United States Department of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Technical

Bulletin

Number 1946

September 2017

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing 

Commercial Household Scanner Data From 

IRI and Government Survey Data

Megan Sweitzer, Derick Brown, Shawn Karns, 

Mary K. Muth, Peter Siegel, and Chen Zhen
Economic Research Service 

www.ers.usda.gov

United States Department of Agriculture

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Sweitzer, Megan, Derick Brown, Shawn Karns, Mary K. Muth, Peter Siegel, Chen Zhen. 

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From 

IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, September 2017.

Cover is a derivative of images from Getty Images.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy governmentwide standards, ERS requires that all research 

reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer 

review process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical 

background, perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive 

content and clarity of communication during the publication’s review.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines 

vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to 

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call 

(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 

690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
United States Department of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Technical

Bulletin

Number 1946

September 2017

Abstract

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) purchased proprietary household and retail 

scanner data from market research firm IRI for use in economic research. In a series of 

studies, ERS and collaborators evaluated the statistical properties of the IRI scanner data 

for the years 2008 to 2012. This report compares the IRI Consumer Network household 

panel data to nationally representative Government survey data and describes implications for using the IRI data in analyses. The results show that expenditures in IRI are 

lower than those in the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) and the National Food 

Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) for all food categories across all years. 

Keywords: IRI, Consumer Network, scanner data, food at home, food expenditures

Acknowledgments

The authors thank technical peer reviewers Alessandro Bonanno of Colorado State 

University, Ricky Volpe of California Polytechnic State University, and Ilya Rahkovsky 

of USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS). We also thank Lisa Becker and Cheryl 

Bergeon of IRI and Abby Okrent and Jean Buzby of ERS for their contributions and 

input. We also appreciate the editorial and design assistance of Margaret Carter and 

Curtia Taylor of ERS.

About the authors: Megan Sweitzer is an economist with USDA’s Economic Research 

Service. Derick Brown (statistician), Shawn Karns (programmer/analyst), Mary Muth 

(program director and economist), and Peter Siegel (statistician) are employed with RTI 

International. Chen Zhen is an associate professor with the University of Georgia.

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing 

Commercial Household Scanner Data From 

IRI and Government Survey Data

Megan Sweitzer, Derick Brown, Shawn Karns, 

Mary K. Muth, Peter Siegel, and Chen Zhen
ii

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Literature Review.

Data Description and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mapping Food Categories Among Datasets.

IRI Consumer Network Data .

Consumer Expenditure Survey Data .

FoodAPS Data .

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Comparisons by Product Category.

Comparisons Over Time. 

Comparisons Across Demographic Groups. 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

IRI Weighted Weekly Total Expenditure and Standard Errors. 

IRI Weighted Weekly Mean Household Expenditure and Standard Errors. 

Contents
ERS is a primary source 

of economic research and 

analysis from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

providing timely information on economic and policy 

issues related to agriculture, 

food, the environment, and 

rural America.

United States Department of Agriculture

A report summary from the Economic Research Service September 2017

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing 

Commercial Household Scanner Data From 

IRI and Government Survey Data

Megan Sweitzer, Derick Brown, Shawn Karns, Mary K. Muth, 

Peter Siegel, and Chen Zhen

What Is the Issue?

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) purchased proprietary household and retail scanner 

data from market research firm IRI. These data are a valuable resource for food economics 

research, but it is important for researchers to understand the coverage and representativeness 

of these data. Previous ERS research examined the survey methodology and the representativeness of the demographic makeup of the IRI Consumer Network household scanner data. This 

report extends that research by comparing the IRI Consumer Network household data to nationally representative Government survey data and describing implications for using the data in 

food economics research. This report examines the IRI data for 2008 to 2012—the initial years 

of data obtained by ERS. 

What Did the Study Find?

Across 18 food-at-home (FAH) categories, average weekly household expenditures in the 

IRI Consumer Network survey were lower than those in the Consumer Expenditure Survey 

(CE), conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, and in USDA’s 

National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS), with the magnitude of 

the differences varying among categories, over time, and by household demographic factors. 

•	 In the IRI Consumer Network, households reported spending less per week on food 

categories containing unpackaged or random-weight items, including fresh fruits, fresh 

vegetables, and fish and seafood. For example, in 2012, average weekly expenditures on 

fresh vegetables in the IRI Consumer Network were 47 percent of those in CE and 45 

percent of those in FoodAPS.

•	 Expenditures in IRI were more comparable for packaged and Universal Product Code 

(UPC)-labeled products, such as sugar and other sweets, other dairy products, and 

miscellaneous foods. In 2012, average weekly expenditures on sugar and other sweets 

in the IRI Consumer Network were 90 percent of those in CE and 86 percent of those in 

FoodAPS. 

•	 Expenditures in IRI were consistently lower than in CE for each year in the 5-year 

study period, but the differences varied in size across years. Some differences could 

be meaningful in analyses, while others are economically insignificant. For example, 

www.ers.usda.gov

Summary
poultry expenditures in IRI ranged from 66 percent of CE expenditures in 2008 to 76 percent in 2010, a 

10-percent difference; while IRI expenditures on fresh milk and cream were between 69 and 72 percent 

of CE expenditures each year, a 3-percent disparity.

•	 Expenditures in IRI were lower than in CE for some demographic groups, and the size of the differences varied across groups. In particular, as income and household size increased, households in IRI 

showed smaller corresponding increases in expenditures than similar households in CE. 

The results suggest that IRI encounters more difficulty capturing purchases of unpackaged or random-weight 

items than packaged products. Differences in each survey’s design and length of reporting period also likely 

contribute to differences in reported expenditures. The shorter reference periods for the FoodAPS and CE 

surveys appear to lead to a more complete record of household food expenditures, although the panel design 

and level of detail contained in the IRI Consumer Network confer other benefits for economic research. 

Researchers should be aware of these differences when using the IRI Consumer Network for studies focusing 

on such topics as fresh fruits and vegetables or on particular demographic populations, and for those that draw 

conclusions about the overall composition of households’ purchases or diets. Understanding the differences 

in data coverage, the nature of reported differences, and the advantages and disadvantages of using the IRI 

Consumer Network will allow researchers to design suitable studies and draw appropriate conclusions when 

using these data for food economics research. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers from ERS and RTI International compared household expenditures from IRI’s Consumer 

Network to expenditures from the CE and FoodAPS surveys. Food products from IRI and FoodAPS were 

matched to 18 CE food categories to allow consistent comparisons across datasets. The researchers also 

determined the appropriate method for calculating mean and variance estimates in IRI, taking into account 

the survey design. Mean and variance estimates for weekly household expenditures on the 18 food categories 

were calculated for each survey. 

www.ers.usda.gov
1

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing 

Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI 

and Government Survey Data 

Introduction

Proprietary commercial food-purchase data are an increasingly integral resource for food economics 

research. These data, collected through household panels and retail store scanners, have applications 

in USDA research projects and in policy, program, and regulatory analyses. They are an important 

component of research projects studying food demand, food prices, food choices, and diet quality. 

