Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid: Implications for 

U.S. Agriculture. By C. Edwin Young, Market and Trade Economics

Division, and Linda Scott Kantor, Food and Rural Economics Division,

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural

Economic Report No. 779.

Abstract

Recent studies show that average diets differ considerably from Food Guide

Pyramid recommendations. The gap between current consumption and recommendations is particularly large for caloric sweeteners, fats and oils, fruits, and

certain vegetablesnotably dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, and

dry beans, peas, and lentils. The change in food consumption needed to meet

Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations will result in adjustments in

U.S. agricultural production, trade, nonfood uses, and prices. The net adjustment

in crop acreage is projected to be relatively small, about 2 percent of total cropland in 1991-95. However, this small net adjustment masks larger anticipated

changes for some sectors, particularly sweeteners, fats and oils, and citrus fruits.

Keywords: Food, food consumption, Food Guide Pyramid, crop production,

commodity prices, trade, dietary recommendations, 1996 Farm Act

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable assistance and input from the

following current and former ERS economists: Mark Ash, James Barnes,

Elizabeth Frazao, Ronald Lord, John Love, Gary Lucier, James Miller, Kenneth

Nelson, Susan Pollack, Mike Price, Peter Riley, Scott Sanford, Dennis Shields,

Fred Surls, and Paul Westcott.

1800 M Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036-5831 May 1999
Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................ iii

Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

Estimating the Change in Food Consumption ............................................... 2

Estimating Agricultural Sector Adjustments.................................................. 4

How Much Would Agriculture Have To Adjust?........................................... 6

Caloric Sweeteners .................................................................................. 6

Fats and Oils............................................................................................ 9

Vegetables................................................................................................ 12

Fruits........................................................................................................ 14

Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese ........................................................................ 16

Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts..................................... 18

Grains....................................................................................................... 20

Conclusion...................................................................................................... 22

References...................................................................................................... 23

Glossary.......................................................................................................... 25

ii Economic Research Service/USDA
Summary

Although the American diet is becoming more healthful, eating habits still fall

short of Federal dietary advice provided in the Food Guide Pyramid. If

Americans followed Pyramid recommendations, the resulting changes in consumer demand would lead to changes in the type and quantity of food produced,

and how and where it is produced.

Closing the gap between average U.S. diets and Pyramid serving recommendations means consumers will have to change their eating habits significantly. For

example, while Americans consumed record amounts of fruits and vegetables in

1997, consumption of dark-green leafy vegetables remains well below Federal

dietary benchmarks. At the same time, consumption of added sugars hit an alltime high, at more than two and a half times the Pyramid upper limit.

Bringing diets in line with Pyramid recommendations would lead to adjustments

in U.S. agricultural production, trade, nonfood uses, and prices. If the average

American were to fully adopt the Pyramid recommendations, U.S. crop acreage

devoted to food and feed would need to increase by nearly 6 million acres over

average levels in the early 1990's. This adjustment is relatively small in relation

to total planted areaabout 2 percent of average 1991-95 agricultural cropland

and well below the almost 22 million acres of cropland idled under Federal

annual acreage planting constraints during 1991-95. 

However, this modest adjustment masks larger changes in production and prices

expected for individual commodity sectorsnotably caloric sweeteners, fats

and oils, fruits, and certain vegetables (dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, and dry beans, peas, and lentils)where there is a large gap between

recommended and actual consumption. 

Caloric sweeteners. A 60-percent reduction in average consumption of

caloric sweeteners would be necessary to reach Pyramid recommendations (this

contrasts sharply with the 9-percent increase per person during 1991-95). Such

an unprecedented reduction translates into a 4.8-million-ton reduction in domestic sugar outputa drop in planted area of 0.7 million acres of sugarcane and

1.1 million acres of sugar beets. Sugar imports would have to be cut by 1.3 million tons from the 2.1-million annual average of 1991-95. This sector is highly

concentrated with sugarcane production in Florida and Louisiana and sugar beet

production in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota and in parts

of Idaho, Michigan, and California. Producers in these regions will likely shift

production to fruits and vegetables or field crops. 

Fats and oils. U.S. consumption of added fats and oils, at 59 grams a day, is

among the highest in the world. Total fat intake would have to be cut 36 percent

in order to meet the suggested daily limit (that contrasts sharply with the 0.5-

percent increase between 1991 and 1995). These reductions will have the largest

impact on the soybean sector, since soybeans dominate the market for added

fats and oils. To match the reduced demand, soyoil production would need to

decline by 2 million tons, translating into 20 percent less acreage devoted to

soybeans, or a 12-million acre decline. However, market forces would limit the

reduction to less than 3 million acres, as exports, feed, and industrial uses would

offset the decline in domestic oil demand.

Economic Research Service/USDA iii
Fruits. Fruit consumption would more than double if the average U.S. diet

were to meet Pyramid recommendations. Consumption of citrus, melons, and

berries would need to increase by 150 percent, and that of other fruits would

need to rise 114 percent. Meeting the need with domestic production alone

would imply a 3- to 4-million-acre increase in planted area. However, imports

would likely help take up the slack, as land, labor, and climatic constraints limit

expansion of domestic fruit production.

Vegetables. Meeting Pyramid recommendations would require some alteration

in the quantities and types of vegetables consumed. Although consumption of

vegetables as a group would have to rise only 10 percent, average diets would

have to include more than four times as many dark-green leafy and deep-yellow

vegetables; three times as many dry beans, peas, and lentils; and fewer servings

of starchy vegetables (mostly potatoes). A net increase of 2-3 million acres of

vegetables would be needed to produce enough vegetables to meet the increased

demand, with 1.4 million acres devoted to additional dark-green leafy and deepyellow vegetables. Some of the increase in domestic supplies could be achieved

by switching the types or mix of crops planted. 

Milk and meat products. Consumption of dairy products needs to grow by

22 percent and that of meats by 5 percent in order for average diets to meet

Pyramid recommendations. More important, meeting the recommendations

would require adjustments in the mix of products in these food groups, notably

a reduction in fat. Increased demand for lowfat products would raise retail

prices, while decreased demand for higher fat products would result in these

products moving to industrial uses and exports. Such a shift would have a measurable effect on the grain sector.

Grains. Adjustments will occur largely in the feed grains sector and will be

closely linked to developments in the sweetener, oilseed, meat, and poultry

industries. Changes in the food use of grains (such as flour and pasta) will be

relatively minor.

Interactions among different agricultural commodity markets may moderate the

size of the adjustments estimated in this report. Consumers will substitute some

products for others, depending on prices. Farmers base planting decisions on

expected prices, and can alternate among crops, with some limitations, on the

same piece of land. Also, producers and processors alter the supply of final

foods, depending on relative prices and changing technologies, for products produced jointly from the same raw agricultural commodity. For example, higher

demand for lowfat dairy products can be met by producing less ice cream, butter, and cheese and producing more lowfat yogurt and skim milk.

Because of the size and complexity of the U.S. food system, an almost infinite

combination of foods, production methods, end uses, and trade adjustments

could work together to move diets toward the Food Guide Pyramid recommendations. Food consumption is just one of several components of demand for

agricultural products, along with animal feed, exports, and nonfood or industrial

uses. Shifts in food demand due to dietary change would likely result in offsetting shifts in production, trade, and nonfood uses, which would tend to moderate

the impacts on food prices and farm income in the long run.

iv Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 1

Diet-related chronic diseases account for nearly twothirds of all deaths in the United States each year.

Aside from the loss in human terms, these illnesses

and premature deaths cause significant economic loss.

USDAs Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates

that improved diets could save $48 billion in annual

medical costs and lost productivity resulting from disability, and another $28 billion annually in the value

of premature deaths (Frazao, 1999).1,2 Some researchers assert that proper diets may forestall an estimated

20 percent of these deaths annually. 

Federal dietary recommendations outlined in the 1995

Dietary Guidelines for Americans3 and depicted

graphically in the Food Guide Pyramid (the Pyramid)

are intended to help consumers improve their health

and reduce their risk of diet-related disease. While

many Americans are aware that the Pyramid can help

them choose a balanced diet (American Dietetic Association, 1997), recent studies show that average U.S.

diets differ considerably from the Pyramid recommendations (Bowman and others, 1998; Cleveland and

others, January 1995, April 1997; Kantor, 1996, 1998,

1999; Krebs-Smith and others, 1995, 1996, 1997;

Munoz and others, 1997; USDA, CNPP, 1995).

Although some consumption trends are moving diets

closer to the Pyramid recommendations, the changes

fall short of those needed to meet the recommendations (Kantor, 1998; 1999). For example, while

Americans consumed record amounts of fruits and

vegetables in 1997, consumption is still below Federal

dietary benchmarks. At the same time, consumption of

added sugars hit an all-time high, at more than two

and half times the Pyramid upper limit. 

Improved diets will require fundamental changes in

daily food choices for many consumers. Consumers

and health officials have looked to the agriculture and

food industries, with their capacity to alter the nutrient

content and amount of foods offered in the marketplace, for help in improving diets (Frazao, 1996). 

In his pioneering paper on the implications of healthier diets for U.S. agriculture, OBrien speculates on

the adjustments American agriculture would face if

called upon to respond toand hopefully, to facilitatea large-scale move toward healthier diets as

defined by Federal dietary recommendations

(OBrien, 1995). This report builds on OBriens

research by quantifying changes in domestic agricultural production and crop acreage that might occur if

consumers fully adopted the Pyramid serving recommendations. The potential magnitude and direction of

change in agricultural trade, nonfood uses for agricultural commodities, and food prices are also examined. 

Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid

Implications for U.S. Agriculture

C. Edwin Young

Linda Scott Kantor

Introduction

1Estimates are in 1995 dollars.

2Full citations are listed in the References section.

3See glossary for definitions of italicized words.
The gap between the average U.S. diet in 1995 and

the Pyramid serving recommendations was measured

to determine how much agriculture would have to

adjust to provide the more healthful diets specified in

the Food Guide Pyramid. 

The Pyramid recommends the types and amounts of

foods to eat from five major food groups: grains

(bread, cereals, rice, and pasta); vegetables; fruits;

dairy (milk, yogurt, and cheese); and meat (red meat,

poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, nuts). The number of

servings that are right for any one person varies

according to age, gender, and physiological status

(table 1). Almost everyone should have at least the

lower number of servings in the ranges, except for

preschool children who can eat smaller servings based

on their lower caloric requirements.

The Pyramid supporting documents suggest that consumers adhere to recommendations for specific subgroups of foods (USDA, CNPP, 1996; Cronin and

others, 1987). For example, vegetable servings should

be divided evenly between three subgroups: darkgreen leafy and deep-yellow vegetables; dry beans,

peas, and lentils,

4 and other starchy vegetables; and

other vegetables. The dark-green leafy vegetables and

dry beans, peas, and lentils subgroups should each

account for about 15 percent of total vegetable servings. Fruit servings should be split evenly between

two subgroups: citrus, melons, and berries, and other

fruits. For daily grain servings, consumers should

select several from foods made with whole grains,

such as whole wheat bread and whole grain cereals.

Similarly, the Dietary Guidelines suggest that consumers choose lowfat milk products, lean meats, fish,

poultry, beans, and peas often to get the essential

nutrients provided by the dairy and meat groups without substantially increasing intakes of calories and saturated fat (USDA, DHHS, 1995). 

The Food Guide Pyramid also suggests that consumers use fats, oils, and sweets sparingly (USDA,

CNPP, 1996). To reduce health risks and to help consumers maintain a healthy weight, the Dietary

Guidelines recommend that consumers limit total fat

intake to 30 percent of their total calories (USDA,

DHHS, 1995). To avoid getting too many calories

from sugars, the Dietary Guidelines suggest that sugars be used in moderation, and sparingly for persons

whose calorie needs are low. To help consumers meet

this objective, the Pyramid suggests daily maximum

levels of added sugars for sample diets at different

calorie levels (USDA, CNPP, 1996). 

To estimate the changes needed in average diets, we

examined present consumption patterns based on

servings estimates generated from food supply and

utilization data compiled and published annually by

ERS (Putnam and Allshouse, 1997). The average

number of daily food supply servings were compared

with the Pyramid recommendations, using the midpoint of the recommended Pyramid serving range for

each food group, based on a sample diet of 2,200

calories (table 2). A 2,200-calorie diet approximates

2 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—Food Guide Pyramid Serving 

Recommendations 

Sample diets

Food group 1,600 2,200 2,800

calories calories calories

Number of servings per day

Grain group 6 9 11

Vegetable group 3 4 5

Fruit group 2 3 4

Dairy group1 2-3 2-3 2-3

Meat group

(ounces) 5 6 7

Total fat (grams)2 53 73 93

Added sugars

(teaspoons)2 6 12 18

1Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, teenagers, and young

adults to age 24 need three servings.

2Recommendations for total fat and added sugars are suggested

upper limits.

Source: USDA, CNPP, 1996.

Estimating the Change in Food Consumption

4Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted in either the meat

or vegetable group. For consistency with other dietary assessment

studies, these commodities were included in the vegetable group

in this study.
the daily Recommended Energy Allowance (REA) of

2,247 calories derived from an average of REAs for

different age and gender groups of the U.S. population

(National Research Council, 1989). It is important to

note that the ERS food supply servings estimates for

some commodity groups, particularly grains, added

fats, and added sugars, differ considerably from servings estimates generated from USDAs Continuing

Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) (KrebsSmith and others, 1995, 1996, 1997; Cleveland and

others, March 1997, April 1997; Munoz, 1997;

USDA, CNPP, 1995; Kantor, 1998; Kantor 1999). For

some sectors, like grains and sweeteners, these differences are sizable and could affect the magnitude of

the adjustments detailed here (Kantor, 1998). For

more detail on the methodology behind the food supply servings estimates and a comparison of the food

supply data with the CSFII, see Kantor, 1998. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 3

Table 2—1995 Food Supply Servings Compared with Food Guide Pyramid Recommendations

Pyramid 1995 Change needed

Food group recommendations food supply to meet Pyramid

for a 2,200-calorie diet servings1 recommendations

Servings Servings Percent

Grains2 9.0 9.4 --

Vegetables 4.0 3.7 8

Dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables3 1.3 .3 333

Dry beans, peas, and lentils4 .6 .2 200

White potatoes and other starchy vegetables .8 1.3 -38

Other vegetables 1.3 1.9 -32

Fruit 3.0 1.3 131

Citrus, melons, and berries 1.5 .6 150

Other fruit 1.5 .7 114

Milk, yogurt, and cheese5 2.2 1.8 22

Ounces Ounces Percent

Meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts6 6.0 5.7 5

Grams Grams Percent

Total fat 

Added fats and oils7 38 59 -36

Teaspoons Teaspoons Percent

Added sugars8 12 32 -63

-- = Minimal adjustment needed.

1(Kantor, 1998).

2The recommendation for grains is a minimum consumption level, thus minimal adjustment is needed to meet Pyramid recommendations. 3Due to data limitations, the adjustments for dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables were not estimated separately.

4Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted in either the vegetable or meat groups. Counting these foods toward “vegetable group” servings is

consistent with other dietary assessment studies.

5Recommendation based on a weighted average of recommended servings for different age groups of the U.S. population (Kantor, 1999).

6Meat group servings reflect both the lean and fat portions of meat and poultry.

7The Food Guide Pyramid does not make a recommendation for added fats and oils. The upper limit reported here is implied by the share of

total fats accounted for by added fats and oils in the food supply during 1994 and an upper limit for total fat of 30 percent of calories, or 73

grams.

8The recommendation for added sugars is a suggested upper limit based on a range of caloric intake.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
This study was designed to provide an indication of

changes in agricultural production, trade, and prices

that would result from full compliance with the

Pyramid serving recommendations. Potential changes

in agricultural production, trade, and prices were

determined by applying the percent change in food

consumption needed to meet the recommendations

(table 2) to data on commodity production, trade, and

nonfood uses from the ERS food supply and utilization series for 1991-95. All adjustment scenarios

assumed that average diets would meet the Pyramid

serving recommendations regardless of price effects

essentially fixing food demand at the point where

average consumption meets these targets (see box).

The following example illustrates how acreage adjustments were estimated for all commodity groups in this

study. To meet the Pyramid recommendations, the

average consumer would have to increase consumption of dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables

by 333 percent (table 2), from 7.3 pounds per capita

per year to 31.6 pounds. Average domestic production

of dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables in

1991-95 was 11.8 billion pounds on 430,000 acres (or

27,500 pounds per acre). After adjusting for imports

(adding 0.57 billion pounds) and exports (subtracting

0.45 billion pounds), we estimate that almost 12 billion pounds (farm product weight) of dark-green leafy

and deep-yellow vegetables were consumed domestically. To meet a 333-percent increase in demand suggested by the Pyramid serving recommendations, production would need to increase to 39.8 billion pounds,

or 1.4 million harvested acres. 

The production and crop acreage adjustments presented here represent maximum adjustments, and are not

intended to be comprehensive. The size and economic

complexity of the U.S. food system presupposes that a

diverse and almost infinite number of foods, production methods, and trade adjustments could work

together to move diets toward the Pyramid recommendations. 

Food consumption is just one of several components

of demand for agricultural products, such as animal

feed, exports, and nonfood or industrial uses. The

food supply is made up of domestic production and

imports. While not measured in this study, offsetting

adjustments in price, supplies, or other demand components thus will likely reduce the magnitude of the

final adjustment in any single commodity sector.

This discussion assumes that the adjustments in diet

and agricultural production will occur in the future.

The likely timeframe for adjustments is discussed

when appropriate for a limited number of commodities, such as fruits and livestock. Past consumption

trends suggest that dietary change is a slow process

for most people. Thus, the agricultural sector will

likely have a long lead time to respond to such

demand shifts. Existing domestic farm legislation and

U.S. commitments under global trade agreements may

also affect the pace of the adjustment in some sectors.

But these are also subject to change over time and

will impact some commodity sectors more than others. We also made the simplifying assumption that

only U.S. consumers change their eating habits. Many

of the impacts discussed here would be magnified if

consumers in other countries were to make similar

adjustments.

4 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Estimating Agricultural Sector Adjustments
Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 5

The analytical approach used in this study can be

illustrated with a simple supply and demand model.

The domestic food demand for a commodity in the

initial base period is represented by Df in figure 1. 

Df is downward sloping because food demand

responds to price changes. In the initial base period,

consumers purchase Qf of food at price Po. 

Dfgp is the new level of food demand prompted by

Pyramid recommendations. At this point, demand is

assumed to be perfectly inelastic at the point where

average consumption meets the Pyramid serving recommendation, hence a vertical demand curve. In this

illustration, we assume that supplies available for

domestic consumption adjust in such a way as to hold

commodity prices constant.

