Americans Weigh in Over Time - Why Are So Many Americans Overweight?

Historically, overweight and obesity were largely attributed to gluttony—solely the result of inappropriate eating. The scientific study of obesity has identified genetic, biochemical, and metabolic alterations in FIGURE 1.6 Age-adjusted prevalence of obesity among adults aged 20 years and over, by sex and race/ethnicity, 2004 "Figure 6.3. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Obesity among Adults Aged 20 Years and Over, by Sex and Race/Ethnicity: United States, 2004," in Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data from the 2004 National Health Interview Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, June 29, 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200506_06.pdf (accessed January 9, 2006)humans and experimental animals, as well as the complex interactions of psychosocial and cultural factors that create susceptibility to overweight and obesity. Although obesity is thought to result from multiple causes, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, overweight and obesity result from excessive consumption of calories and inadequate physical activity—eating too much and exercising too little.

Some observers maintain that Americans were destined to become overweight when their diets remained unchanged even as products of the industrial revolution such as cars, automation, and a variety of laborsaving devices sharply reduced levels of physical activity. The widespread availability of high-calorie foods and less physically demanding jobs conspired to make Americans fatter. Others contend that the rise in overweight and obesity began during the 1970s, when women entered the work force in large numbers and had less time to cook, so Americans came to rely instead on processed, convenient, and calorie-dense, saturated-fat-laden fast foods. The CDC reported that in 2000, women ate 1,877 calories per day, 335 calories more per day than they did in 1971. Men, averaging 2,618 calories per day, consumed 168 calories more per day than their counterparts in 1971 ("Trends in Intake of Energy and Macro-nutrients—United States, 1971–2000," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 53, no. 4, February 6, 2004).

The American Diet Has Changed

The American diet has changed dramatically since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, during the 1950s food production in the United States provided about 800 fewer calories per person per day than in 2000. Of the 3,800 calories produced per person per day in 2000, the USDA estimates that about 1,100 calories were wasted, either through spoilage, plate waste, or cooking, leaving an average of about 2,700 calories per person per day. The USDA data reveal that average daily calorie intake increased nearly one-quarter (24.5%) or about 530 calories between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5% increase, grains (primarily refined grain products) accounted for 9.5%; added fats and oils, 9.0%; added sugars, 4.7%; and fruits and vegetables together, 1.5%; and meats and nuts together 1%; while dairy products and eggs together declined by 1.5%.

According to the Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Americans consumed an average of seven pounds more red meat than in the 1950s, forty-six pounds more poultry, and four pounds more fish and shellfish per person per year in 2000 than they had during the 1950s. Table 1.7 shows that meat consumption is at a record high—Americans consumed more meat—fifty-seven pounds more per year in 2000 than they had during the 1950s. Despite record-high per capita consumption of meat in 2000, the proportion of fat in the U.S. food supply from meat, poultry, and fish declined from one-third (33%) in the 1950s to one-quarter (24%) in 2000. This decline resulted from marketing of lower fat ground and processed meat products, a shift away from red meat to poultry and closer trimming of outside fat on meat, which commenced in 1986.

The USDA also reported that in 2000 Americans drank an average of 38% less milk and ate nearly four times as much cheese (excluding cottage, pot, and baker's cheese) as they had in the 1950s. Consumption of milk dropped from an annual average of 36.4 gallons per person in the 1950s to 22.6 gallons in 2000, although consumption of lower fat milk increased during this period. The USDA posited a link between the trend toward dining out and the reduction in beverage milk consumption. According to the USDA, soft drinks, fruit drinks, and flavored teas appear to be displacing milk as the beverages of choice of Americans. (See Table 1.8.)

TABLE 1.7 Consumption of certain foods, 1950–2000 "Table 2-1. In 2000, Americans Consumed an Average 57 Pounds More Meat Than They Did Annually in the 1950s, and a Third Fewer Eggs," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002 Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table21.jpg (accessed September 17, 2005)

TABLE 1.7
Consumption of certain foods, 1950–2000
Item	Annual averages
	1950–59	1960–69	1970–69	1980–89	1990–99	2000
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: "Table 2-1. In 2000, Americans Consumed an Average 57 Pounds More Meat Than They Did Annually in the 1950s, and a Third Fewer Eggs," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002 Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table21.jpg (accessed September 17, 2005)
	Pounds per capita, boneless-trimmed weight
Total meats	138.2	161.7	177.2	182.2	189.0	195.2
Red meats	106.7	122.34	129.5	121.8	112.4	113.5
Beef	52.8	69.2	80.9	71.7	63.2	64.4
Pork	45.4	46.9	45.0	47.7	47.6	47.7
Veal and lamb	8.5	6.2	3.5	2.4	1.7	1.4
Poultry	20.5	28.7	35.2	46.2	61.9	66.5
Chicken	16.4	22.7	28.4	36.3	47.9	52.9
Turkey	4.1	6.0	6.8	9.9	13.9	13.6
Fish and shell fish	10.9	10.7	12.5	14.2	14.7	15.2
	Number per capita
Eggs	374	320	285	257	236	250

Average use of added fats and oils in 2000 was two-thirds higher (67%) than the average use in the 1950s. Added fats included those used directly by consumers, such as butter on bread, as well as shortenings and oils used in commercially prepared foods. All fats that naturally occur in foods, such as those in milk and meat, were excluded from the USDA analysis. In 2000 Americans consumed, on average, 259% more salad and cooking oil than they did annually in the 1950s, and more than twice as much shortening, however, use of table spreads (butter and margarine) declined by 25% during the same period. (See Table 1.9.) During the 1950s, the added fats and oils group contributed the most fat to the food supply (41%), followed by the meat, poultry, and fish group (32%). By 2000, the fats and oils group's contribution to total fat had jumped twelve percentage points to 53%, probably due to the higher consumption of fried foods in fast food outlets, the increase in consumption of high-fat snack foods, and the increased use of salad dressings. Margarine, salad dressings and mayonnaise, cakes and other sweet baked goods, and oils continue to appear in the top ten foods for fat contribution, according to USDA food intake surveys, which examine the ongoing prevalence of discretionary fats in Americans' diets.