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) purchased household and retail scanner data from 

market research firm IRI for the years 2008 to 2012,1 but little information was available about the 

statistical properties and representativeness of these data. 

This study is one of a series examining the characteristics and properties of the IRI data and establishing necessary public documentation on the datasets. The studies will help researchers determine 

whether the data are suitable for testing certain study hypotheses and facilitate the proper interpretation of empirical results. In an initial ERS report on the IRI data, Muth et al. (2016) examined IRI’s 

survey methodology and the representativeness of the demographic makeup of the household panel. 

This report builds on that work by exploring the IRI household-based scanner data, called Consumer 

Network, in greater detail. 

In this study, the IRI household data are compared to nationally representative Government surveys 

with known sampling designs. Household expenditures from the IRI Consumer Network household 

panel are compared to expenditures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditures 

Survey (CE) and USDA’s National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) for 

18 food product categories. This report also documents the methodology for calculating mean and 

variance estimates from the IRI data, taking into account the survey design. Results of this study 

can aid researchers in understanding the properties and coverage of the IRI data relative to other 

datasets when using the data for economic and policy research.2

Literature Review

Studies have compared household scanner data with data from other sources to understand differences in reporting and other characteristics of households. A set of studies, similar to these examining the IRI data, evaluated the Nielsen Homescan data purchased by ERS for 1998-2010. Zhen 

et al. (2009) found discrepancies in reported expenditures between Nielsen Homescan and CE for 

2002-05, with the largest differences in unpackaged, random-weight foods. Einav, Leibtag, and 

Nevo (2010) compared purchase transactions recorded in Nielsen Homescan to a large grocery 

1 ERS’s initial purchase of data covered 2008-12, with the option to acquire updates for subsequent years of data through 

2016. ERS commissioned five studies to examine the statistical properties of the IRI data using these initial 2008-12 data. As 

of publication, data for 2008-15 were available for use, and ERS will receive data updates through at least 2016. 

2 In another forthcoming study, the authors compare whether differences in expenditures between IRI and CE matter in a 

food demand system.
2

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

chain’s database of the same households and found the degree of measurement error in Homescan 

prices to be similar to those identified in other datasets commonly used by social scientists. 

Comparing results from two choice-based conjoint experiments, Lusk and Brooks (2011) found IRI 

Consumer Network and Nielsen Homescan respondents to be slightly more price sensitive than a 

random sample of the U.S. population. Finally, Boonsaeng and Carpio (2014) estimated a structural 

food demand system for eight food-at-home (FAH) categories using Homescan and the CE Diary 

Survey (the weekly diary component of CE) from 2002 to 2006 and found that estimated demand 

curves based on Homescan are more price elastic than those based on CE. In the United Kingdom, 

Leicester and Oldfield (2009) compared expenditures on 13 food and beverage categories in the 

2005 TNS Worldpanel household scanner data to the 2005 UK Expenditure and Food Survey 

(EFS). The ratio of TNS expenditures to EFS expenditures ranged between 0.576 for alcohol to 

0.859 for butter, oils, and fats. On average, TNS expenditures are about three-quarters of those 

reported in EFS. 

Other studies have compared expenditure estimates across Government datasets, including those 

from the CE Diary Survey. Bee, Meyer, and Sullivan (2012) compared expenditures in the CE Diary 

Survey and the CE Quarterly Interview Survey (the quarterly recall component of CE) separately 

with Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts. The authors found aggregate 

FAH expenditures in the CE Diary Survey to be lower than those in the CE Quarterly Interview 

Survey. The ratio of Diary Survey FAH expenditures to those in PCE ranged between 0.66 and 0.73 

in 1986-2010 (Bee et al., 2012, appendix table 2). The corresponding ratio for the Interview Survey 

was between 0.79 and 0.90 for the same period. The lower aggregate FAH expenditures reported 

in the Diary Survey can be partly attributed to the higher recordkeeping burden on respondents 

compared to participants in the recall-based Interview Survey. Indeed, much higher proportions 

of Diary Survey respondents reported zero expenditures at the category level than those in the 

Interview Survey. In addition, reported expenditures are typically lower in the second week of the 

2-week Diary Survey. These results are consistent with expenditure surveys in other developed countries (Browning, Crossley, and Winter, 2014). The authors found that the high respondent burden of 

recording purchases in diaries may lead to more underreporting in diary surveys, compared to the 

level of underreporting from memory issues in recall surveys. 

Clay et al. (2016) compared total FAH spending estimates from the IRI Consumer Network, 

FoodAPS, CE, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (a program of the 

National Center for Health Statistics) by household size, household composition, and income group 

for 2012. They found expenditures in IRI were significantly lower than the other surveys for most 

types of households. Overall, mean FAH spending in IRI was about 26 percent lower than FAH 

expenditures in FoodAPS, with greater differences among larger and higher income households. 

However, that study did not examine differences across types of foods or over time.

Overall, previous studies on commercial household scanner data have shown that estimates of 

expenditures from scanner data are consistently lower than those from Government surveys. This 

report results in similar findings for the IRI Consumer Network data and describes the nature of 

these differences by food category. With these findings, researchers using the IRI data can design 

appropriate studies that account for the coverage, characteristics, and survey design of the data. 
3

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Data Description and Methods

This section describes the datasets and methods used to compare food expenditures across IRI, CE, 

and FoodAPS for 18 FAH categories. For each dataset, it explains the data files and methods used to 

compute weighted mean weekly expenditures and standard errors for each of the 18 food categories. 

The weighted weekly mean expenditures are estimates of the per household mean food expenditures 

per week for the U.S. population, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.

Limited public documentation is available on the design and statistical properties of the IRI 

Consumer Network survey; therefore, this report also documents the appropriate methods for calculating total and mean expenditures and standard errors in IRI, given the survey design. For the CE 

and FoodAPS surveys, detailed documentation describing the appropriate methods for computing 

standard errors is publicly available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and ERS, respectively, so those methods are not described in detail in this report.3 

Mapping Food Categories Among Datasets

To allow equivalent comparisons of expenditures across datasets, FAH products in IRI and 

FoodAPS were mapped to 18 food categories from the CE survey. Edible products in the IRI product 

dictionary were identified by Universal Product Code (UPC) and grouped into 575 IRI-designated 

food categories. Each IRI category was matched to the corresponding CE food category (appendix 

table 1). Items in FoodAPS were also grouped into CE categories using a combination of identifying 

item information, including IRI categories, ERS food groups, and USDA food categories and food 

codes. 