DIF is the difference between the quantity consumed

during the 1991-95 base period (Qf

) and the new consumption quantity (Qfgp) prompted by the Pyramid

serving recommendations. It is this change in quantity demanded that formed the basis for the agricultural

sector adjustments detailed in this report. DIF can be

either positive or negative. That is, depending upon

the commodity, Qf may be more or less than Qfgp.

From table 2, we would see Qf > Qfgp for added fats

but Qf < Qfgp for vegetables.

Many agricultural commodities, however, have a

number of uses other than for domestic food. An

increase in food demand, for example, prompted 

by Pyramid recommendations shifts total commodity demand outward (Dt to Dtfgp in figure 2).

Dtfgp responds to prices because it includes other

demands or uses for the product, such as exports and

industrial uses. Increased food demand will result in

higher food prices. The other uses, exports and industrial uses, will decline in response to the higher food

prices. These higher prices will also lead to increased

food supplieswhich are determined by domestic

production and imports. This combination of changes

in other uses and in supplies will tend to moderate

the effect of Pyramid-induced demand adjustments,

resulting in a new equilibrium at Q' and P'.

The analysis is further complicated through interactions between agricultural commodity markets.

Products can be substituted in consumers' diets. For

example, if spinach prices increase relative to broccoli prices, consumers may substitute broccoli for

spinach. Some products are used in combination with

others, such as milk and cookies. Similarly, farmers

can often shift production among commodities on the

same piece of land, depending on price changes. For

example, wheat, corn, soybeans, and vegetables can

frequently, depending on the climate and soil conditions, be grown on the same plot of land. Alternatively, some food products, such as lowfat milk, butter, and cheese are produced jointly from the same

raw agricultural commoditymilk. Consequently,

producers and processors may alter the supply of

final food products, depending on relative prices and

changing technologies. Lack of data and appropriate

economic models prevented us from exploring many

of these potential adjustments in more detail. 

Price

Qf

D

f

Df

Dfgp

Po

Qfgp

DIF

Quantity

Price

Qo (Qo+DIF)

D

D

Po

D

D

S

S

ip

ip

t

t

tfgp

tfgp

Quantity

Figure 1

Food demand

Figure 2

Total supply and demand

Q

P

DIF

Supply and Demand Adjustments
Meeting the Pyramid recommendations would mean

significant changes for some parts of American agriculture. However, the aggregate change for the sector

would be relatively small. A net increase of 5 to 6

million acres of cropland would be needed to meet the

recommendations (table 3). This increase is relatively

small in relation to total planted areaabout 2 percent

of total 1991-95 agricultural croplandand below the

almost 22 million acres of cropland idled under

Federal annual acreage planting constraints during

1991-95.5 

However, this modest 2-percent net adjustment masks

larger changes in production and prices expected for

some sectorssuch as sweeteners, fats and oils, and

fruitswhich could be significant compared with

recent changes these sectors have undergone. Also,

since land and climate in the United States are not

homogeneous, adjustments for some commodities

may be concentrated in specific regions. For all sectors, adjustments in domestic demand will cause

prices to change. This, in turn, will lead to changes in

the type and quantity of food produced, and how and

where it is produced. 

Caloric Sweeteners 

An unprecedented 60-percent reduction in the average

consumption of caloric sweeteners would be necessary to reach the Pyramid suggested daily maximum

of the equivalent of 12 daily teaspoonfuls. Such a

reduction contrasts with the 9-percent per capita

increase in caloric sweetener use between 1991 and

1995.

U.S. caloric sweetener consumption is divided almost

evenly between cane and beet sugar (45 percent) and

corn sweeteners (54 percent). High-fructose corn

sweetener (HFCS) accounts for over 70 percent of

corn sweeteners, with glucose and dextrose accounting for the remainder. Our analysis focuses on cane

and beet sugar and on corn sweeteners.

Cane and Beet Sugar The United States is the

fourth largest sugar producer in the world, and is one

of the few countries that produces significant quantities of both sugar beets and sugarcane. Total sugar

production (raw value) averaged 7.6 million tons

annually in 1991-9554 percent from sugar beets 

and 46 percent from sugarcane. Imports accounted for

about 20 percent of total domestic sugar supplies

(table 4).

6 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

How Much Would Agriculture Have To Adjust?

5Authority for these programs expired in 1996 with the passage of

the 1996 Farm Act.

Table 3—Maximum Acreage Adjustments Implied by 

Full Adoption of Food Guide Pyramid Serving 

Recommendations 1

Crop Average planted Adjustments

area, 1991-95 in acreage

Million acres

Fruits2 3.4 --

Citrus .9 1.4

Melons and berries .6 .7

Other noncitrus 1.9 2.1

Vegetables2 4.5 --

Dark-green and

deep-yellow vegetables .4 1.4

Starchy vegetables 2.4 -.9

Other vegetables 1.6 - .5

Dry beans, peas, and lentils 2.1 2.7

Peanuts3 1.7 --

Tree nuts3 .7 --

Wheat3 70.7 --

Rice3 3.1 --

Feed grains:2 98.2 4 --

From sweeteners 5.6 -3.5

From oilseed production 0 2.0

From meat and dairy 55.7 5.0

Soybeans 60.5 -3.0 5

Sugar2 2.3

Beet 1.4 -1.1

Cane .9 -.7

Land used for food crops 247.1 5.6

Other cropland6 108.7 --

Total 355.8 5.6

-- = Minimal adjustment needed.

1 Maximum estimate assumes that all adjustments occur in domestic production with no offsetting changes in trade or other uses.

2 Acreage adjustments were calculated for subgroups only.

3 Less than 0.1 million acres.

4 Includes acreage used to produce grains for exports and other

uses.

5 Direct estimation of the impact on soyoil production implies a 12-

million-acre decline. Demand for soymeal would limit the overall

decline.

6 Includes idled land plus land planted to cotton, hay, silage, and

miscellaneous crops, but excludes the Conservation Reserve

Program. Acreage adjustments were not calculated for these

crops.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
The 60-percent reduction in sugar consumption

implied by the food supply servings estimates would

cause prices and sweetener supplies to decline

sharply. Such a drop in supply would likely be met

through a combination of reduced domestic production and reduced imports (table 5).

Without offsetting increases in exports, nonfood uses,

or imports, a 60-percent reduction in both domestic

sugar production and imports would mean a 4.5-million-ton reduction in domestic sugar output. A decline

in sugar consumption would also lead to a drop in

sugar acreage of 0.7 million acres of sugarcane and

1.1 million acres of sugar beets, assuming no change

in trade. Some adjustment in sugar imports would also

likely occur. If the adjustments were borne proportionately between domestic production and imports,

sugar imports would decline to under 1 million tons

from a 2.1 million annual average during 1991-95.

Domestic sugar acreage would decline by 0.6 million

acres of sugarcane and 0.9 million acres of sugar

beets (assuming proportionate reductions in cane and

beet sugar production).

Adjustments in the sugar sector would be complicated

by U.S. sugar legislation under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996

Farm Act). Sugar is produced domestically under a

system of price supports and import restrictions, or

tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (Lord). Under the raw

sugar TRQ, quota-holding countries are allocated a

fixed amount of sugar that they may ship to the

United States each year at no or low duty. For any

sugar entering the United States above the quota, a

duty is imposed, which is generally high enough to

prevent imports above the quota amount. The TRQ is

established annually (and sometimes adjusted in a

given year) to control supply, and it is set to fill the

gap between forecasted domestic consumption and

production.

The TRQ acts as a price support only as long as the

gap between U.S. sugar consumption and production

remains above 1.5 million tons. Were domestic consumption to fall by the full 60-percent implied by the

Pyramid recommendations, the TRQ likely would

drop below 1.5 million tons, resulting in a suspension

of the price-support program under the provisions of

the 1996 Farm Act. With the price-support program

suspended, farm-level sugar prices would fall to world

levels, and production and imports would adjust

downward to balance the domestic market. 

Any reduction in domestic sugar production would

imply shifts in the land, water, and other resources

currently used to produce sugarcane and sugar beets. 

While we made the simplifying assumption that

reductions in sugar output will come proportionately

from cane and beet production, economic theory suggests that reductions in output will also occur in areas

where marginal costs are highest. Cane producers may

bear the brunt of any reductions in sugar demand,

because they receive lower returns and yield less

sugar per acre than beet growers.

U.S. sugarcane production and processing are concentrated in southern Florida and Louisiana, but Hawaii

and Texas are also important growing regions (fig. 3).

Sugar beets are grown across a fairly wide geographic

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 7

Table 4—The Sweetener Sector, 1991-95

Production (million tons):

Cane and beet sugar (raw value) 7.6

Corn sweeteners (dry weight) 10.8

Corn for corn sweeteners (million bushels) 660

Imports:

Cane and beet sugar (raw value) 2.1

Corn sweeteners (dry weight) .2

Exports:

Cane and beet sugar (raw value) .7

Corn sweeteners (dry weight) .3

Harvested acres:

Sugarcane (million acres) .9

Sugar beets (million acres) 1.4

Corn for corn sweeteners (million acres) 5.5

Source: Lord, 1996.

Table 5—Caloric Sweeteners: Projected Changes in

Supply, Demand, and Prices Implied by Pyramid

Serving Recommendations

Item Cane and Corn

beet sugar sweeteners

Supply components:

Domestic production ê ê

Imports ê *

Demand components:

Food use ê ê

Exports * *

Industrial use * *

Prices ê ê

*These uses are relatively small and were not evaluated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
area, with the Red River Valley of Minnesota and

North Dakota, and regions in Idaho, Michigan, and

California major sugar beet regions. In Hawaii, areas

allocated for sugarcane production compete with profitable alternative land uses, such as hotel, recreation,

and other tourism-related industries. A switch to these

alternative uses could accelerate and absorb losses

caused by a declining sugar demand. Much of

Floridas sugarcane area would be well suited for production of fruits and vegetables, demand for which

would increase under the Pyramid dietary recommendations.