According to the USDA in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Americans in 2000 consumed 20% more fruit and vegetables than did their counterparts in the 1970s. Fruit consumption in 2000 was 12% above average annual fruit consumption in the 1970s. Fresh fruit consumption rose 28% during the same period, outpacing processed fruit consumption, which increased by just 2%. TABLE 1.8 Consumption of dairy products, selected years 1950–2000 "Table 2-2. Americans Are Drinking Less Milk, Eating More Cheese," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table22.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.8
Consumption of dairy products, selected years 1950–2000
Item	Per capita annual averages
	Unit	1950–59	1960–69	1970–79	1980–89	1990–99	2000
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
aMilk-equivalent, milkfat basis, includes butter. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.
bNatural equivalent of cheese and cheese products excludes full-skim American cottage, pot, and baker's cheese.
SOURCE: "Table 2-2. Americans Are Drinking Less Milk, Eating More Cheese," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table22.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)
All dairy productsa	lb	703	619	548	573	571	593
Cheeseb	lb	7.7	9.5	14.4	21.5	26.7	29.8
Cottage cheese	lb	3.9	4.6	4.9	4.1	2.9	2.6
Frozen dairy products	lb	23.0	27.5	27.8	27.4	28.8	27.8
Ice cream	lb	18.1	18.3	17.7	17.7	16.0	16.5
Lowfat ice cream	lb	2.7	6.2	7.6	7.2	7.5	7.3
Sherbet	lb	1.3	1.5	1.5	1.3	1.3	1.2
Other (including frozen yogurt)	lb	1.0	1.5	1.0	1.2	4.0	3.1
Nonfat dry milk	lb	4.9	5.9	4.1	2.4	3.1	3.4
Dry whey	lb	0.2	0.6	2.1	3.2	3.5	3.4
Condensed and evaporated milks	lb	21.6	15.7	9.4	7.5	7.3	5.8
Cream products	1/2 pt	18.1	13.3	10.1	12.8	15.7	18.6
Yogurt	1/2 pt	0.2	0.7	3.2	6.5	8.5	9.9
Beverage milk	gal	36.4	32.6	29.8	26.5	24.3	22.6
Whole	gal	33.5	28.8	21.7	14.3	9.1	8.1
Lower fat	gal	2.9	3.7	8.1	12.2	15.3	14.5

TABLE 1.9 Average consumption of added fats, selected years 1950–2000 "Table 2-3. Average Consumption of Added Fats Increased by Two-Thirds between 1950–59 and 2000," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table23.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.9
Average consumption of added fats, selected years 1950–2000
Item	Annual averages
	1950–59	1960–69	1970–79	1980–89	1990–99	2000
aTotal added fats and oils is on a fat-content basis. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.
bIncludes a small amount of specialty fats used mainly in confectionery products and nondairy creamers.
cTotal may not add due to rounding.
dDirect use; excludes use in margarine or shortening.
SOURCE: "Table 2-3. Average Consumption of Added Fats Increased by Two-Thirds between 1950–59 and 2000," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table23.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)
	Pounds per capitaa
Total added fats and oils	44.6	47.8	53.4	60.8	65.5	74.5
Salad and cooking oilsb	9.8	13.9	20.2	25.0	28.2	35.2
Baking and frying fatsc	21.4	20.7	20.5	23.6	26.2	29.0
Shortening	10.9	14.6	17.4	20.5	22.7	23.1
Lard and beef tallowd	10.5	6.1	3.5	3.1	4.0	6.0
Table spreads	17.0	16.5	15.9	15.3	14.0	12.8
Butter	9.0	6.6	4.7	4.6	4.4	4.6
Margarine	8.0	9.9	11.2	10.7	9.6	8.2

Total vegetable consumption in 2000 was 23% higher than the average annual vegetable consumption in the 1970s. Like fruit, fresh vegetable use rose 26%, surpassing processed vegetable use, which increased by 21%. The USDA attributed some of the increase to the introduction of convenient, ready-to-eat, pre-cut, and packaged vegetables and to increasing consumer health awareness. (See Table 1.10.)

TABLE 1.10 Per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables, selected years 1970–2000 "Table 2-4. Per Capita Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables Increased by One-Fifth between 1970–79 and 2000," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table24.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.10
Per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables, selected years 1970–2000
Item	Annual averages
	1970–79	1980–89	1990–99	2000
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: "Table 2-4. Per Capita Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables Increased by One-Fifth between 1970–79 and 2000," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table24.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)
	Pounds per capita, fresh-weight equivalent
Total fruit and vegetables	587.5	622.1	688.3	707.7
Total fruit	248.7	269.0	280.1	279.4
Fresh fruit	99.4	113.1	123.7	126.8
Citrus	27.2	24.2	23.7	23.4
Noncitrus	72.2	88.9	100.0	103.3
Processed fruit	149.3	155.9	156.5	152.7
Frozen fruit, noncitrus	3.4	3.4	3.8	3.7
Dried fruit, noncitrus	9.9	12.2	11.7	10.5
Canned fruit, noncitrus	24.7	21.3	19.7	17.4
Fruit juices	110.7	118.6	120.8	120.6
Total vegetables	338.8	353.1	408.2	428.3
Fresh vegetables	147.9	157.2	181.9	201.7
Potatoes	52.5	48.5	48.8	47.2
Other	95.4	108.7	133.1	154.5
Processing vegetables	190.9	195.9	226.3	226.6
Vegetables for canning	101.1	98.9	109.4	104.7
Tomatoes	62.9	63.5	74.4	69.9
Other	38.2	35.4	35.0	34.8
Vegetables for freezing	52.1	61.0	76.8	79.7
Potatoes	36.1	42.8	54.9	57.8
Other	16.0	18.2	21.9	21.9
Dehydrated vegetables and chips	30.8	29.4	32.0	33.7
Pulses	7.0	6.5	8.1	8.6