The number of unique IRI UPCs is highest for the miscellaneous foods, bakery products, sugar and 

other sweets, and nonalcoholic beverages categories (table 1). This is a factor of both the quantity of products households purchase in these categories and the variability of products within the 

categories. For instance, a comparable product may be offered by multiple brands in many sizes and 

flavors, all combinations of which would have a distinct UPC. 

Table 1

Mapping IRI UPCs to Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) food categories

CE category

Number of 

Unique IRI UPCs

Percent of 

IRI UPCs Types of products

Cereal and cereal 

products 36,552 5.7 Baking mixes, dry noodles, dry rice, and breakfast cereals

Bakery products 87,370 13.6 Fresh, refrigerated, and frozen baked goods; 

cookies, crackers, and bread

Beef 2,895 0.5 Refrigerated and frozen beef

Pork 10,561 1.6 Refrigerated, frozen, and canned pork, ham, 

and pork sausage

Other meats 9,855 1.5 Refrigerated, frozen, and shelf-stable deli meats 

and frankfurters

3 Documentation for the CE Survey is available on the BLS website under “Consumer Expenditures and Income” in the 

BLS Handbook of Methods. Documentation for the FoodAPS survey is available on the ERS website in the FoodAPS User’s 

Guide.

—continued
4

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE category

Number of 

Unique IRI UPCs

Percent of 

IRI UPCs Types of products

Poultry 4,969 0.8 Refrigerated and frozen poultry

Fish and seafood 14,549 2.3 Refrigerated, frozen, and canned seafood

Eggs 3,531 0.5 Fresh eggs and egg substitutes

Fresh milk and cream 14,349 2.2 Refrigerated and shelf-stable milk and creamers

Other dairy products 55,573 8.6 Cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and butter

Fresh fruits 6,810 1.1 Fresh fruits (uniform weight)

Fresh vegetables 10,595 1.6 Fresh vegetables (uniform weight)

Processed fruits 24,308 3.8 Refrigerated, frozen, and canned fruits and 

juices, and dried fruits

Processed vegetables 29,552 4.6 Refrigerated, frozen, and canned vegetables, 

and dried beans

Sugar and other sweets 72,492 11.3 Candy, gum, jam, jelly, preserves, and syrups

Fats and oils 16,025 2.5 Cooking oils, sandwich spreads, and salad 

dressings

Nonalcoholic beverages 64,267 10.0 Carbonated beverages, coffee, tea, and juice 

drinks and mixes

Miscellaneous foods 178,884 27.8

Fresh, frozen, and shelf-stable prepared meals; 

seasonings and sauces; snack foods; and baby 

foods

Total 643,137 100 All products

UPC= Universal Product Code

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using IRI and CE data, 2008-12. 

Conversely, the categories with the fewest unique IRI UPCs are beef, eggs, poultry, and fresh fruits. 

These categories generally have fewer varieties of products or a higher number of random-weight 

items. Random-weight items are not labeled with manufacturer UPCs and are, instead, grouped into 

176 aggregated products. IRI assigns each of these aggregated random-weight products a unique 

UPC. Therefore, random-weight products account for very few UPCs in table 1, despite representing 

about 20 percent of household FAH expenditures. 

IRI Consumer Network Data 

The IRI Consumer Network household panel data are drawn from the National Consumer Panel 

(NCP), a joint venture between IRI and Nielsen to collect consumer data to provide consumer and 

marketing insights. The NCP collects purchase data from a panel of about 120,000 households per 

year. Panelists record their purchases of consumer packaged goods and may also complete surveys 

of consumer behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. The IRI Consumer Network data do not include 

food-away-from-home (FAFH) spending, so the purchase data acquired by ERS contain only FAH 

items.

Households report their purchases by scanning each product’s UPC using an NCP-provided scanning device or smartphone application. After scanning a product UPC, panelists record the price, 

quantity, and whether there was a promotion on the product (e.g., sale, coupon, or buy-one-get-one 

Table 1

Mapping IRI UPCs to Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) food categories—continued
5

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

offer). To reduce respondent burden, consumers are not asked to report prices or expenditures for 

purchases made at retailers for which IRI has the retailer’s sales data. Instead, IRI estimates prices 

using the retail sales data and assigns an estimated expenditure value for these purchases using the 

chain-average price or the outlet-average price for that UPC in the household’s geographic market 

area. About 70 percent of purchase records have IRI-assigned expenditure values, and 30 percent 

have panelist-input expenditures. 

A subset of households in the panel also reports purchases of products without a UPC—randomweight products that are sold by the pound or count, including fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, 

cheese, baked goods, prepared foods, coffee, and bulk candy/nuts/seeds. For these items, panelists 

choose from a list of products in the app or scan a barcode that corresponds to the product from a 

list of products in a reference booklet. They report expenditures on random-weight products but do 

not report the quantity purchased. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate unit prices for randomweight items. IRI does not use the retail data to assign prices for random-weight products, so the 

panelist-input expenditure is always used for these purchases. The larger respondent burden associated with reporting random-weight products accounts for the inclusion of only a subset of the panel. 

About 60,000 of the 120,000 households in the panel are included in the IRI static panel, a subset 

of the full panel used to weight the panel data to be representative of the full U.S. population. To 

qualify for inclusion in the static panel, households must meet certain thresholds for consistent 

reporting. The following criteria are used by IRI:

•	 The household reported purchases at least once every 4 weeks for 11 of the 13, 4-week 

reporting periods of the year.

•	 The household met IRI’s designated minimum average weekly spending levels: $25 for a 

one-person household, $35 for a two-person household, and $45 for a three-person or larger 

household.

IRI considers households with this level of expenditures and reporting frequency to be reliable 

reporters. IRI develops a set of projection factors (i.e., survey weights) that can be used to weight the 

qualifying static households to be representative of the full U.S. population on a number of demographic targets. Households that do not qualify for the static panel, identified by a projection factor 

equal to zero, were excluded from this analysis.4 For a comprehensive description of IRI’s data 

collection, sampling, and weighting methodology, see Muth et al. (2016).

Because only a subset of the panel is asked to report random-weight purchases, IRI uses a separate 

set of projection factors to weight these households to be representative of the full population. These 

households are sometimes referred to as the “random-weight panel.” The number of static households reporting random-weight purchases has risen each year, from about 21,000 in 2008 to almost 

34,000 households in 2012.

