of agricultural chemicals, and its considerable environmental pollution. FDA import refusal data highlight food safety problems that appear to recur in trade and where FDA has focused its import alerts and monitoring efforts. FDA refusals of food shipments from China suggest recurring problems with “filth,” unsafe additives, labeling (typically introduced in food processing and handling), and veterinary drug residues in fish and shellfish (introduced at the farm). Chinese authorities try to control food export safety by certifying exporters and the farms that supply them. However, monitoring such a wide range of products for the different hazards that can arise at varying points in the supply chain is a difficult challenge for Chinese and U.S. officials.

Using import data from the U.S. Census Bureau and import-refusal data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this study examines patterns of U.S. imports together with products and countries that register recurring viola­ tions of FDA import regulations. Results indicate faster import-growth trends for consumer-ready foods. While most bulk-food commodities and perishable high-value products, such as fruit and vegetables, are sourced from neighboring countries in the Western Hemisphere, processed foods, many spices, and other tropical products are sourced globally with rising import shares for many countries in Asia. A correlation is also noted between rising imports and a higher number of refusals for products and countries registering fast import growth.