TABLE 1.11 Annual average grain consumption, selected years 1950–2000 "Table 2-5. Annual Average Grain Consumption Was 45 Percent Higher in 2000 Than in the 1970s," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table25.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.11
Annual average grain consumption, selected years 1950–2000
Item	Annual averages
	1950–59	1960–69	1970–79	1980–89	1990–99	2000
*Includes fat products, barley products, and rye flour not shown separately.
SOURCE: "Table 2-5. Annual Average Grain Consumption Was 45 Percent Higher in 2000 Than in the 1970s," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table25.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)
	Pounds per capita
Total grain products*	155.4	142.5	138.2	157.4	190.6	199.9
Wheat flour	125.7	114.4	113.6	122.8	141.8	146.3
Corn products	15.4	13.8	11.0	17.3	24.5	28.4
Rice	5.3	7.1	7.3	11.3	17.5	19.7

TABLE 1.12 Use of corn sweeteners, selected years 1950–2000 "Table 2-6. America's Sweet Tooth Increased 39% between 1950–59 and 2000 as Use of Corn Sweeteners Octupled," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table26.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.12
Use of corn sweeteners, selected years 1950–2000
Item	Annual average
	1950–59	1960–69	1970–79	1990–89	1990–99	2000
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: "Table 2-6. America's Sweet Tooth Increased 39% between 1950–59 and 2000 as Use of Corn Sweeteners Octupled," in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, Chapter 2, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/factbook/tables/ch2table26.jpg (accessed January 8, 2006)
	Pounds per capita, dry weight
Total caloric sweeteners	109.6	114.4	123.7	126.5	145.9	152.4
Cane and beet sugar	96.7	98.0	96.0	68.4	64.7	65.6
Corn sweeteners	11.0	14.9	26.3	56.8	79.9	85.3
High fructose corn syrup	.0	.0	5.5	37.3	56.8	63.8
Glucose	7.4	10.9	16.6	16.0	19.3	18.1
Dextrose	3.5	4.1	4.3	3.5	3.8	3.4
Other caloric sweeteners	2.0	1.5	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.5

Per capita use of flour and cereal products reached 200 pounds in 2000 from an annual average of 155.4 pounds in the 1950s and 138.2 pounds in the 1970s, when grain consumption was at a record low. The increase reflects plentiful grain stocks, robust consumer demand for store-bought bakery items and grain-based snack foods along with increasing consumption of fast-food products such as buns, pizza dough, and tortillas. Despite the overall increase in grain consumption, the average American's diet contained mostly refined grain products and fell short of the recommended minimum three daily servings of whole grain products. (See Table 1.11.)

The USDA analysis in Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002 revealed that in 2000 Americans favored sweets more than ever before. Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners—sucrose (table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners (high-fructose corn syrup) soared forty-three pounds, or 39%, between 1950 and 2000. In 2000 Americans consumed an average 152 pounds of caloric sweeteners per person, or about two-fifths of a pound per day. (See Table 1.12.)

The USDA cites a variety of factors that have contributed to the changes in the American diet over the past fifty years, including fluctuations in food prices and availability, increases in real (adjusted for inflation) disposable income, and more food assistance for the poor. New products, particularly the expanding array of convenience foods, also alter patterns of in consumption, along with more imports, growth in the away-from-home food market, intensified advertising campaigns, and increases in nutrient-enrichment standards and food fortification. The social and demographic trends driving changes in food choices include smaller households, more two-wage earner households, more single-parent households, an aging population, and increased ethnic diversity.

Americans Enjoy Eating Out

A variety of societal trends are thought to contribute to Americans' propensity to overeat, including eating outside the home, as well as ready access to and preference for sugar- and fat-laden foods. Table 1.13 shows TABLE 1.13 Food away from home, total expenditures, 1929–2004how expenditures for eating away from home have increased steadily, and more than doubled between 1989 and 2004. In addition to less strenuous work, many Americans spend their leisure time in relatively sedentary pursuits—watching television, using computers, or playing video games—that not only do not expend calories but also, as in the case of television, actually encourage excessive eating.