The data used to compute the IRI total and mean weekly household expenditures were constructed 

from the “trip” dataset, which contains the households’ purchase logs. The data were transformed to 

create a record for each week of expenditures by each household. That is, for each week of expendi4 Transaction records from nonstatic households may provide value in research focusing on prices or products instead of 

household purchases. 
6

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

tures by each household, a unique record was created containing the calculated expenditure amounts 

in each of the 18 food categories.

As explained above, the IRI datasets contain several sets of survey weights (called “projection 

factors”) that can be used to produce estimates for the total U.S. population, with separate sets of 

survey weights for the full panel and for the subset random-weight panel. Therefore, for each year, 

each household has a “fixed-weight” survey weight and a separate “random-weight” survey weight. 

Households not in the random-weight panel have a “random-weight” weight of zero. The weight is 

applied at the UPC level. For “random-weight” UPCs to obtain the weighted expenditure amount, 

the item expenditure is multiplied by the “random-weight” survey weight; for “fixed-weight” UPCs, 

the item expenditure is multiplied by the “fixed-weight” survey weight. To adjust the projections 

to be at the weekly, instead of annual, level, the weights were divided by the number of weeks in 

the year. For 2009-11, the weights were divided by (365/7); for 2008 and 2012, the weights were 

divided by (366/7) to account for the leap day in those years. 

IRI standard errors were computed using the Taylor series variance estimation method. Taylor series 

linearization is a commonly practiced method that estimates the variance of a nonlinear estimate by 

approximating the estimator with a linear function (Woodruff, 1971).5 To use Taylor series estimation, pseudo sampling strata and primary sampling units (PSUs) were developed within the IRI data 

to approximate IRI’s nonprobability sample design because the actual sampling strata and PSUs are 

not provided with the IRI data, and the IRI data do not contain replicate weights for standard error 

estimation. For IRI households in a ZIP Code within the 21 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) 

identifiable in the CE public use data, the MSA functioned as the strata. The 21 MSAs were chosen 

as strata to try to replicate the IRI sample selection and because they are the most precise level of 

geographic identification available in the CE public use data. For households outside the 21 MSAs, 

county size (4-levels) within a census region was used to form the strata. If this combination of 

region and county size yielded too small a stratum, that combination was collapsed with an adjacent 

county size level in the same region to form a stratum. In total, there were 52 strata. The random 

group method, detailed by Wölter (1985), was used to form PSUs, such that the number of households randomly assigned to each PSU was minimized to 10 or 11,6 with each stratum having at least 

two PSUs.7

The detailed methods and formulas used to compute total and mean expenditures and standard 

errors using the IRI data are included in the appendix. 

Consumer Expenditure Survey Data 

The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to collect information on consumers’ expenditures, 

as well as the income and demographic characteristics of those consumers. The CE comprises 

two components: a Quarterly Interview Survey and a weekly Diary Survey. The data used for this 

comparison are from the weekly Diary Survey component, which is designed to collect data on 

5 The procedure takes the first-order Taylor series approximation of the nonlinear statistic and then substitutes the linear 

representation into the variance formula appropriate for the sample design. 

6 Ten to eleven households per PSU are sufficient to ensure at least one participating household over time, which is necessary for variance estimation. 

7 A minimum of two PSUs per stratum is common statistical practice and was followed to assign PSUs to the IRI data, but 

more than two PSUs is acceptable for a simple random sample.
7

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

small, frequently purchased items. The Diary Survey is well suited for examining food purchasing 

behaviors because respondents record detailed food-related expenditures that can be difficult to 

capture accurately in recall surveys. 

CE Diary Survey data are collected from a cross-sectional sample of about 6,900 households representing the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Participating households complete a diary 

of daily expenses for two consecutive 1-week periods, and each weekly record is treated as statistically independent. Households record both FAH and FAFH expenditures. For comparability with 

the IRI Consumer Network data, only FAH expenditures were included in this analysis. 

The data used to compute the total and mean weekly household expenditures for CE were the 

Consumer Unit Characteristics and Income File (FMLD). The FMLD data contain one record for 

every week each household was a participant in the Diary Survey. That is, if a household was in the 

survey for 2 weeks, there will be two unique records for the household, one for each week’s expenditures. The maximum number of weeks a household participates in the survey is two. Every record 

(household week) in the data has a unique weight. Therefore, a household’s first week may have a 

different weight than the household’s second week. The weights are constructed in such a way that a 

quarter of the year’s data represents the annual total. Because our analysis used the entirety of each 

year’s data, we divided the analytic weight (named FINLWT21) and all replicate weights by four. 

The CE data contain 44 replicate weights that are used for variance estimation and that account for 

CE’s complex sample design. 

FoodAPS Data 

The USDA’s National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) is a household 

survey that collects information about household food purchases and acquisitions, along with factors 

that influence household food choices. FoodAPS is unique in that it provides comprehensive data on 

both FAH and FAFH purchases, as well as all acquisitions of free or nonpurchased food. Because 

IRI data cover only FAH purchases, only FAH expenditures from FoodAPS were included in this 

analysis.

FoodAPS is a nationally representative sample of 4,826 households, including representative data 

on households participating in the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 

low-income households who are eligible for SNAP but do not participate in the program, and higher 

income households. Participating households reported all food purchases and acquisitions by all 

household members over a 1-week period. Members recorded the information in food books, in 

which they distinguished the food item as FAH or FAFH, identified the item, and recorded quantities, prices, and expenditures. FoodAPS data were collected between April 2012 and January 2013. 

Therefore, the period of coverage for FoodAPS is similar to that of the 2012 estimates from IRI and 

CE, which are the average weekly estimates from the full calendar year.

The data file used to compute the total and mean weekly household expenditures for FoodAPS 

was the household-level FAH item file. The item-level data file contains one record for each item 

purchased or acquired by all household members over the course of the reporting week. Because 

households in the FoodAPS survey also recorded acquisitions of nonpurchased food, only items 

for which there were expenditures were included in the analysis. For purchased items without 
8

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

recorded prices, an imputed expenditure value was used.8 The item-level expenditures were aggregated to create unique records of the expenditure amounts by each household in each of the 18 

food categories. 

FoodAPS standard errors were computed using Taylor series variance estimation. The FoodAPS 

survey used a multistage sample design. PSUs were defined as counties or groups of contiguous 

counties, and a stratified sample of 50 PSUs was selected using probability proportional to size 

(PPS) selection, with stratification based on metropolitan status and region. Within each PSU, eight 

second sampling units (SSUs), defined as a census block group or group of contiguous block groups, 

were selected using PPS. 