However, the full extent of any switch of sugarcane

cropland to alternative uses, such as citrus fruits and

winter vegetables, likely would be determined in large

part by changes in relative prices and environmental

concerns. Agricultural activitynotably sugarcane

productionin south Florida has been identified as a

contributor to the decline of the Everglades ecosystem. The 1996 Farm Act provides funding for land

acquisition in the Everglades region to aid in the

restoration of the regions natural habitat (Aillery and

others, 1997). 

The impact of reduced sugar beet production would

be spread across a large and diverse geographic area.

The initial cuts in production likely would come in

regions that can profit from switching to alternative

crops. In recent years, sugar beet acreage decreased in

the more marginal production areas of California,

Michigan, Ohio, and some Western and Northern

Plain States, and production has been well below processing capacity (Lord, 1997). However, due to the

magnitude of the projected reductions, major producing areas in the Northern Plains would face production adjustments. Most sugar beet regions would be

well suited to production of pulses (dry beans, peas,

and lentils) and cool-weather, seasonal, dark-green

and deep-yellow vegetables (see Vegetables section,

page 12). 

Corn Sweeteners Corn sweeteners, primarily

HFCS, account for a significant and growing share of

the U.S. caloric sweetener market. In the 1980s, the

sugar price-support program and technological

advances caused sugar prices to rise, making the conversion of corn starch to a fructose syrup sweetener

more economically viable. Since then, average consumption of HFCS has increased by more than 60 percent (Moore and Buzzanell, 1991). HFCS is now the

sweetener of choice in the U.S. soft drink industry,

which accounted for 73 percent of total HFCS use in

1993-95. Because HFCS prices are lower than sugar

8 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

0 100 200 300 400 500

Figure 3

Most Sugarcane and Sugar Beets Are Produced in a Small Number of States

Sugar beets

Sugarcane

Minnesota

Idaho

Michigan

California

Nebraska

Wyoming

Montana

Colorado

Texas

Ohio

North Dakota

Florida

Louisiana

Hawaii

Texas

Planted area (1,000 acres)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
prices, it has increasingly replaced sugar in other

processed foods, such as ketchup, breakfast cereals,

and frozen dairy desserts. 

The United States imports small quantities of corn

sweeteners. Any reduction in domestic demand for

HFCS and other corn sweeteners thus would cause

adjustments in domestic production and/or exports.

Assuming that demand for HFCS declines by the

same 60 percent as the demand for sugar, adjustments

in the corn sweetener sector would include a 6.5-million-ton decline in domestic corn sweetener production. That equates to a 400-million-bushel, or 3.5-

million-acre, reduction in demand for field corn used

to produce sweeteners (see also the Grains section,

page 20). 

Such a reduction in corn sweetener production would

also imply sizable adjustments on the part of the wetmilling industry that produces corn sweeteners. The

projected reduction contrasts sharply with the 25-percent expansion in U.S. wet-corn milling capacity that

occurred between 1994 and 1996 (Lord, 1997). Reduced corn sweetener output would sharply reduce the

availability of corn gluten meal and other byproducts

of the wet-milling process. (These byproducts are

mostly exported to Europe as livestock feed.) 

Some of these adjustments may be mitigated by higher exports of corn sweeteners. However, the United

States exported less than 3 percent of HFCS output in

1991-95 (most of it went to Mexico and Canada).

Thus the ability of the export market to absorb a significant share of the surplus HFCS production may be

limitedat least in the short term. 

Fats and Oils 

U.S. per capita consumption of added fats and oils

(shortening, salad and cooking oils, lard, and edible

tallow) and dairy fats (butter, sour cream, fluid cream,

and cream cheese) is among the highest in the world.

In 1995, average consumption, after adjusting for

waste and spoilage, was 59 fat grams per person per

day. These fats are consumed in addition to those that

naturally occur (such as in meats, dairy products, and

nuts), which were not directly measured. 

Adjustments in the added fats and oils sector are the

most complex that the agricultural sector would face

if it were to parallel the Food Guide Pyramid. Reducing total fat intake to the suggested upper limit of 30

percent of calories would imply a sharp reduction in

the consumption of both added edible fats and oils as

well as naturally occurring fats. This section reports

adjustments in the added fats and oils market (adjustments in naturally occurring fats are considered in the

Meat, Poultry, and Fish and Dairy sections). To

meet suggested dietary limits for total fat intake, average consumption of edible fats would need to decline

by an estimated 36 percent.6 Such a reduction would

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 9

Table 6—Added Fats and Oils: Projected Changes in Supply, Demand, and Prices Implied by 

Pyramid Serving Recommendations 

Item Soybeans Soybean oil Soybean meal Other fats

and oils

Supply components:

Domestic production ê êêê

Imports * * é *

Demand components:

Food use 1 * ê * ê

Exports é éêé

Industrial use é é * é

Prices ê êéê

*These uses are relatively small and were not evaluated.

1 Soybeans and soybean meal are used mainly for animal feed.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

6According to food supply nutrient data for 1994, added fats

and oils accounted for 52 percent of the total fat (grams) provided

by the food supply. Assuming that added edible fats and oils continue to account for about the same share of total daily fat grams,

the quantity of added fats and oils would have to decline by 36

percent to bring consumption of added fats to 38 grams (73 grams

of total fat multiplied by 0.52 equals 38 grams of added fats and

oils). That would bring total fat grams close to the recommended

upper limit of 30 percent of calories for a 2,200-calorie diet.
contrast sharply with the 0.5-percent increase in per

capita consumption of these fats between 1991 and

1995.

Reductions in edible fat and oil consumption will

have the largest impact on the soybean sector and its

related industries (table 6) since soybean oil dominates the U.S. added fats and oils market (table 7).

The major U.S. soybean-producing regions are the

Midwestern and Delta States (fig. 4).

Soybean Oil Because most soybean oil consumed

in the United States is produced domestically, a 36-

percent reduction in domestic soyoil demand would

disrupt the soybean market severely. Without offsetting market adjustments, soyoil production would

need to decline by 2 million tons in order to match the

reduced domestic demand. Soybean acreage would

then have to decrease 20 percent, or 12 million acres,

to a level comparable with the early 1970s (48 million acres). 

However, a reduction of this magnitude is not likely

to occur. Market forces likely would limit the reduction in soybean production to less than 3 million

acres. For example, reducing soyoil production would

be complicated by the fact that the same soybeans that

are crushed for soyoil also yield soybean meal, a

high-protein animal feed particularly important to

poultry and hog production. Soybean meal typically

accounts for more than half the value of processed

soybeans. 

10 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

02468

Nebraska

Ohio

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Iowa

Minnesota

Indiana

Missouri

Arkansas

South Dakota

Kansas

Mississippi

Michigan

North Carolina

Louisiana

Kentucky

Planted area (million acres)

Illinois

Tennessee

Midwestern States Are Major Soybean Producers

Figure 4

Table 7—The Soybean Sector, 1991-95

Production:

Soybeans (million bushels) 2,148

Soybean oil (million tons) 7.3

Soybean meal (million tons) 31.3

Exports:

Soybeans (million bushels) 746

Soybean oil (million tons) .8

Soybean meal (million tons) 6.2

Planted area:

Soybeans (million acres) 60.6

Soyoil's share of added fat and oil supplies:

Baking or frying fats (percent) 79

Margarine (percent) 93

Salad or cooking oil (percent) 82

Other added fats (percent) 40

Total added fats and oils (percent) 81

Source: Sanford, 1996.
Lower soyoil prices could cause a reduction of soybean acreage. However, any reduction could be offset

by the livestock industry, which would bid up soymeal prices in an attempt to maintain supplies of highprotein feeds. In addition, the relatively higher meal

prices would encourage farmers to shift to alternative

soybean varieties that have a higher meal-to-oil content. As soyoil prices decline, alternative uses for soyoil, like biofuel, may also become profitable. This in

turn, would limit price declines for soyoil and acreage

declines for soybeans. 

Increasing soyoil exports by the entire 2 million tons

of surplus oil generated by changing diets would more

than double current U.S. soyoil exports from the

1991-95 average of less than 0.8 million tons. With

total world soyoil trade at about 5 million tons in

1991-95, exports of this magnitude would affect the

world market. World soyoil prices would decline, and

make soyoil even more competitive with other fats

and oils. The U.S. share of the world soyoil market

has declined dramatically over the past 30 years.

Presumably, lower soyoil prices would make U.S.

producers more competitive on world markets and

might help recapture a portion of lost market shares. 

Other Fats and Oils The use and prices of 

other fats and oils would decline substantially to 

meet the Pyramid dietary recommendations. A reduction or elimination of importswhich would mostly

affect supplies of tropical oils (palm, coconut, and

others), olive oil, and canola oilscould reduce

adjustment pressures on the domestic fats and oils

sector. Reducing imports of tropical oils, which are

relatively high in saturated fat, may improve the nutrient profile of supplies of added oils (fig. 5). However,

reducing or eliminating imports of olive and canola

oils contrasts with current trends. Widespread publicity surrounding the health benefits of those oils has

helped to more than double consumption over the past

10 years. 

Surpluses of both soybean oil and other domestically

produced fats and oils also could be diverted to industrial uses. Animal and vegetable fats are used in a

wide variety of industrial applications, including

printing inks, soaps, cosmetics, lubricants, paints and

varnishes, solvents, resins, plastics, and fuel additives.