TABLE 1.13
Food away from home, total expenditures, 1929–2004
Year	Eating and drinking placesa	Hotels and motelsa	Retail stores, direct sellingb	Recreational placesc	Schools and collegesd	All othere	Totalf
	Million dollars
1929	2,101	362	—	—	175	1,483	4,121
1933	1,235	250	—	—	105	869	2,459
1935	1,257	271	—	—	161	1,145	2,834
1936	1,430	320	—	—	175	1,236	3,161
1937	1,696	351	—	—	194	1,375	3,616
1938	1,626	312	—	—	191	1,260	3,389
1939	1,782	321	—	—	203	1,307	3,613
1940	1,938	353	—	—	219	1,385	3,895
1941	2,369	386	—	—	263	1,781	4,799
1942	2,992	453	—	—	310	2,539	6,294
1943	3,837	604	—	—	332	3,572	8,345
1944	4,471	681	—	—	326	4,415	9,893
1945	5,218	736	—	—	373	4,908	11,235
1946	5,859	846	—	—	525	3,802	11,032
1947	6,243	854	—	—	842	3,864	11,803
1948	6,338	846	—	—	983	4,069	12,236
1949	6,294	786	—	—	979	3,943	12,002
1950	6,472	774	—	—	1,051	4,172	12,469
1951	7,172	783	—	—	1,124	5,167	14,246
1952	7,549	805	—	—	1,138	5,435	14,927
1953	7,834	790	—	—	1,215	5,392	15,231
1954	8,008	752	1,416	274	1,311	3,676	15,437
1955	8,490	809	1,468	313	1,390	3,539	16,009
1956	8,992	875	1,534	354	1,530	3,506	16,791
1957	9,409	932	1,592	342	1,661	3,609	17,545
1958	9,447	922	1,599	356	1,809	3,756	17,889
1959	10,102	982	1,677	385	1,949	3,739	18,834
1960	10,505	1,028	1,716	421	2,082	3,855	19,607
1961	10,907	1,061	1,740	452	2,264	3,961	20,385
1962	11,624	1,134	1,812	472	2,463	4,090	21,595
1963	12,247	1,200	1,854	484	2,624	4,148	22,557
1964	13,156	1,289	1,988	496	2,814	4,279	24,022
1965	14,444	1,409	2,162	522	3,062	4,598	26,197
1966	15,768	1,541	2,346	544	3,329	5,173	28,701
1967	16,595	1,623	2,436	563	3,632	5,570	30,419
1968	18,695	1,703	2,713	616	3,903	5,830	33,460
1969	20,207	1,716	2,984	661	4,256	6,291	36,115
1970	22,617	1,894	3,325	721	4,475	6,551	39,583
1971	24,166	2,086	3,626	762	4,990	6,621	42,251
1972	27,167	2,390	3,811	832	5,370	7,017	46,587
1973	31,265	2,639	4,218	963	5,605	7,960	52,650
1974	34,029	2,864	4,520	1,167	6,287	9,178	58,045
1975	41,384	3,199	4,952	1,369	7,060	10,145	68,109
1976	47,536	3,769	5,341	1,511	7,854	10,822	76,833
1977	52,491	4,115	5,663	2,606	8,413	11,547	84,835
1978	60,042	4,863	6,323	2,810	9,034	13,012	96,084
1979	68,872	5,551	7,157	2,921	9,914	14,756	109,171
1980	75,883	5,906	8,158	3,040	11,115	16,194	120,296
1981	83,358	6,639	8,830	2,979	11,357	17,751	130,914
1982	90,390	6,888	9,256	2,887	11,692	18,663	139,776
1983	98,710	7,660	9,827	3,271	12,338	19,077	150,883
1984	105,836	8,409	10,315	3,489	12,950	20,047	161,046
1985	111,760	9,168	10,499	3,737	13,534	20,133	168,831
1986	121,699	9,665	11,116	4,059	14,401	20,755	181,695
1987	137,255	11,117	11,860	4,331	13,470	21,880	199,913
1988	151,129	11,905	12,973	4,678	13,889	23,201	217,774
1989	160,647	12,179	14,153	5,668	14,609	24,661	231,917
1990	172,014	12,508	15,763	6,808	15,299	26,385	248,778
1991	180,394	12,460	16,513	7,603	16,186	26,950	260,106
1992	182,327	13,204	13,602	8,602	17,666	28,320	263,722
1993	195,836	13,362	13,745	9,439	18,330	28,276	278,988
1994	205,768	13,880	14,071	10,167	19,271	28,564	291,722
1995	214,520	14,211	14,122	11,131	20,064	28,933	302,981

TABLE 1.13 Food away from home, total expenditures, 1929–2004 [CONTINUED] "Table 3. Food Away from Home, Total Expenditures, 1929–2004," in Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: Food Away from Home, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 23, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table3.htm (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.13
Food away from home, total expenditures, 1929–2004 [CONTINUED]
Year	Eating and drinking placesa	Hotels and motelsa	Retail stores, direct sellingb	Recreational placesc	Schools and collegesd	All othere	Totalf
—= Not available
aIncludes tips.
bIncludes vending machine operators but not vending machines operated by organization.
cMotion picture theaters, bowling alleys, pool parlors, sports arenas, camps, amusement parks, golf and country clubs (includes concessions beginning in 1977).
dIncludes school food subsidies.
eMilitary exchanges and clubs; railroad dining cars; airlines; food service in manufacturing plants, institutions, hospitals, boarding houses, fraternities and sororities, and civic and social organizations; and food supplied to military forces, civilian employees and child day care.
fComputed from unrounded data.
SOURCE: "Table 3. Food Away from Home, Total Expenditures, 1929–2004," in Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: Food Away from Home, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 23, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table3.htm (accessed January 8, 2006)
	Million dollars
1996	222,266	14,553	14,147	11,555	20,867	29,308	312,695
1997	236,450	16,196	13,858	12,276	21,901	31,573	332,254
1998	249,124	17,330	15,187	12,750	23,053	32,865	350,309
1999	259,394	18,425	17,061	13,112	23,920	34,379	366,291
2000	278,672	19,492	17,827	13,521	24,468	36,267	390,247
2001	289,295	20,517	19,142	13,706	25,394	37,063	405,117
2002	299,814	20,446	21,088	14,039	26,735	37,052	419,174
2003	315,904	22,810	20,950	14,537	28,077	38,280	440,558
2004	345,851	22,956	21,711	15,016	29,286	40,006	474,826

Dining out is an important part of American culture, and market research conducted by Mintel International Group Ltd. found that Americans spend nearly half of their household food budget on eating out. In 2001 Americans spent nearly $30 billion on casual dining (as opposed to fine dining restaurants or fast-food outlets). The Mintel Report (Dining Out Review Market, Volume II: Casual/Family Restaurants, U.S. Report, July 2004) revealed that the upsurge in overall restaurant dining slowed to single-digit growth in 2001 from the high teens between 1995 and 2000; the casual dining market segment saw increases of about 5% to 7% per year from 2001 through 2003. The researchers anticipate continued growth in this sector in response to increasing time pressures in many households, which prevent people from preparing meals at home as well as an overarching cultural trend toward eating more meals outside the home.

Many nutritionists and obesity researchers assert that controlling portion size, which is key to controlling calorie consumption, is more difficult in restaurants, where portions are frequently quite large. Increasingly, restaurants have translated consumer demands for value into more food for less money. Since humans are genetically programmed to eat when food is abundant, larger portions trigger the natural impulse to eat more.

Pennsylvania State University researchers confirmed the notion that presented with larger portions, people will generally consume more. When they offered research subjects a five-cup portion of macaroni and cheese, the subjects all responded by eating 30% more than they had when they were given portions half that size. In "Portion Size of Food Affects Energy Intake in Normal-Weight and Overweight Men and Women" (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 76, no. 6, December 2002), Barbara Rolls and her colleagues observed that both "restrained and unrestrained eaters" ate more when offered larger portions and asserted that Americans have become accustomed to eating too much at one sitting. The problem of portion size is compounded by the observation that Americans are eating larger portions of foods that are high in calories and fat.