8 Deterministic methods were used to impute missing item costs. Each item was assigned the within-sample median item 

cost and ratio-adjusted to equal the total amount paid for the trip. 
9

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Results

The comparison results show that FAH expenditures in IRI are lower than those in CE and 

FoodAPS for all 18 food product categories. They are also lower than in CE across all years and 

across most demographic groups studied. However, variation exists across each of these dimensions 

as described in this section. 

Comparisons by Product Category

The largest differences in estimated expenditures between IRI and CE are for eggs, fresh vegetables, 

fresh fruits, and fish and seafood. These four product categories have the lowest IRI expenditures 

relative to CE in each year from 2008 to 2012 (tables 2a-2e). In 2012, for example, reported household expenditures on fresh vegetables in IRI were about 47 percent of those in CE, with an average 

expenditure of $2.05 per week in IRI, compared to an average of $4.34 per week in CE (fig. 1). 

Similarly, households in IRI reported an average expenditure of $2.49 per week on fresh fruits in 

2012, which was about 50 percent of the $5.01 average weekly expenditure of CE households. 

Table 2a 

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2008

Food category

IRI Mean

($)

IRI SE

($)

CE Mean

($)

CE SE

($)

IRI as 

percent of 

CE

Sugar and other sweets 2.39 0.02 2.48 0.06 96.4

Other dairy products 4.28 0.03 5.03 0.10 85.1

Other meats 1.67 0.02 2.05 0.05 81.5

Miscellaneous foods 10.63 0.09 13.06 0.23 81.4

Cereal and cereal products 2.49 0.02 3.26 0.07 76.4

Processed fruits 1.59 0.01 2.23 0.05 71.3

Nonalcoholic beverages 4.69 0.04 6.58 0.11 71.3

Bakery products 4.61 0.05 6.48 0.12 71.1

Fresh milk and cream 2.23 0.02 3.23 0.05 69.0

Processed vegetables 1.39 0.01 2.05 0.05 67.8

Poultry 2.02 0.03 3.06 0.07 66.0

Fats and oils 1.24 0.01 2.01 0.05 61.7

Pork 1.91 0.03 3.13 0.08 61.0

Beef 2.80 0.04 4.59 0.10 61.0

Fresh fruits 2.40 0.04 4.26 0.09 56.3

Eggs 0.51 0.00 0.98 0.02 52.0

Fresh vegetables 2.10 0.04 4.06 0.07 51.7

Fish and seafood 1.16 0.02 2.45 0.08 47.3

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008.
10

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table 2b

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2009

Food category

IRI Mean

($)

IRI SE

($)

CE Mean

($)

CE SE

($)

IRI as 

percent of 

CE

Sugar and other sweets 2.47 0.02 2.70 0.09 91.5

Other dairy products 4.23 0.03 5.04 0.10 83.9

Miscellaneous foods 11.03 0.08 13.74 0.29 80.3

Other meats 1.69 0.02 2.18 0.05 77.5

Cereal and cereal products 2.56 0.02 3.31 0.06 77.3

Nonalcoholic beverages 4.78 0.03 6.47 0.11 73.9

Bakery products 4.66 0.04 6.42 0.11 72.6

Fresh milk and cream 1.93 0.01 2.77 0.05 69.7

Poultry 2.01 0.03 2.96 0.08 67.9

Processed fruits 1.54 0.01 2.27 0.05 67.8

Processed vegetables 1.42 0.01 2.11 0.04 67.3

Fats and oils 1.27 0.01 1.97 0.05 64.5

Beef 2.78 0.03 4.35 0.10 63.9

Pork 1.89 0.02 3.24 0.07 58.3

Fresh fruits 2.39 0.03 4.22 0.11 56.6

Eggs 0.44 0.00 0.84 0.02 52.4

Fresh vegetables 2.09 0.03 4.01 0.06 52.1

Fish and seafood 1.21 0.02 2.58 0.07 46.9

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2009.

Table 2c 

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2010

Food category

IRI Mean

($)

IRI SE

($)

CE Mean

($)

CE SE

($)

IRI as 

percent of 

CE

Sugar and other sweets 2.49 0.02 2.54 0.07 98.0

Other dairy products 4.25 0.03 4.60 0.09 92.4

Miscellaneous foods 10.96 0.08 12.80 0.22 85.6

Cereal and cereal products 2.44 0.02 3.16 0.07 77.2

Poultry 2.01 0.03 2.66 0.07 75.6

Other meats 1.68 0.02 2.26 0.06 74.3

Nonalcoholic beverages 4.70 0.03 6.40 0.13 73.4

Fresh milk and cream 1.95 0.01 2.71 0.04 72.0

Bakery products 4.58 0.04 6.48 0.13 70.7

Processed fruits 1.47 0.01 2.17 0.05 67.7

Pork 1.86 0.02 2.86 0.07 65.0

—continued
11

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Food category

IRI Mean

($)

IRI SE

($)

CE Mean

($)

CE SE

($)

IRI as 

percent of 

CE

Beef 2.67 0.03 4.17 0.19 64.0

Fats and oils 1.20 0.01 1.97 0.04 60.9

Processed vegetables 1.40 0.01 2.39 0.07 58.6

Fish and seafood 1.20 0.02 2.25 0.08 53.3

Fresh vegetables 2.14 0.03 4.04 0.07 53.0

Fresh fruits 2.36 0.03 4.46 0.10 52.9

Eggs 0.45 0.00 0.89 0.02 50.6

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2010.

Table 2d 

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2011

Food category

IRI Mean

($)

IRI SE

($)

CE Mean

($)

CE SE

($)

IRI as 

percent of 

CE

Sugar and other sweets 2.60 0.02 2.77 0.07 93.9

Other dairy products 4.51 0.03 4.94 0.09 91.3

Miscellaneous foods 11.01 0.07 13.27 0.16 83.0

Cereal and cereal products 2.46 0.02 3.36 0.07 73.2

Other meats 1.71 0.02 2.36 0.06 72.5

Fresh milk and cream 2.08 0.02 2.88 0.05 72.2

Nonalcoholic beverages 4.97 0.03 6.94 0.14 71.6

Poultry 2.06 0.02 2.97 0.06 69.4

Bakery products 4.72 0.06 6.84 0.11 69.0

Processed fruits 1.45 0.01 2.22 0.05 65.3

Beef 2.75 0.03 4.27 0.11 64.4

Pork 1.98 0.02 3.11 0.07 63.7

Fats and oils 1.28 0.01 2.11 0.04 60.7

Processed vegetables 1.40 0.01 2.46 0.05 56.9

Eggs 0.50 0.00 0.96 0.02 52.1

Fish and seafood 1.19 0.01 2.31 0.08 51.5

Fresh fruits 2.44 0.03 4.75 0.09 51.4

Fresh vegetables 2.17 0.03 4.30 0.07 50.5

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2011.