Although less than 3 percent of total edible fats and

oils were used in industrial applications in 1991-95

(Sanford, 1996), the lower oil prices that would result

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 11

Coconut oil

Palm oil

Cottonseed oil

Peanut oil

Soybean oil

Olive oil

Corn oil

Sunflower oil

Canola oil

Butter 1

Edible tallow

Lard

1

Fat content per 100 grams

0 20 40 60 80

Saturated fat Polyunsaturated fat Monounsaturated fat

 In addition to fat, butter contains water, protein, and carbohydrates.

Source: USDA, ARS, Nutrient Data Laboratory, 1998.

Figure 5

Nutrient Profile of Edible Fats and Oils Differs by Product

Palm kernel
from a large reduction in food consumption of fats

and oils could expand industrial uses. 

Vegetables

Increasing per capita vegetable consumption to meet

the minimum Pyramid serving recommendation for a

2,200-calorie diet would require adjustments in both

the quantities and types of vegetables supplied to the

U.S. marketplace. Larger changes would take place

for certain commodity subgroupsnotably dry beans,

peas, and lentils, and dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetablesthan for others.

The net increase in average vegetable consumption

needed to meet the Pyramid recommendations is less

than 10 percent. However, average diets would

include more than four times as many dark-green

leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, three times as many

dry beans, peas, and lentils, and fewer servings of

starchy (mostly potatoes) and other vegetables. These

changes differ considerably from consumption trends

for these food groups during 1991-95.

A net increase of 2-3 million acres of vegetables

would be needed to produce the additional 9 billion

pounds (farm weight) of vegetables that would be

needed to provide all Americans with four average

daily servings of vegetables recommended by the

Food Guide Pyramid. This net change would include

a 1.5-million-acre expansion in harvested acreage of

dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, a 2.7-

million-acre expansion of legume (dry beans, peas,

and lentils) acreage, and as much as a 1.5-million-acre

reduction in harvested acreage of starchy and other

vegetables. Significant price adjustments would be

needed to draw land from other crops and to induce

these land use adjustments. Labor and other resource

constraints could also be problematic as producers

shift from relatively low-labor crops like potatoes, to

more perishable commodities, like lettuce and other

dark-green leafy vegetables, which generally require

additional labor and handling during harvest and marketing. 

Although some U.S. regions, such as California, have

distinct climate and soil advantages, vegetables are

grown in a variety of locations (fig. 6). The anticipated adjustments could be spread across a wide geographic region. Some of the increase in domestic supplies might be achieved by switching the types of

crops produced in existing agricultural areas. For

example, the sugar beet area in the Upper Midwest

and Pacific Northwest is well suited for production of

12 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

California

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Florida

Washington

Texas

New York

Georgia

Michigan

Other

Planted area (1,000 acres)

Figure 6

Vegetables Are Grown in Most States, But California Leads Production
legumes and cool season dark-green leafy and deepyellow vegetables (the Northwest is already a major

legume producer). In addition, some sugarcane areas

in south Florida could accommodate production of

tender season vegetables during the winter months. 

Areas that produce soybeans could also be converted

to vegetable production. Vegetable production might

also take over land previously used for corn sweetener

production. However, provisions of the 1996 Farm

Act that restrict planting of fruits and vegetables on

acreage enrolled in commodity income-support programs (contract acreage) would limit such an expansion onto contract land (until at least 2002). Depending on market conditions, shifts of soybean and corn

area to vegetable production may also be curbed by

higher feed grain prices from expanded production of

lowfat dairy products, poultry, and lean meats (see

also the Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and

Nuts and Grains sections, pages 18 and 20).

Trade adjustments could also boost domestic supplies of vegetables, particularly fresh winter vegetables. Mexico is already the main import supplier 

of fresh winter vegetables for the United States (fig.

7), and low-cost imports likely would capture at least

a portion of the increased vegetable consumption

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 13

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Snap beans

Cucumbers

Eggplant

Peppers

Summer squash

1995 imports (billion pounds)

Tomatoes

Mexico

Others

Figure 7

Mexico Is The Main Import Source of Fresh Winter Season Vegetables in the U.S. Market

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Table 8—The Vegetable Sector, 1992-951

Million pounds

Production:

Dark-green leafy and 

deep-yellow vegetables 11,830

Dry beans, peas, and lentils 3,125

Potatoes and starchy vegetables 53,880

Other vegetables 49,750

Imports:

Dark-green leafy and

deep-yellow vegetables 570

Dry beans, peas, and lentils 145

Potatoes and starchy vegetables 1,050

Other vegetables 3,840

Exports:

Dark-green leafy and

deep-yellow vegetables 450

Dry beans, peas, and lentils 1,150

Potatoes and starchy vegetables 2,600

Other vegetables 3,950

1,000 acres

Harvested area:

Dark-green leafy and

deep-yellow vegetables 430

Dry beans, peas, and lentils 2,100

Potatoes and starchy vegetables 2,400

Other vegetables 1,630

1 Comprehensive data are not available for 1991.

Source: Lucier, 1996.
(OBrien, 1995). More U.S. producers would probably invest in Mexican operations as a way of meeting

the U.S. demand. 

At the same time, additional supplies would become

available as higher vegetable prices would divert current vegetable exports to the domestic market. In

1992-95, the United States exported approximately

7.5 billion pounds (farm weight) of fresh, processed,

and frozen vegetables, excluding dry beans, peas, and

lentils. In addition, more than one-quarter of dry bean

production and over half of dry pea and lentil output

were exported in 1992-95, primarily to Canada, suggesting that the United States already has the production capacity to meet at least a portion of the required

increase in legume supplies. However, the adjustment

process would be complicated by the close integration

of the U.S. and Canadian markets and the dependence

of the Canadian market on U.S. vegetables; approximately 60 percent of Canadian vegetable imports

come from the United States. Prices in Canadian markets would rise as consumers reacted to any supply

reduction resulting from reduced imports from the

United States. 

Fruits

Fruit consumption for a 2,200-calorie diet would more

than double if the average U.S. diet were to meet the

Pyramid serving recommendations. Consumption of

citrus, melons, and berries would need to increase by

150 percent, and supplies of other fruits would need

to increase by 114 percent. These targets contrast

sharply with recent trends, with total fruit consumption (excluding wine grapes) increasing only 5 percent

between 1981-85 and 1991-95. 

Increased fruit demand would cause fruit prices to rise

and, in turn, increase domestic fruit production and

imports (table 11). Meeting the projected consumption

increase with domestic production alone would imply

14 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 10—The Fruit Sector, 1991-95

Million pounds

Production:

Citrus fruits 27,750

Melons and berries 7,650

Other fruits 33,300

Imports:

Citrus fruits 400

Melons and berries 1,200

Other fruits 10,300

Fruit juice (million gallons, singlestrength equivalent) 540

Exports:

Citrus fruits 2,600

Melons and berries 600

Other fruits 2,570

Fruit juice (million gallons, singlestrength equivalent) 180

1,000 acres

Harvested acres:

Citrus fruits 940

Melons and berries 480

Other fruits 1,880

Source: Calvin, 1996.

Table 9—Vegetables: Projected Changes in Supply, Demand, and Prices Implied by Pyramid Serving Recommendations

Dark-green leafy Dry beans, Starchy Other

and deep-yellow peas, and vegetables vegetables

Item vegetables lentils

Supply components:

Domestic production é é êê

Imports é * **

Demand components:

Food use é é êê

Exports * ê * *

Industrial use * * **

Prices é é êê

*These uses are relatively small and the impacts were not evaluated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
a 3- to 4-million-acre increase in total fruit area and

would require lead times of 3-5 years for the trees to

begin bearing fruits. Additional production may also

be limited by the availability of labor as producers

shift from less labor-intensive crops, like oilseeds,

corn, or sugar beets.

Citrus, Melons, and Berries To meet the Pyramid

standards, consumers would have to increase their

intake of citrus fruits, melons, and berries. An increase in melon and berry production by 0.5 to 0.75

million acres could occur quickly. However, domestic

expansion would be more difficult for citrus crops.

U.S. citrus production is limited by environmental

constraints, such as susceptibility to freezes, and to

extreme southern locations of Florida, California,

Arizona, and Texas (fig. 8). Sufficient land in these

regions may not be available to support the required

expansion in citrus area, regardless of any price

increase. Some area currently devoted to sugarcane in

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Figure 8

Four States Lead Fruit Production in the United States

California

Washington

Michigan

New York

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Florida

California

Arizona

Texas

Production (billion pounds)

Noncitrus fruits

Citrus fruits

Table 11—Fruits: Projected Changes in Supply, Demand, and Prices Implied by Pyramid Serving Recommendations

Item Citrus fruits Melons and berries Other fruits

Supply components:

Domestic production é éé

Imports é éé

Demand components:

Food use é éé

Exports ê êê

Industrial use * **

Prices é éé

*These uses are relatively small and the impacts were not evaluated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
Texas and southern Florida could potentially be shifted to citrus production, although total sugarcane area

in these two States would provide less than half of the

land needed to boost citrus production. And, additional citrus production in California and Arizona may be

limited by water availability.

Other Fruits Increasing supplies of other fruit

would be less constrained by climatic concerns,

because production of these fruits is scattered more

widely throughout the country. Any price increase

would induce increases in domestic production. Sugar

beet area in Michigan and Ohio would be well suited

for additional production of apples, cherries, and

grapes, which are already grown in these regions.

Land planted to soybeans could also be appropriate

for fruit production. 