David Grotto, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association (ADA), asserted that restaurant portions have not changed as much as Americans' eating habits. In an interview published in the June 16, 2003, issue of the Miami Herald, Grotto noted that "A generation ago, dining out was pretty much limited to special occasions. Then, over time, the frequency of eating out increased and going to restaurants became part of Americana, especially in urban areas."

BIGGER PORTIONS IN RESTAURANTS

Researchers Barry Popkin and Samara Joy Nielson from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill looked at portion size consumed in the United States to determine whether average portion sizes had increased over time. They analyzed data collected by national nutrition surveys—the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey and the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals—conducted in the United States in 1977, 1989, 1994, and 1996, detailing the consumption habits of more than 63,000 people. For each survey year the researchers analyzed average portion sizes consumed of specific food items (salty snacks, desserts, soft drinks, fruit drinks, French fries, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, pizza, and Mexican food) by eating location—home, restaurant, or fast-food outlet. In "Patterns and Trends in Food Portion Sizes, 1977–1998" (Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 289, no. 4, January 22, 2003), the researchers reported that over the past two decades, the average portions of such salty snacks as popcorn and chips have increased by 60%, and soft drinks have grown by 50%. The average dispensed soft drink measured 13 ounces (370 milliliters) in 1977, but by 1996, it was 20 ounces (570 milliliters). During the same period, an average bag of chips grew to 1.6 ounces (45 g) from 1 ounce (28 g). As a result, the average chips-and-soda snack contains 150 more calories than it did two decades before.

The portion-size changes were observed with many fast-food offerings. During the twenty years studied, the size of the average hamburger grew by 23%, to 200 g (7.05 ounces), while servings of fries grew by 16%, to 100 g (3.52 ounces). A regular-size burger-and-fries meal contained 155 calories more than it did in 1977. The researchers explained that increasing portion sizes reflected the fast-food industry's practice of "supersiz-ing" or "value adding"—offering larger sizes at discounted rates. Worse still, the researchers found that portion size also had expanded in Americans' homes, indicating widespread ignorance about appropriate portion size. Interestingly, portion sizes were smallest in restaurants, although they too had increased during the study period. For example, the average restaurant portion of spaghetti with tomato sauce and meatballs doubled in size from 500 to 1,025 calories.

Another study, conducted by University of Pennsylvania researchers found that larger portions served in restaurants resulted in patrons consuming more calories. The investigators covertly recorded the food intake of patrons who selected a pasta entrée over a ten-day period of a cafeteria-style restaurant on a university campus. On five days, the portion size of the entrée was the standard portion, and on five different days, the size was increased to 150% of the standard portion. Subjects were also asked to complete a survey to deter-mine perceptions of the portion size of the entrée and of the amount that they ate. The subjects who completed a survey were unaware that their intake was being monitored.

The investigators posited that when the portion size of an entrée was increased by 50%, the subjects would consume significantly more than when the standard portion was offered. They also sought to determine whether the subjects would compensate for the increased intake from the entrée by reducing their consumption of other foods at the meal and whether they could identify any characteristics of subjects that would predict how they would respond to increased portion size.

When the larger portion size was offered, subjects who purchased it consumed 43% more of the entrée than those who purchased the standard portion size. Subjects given the larger portion also ate significantly more of the entrée accompaniments (tomato, roll, and butter) than those who purchased the standard portion, even though the portion size of the accompaniments was the same for all subjects.

Overall, ratings of the appropriateness of the portion size of the entrée did not differ between subjects given the 150% portion and those who received the standard portion. There was, however, an effect of subject body size on this rating. Underweight and normal weight subjects who purchased the 150% portion rated it as closer to the "too large" end of the seven-point scale than those who purchased the 100% portion. In contrast overweight and obese subjects did not rate the portion size as "too large". The investigators concluded that subjects ate significantly more when the portion size was increased, and their responses to the survey indicated that they were unaware that the portion was larger than normal or that they had consumed more food (Nicole Diliberti et al., "Increased Portion Size Leads to Increased Energy Intake in a Restaurant Meal," Obesity Research, vol. 12, no. 3, March 2004).

AND BIGGER PORTIONS AT HOME

Increased portion sizes at home are reflected in recipes and cookbooks. Lisa Young reported in The Portion Teller (New York: Morgan Road, 2005), that recipes call for bigger portions using the same ingredients than they did in past decades. For example, a brownie recipe from a classic cookbook, Joy of Cooking (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), recommended dividing it into thirty servings, while the same recipe in the 1997 edition of the book is divided into only sixteen servings. Similarly, a 1984 recipe for Toll House cookies yielded 100 servings, whereas today the same recipe yields only sixty. Other popular food items have increased in size and calorie content. When the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute compared portion sizes and the corresponding calories of several popular foods from 1983 and 2003, researchers found that two decades earlier a bagel measured three inches in diameter and contained 140 calories. In the early twenty-first century, six-inch bagels contain more than twice as many calories—a whopping 350.

The University of North Carolina researchers also noted other changes in eating behavior. For example, the study found that Americans obtain 19% of their total calories from snacks—double the amount of 1977—and 81% from meals. They concluded that "control of portion size must be systematically addressed both in general and as it relates to fast food pricing and marketing. The best way to encourage people to eat smaller portions is if food portions served inside and outside the home are smaller."

Technology Satisfies the Hunger for Quick, Inexpensive Food

In Why Have Americans Become More Obese? (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2003), Harvard University economists David Cutler, Edward Glaeser, and Jesse Shapiro refuted the notion that increased portion sizes, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, or restaurant dining were responsible for Americans' widening waistlines. After examining nearly 100 years of nutritional data, the researchers determined that technological advances have increased the efficiency of food production and made food more varied, convenient, tastier, and cheaper.

The economists illustrated how efficiencies in food preparation have revolutionized Americans' eating habits. They compared the speed and ease of preparation of commercial French fries with the previously time-consuming, labor-intensive process of scrubbing, peeling, paring, and frying required to prepare French fries. They observed that during the 1960s women spent an average of two hours a day on meal preparation—twice as long as the average American nonworking woman devotes to meal preparation today. It takes considerably less time today to prepare food because of advances in food processing and packaging. Further, technology improvements in the home, such as the microwave oven, have made it easier to eat quickly on demand.