Table 2c 

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2010—continued
12

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table 2e 

Average weighted weekly household food expenditures by product category, IRI, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE), and FoodAPS, 2012

Food category

IRI 

Mean 

($)

IRI 

SE 

($)

CE 

Mean 

($)

CE 

SE 

($)

FoodAPS 

Mean ($)

FoodAPS 

SE ($)

IRI as 

percent 

of CE

IRI as 

percent of 

FoodAPS

Sugar and other sweets 2.53 0.02 2.82 0.08 2.95 0.13 89.7 85.8

Other dairy products 4.60 0.03 5.13 0.08 6.47 0.29 89.7 71.1

Miscellaneous foods 10.94 0.07 13.43 0.27 15.53 0.58 81.5 70.4

Other meats 1.77 0.02 2.35 0.06 2.54 0.12 75.3 69.8

Nonalcoholic beverages 5.15 0.03 7.11 0.11 7.39 0.29 72.4 69.7

Cereal and cereal products 2.48 0.02 3.50 0.07 3.53 0.15 70.9 70.2

Fresh milk and cream 2.05 0.01 2.92 0.05 2.95 0.11 70.2 69.5

Poultry 2.13 0.02 3.07 0.06 3.43 0.17 69.4 62.2

Bakery products 4.63 0.04 6.84 0.14 7.52 0.21 67.7 61.6

Processed fruits 1.44 0.01 2.18 0.05 2.01 0.08 66.1 71.6

Pork 2.00 0.02 3.18 0.09 2.81 0.15 62.9 71.3

Fats and oils 1.36 0.01 2.19 0.04 1.97 0.07 62.1 69.1

Beef 2.68 0.02 4.35 0.12 4.28 0.21 61.6 62.6

Processed vegetables 1.39 0.01 2.50 0.06 2.59 0.10 55.6 53.8

Fish and seafood 1.23 0.01 2.40 0.09 2.13 0.22 51.3 57.7

Fresh fruits 2.49 0.02 5.01 0.09 4.79 0.26 49.7 52.0

Eggs 0.50 0.00 1.02 0.02 0.84 0.05 49.0 59.4

Fresh vegetables 2.05 0.02 4.34 0.07 4.61 0.24 47.2 44.5

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI, CE, and FoodAPS data, 2012.

Many of the same patterns exist when comparing IRI and FoodAPS expenditures. There, the 

product categories with the largest differences in expenditures in 2012 were fresh vegetables, fresh 

fruits, and processed vegetables (table 2e). For example, the average weekly expenditure on fresh 

vegetables was $2.05 in IRI, about 45 percent of the FoodAPS average weekly expenditure of $4.61. 

Several of the product categories with relatively lower expenditures in IRI are those containing 

a large proportion of random-weight items, particularly fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and meat. 

Because these items are not labeled with a UPC that can be scanned, these types of items may be 

more burdensome for IRI household panelists to record when reporting purchases and, therefore, 

may be subject to more underreporting. As mentioned previously, only a subset of households report 

random-weight data, and one contributing factor is the difficulty of recording these data. 

Expenditures are lower in random-weight categories despite a separate set of “random-weight” 

projection factors. IRI’s projection factors weight households to be representative of the population; they do not weight purchases to meet spending targets. Therefore, the projection factors do 

not account for the quality or completeness of household reporting beyond the minimum reporting 

requirements described previously. 
13

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 1

Average weekly expenditures in IRI, Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), and FoodAPS by 

product category, 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Eggs

Fish and seafood

Fats and oils

Processed vegetables

Processed fruits

Other meats

Pork

Fresh milk and cream

Fresh vegetables

Poultry

Cereal and cereal products

Fresh fruits

Sugar and other sweets

Beef

Other dairy products

Bakery products

Nonalcoholic beverages

Miscellaneous foods

Dollars

IRI

CE

FoodAPS

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI, CE, and FoodAPS data, 2012.

The product categories in which IRI’s estimated expenditures were most similar to CE were sugar 

and other sweets, other dairy products, and miscellaneous foods (figs. 1 and 2). The majority of 

products in these categories are packaged and UPC-labeled items. In 2012, for example, IRI households reported spending an average of $2.53 per week on sugar and other sweets, about 90 percent of 

the $2.82 spent by CE households. With the exception of sugar and other sweets in 2008 and 2010, 

all differences in expenditures between IRI and CE are statistically significant at the 5-percent level.

Similarly, the category with the smallest difference between IRI and FoodAPS was sugar and other 

sweets. The average weekly expenditure on sugar and other sweets in IRI was about 86 percent of 

the average weekly expenditure of $2.95 in FoodAPS. All differences in expenditures between IRI 

and FoodAPS are also statistically significant at the 5-percent level.
14

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 2

Average weekly expenditures in IRI as a percentage of Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) 

and FoodAPS expenditures by product category, 2012

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fresh vegetables

Eggs

Fresh fruits

Fish and seafood

Processed vegetables

Beef

Fats and oils

Pork

Processed fruits

Bakery products

Poultry

Fresh milk and cream

Cereal and cereal products

Nonalcoholic beverages

Other meats

Miscellaneous foodsOther dairy products

Sugar and other sweets

CE

FoodAPS

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI, CE, and FoodAPS data, 2012.

Expenditures in IRI are lower overall; however, examining the distribution of FAH expenditure 

shares by product category across surveys reveals largely similar patterns in expenditures (fig. 3). 

Across surveys, households’ largest shares of FAH expenditures were on miscellaneous foods, 

nonalcoholic beverages, bakery products, and other dairy products. Households’ purchases in these 

four categories accounted for almost 50 percent of FAH spending. Eggs, fish and seafood, fats and 

oils, processed vegetables, and processed fruits were among the categories with the lowest expenditure shares for each survey. 
15

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 3

Product category food-at-home expenditure shares in IRI, Consumer Expenditure Survey 

(CE), and FoodAPS, 2012

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

Eggs

Fish and seafood

Fats and oils

Processed vegetables

Processed fruits

Other meats

Pork

Fresh milk and cream

Fresh vegetables

Poultry

Cereal and cereal products

Fresh fruits

Sugar and other sweets

Beef

Other dairy products

Bakery products

Nonalcoholic beverages

Miscellaneous foods

IRI

CE

FoodAPS

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI, CE, and FoodAPS data, 2012.

Comparisons Over Time

Examining the consistency of the IRI data over time is another way to understand how to apply the 

data in research studies. The relationship between IRI expenditures and CE expenditures over time 

can be used to assess whether IRI estimates exhibit potentially concerning trends such as high volatility or a consistent decline relative to CE. Overall, IRI expenditures were lower than CE expenditures for almost every product category in each year from 2008 to 2012 (fig. 4). Over this period, IRI 

expenditures were a relatively consistent percentage of CE expenditures. Expenditures in IRI as a 

percentage of CE varied by less than 10 percentage points for most categories over the 5-year period.