Pears, peaches, and plums could be grown in sugarcane areas of Louisiana and Texas. However, like citrus fruits, long lead times would be needed for new

trees to begin bearing fruits. Also, high transportation

costs and pest problems in Hawaii and water constraints in California and Arizona may limit expansion

in these areas. In addition, labor constraints could be

encountered in all markets.

Trade Implications Given the land, labor, and climate constraints that may limit expanded fruit production in the United States (and the time lag associated

with expanding fruit production), trade adjustments

would likely play an important role in meeting

increased consumer demand for fruits. The United

States imported about 28 percent of total fruit supplies, including juices, in 1991-95. Brazil is the most

likely supplier of additional citrus imports. However,

citrus imports currently are limited by high tariffs. If

higher prices in the U.S. market are combined with

lower tariffs, imports from countries such as Brazil

could increase. Trade agreements, such as the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the

Uruguay Round Agreement, will be particularly

important in limiting price increases as lower trade

barriers increase the availability and affordability of

fruit imports.

Higher domestic fruit prices could also divert fruits to

the domestic market that are currently exported by

U.S. producers. In 1991-95, approximately 5.8 billion

pounds of fruits and fruit juices (fresh-weight equivalent) were exported. Diverting that amount to domestic consumption would help close the gap between

actual and needed supplies. As with vegetables, any

significant reduction in exports would create a price

increase in export markets, particularly in Canada and

in Japan (which would tend to reverse some of the initial reduction in exports).

Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese 

Dairy product consumption would need to grow by 22

percent in order for average diets to meet the Pyramid

serving recommendations for the milk, yogurt, and

cheese group. However, most of the growth likely

would come from reduced-fat or nonfat versions of

existing dairy foods, as consumers turn away from

regular dairy products that are naturally high in fat,

saturated fat, and cholesterol. 

16 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 12—The Dairy Sector, 1991-95

Million pounds

Production 151,600

Imports 2,750

Exports 5,670

Milk products:

American cheese 2,950

Other cheese 3,590

Nonfat dry milk 1,030

Butter 1,320

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, March 1997a.

Table 13—Dairy: Projected Changes in Supply,

Demand, and Prices Implied by Pyramid Serving

Recommendations

Item Lowfat milk products Dairy fats

Supply components:

Domestic production é ê

Imports é *

Demand components:

Food use é ê

Exports * é

Industrial use * é

Prices é ê

*These uses are relatively small, and the impacts were not 

evaluated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
With the exception of certain imported cheeses, the

United States produces nearly all of its own dairy

products. The United States exported less than 5 percent of total dairy production (milkfat, milk-equivalent basis) during 1991-95 (table 12). Therefore, most

of the increase in dairy supplies could be expected to

come from U.S. farms. 

Milk production has grown about 8 percent over the

past 10 years. Even though the number of cows

decreased by 15 percent, output per cow rose nearly

17 percent (fig. 9). Milk yield per cow is projected to

grow 20 percent between 1995 and 2005 (Westcott,

1997). The projected increase in milk production per

cow, combined with a 5- to 10- percent increase in the

size of the U.S. dairy herd over 1991-95 levels

(Westcott, 1997), would provide a sufficient increase

in raw milk supplies to meet the Pyramid targets for

dairy consumption. Additional supplies of milk could

be made available by reducing production of high-fat

products, such as butter or sour cream. However, the

skimmed milkfats would need to be diverted to other

uses. 

The projected increase in herd size would imply an

increased demand for feed in the form of pasture, hay,

feedgrains, soymeal, and other protein feeds, which

would tend to increase demand and prices for these

products. Sufficient land is available for expanding

pasture and hay production. However, dairy farms

tend to be located close to population centers, because

milk is bulky and highly perishable. As a result, the

supply of pastureland could be limited in some

regions. 

Increased demand for lowfat dairy foods in the United

States may cause a portion of the surplus milkfat to

end up on the export market, either in the form of butter or cheese, or alone as an ingredient for other food

products. The United States is not a major exporter of

dairy products. However, a substantial fall in domestic

prices for milkfats would create export opportunities.

To improve these opportunities and to support domestic prices, producers likely would seek increases in

export-support programs, such as the Dairy Export

Incentive Program (DEIP). However, the extent to

which such programs can be expanded is limited by

budget constraints and existing trade agreements. For

example, under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement,

the United States cannot expand funding for DEIP

beyond the agreed levels, which are already being

met. However, despite these limits, the value of milkfats is likely to decline to levels that would make

them competitive on world markets without any subsidies.

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 17

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Source: Westcott, 1997.

Billion pounds

Million cows

1,000 pounds per cow

Figure 9

Milk Production Continues To Increase While Herd Size Declines

Projected

Milk production

 (right scale) Output per cow

 (left scale)

Milk cows

(left scale)

2005

120

110

130

180

170

160

150

140
18 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

As the price of dairy fats declines, alternative industrial uses for butterfat would become profitable. If dairy

fats entered the industrial market, competition with

other fats and oils could become more intense (see

Fats and Oils discussion, page 9). If prices became

low enough, dairy fats could also become a viable

ingredient in livestock feed.

Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans,

Eggs, and Nuts 

Meeting the Pyramid serving recommendations for

the meat group (meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, and

nuts group)7 would require adjustments in both the

quantity and composition of protein foods currently

supplied to the U.S. marketplace. Specific commodity

shifts are difficult to quantify, because the Pyramid

does not make serving recommendations for individual foods within the meat group. However, the consumption of lean foods is emphasized. 

For a 2,200-calorie diet, the Pyramid recommends that

each person consume on average about 6 ounces of

cooked lean meat, with all visible fat removed. This

serving can also come from other foods in this

group1 egg, 2 tablespoons of peanut butter, or 1/3

cup of nuts are counted as equivalent to 1 ounce of

cooked lean meat.

Meat, Poultry, and Fish The Food Guide Pyramid

emphasizes lean meat products. And if consumers

continue recent consumption patterns, they will meet

the suggested 5-percent increase in servings from the

meat group. 

Consumers have become increasingly concerned

about saturated fat and cholesterol since the 1980s.

Consumer concerns, as well as shifts in relative meat

prices, have reduced consumption of beef relative to

pork and poultry and increased demand for lower fat

meat products of all types (fig. 10).

As diets shift toward the Pyramid recommendations,

poultry production likely will continue to increase its

market share, while the cattle and hog sectors likely

will build on existing breeding and management techniques that have already reduced the fat content of

their products. For example, meat processors and

packers have created lower fat products at the meat

counter by trimming meat closer. Retail beef and pork

cuts now have roughly 30 percent less trimmable fat

than in the 1980s (Putnam and Duewer, 1995). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Beef

Figure 10

Beef Is Still America’s Most Popular Meat, But Chicken Is Gaining

Pounds per capita per year

Fish

Pork

Chicken

Turkey

1 Boneless, trimmed-weight equivalent.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

1

7Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted in either the meat

or vegetable group. For consistency with other dietary assessments, these foods were counted in the vegetable group in this

study.
Increased demand for lean meats would raise retail

prices for these cuts, while higher fat products would

move to pet food, industrial uses, or export markets.

Such a shift would have a measurable effect on the

grain sector. More than a third of U.S. grain production is used domestically for animal feed. Higher

demand for lean meats would raise the number of animals needed to produce a pound of meat, implying an

equivalent increase in the demand for feed grains and

high-protein supplements like soymeal. The magnitude of this adjustment would depend largely on the

mix of products in the new supplies. Poultry production uses roughly half the feedgrains and oilseeds per

pound of meat produced as pork production uses, and

a quarter of the feedstuffs required to produce beef

(OBrien, 1995). Substantial increases in poultry consumption relative to beef or pork could reduce the size

of the adjustments on the grain and soybean sectors

(see Grains discussion, page 20).

Changes in meat trade could help ease the adjustments

faced by domestic agriculture. 

An increased demand for lean meats would cause surpluses of fatty meat parts, such as organ meats, chicken legs, and meat trimmings, which could be exported. Rising incomes in other countries have increased

exports of these types of meat products in recent years

to Asia, Russia, and Mexico. However, economic difficulties in Asia and Russia in 1998 slowed export

demand in these markets.

Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts Other sectors in the

meat group will likely not be significantly affected as

diets move toward the Pyramid serving recommendations. Peanuts, tree nuts, and eggs together provided

about 12 percent of servings from the meat group in

1991-95. If consumers reduced nut consumption

(especially in the form of peanut butter) as a means of

reducing fat intake, nut acreage (especially for

peanuts) would decrease. However, such a consumption change would not have a measurable impact on

total food production, since tree nuts and peanuts

accounted for only 3 percent of total meat group servings and provided less than 4 percent of the total

dietary fat available in the food supply in 1994. (Dry

beans, peas, and lentils, and soy products are discussed in the Vegetables and Fats and Oils sections on pages 12 and 9.)

Eggs will likely remain a steady but small share of

total meat group servings, continuing the pattern

established since 1990. Processed egg products may

continue to account for a growing share of total egg

consumption. Many processed egg products provide

all of the protein contained in a regular shell egg, but

they contain little cholesterol or saturated fat because

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 19

Table 14—The Meat Sector, 1991-95

Million pounds

Beef1:

Production 23,600

Imports 2,300

Exports 1,400

Pork1:

Production 17,100

Imports 700

Exports 500

Poultry1:

Production 27,500

Imports 0

Exports 2,600

Total red meat and poultry1:

Production 68,900

Imports 3,100

Exports 4,500

Fish and shellfish2:

Production 3,260

Imports 2,150

Exports 1,560

1 Carcass weight.

2 Edible meat weight.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, March 1997b.

Table 15—Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and

Nuts: Projected Changes in Supply, Demand, and Prices

Implied by Pyramid Serving Recommendations

Item Lean meats, poultry, Animal fats

and fish

Supply components:

Domestic production é ê

Imports é *

Demand components:

Food use é ê

Exports ê é

Industrial use * é

Prices é ê

*These uses are relatively small, and the impacts were not 

evaluated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
they are made mostly with egg whites. Egg yolks are

largely recovered for pet food and other uses.