The Harvard researchers' conclusion was that increased food consumption is the direct "result of technological innovations which made it possible for food to be mass prepared far from the point of consumption, and consumed with lower time costs of preparation and cleaning. Price changes are normally beneficial, but may not be if people have self-control problems." The study found that the average number of daily snacks between meals has risen by 60% since the late 1970s. Unable to resist the tempting, affordable variety of foods, Americans engage in more frequent snacking, consuming the excess calories that ultimately result in overweight.

Is the Food Industry the Culprit?

Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders and co-author, with Katherine Battle Horgen, of Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), cited a "near-total surrender to a powerful food industry" as one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic in the United States. Brownell and Horgen contend that the obesity epidemic represents more than a failure of Americans to assume personal responsibility and exercise willpower over their appetites. They exhort consumers to agitate against a food industry intent on fattening them and to work to counteract a variety of unhealthy social trends. The authors lament the super-sized meals and sedentary lifestyles, including Americans' "car-centric" culture that actively discourages walking and encourages children to sit in front of television, video games, and computers while eliminating physical education classes from schools, but they insist that the food industry bears the lion's share of responsibility for the rise in obesity. They argue that America feeds its pets better than its children, and that children are induced and manipulated by food industry media advertising to adopt poor eating habits and to consume high-calorie, low-nutrition junk food.

Brownell and Horgen cite toy giveaways, movie tieins, and in-school promotions as evidence of effective strategies employed by the politically powerful food industry to promote fast-food consumption. They feel that the battle against these pervasive influences is one that parents cannot win because even children receiving consistent, sound nutritional counseling from parents are not immune to the effects of multiple, powerful exposures to media advertising. The authors call for a nationwide, grassroots movement to reverse these trends and advocate specific measures such as junk-food taxes and banning advertisements that target children.

Greg Critser also indicts the food industry in Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003). The nutrition journalist presents a critical analysis of the many social and economic factors that make Americans among the most overweight people in the world. Critser believes that chief among these factors is high fructose corn syrup, a low-cost sweetener that was developed by Japanese scientists in response to an overabundance of cheap corn. Corn syrup does more than sweeten, it also acts as a preservative, giving sweet foods longer shelf lives. Since the 1970s, high-fructose (a very sweet sugar) corn syrup has been used to sweeten nearly every product on supermarket shelves, from cereal to soda. Some researchers feel that because it is so ubiquitous, many Americans are unknowingly consuming excessive amounts of fructose. Table 1.14 shows increasing per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup, which more than tripled from 1980 to 2002, peaked in 2003 and declined only very slightly in 2004.

Unfortunately, fructose also appears to trigger fat storage more efficiently than other sugars do. New studies are showing the body does not metabolize high-fructose corn syrup well. Although all sugars are stored in the body as fat, some researchers think that fructose is more readily converted into fat than other sugars. The fructose encourages the liver to promote fat by activating enzymes that create higher levels of TABLE 1.14 Estimated number of per capita calories of high fructose corn syrup consumed daily, 1970–2004 "Table 52. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Estimated Number of Per Capita Calories Consumed Daily, by Calendar Year, 1970–2004," in Sugar and Sweeteners: Data Tables, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 28, 2005, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data/Table52.xls (accessed January 8, 2006)cholesterol and triglycerides, and make muscles more insulin-resistant. Elevated levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, fatty substances normally present in the bloodstream and all cells of the body, increase the risk of coronary heart disease. Insulin resistance can lead to diabetes.