Some categories had a greater variation relative to CE by year, such as processed vegetables and 

poultry, while others had smaller differences, such as nonalcoholic beverages and fresh milk and 

cream. The bars in figure 4 show the range of IRI expenditures as a percentage of CE expenditures 

over time for each category from 2008-12. Over the 5-year period, all categories except processed 

vegetables remained within a 10-percentage-point range of values. For example, IRI spending on 

nonalcoholic beverages showed the smallest variation relative to CE, ranging from a high of 74 

percent of CE spending in 2009 to a low of 71 percent in 2008, with little variation by year. IRI 

spending on processed vegetables showed the largest variation relative to CE, ranging from 68 

percent of CE spending in 2008 to 56 percent in 2012. Additionally, processed vegetables was the 

only category in IRI to show a consistent decline relative to CE for each year from 2008 to 2012. No 

other categories showed a steady pattern of increase or decrease relative to CE for each year over the 

5-year period. 
16

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 4

Range of IRI expenditures as a percentage of Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) 

expenditures over time, 2008-12

Percent

3.4 5.7 6.4

6.9

3.4 3.8 6.7 12.2

6.0

3.2 4.9

2.6 9.6

6.5

9.0

5.3

8.5

8.3

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Eggs

Fresh vegetables

Fish and seafood

Fresh fruits

Beef

Fats and oils

Pork

Processed vegetables

Processed fruits

Fresh milk and cream

Bakery products

Nonalcoholic beverages

Poultry

Cereal and cereal products

Other meats

Miscellaneous foodsOther dairy products

Sugar and other sweets

Note: For each category, IRI expenditures as a percentage of CE expenditures showed some variation over time. The bars 

show how IRI ranged as a percentage of CE for each category over the 5-year period.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.

Examining differences in reported expenditures over time can also provide insights into how households that participate in the IRI panel react to macroeconomic conditions, compared to households 

that participate in CE. The data can be used to corroborate patterns across data sources or to understand how they differ. 

Expenditures over 2008-12 show that IRI had a slightly dampened level of variation in expenditures, 

compared to CE (table 3). CE showed a decrease in expenditures in 2009-10 for several categories 

following the end of the 2007-09 recession, particularly in the meat, poultry, and seafood categories. CE showed a subsequent increase in expenditures across most categories during the 2010-11 

recovery. IRI showed similar trends, but the magnitude of both the decline and the rebound were 

smaller than CE for most categories. In addition, IRI showed fewer significant differences across 

these years despite having a larger sample size and smaller standard errors. For example, 12 categories showed a significant increase in expenditures in CE in 2010-11, compared to 7 in IRI.
17

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table 3 

Year-to-year percentage change in average weekly expenditures by category, IRI and 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2008-12

2008-09

(%)

2009-10

(%)

2010-11

(%)

2011-12

(%)

CE IRI CE IRI CE IRI CE IRI

Cereal and cereal 

products 1.5 2.8 -4.5 -4.7 6.3 0.8 4.2 0.8

Bakery products -0.9 1.1 0.9 -1.7 5.6 3.1 0.0 -1.9

Beef -5.2 -0.7 -4.1 -4.0 2.4 3.0 1.9 -2.6

Pork 3.5 -1.1 -11.7 -1.6 8.7 6.5 2.3 1.0

Other meats 6.3 1.2 3.7 -0.6 4.4 1.8 -0.4 3.5

Poultry -3.3 -0.5 -10.1 0.0 11.7 2.5 3.4 3.4

Fish and seafood 5.3 4.3 -12.8 -0.8 2.7 -0.8 3.9 3.4

Eggs -14.3 -13.7 6.0 2.3 7.9 11.1 6.3 0.0

Fresh milk and 

cream

-14.2 -13.5 -2.2 1.0 6.3 6.7 1.4 -1.4

Other dairy 

products 0.2 -1.2 -8.7 0.5 7.4 6.1 3.9 2.1

Fresh fruits -0.9 -0.4 5.7 -1.3 6.5 3.4 5.5 2.0

Fresh vegetables -1.2 -0.5 0.8 2.4 6.4 1.4 0.9 -5.5

Processed fruits 1.8 -3.1 -4.4 -4.6 2.3 -1.4 -1.8 -0.7

Processed 

vegetables 2.9 2.2 13.3 -1.4 2.9 0.0 1.6 -0.7

Sugar and other 

sweets 8.9 3.4 -5.9 0.8 9.1 4.4 1.8 -2.7

Fats and oils -2.0 2.4 0.0 -5.5 7.1 6.7 3.8 6.3

Nonalcoholic 

beverages -1.7 1.9 -1.1 -1.7 8.4 5.7 2.5 3.6

Miscellaneous 

foods 5.2 3.8 -6.8 -0.6 3.7 0.5 1.2 -0.6

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.

In each year from 2008 to 2012, the fresh fruits and fresh vegetables categories were among those 

with the lowest expenditures relative to CE (fig. 5). For fresh vegetables, IRI expenditures relative to 

CE ranged from a high of 53 percent in 2010 to a low of 47 percent in 2012. IRI’s expenditures for 

fresh fruits ranged from a high of 57 percent in 2009 to a low of 50 percent in 2012. This is largely 

a result of IRI expenditures remaining relatively flat in 2008-12, while expenditures in CE rose over 

the period. 

Across all years, IRI expenditures relative to CE were more comparable in categories composed 

primarily of packaged goods, such as sugar and other sweets, other dairy products, miscellaneous 

foods, and other meats (fig. 6).

The meat, poultry, and seafood categories were among those with the largest year-over-year variation in spending between IRI and CE from 2008 to 2012 (fig. 7). In the CE data, these categories 

showed a decrease in expenditures in 2010 and a rebound in 2011. In the IRI data, expenditures were 

more stable over the 5-year period. For example, expenditures on pork, poultry, and fish and seafood 

all declined by more than 10 percent between 2009-10 in CE, while expenditures in those categories 

in IRI showed no significant changes over that period. 
18

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 5

Average weekly household expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables, IRI and Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE), 2008-12

Dollars

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CE fresh fruits

CE fresh vegetables

IRI fresh fruits

IRI fresh vegetables

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.