Grains 

Average servings for the grain group already meet the

minimum Pyramid recommendations. As a result,

changes in food grain use, such as for flour, pasta, and

rice, will be relatively minor, resulting mainly from

increased demand for whole grain foods. Grain sector

adjustments will occur largely in the feed grains sector and will be closely linked to developments in the

sweetener, oilseed, meat, and poultry industries.

Increased planting flexibility under the 1996 Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act could help

to facilitate feed sector adjustments by allowing producers to shift acreage between soybeans and feed

grains in response to changing price incentives. There

is some evidence that farmers are already exercising

such flexibility (Westcott and Young, 1997).

Feed Use With more than one-third of total agricultural area in the United States devoted to feed grain

production for domestic use, even a small increase in

demand for meat or poultry products implies measurable adjustments in the feed grain sector (table 16).

Increased poultry consumption, relative to red meat,

for example, would increase demand for both feed

grains (mostly corn) and oilseeds (mostly soymeal)

(table 17). Meeting this demand shift domestically

would require an additional 2-5 million acres to

increase feed grain output. Up to 2 million additional

acres of feed grain production could occur as producers shift from lower priced feed grains to higher

priced soybean meal. Leaner red meats can be produced without an accompanying increase in feed grain

demand through more efficient hog and cattle feeding

(Nelson, 1987).

Corn Sweetener Use Higher feed grain prices relative to corn sweeteners would induce producers to

shift field corn production from corn sweeteners to

feed use. About 660 million bushels of corn, or about

8 percent of total field corn output, were used annually in 1991-95 to produce HFCS and other corn sweeteners (table 16). A 60-percent reduction in the demand

for corn sweeteners implied by the Pyramid recommendations would reduce the sweetener industrys

total field corn use about by 400 million bushels, or

by about 3 million harvested acres (see Caloric

Sweeteners discussion, page 6). 

Given such a demand shift, corn supplies presently

used for sweeteners likely would move into alternative uses. For example, corn supplies could be used to

fill the feed grain deficit created by expanded meat

and dairy production. Depending on relative prices,

strong world demand could bid up export prices, and

the domestic surplus of field corn for feed grain could

be diverted to world markets instead of domestic supplies. It is unlikely that all of the surplus would end

up in export markets, however. Even if all of the surplus corn generated by a drop in corn sweetener

demand went to the export market, the 23-percent

increase in corn exports implied by such a shift would

be well within the bounds of the average annual variation in U.S. corn exports during 1991-95.

Nonsweetener Food Use With average consumption of wheat flour and other grain products already

close to recommended levels, adjustments in non20 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 16—The Grains Sector, 1991-95

Million bushels

Corn:

Production 8,150

Imports 15

Exports 1,800

Feed and other nonfood 5,770

Sweetener use 660

Food use 160

Wheat:

Production 2,270

Imports 80

Exports 1,260

Feed use 240

Seed use 100

Food use 850

Barley, oats, rye, sorghum:

Production 1,270

Imports 130

Exports 315

Feed and other nonfood 1,430

Food use 90

Million hundredweight

Rice:

Production 170

Imports 6

Exports 80

Nonfood use 30

Food use 70

Million acres

Planted area:

Corn 75.8

Wheat 70.7

Rice 3.1

Barley, oats, rye, and sorghum 23.9

Sources: Childs, 1996; Riley and Baker, 1997; and Schwartz, 1997.
sweetener food grain use likely will be relatively

small. Increased consumption of foods made from

whole grains will likely increase the share of grain

foods (like wheat and rice) consumed in their wholegrain form and decrease production of more refined,

less fiber-dense grain products (like white rice and

white flour). Such changes would occur more at the

milling, rather than production, level. 

However, increased consumption of whole-grain

foods could prompt changes in food grain demand.

For example, more whole-grain product can be

extracted per pound of grain1 pound of wheat, for

example, yields 0.98 pound of whole wheat flour,

compared with 0.74 pound of white flour. With over

30 million acres of cropland used to produce grain for

nonsweetener food use (including oats, barley, wheat,

and rice), even a 1- to 2-percent change in food grain

demand could reduce total grain area by as much as

0.5 million acres.

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 21

Table 17—Grains: Projected Changes in Supply, Demand, and Prices Implied by Pyramid Serving Recommendations

Item Feed grains Food grains

From From oilseed From meat

sweeteners production and dairy

Supply components:

Domestic production ê é éé

Imports * * **

Demand components:

Food use ê * * é

Exports é -- -- --

Industrial uses * * **

Prices ê é éé

*These uses are relatively small, and the impacts were not evaluated.

-- = No change.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Nebraska

Ohio

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Iowa

Indiana

Missouri

South Dakota

Kansas

Michigan

North Carolina

Kentucky

Planted area (million acres)

Wisconsin

Texas

Colorado

Georgia

New York

North Dakota

Minnesota

Figure 11

Corn Is Produced Across a Wide Geographic Area

Illinois

Tennessee

Pennsylvania
This report examines potential adjustments in agricultural production, trade, industrial uses, and prices of

various commodities implied by the full adoption by

U.S. consumers of dietary serving recommendations

set forth in the Food Guide Pyramid. 

While the net change in planted acreage resulting

from these dietary shifts is projected to be relatively

small (about 2 percent of total U.S. crop area), large

adjustments are forecast for some commodities, like

sweeteners, fats and oils, fruits, and some vegetables.

For some commodity sectors, like sugarcane, where

production is concentrated in a few regions, the large

adjustments forecast nationally would have significant

regional impacts. 

The economics of the adjustment within many sectors

is complex. This analysis focused on major adjustments within and between subsectors. For example,

significant reductions in the use of sweeteners and fats

and oils would dramatically lower the value of these

products. The lower prices would make these products

more competitive in export and industrial markets.

Increased demand for fruits, dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables, and lowfat meats and dairy products

will pressure prices upward, potentially raising total

food costs to consumers. Price increases for citrus

fruits could be particularly large if supply adjustments

are restricted by available land or import constraints.

While our estimates of potential agricultural sector

adjustments are inexact, they approximate the types

and magnitudes of the adjustments that the agricultural sector might face as diets change. 

22 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusion
American Dietetic Association. 1997 Nutrition

Trends Survey: Key Findings, Available:

<http://www.eatright.org/press090397.html> Sept. 11,

1998.

Aillery, Marcel, Robbin Shoemaker, and Margriet

Caswell. Restoring the Everglades: Challenges for

Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook, AO-244, Sept.

1977.

Calvin, Linda (coordinator). Fruit and Tree Nuts:

Situation and Outlook Yearbook, FTS-278. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Oct. 1996.

Childs, Nathan (coordinator). Rice: Situation and

Outlook Yearbook, RCS-1996. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Nov. 1996.

Cleveland, L.E., S.M. Krebs-Smith, D.A. Cook, J.

Friday, and L. Kahle. Method for Assessing Food

Intakes in Terms of Food Guidance, American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 65 (supplement),

April 1997.

Cleveland, L.E., S.M. Krebs-Smith, D.A. Cook, J.

Friday, and L. Kahle. Assessing Food Intake in

Terms of Food Guidance Based Servings, Presented

at the Second International Conference on Dietary

Assessment Methods, Boston, MA, Jan. 1995.

Cronin, Frances J., Anne M. Shaw, Susan M. KrebsSmith, Patricia M. Marsland, and Luise Light.

Developing a Food Guidance System to Implement

the Dietary Guidelines, Journal of Nutrition

Education, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1987.

Frazao, Elizabeth. The American Diet: Health and

Economic Consequences, AIB-711. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Feb.

1995.

Frazao, Elizabeth. The Health and Economic

Consequences of the American Diet, Americas

Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences, AIB-750,

Elizabeth Frazao, ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, April 1999.

Frazao, Elizabeth, and Jane E. Allshouse. Size and

Growth of the Nutritionally Improved Foods Market,

AIB-723. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, April 1996.

Kantor, Linda Scott. Many Americans Are Not

Meeting Food Guide Pyramid Dietary Recommendations, FoodReview, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Volume 

19, Issue 1, January-April 1996. 

Kantor, Linda Scott. Comparison with the Food

Guide Pyramid, Americas Eating Habits: Changes

and Consequences, AIB-750, Elizabeth Frazao, ed.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, April 1999.

Kantor, Linda Scott. A Dietary Assessment of the U.S.

Food Supply: Comparing Per Capita Food

Consumption with Food Guide Pyramid Serving

Recommendations, AER-772. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Dec. 1998.

Krebs-Smith, Susan M., D. Annetta Cook, Amy F.

Subar, Linda Cleveland, and James Friday. US

Adults Fruit and Vegetable Intakes, 1989 to 1991: A

Revised Baseline for the Healthy People 2000

Objective, American Journal of Public Health, Vol.

85, No. 12, Dec. 1995, pp. 1623-29.

Krebs-Smith, S.M., D.A. Cook, A.F. Subar, L.