TABLE 1.14
Estimated number of per capita calories of high fructose corn syrup consumed daily, 1970–2004
Loss at consumer level
Year	Primary weight (market level)a	Loss from primary to retail weight	Weight at retail level	Loss from retail/Weight institutional at to consumer consumer level level	Weight at consumer level	Nonedible share	Other (uneaten food, spoilage, etc.)	Per capita consumption (adjusted for loss)			Calories per serving	Serving weight	Calories consumed dailyb	Servings (teaspoons) consumed dailyc
	Lb/yr	Percent	Lb/yr	Percent	Lb/yr	Percent	Percent	Lbs/yr	Oz/daily	Gz/daily	Number	Grams	Number	Teaspoons
Note: Estimated number of daily per capita calories calculated by adjusting high fructose corn sweetner/syrup (HFCS) deliveries for domestic food and beverage use for food losses.
aU.S. per capita HFCS estimated deliveries for domestic food and beverage use, calendar year.
bNumber of daily teaspoons multiplied by calories per serving.
cGrams per day divided by serving weight.
SOURCE: "Table 52. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Estimated Number of Per Capita Calories Consumed Daily, by Calendar Year, 1970–2004," in Sugar and Sweeteners: Data Tables, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 28, 2005, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data/Table52.xls (accessed January 8, 2006)
1970	0.5	0.0	0.5	11.0	0.5	0.0	20.0	0.4	0.0	0.5	16.0	4.2	2	0.1
1971	0.8	0.0	0.8	11.0	0.7	0.0	20.0	0.6	0.0	0.7	16.0	4.2	3	0.2
1972	1.2	0.0	1.2	11.0	1.0	0.0	20.0	0.8	0.0	1.0	16.0	4.2	4	0.2
1973	2.1	0.0	2.1	11.0	1.8	0.0	20.0	1.5	0.1	1.8	16.0	4.2	7	0.4
1974	2.8	0.0	2.8	11.0	2.5	0.0	20.0	2.0	0.1	2.4	16.0	4.2	9	0.6
1975	4.9	0.0	4.9	11.0	4.3	0.0	20.0	3.5	0.2	4.3	16.0	4.2	16	1.0
1976	7.2	0.0	7.2	11.0	6.4	0.0	20.0	5.1	0.2	6.3	16.0	4.2	24	1.5
1977	9.6	0.0	9.6	11.0	8.5	0.0	20.0	6.8	0.3	8.5	16.0	4.2	32	2.0
1978	10.8	0.0	10.8	11.0	9.6	0.0	20.0	7.7	0.3	9.5	16.0	4.2	36	2.3
1979	14.8	0.0	14.8	11.0	13.1	0.0	20.0	10.5	0.5	13.1	16.0	4.2	50	3.1
1980	19.0	0.0	19.0	11.0	16.9	0.0	20.0	13.5	0.6	16.8	16.0	4.2	64	4.0
1981	22.8	0.0	22.8	11.0	20.3	0.0	20.0	16.3	0.7	20.2	16.0	4.2	77	4.8
1982	26.6	0.0	26.6	11.0	23.7	0.0	20.0	19.0	0.8	23.6	16.0	4.2	90	5.6
1983	31.2	0.0	31.2	11.0	27.8	0.0	20.0	22.2	1.0	27.6	16.0	4.2	105	6.6
1984	37.2	0.0	37.2	11.0	33.1	0.0	20.0	26.5	1.2	32.9	16.0	4.2	125	7.8
1985	45.2	0.0	45.2	11.0	40.2	0.0	20.0	32.2	1.4	40.0	16.0	4.2	152	9.5
1986	45.7	0.0	45.7	11.0	40.7	0.0	20.0	32.5	1.4	40.4	16.0	4.2	154	9.6
1987	47.7	0.0	47.7	11.0	42.5	0.0	20.0	34.0	1.5	42.2	16.0	4.2	161	10.1
1988	49.0	0.0	49.0	11.0	43.6	0.0	20.0	34.9	1.5	43.3	16.0	4.2	165	10.3
1989	48.2	0.0	48.2	11.0	42.9	0.0	20.0	34.3	1.5	42.6	16.0	4.2	162	10.2
1990	49.6	0.0	49.6	11.0	44.1	0.0	20.0	35.3	1.5	43.9	16.0	4.2	167	10.4
1991	50.3	0.0	50.3	11.0	44.8	0.0	20.0	35.8	1.6	44.5	16.0	4.2	170	10.6
1992	51.8	0.0	51.8	11.0	46.1	0.0	20.0	36.9	1.6	45.8	16.0	4.2	175	10.9
1993	54.5	0.0	54.5	11.0	48.5	0.0	20.0	38.8	1.7	48.2	16.0	4.2	184	11.5
1994	56.2	0.0	56.2	11.0	50.0	0.0	20.0	40.0	1.8	49.7	16.0	4.2	189	11.8
1995	57.6	0.0	57.6	11.0	51.3	0.0	20.0	41.0	1.8	51.0	16.0	4.2	194	12.1
1996	57.8	0.0	57.8	11.0	51.4	0.0	20.0	41.1	1.8	51.1	16.0	4.2	195	12.2
1997	60.4	0.0	60.4	11.0	53.7	0.0	20.0	43.0	1.9	53.4	16.0	4.2	204	12.7
1998	61.9	0.0	61.9	11.0	55.1	0.0	20.0	44.1	1.9	54.8	16.0	4.2	209	13.0
1999	63.7	0.0	63.7	11.0	56.7	0.0	20.0	45.4	2.0	56.4	16.0	4.2	215	13.4
2000	62.7	0.0	62.7	11.0	55.8	0.0	20.0	44.6	2.0	55.4	16.0	4.2	211	13.2
2001	62.6	0.0	62.6	11.0	55.7	0.0	20.0	44.6	2.0	55.4	16.0	4.2	211	13.2
2002	62.9	0.0	62.9	11.0	56.0	0.0	20.0	44.8	2.0	55.6	16.0	4.2	212	13.2
2003	61.0	0.0	61.0	11.0	54.2	0.0	20.0	43.4	1.9	53.9	16.0	4.2	205	12.8
2004	59.4	0.0	59.4	11.0	52.9	0.0	20.0	42.3	1.9	52.5	16.0	4.2	200	12.5

Critser also explained that once the staples used to produce fast foods became cheaper, the industry intensified marketing efforts to induce consumers to buy and eat more. Table 1.15 shows that food expenditures have consistently decreased as a percent of disposable personal income, declining from almost one-quarter of personal disposable income in 1930 to just 9.5% in 2004. Critser observes that a serving of McDonald's French fries "ballooned from 200 calories (1960) … to the present 610 calories" and that Americans' appetites grew to expect and demand the bigger servings. Critser noted that changing values and lifestyles conspired to fatten Americans. He described the rise of a "new boundary-free culture" that promoted consumption of sugary and fat-laden foods. Traditionally, families convened for home-cooked dinners, but Critser described the rushed parents of the 1980s as preferring to eat out or take in prepared foods. Childcare experts popularized the theory that children instinctively knew when they were sated and encouraged busy parents to relinquish control over their children's food consumption. In some parts of TABLE 1.15 Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income, 1929–2004the country, budget cuts prompted schools to allow fast-food franchises to sell lunches and snacks to students on the school campuses. Finally, Critser observed that to accommodate—or even camouflage—Americans' expanding bodies, clothing manufacturers marketed large, loose-fitting clothing.

