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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This report examines U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data on refusals of food offered for importation into the United States from 1998 to 2004. Although the data do not necessarily reflect the distribution of risk in foods, the study found that import refusals highlight food safety problems that appear to recur in trade and where the FDA has focused its import alerts, examinations (e.g., sampling), and other monitoring efforts. The data show some food industries and types of violations are consistent sources of problems both over time and in comparison with previous studies of more limited data. The three food industry groups with the most violations were vegetables (20.6 percent of total violations), fishery and seafood (20.1 percent), and fruits (11.7 percent). Violations observed over the entire time period include sanitary issues in seafood and fruit products, unsafe pesticide residues in vegetables, and unregistered processes for canned food products in all three industries.

This report examines major trends in the amount of food available for consumption in the United States between 1970 and 2005 using data from the ERS Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. The report also estimates whether Americans are meeting Federal dietary recommendations for each of the major food groups by comparing the data with dietary recommendations in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the MyPyramid Food Guidance System. Findings show that Americans do not meet the Federal dietary recommendations. In order to meet them, Americans would need to substantially lower their intake of added fats, refined grains, and added sugars and sweeteners and increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lowfat milk and milk products.

This report examines major trends in the amount of food available for consumption in the United States between 1970 and 2005 using data from the ERS Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. The report also estimates whether Americans are meeting Federal dietary recommendations for each of the major food groups by comparing the data with dietary recommendations in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the MyPyramid Food Guidance System. Findings show that Americans do not meet the Federal dietary recommendations. In order to meet them, Americans would need to substantially lower their intake of added fats, refined grains, and added sugars and sweeteners and increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lowfat milk and milk products.

This report examines U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data on refusals of food offered for importation into the United States from 1998 to 2004. Although the data do not necessarily reflect the distribution of risk in foods, the study found that import refusals highlight food safety problems that appear to recur in trade and where the FDA has focused its import alerts, examinations (e.g., sampling), and other monitoring efforts. The data show some food industries and types of violations are consistent sources of problems both over time and in comparison with previous studies of more limited data. The three food industry groups with the most violations were vegetables (20.6 percent of total violations), fishery and seafood (20.1 percent), and fruits (11.7 percent). Violations observed over the entire time period include sanitary issues in seafood and fruit products, unsafe pesticide residues in vegetables, and unregistered processes for canned food products in all three industries.

A "healthy school meal environment" not only gives students opportunities to make healthy meal choices but also encourages them to do so. The extent to which a healthy school meal environment affects the success of USDA's school meals programs is currently a subject of debate. The policy strategies that can be used to encourage such an environment for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)also are subjects of debate. Environmental factors considered to be important include: (1) the nutritional quality, variety, and acceptability of program meals; (2) meal scheduling; (3) nutrition education; and (4) sales of non-USDA ("competitive") foods. Other factors contributing to an overall healthy nutrition environment in the school include a commitment to physical activity, and promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. This issue brief reviews information on the first three of these school meal environment factors. Competitive foods are discussed in a separate issue brief.

A "healthy school meal environment" not only gives students opportunities to make healthy meal choices but also encourages them to do so. The extent to which a healthy school meal environment affects the success of USDA's school meals programs is currently a subject of debate. The policy strategies that can be used to encourage such an environment for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)also are subjects of debate. Environmental factors considered to be important include: (1) the nutritional quality, variety, and acceptability of program meals; (2) meal scheduling; (3) nutrition education; and (4) sales of non-USDA ("competitive") foods. Other factors contributing to an overall healthy nutrition environment in the school include a commitment to physical activity, and promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. This issue brief reviews information on the first three of these school meal environment factors. Competitive foods are discussed in a separate issue brief.

The Federal Government began allowing food manufacturers to irradiate raw meat and meat products to control pathogenic microorganisms in February 2000. Consumer acceptance of irradiated foods could affect public health because many foodborne illnesses occur when consumers handle or eat meat or poultry contaminated by microbial pathogens. However, food manufacturers have been slow to adopt irradiation, partly because of the perception that relatively few consumers are willing to buy irradiated foods. A recent survey by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) confirmed this perception: only half of the adult residents of the FoodNet sites were willing to buy irradiated ground beef or chicken, and only a fourth were willing to pay a premium for these products, which cost more to produce than comparable nonirradiated products. These findings suggest that the impact of food irradiation on public health will be limited unless consumer preferences change, perhaps in response to educational messages about the safety and benefits of food irradiation.

The Federal Government began allowing food manufacturers to irradiate raw meat and meat products to control pathogenic microorganisms in February 2000. Consumer acceptance of irradiated foods could affect public health because many foodborne illnesses occur when consumers handle or eat meat or poultry contaminated by microbial pathogens. However, food manufacturers have been slow to adopt irradiation, partly because of the perception that relatively few consumers are willing to buy irradiated foods. A recent survey by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) confirmed this perception: only half of the adult residents of the FoodNet sites were willing to buy irradiated ground beef or chicken, and only a fourth were willing to pay a premium for these products, which cost more to produce than comparable nonirradiated products. These findings suggest that the impact of food irradiation on public health will be limited unless consumer preferences change, perhaps in response to educational messages about the safety and benefits of food irradiation.

It is common to hear that the U.S. food supply is among the safest in the world. Yet, it is equally common to hear concerns expressed about it-particularly over microbial contamination, such as the much-publicized cases of E. coli-tainted hamburgers in the West, and pesticide residues, such as the scare over Alar pesticide on apples. In a recent national survey by the University of Kentucky, primary household food shoppers revealed their opinions on food safety (fig. 1). Their top three concerns were fats and cholesterol (33.7 percent of respondents), bacterial food poisoning such as salmonellosis and botulism (30.0 percent), and pesticide residues on food (18.4 percent). While previous consumer surveys have ranked pesticides as the top food-safety concern, the rankings in this survey reflect current scientific evidence which indicates that pesticides pose a lower risk to consumers than does microbial contamination.