Cleveland, J. Friday, L.L. Kahle. Fruit and Vegetable

Intakes of Children and Adolescents in the United

States, Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine,

Vol. 150, 1996, pp. 81-86.

Krebs-Smith, Susan M., Linda E. Cleveland, Rachel

Ballard-Barbash, D. Annetta Cook, and Lisa L. Kahle.

Characterizing Food Intake Patterns of American

Adults, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol.

65 (suppl), 1997, pp. 1264S-8S. 

Lord, Ronald (coordinator). Sugar and Sweeteners:

Situation and Outlook Yearbook, SSSV21N4. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Dec. 1996.

Lord, Ron.U.S. Sugar Consumption Continues To

Grow, Agricultural Outlook, AO-238, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, March 1997.

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 23

References
Lucier, Gary (coordinator). Vegetables and

Specialties: Situation and Outlook Yearbook, VGS269. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, July 1996.

Moore, William, and Peter Buzzanell. Trends in U.S.

Soft Drink ConsumptionDemand Implications for

Low-Calorie and Other Sweeteners, Sugar and

Sweeteners: Situation and Outlook Report, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Sept. 1991.

Munoz, Kathryn A., Susan M. Krebs-Smith, Rachel

Ballard-Barbash, and Linda E. Cleveland. Food

Intakes of US Children and Adolescents Compared

with Recommendations, Pediatrics, Vol. No. 3, Sept.

1997, pp. 323-29.

National Research Council. Recommended Dietary

Allowances, 10th ed. Wash, DC: National Academy

Press. 1989.

Nelson, Ken, L.A. Duewer, and T. L. Crawford.

Reevaluation of the Carcass-to-Retail Weight

Conversion Factor, AER-623. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1987.

OBrien, Patrick. Dietary Shifts and Implications for

US Agriculture, American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, Vol. 61 (suppl), 1995, pp.1390-96S.

Putnam, Judith Jones, and Jane E. Allshouse. Food

Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-95, SB939. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Aug. 1997.

Putnam, Judith Jones, and Lawrence A. Duewer. U.S.

Per Capita Food Consumption: Record-High Meat

and Sugars in 1994, FoodReview, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Vol. 18,

Issue 2, May-August 1995.

Riley, Peter A., and Allen E. Baker (coordinators).

Feed: Situation and Outlook Yearbook, FDS-1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, March 1997.

Sanford, Scott (coordinator). Oil Crops Yearbook,

OCS-1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, Oct. 1996.

Schwartz, Sara J. (coordinator). Wheat: Situation and

Outlook Yearbook, WHS-1997. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, March

1997.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Manufacturers, Economics and Statistics Administration.

1992 Census of Manufacturers, Industry Series: 

Grain Mill Products, MC921-1-20D, 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service, Nutrient Data Laboratory. Nutrient Database

for Standard Reference, Release 12, Available:

<http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/> November

1998.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. Dairy Yearbook, Available (under ERS

Data Bases): <http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/

dataprod.htm> March 1997a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. Red Meat Yearbook, Available (under

ERS Databases): <http://www.econ.ag.gov/

Prodsrvs/dataprod.htm> March 1997b.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. Nutrition and Your

Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 4th ed.

Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232. 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition

Policy and Promotion. The Food Guide Pyramid,

Home and Garden Bulletin Number 252. Oct. 1996.

Westcott, Paul (coordinator). Agricultural Baseline

Projections to 2005, Reflecting the 1996 Farm Act,

Staff Report No. WAOB-97-1. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board, 1997.

Westcott, Paul C., and C. Edwin Young. 1996 Farm

Act Sets Stage for Acreage Shifts. Agricultural

Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Sept. 1997.

Young, C. Edwin, and Paul C. Westcott. The 1996

U.S. Farm Act Increases Market Orientation, AIB726. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, 1996.

24 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA
Citrus, melons, and berries—Acerola, blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries, calamondins, cantaloupes, cassabas, melons, cranberries, elderberries,

gooseberries, grapefruits, honeydew melons, juneberries, kiwifruits, kumquats, lemons, limes, loganberries, mulberries, oranges, raspberries, strawberries,

tangeloes, tangerines, ugli fruits, watermelons, and

juices made from these fruits.

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by

Individuals (CSFII)—Survey conducted by USDAs

Agricultural Research Service. The data provide

national probability estimates of food intake for the

U.S. population, based on food intakes reported by

4,952 individuals 2 years of age and older on 2 nonconsecutive days. 

Contract acreage—Enrolled 1996 commodity base

acreage under the 1996 Farm Act for wheat, feed

grains, upland cotton, and rice. The amount enrolled

is generally fixed for 1996 through 2002, although a

farmer may voluntarily choose to reduce contract

acreage in subsequent years. Land leaving the

Conservation Reserve Program may be entered into a

production flexibility contract if the land had a previous base contract acreage.

Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP)—A program that offers subsidies to exporters of U.S. dairy

products to assist in trade competition with other

nations. Payments are made by USDAs Commodity

Credit Corporation on a bid basis, either in cash or

through certificates redeemable for commodities. The

program was originally authorized by the 1985 Farm

Act and reauthorized in 1990. The 1996 Farm Act

extends the program through 2002.

Dark-green leafy vegetables—Arugula, beet

greens, broccoli, chard, chicory, collard greens, dandelion greens, endive, escarole, grape leaves, kale,

lambsquarters, mustard greens, parsley, poke greens,

romaine lettuce, spinach, taro leaves, turnip greens,

and watercress.

Deep-yellow vegetables—Carrots, pumpkin,

sweet potato, and winter squash.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans—The Dietary

Guidelines summarize the most current scientific evidence on diet and health into recommendations for

healthy Americans 2 years of age and older, and serve

as the basis for Federal nutrition and education programs. The 1995 Dietary Guidelines outline seven

dietary recommendations that consumers should adopt

for better health: (1) eat a variety of foods; (2) balance

the food you eat with physical activity, and maintain

or improve your weight; (3) choose a diet with 

plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits; 

(4) choose a diet low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; (5) choose a diet moderate in sugars; (6) choose 

a diet moderate in salt and sodium; and (7) if you

drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.

Dry beans, peas, and lentils—Bayo beans, black

beans, black-eyed peas, broadbeans, calico beans,

chickpeas (garbanzos), cowpeas, kidney beans, lentils,

lima beans (mature), mung beans, navy beans, pinto

beans, pink beans, red Mexican beans, split peas, soybeans (mature), and white beans.

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Act)—The omnibus food

and agriculture legislation signed into law on April 4,

1996, that provided a 7-year framework (1996-2002)

for USDA to administer various agricultural and food

programs.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT)—An agreement originally negotiated in 1947

to increase international trade by reducing tariffs and

other trade barriers. The agreement provides a code of

conduct for international commerce and a framework

for periodic multilateral negotiations on trade liberalization and expansion. The Uruguay Round Agreement established the World Trade Organization

(WTO) to replace the GATT. The WTO officially

replaced the GATT on January 1, 1995.

High-fructose corn sweetener (HFCS)—

Produced by the enzymatic conversion of a portion of

the glucose in corn syrup to fructose. The product is

roughly equivalent to syrup made from sucrose in

terms of sweetness and physical properties. HFCS is

Economic Research Service/USDA Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 25

Glossary
used as a sweetener in soft drinks and many other

processed food products.

North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA)—A trade agreement involving Canada,

Mexico, and the United States implemented on

January 1, 1994, with a 15-year transition period. The

major agricultural provisions of NAFTA include: (1)

immediate elimination of nontariff barriers, generally

through their conversion to tariff rate quotas or ordinary quotas; (2) elimination of tariffsmany immediately, most within 10 years, and some sensitive products gradually over 15 years; (3) special safeguard

provisions; and (4) country-of-origin rules to ensure

that Mexico does not serve as a platform for exports

from third countries to the United States. 

Oilseeds—Soybeans, sunflowerseed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed.

Other fruits—Apple, apricot, asian pear, avocado,

banana, cherries, currants, dates, figs, genip, guava,

quince, grapes, jackfruit, japanese pear, jobo, lychee,

mamey, mango, nectarine, papaya, passion fruit,

peach, pear, persimmon, plantain, pineapple, plum,

pomegranate, prickly pear, prunes, raisins, rhubarb,

sapodilla, soursop, star fruit, sweetsop, tamarind, wiapple, and juices made from these fruits.

Peanuts—Primarily a food crop in the United States,

but also a source of oil and protein meal.

Cottonseed—A joint product with cotton fiber production, it is a source of oil and meal. Furthermore,

cottonseed can be fed directly to dairy cows.

Planting flexibility—Under the provisions of the

1996 Farm Act, participating producers are permitted

to plant 100 percent of their contract acreage, plus any

other cropland acreage on the farm to any crop, with

no loss in production of flexibility contract payments.

They can retain this planting flexibility as long as the

producer does not violate conservation and wetland

provisions of the Act or plant the land to fruits and

vegetables.

Soyoil—Oil produced from crushing soybeans.

Soybean meal, a high-protein animal feed, is also produced as a byproduct when soybeans are crushed.

Starchy vegetables—Breadfruit, corn, green

beans, hominy, lima beans (immature), potato, rutabaga, and taro.

Uruguay Round Agreement—The Uruguay

Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (UR) under

the auspices of the GATT; a trade agreement designed

to open world agricultural markets. The UR agricultural agreement covers four areas: export subsidies,

market access, internal supports, and sanitary and

phytosanitary rules. The agreement is implemented

over a 6-year period (1995-2000).

26 Moving Toward the Food Guide Pyramid / AER-779 Economic Research Service/USDA