TABLE 1.15
Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income, 1929–2004
Year	Disposable personal income	Expenditures for food
		At homea		Away from homeb		Totalc
	Billion dollars	Billion dollars	Percent	Billion dollars	Percent	Billion dollars	Percent
1929	83.4	16.9	20.3	2.6	3.1	19.5	23.4
1930	74.7	15.8	21.2	2.3	3.1	18.1	24.2
1931	64.3	12.7	19.8	2.1	3.3	14.8	23.0
1932	49.2	9.6	19.5	1.7	3.5	11.3	23.0
1933	46.1	10.1	21.9	1.5	3.3	11.6	25.2
1934	52.8	11.1	21.0	1.7	3.2	12.8	24.2
1935	59.3	12.1	20.4	1.8	3.0	13.9	23.4
1936	67.4	12.7	18.8	2.0	3.0	14.7	21.8
1937	72.2	13.3	18.4	2.2	3.0	15.5	21.5
1938	66.6	12.6	18.9	2.1	3.2	14.7	22.1
1939	71.4	13.0	18.1	2.3	3.2	15.2	21.3
1940	76.8	13.5	17.6	2.4	3.1	15.9	20.7
1941	93.8	15.3	16.3	2.9	3.1	18.2	19.4
1942	118.6	18.5	15.6	3.6	3.0	22.1	18.6
1943	135.4	20.7	15.3	4.5	3.3	25.2	18.6
1944	148.3	22.1	14.9	5.1	3.4	27.2	18.4
1945	152.2	23.6	15.5	5.7	3.7	29.3	19.2
1946	161.4	28.4	17.6	6.5	4.0	34.9	21.6
1947	171.2	32.8	19.2	7.4	4.3	40.2	23.5
1948	190.6	34.9	18.3	7.5	3.9	42.4	22.3
1949	190.4	34.3	18.0	7.8	4.1	42.0	22.1
1950	210.1	35.7	17.0	7.6	3.6	43.3	20.6
1951	231.0	40.0	17.3	8.4	3.6	48.4	20.9
1952	243.4	41.8	17.2	8.8	3.6	50.6	20.8
1953	258.6	42.3	16.4	9.0	3.5	51.3	19.9
1954	264.3	42.4	16.0	9.3	3.5	51.7	19.6
1955	283.3	42.9	15.1	9.8	3.5	52.7	18.6
1956	303.0	44.4	14.7	10.4	3.4	54.8	18.1
1957	319.8	48.1	15.0	10.9	3.4	59.0	18.4
1958	330.5	49.8	15.1	11.1	3.4	60.9	18.4
1959	350.5	50.1	14.3	12.1	3.5	62.3	17.8
1960	365.4	51.5	14.1	12.6	3.4	64.0	17.5
1961	381.8	52.0	13.6	13.1	3.4	65.1	17.1
1962	405.1	52.9	13.1	13.9	3.4	66.8	16.5
1963	425.1	53.3	12.5	14.5	3.4	67.9	16.0
1964	462.5	55.5	12.0	15.7	3.4	71.2	15.4
1965	498.1	58.4	11.7	16.9	3.4	75.4	15.1
1966	537.5	61.0	11.3	18.6	3.5	79.6	14.8
1967	575.3	61.4	10.7	19.8	3.4	81.1	14.1
1968	625.0	64.5	10.3	21.7	3.5	86.2	13.8
1969	674.0	69.0	10.2	23.4	3.5	92.3	13.7
1970	735.7	75.5	10.3	26.4	3.6	102.0	13.9
1971	801.8	79.5	9.9	28.1	3.5	107.6	13.4
1972	869.1	86.0	9.9	31.3	3.6	117.3	13.5
1973	978.3	94.9	9.7	34.9	3.6	129.8	13.3
1974	1071.6	107.3	10.0	38.5	3.6	145.8	13.6
1975	1187.4	117.4	9.9	45.9	3.9	163.3	13.8
1976	1302.5	125.1	9.6	52.6	4.0	177.7	13.6
1977	1435.7	133.8	9.3	58.5	4.1	192.3	13.4
1978	1608.3	147.3	9.2	67.5	4.2	214.8	13.4
1979	1793.5	164.0	9.1	76.9	4.3	240.9	13.4
1980	2009.0	180.8	9.0	85.2	4.2	266.0	13.2
1981	2246.1	195.5	8.7	95.8	4.3	291.3	13.0
1982	2421.2	201.0	8.3	104.5	4.3	305.5	12.6
1983	2608.4	211.4	8.1	113.7	4.4	325.1	12.5
1984	2912.0	224.0	7.7	121.9	4.2	345.8	11.9
1985	3109.3	234.0	7.5	128.6	4.1	362.6	11.7
1986	3285.1	242.7	7.4	137.9	4.2	380.6	11.6
1987	3458.1	252.7	7.3	140.0	4.0	392.7	11.4
1988	3748.7	255.9	6.8	158.2	4.2	414.1	11.0

TABLE 1.15 Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income, 1929–2004 [CONTINUED] "Table 7. Food Expenditures by Families and Individuals as a Share of Disposable Personal Income, 1929–2004," in Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: Expenditures as a Share of Disposable Income, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 23, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm (accessed January 8, 2006)

TABLE 1.15
Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income, 1929–2004 [CONTINUED]
Year	Disposable personal income	Expenditures for food
		At homea		Away from homeb		Totalc
	Billion dollars	Billion dollars	Percent	Billion dollars	Percent	Billion dollars	Percent
aFood purchases from grocery stores and other retail outlets, including purchases with food stamps and WIC vouchers and food produced and consumed on farms (valued at farm prices) because the value of these foods is included in personal income. Excludes government-donated foods.
bPurchases of meals and snacks by families and individuals, and food furnished to employees since it is included in personal income. Excludes food paid for by government and business, such as donated foods to schools, meals in prisons and other institutions, and expense-account meals.
cTotal may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: "Table 7. Food Expenditures by Families and Individuals as a Share of Disposable Personal Income, 1929–2004," in Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: Expenditures as a Share of Disposable Income, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 23, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm (accessed January 8, 2006)
1989	4021.7	274.8	6.8	166.0	4.1	440.9	11.0
1990	4285.8	299.7	7.0	178.0	4.2	477.7	11.1
1991	4464.3	313.5	7.0	186.9	4.2	500.4	11.2
1992	4751.4	313.6	6.6	191.1	4.0	504.7	10.6
1993	4911.9	323.3	6.6	205.3	4.2	528.5	10.8
1994	5151.8	337.6	6.6	216.0	4.2	553.6	10.7
1995	5408.2	346.5	6.4	225.8	4.2	572.3	10.6
1996	5688.5	362.2	6.4	232.9	4.1	595.1	10.5
1997	5988.8	379.3	6.3	246.8	4.1	626.1	10.5
1998	6395.9	388.9	6.1	260.4	4.1	649.3	10.2
1999	6695.0	409.7	6.1	272.5	4.1	682.1	10.2
2000	7194.0	415.0	5.8	290.6	4.0	705.6	9.8
2001	7486.8	430.4	5.7	301.6	4.0	732.0	9.8
2002	7830.1	429.3	5.5	312.4	4.0	741.7	9.5
2003	8169.2	442.9	5.4	328.7	4.0	771.6	9.4
2004	8664.2	464.7	5.4	354.5	4.1	819.3	9.5