Figure 6

Average weekly household expenditures on sugar and other sweets and other dairy 

products, IRI and Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), 2008-12

Dollars

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CE other dairy products

CE sugar and other sweets

IRI other dairy products

IRI sugar and other sweets

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.
19

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 7

Average weekly household expenditures on meat, poultry, and seafood, IRI and Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE), 2008-12

Dollars

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CE beef CE pork CE poultry CE fish and seafood

IRI beef IRI pork IRI poultry IRI fish and seafood

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.

Overall, in the 5 years from 2008 to 2012, expenditures in IRI as a percentage of expenditures in 

CE showed some variation across years and categories but did not show a high level of volatility or 

inconsistency. Household spending in IRI also showed a slightly dampened response to macroeconomic trends over the time period, compared to the changes in spending observed in CE.

Comparisons Across Demographic Groups

Differences in household demographic characteristics likely contributed to variations in household 

FAH expenditure patterns across datasets. This section compares IRI expenditures to CE expenditures for a number of demographic subpopulations and shows how IRI’s data coverage varies by 

demographic groups. These results may be useful for determining whether the data are appropriate 

for research focusing on certain populations. 

By Income

Household FAH expenditures increased as a function of income across the 18 food categories in both 

CE and IRI (table 4; 2012 data only). However, as household income increased, expenditures in IRI 

did not increase at a rate similar to the rate of increase in expenditures in CE. Lower income households in IRI had expenditures that were more comparable to their counterparts in CE, while higher 

income households in IRI showed a larger difference in expenditures compared to CE. The largest 

difference in coverage was between the highest and second-highest income groups ($70,000+ and 

$50,000-$69,999); differences between other income groups were less pronounced. 
20

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

For the lowest income group ($0-$9,999), expenditures in IRI were not significantly different from 

expenditures in CE for over half of the categories from 2008 to 2012. Household spending on sugar 

and other sweets and other dairy in IRI surpassed spending in CE for the lowest two income groups. 

However, as household income increased, the magnitude of the difference in expenditures between 

CE and IRI increased as well. In the highest income group ($70,000+), expenditures in CE were 

significantly higher than those in IRI across all categories and all years. The size of the differences 

across income groups also varied by category. The differences were larger for higher expenditure 

categories such as miscellaneous food, nonalcoholic beverages, and other dairy.

Table 4

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household income, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012

Income

Cereal and 

Cereal 

Products

($)

Bakery 

Products

($)

Beef

($)

Pork

($)

Other Meat

($)

Poultry

($)

CE

 $0-9,999 2.05 4.06 2.53 2.48 1.39 1.86

 SE 0.16 0.33 0.24 0.30 0.14 0.17

 $10,000-19,999 2.36 4.35 2.51 2.17 1.43 2.17

 SE 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.07 0.15

 $20,000-49,000 2.88 5.63 3.75 2.67 2.08 2.59

 SE 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.08 0.10

 $50,000-69,999 3.40 7.12 4.27 3.23 2.24 2.93

 SE 0.16 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.14 0.16

 $70,000+ 4.92 9.50 6.12 4.24 3.25 4.22

 SE 0.14 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.12 0.12

IRI

 $0-9,999 1.84 4.14 2.18 1.75 1.35 1.70

 SE 0.08 0.46 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.09

 $10,000-19,999 1.82 3.71 2.13 1.65 1.35 1.55

 SE 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06

 $20,000-49,000 2.28 4.35 2.55 1.96 1.63 1.93

 SE 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03

 $50,000-69,999 2.66 4.83 2.74 2.07 1.82 2.21

 SE 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04

 $70,000+ 2.86 5.10 3.00 2.13 2.06 2.49

 SE 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

IRI as percentage of CE 

 $0-9,999 90% 102% 86% 71% 97% 91%

 $10,000-19,999 77% 85% 85% 76% 94% 71%

 $20,000-49,000 79% 77% 68% 73% 78% 75%

 $50,000-69,999 78% 68% 64% 64% 81% 75%

 $70,000+ 58% 54% 49% 50% 63% 59%

—continued
21

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Income

Fish and 

seafood

($)

Eggs

($)

Fresh milk 

and cream

($)

Other dairy

($)

Fresh fruit

($)

Fresh 

vegetables

($)

CE

 $0-9,999 1.35 0.71 1.74 2.42 2.39 2.31

 SE 0.24 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.18

 $10,000-19,999 1.72 0.80 2.07 2.88 2.92 2.78

 SE 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18

 $20,000-49,000 1.75 0.90 2.52 3.90 3.83 3.56

 SE 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.13

 $50,000-69,999 2.20 0.97 2.91 5.05 5.02 4.16

 SE 0.15 0.04 0.15 0.22 0.26 0.17

 $70,000+ 3.65 1.31 3.92 7.90 7.59 6.25

 SE 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.15

IRI

 $0-9,999 0.97 0.40 1.62 3.38 1.58 1.39

 SE 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.07

 $10,000-19,999 0.86 0.39 1.63 3.42 1.64 1.45

 SE 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.04

 $20,000-49,000 1.02 0.48 1.95 4.11 2.07 1.78

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02

 $50,000-69,999 1.24 0.53 2.15 4.85 2.63 2.11

 SE 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.04

 $70,000+ 1.53 0.55 2.26 5.41 3.15 2.51

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03

IRI as percentage of CE 

 $0-9,999 72% 56% 93% 140% 66% 60%

 $10,000-19,999 50% 49% 79% 119% 56% 52%

 $20,000-49,000 58% 53% 77% 105% 54% 50%

 $50,000-69,999 56% 55% 74% 96% 52% 51%

 $70,000+ 42% 42% 58% 68% 42% 40%

Table 4

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household income, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued

—continued
22

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Income

Processed 

fruit

($)

Processed 

vegetables

($)

Sugar 

and other 

sweets

($)

Fats and 

oils

($)

Nonalcoholic 

beverages

($)

Miscellaneous food

($)

CE

 $0-9,999 1.40 1.57 1.58 1.44 4.19 7.90

 SE 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.35 0.60

 $10,000-19,999 1.27 1.85 1.80 1.51 4.65 8.32

 SE 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.52

 $20,000-49,000 1.82 2.14 2.29 1.92 6.00 10.83

 SE 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.22 0.23

 $50,000-69,999 2.18 2.45 2.92 2.21 7.43 13.57

 SE 0.11 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.34 0.58

 $70,000+ 3.08 3.33 3.98 2.89 9.68 19.20

 SE 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.26 0.47

IRI

 $0-9,999 1.01 1.10 2.20 1.16 4.49 8.76

 SE 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.19 0.37

 $10,000-19,999 1.04 1.09 2.18 1.16 4.35 8.58

 SE 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.26

 $20,000-49,000 1.27 1.34 2.41 1.32 4.80 10.08

 SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.11

 $50,000-69,999 1.54 1.49 2.66 1.43 5.30 11.45

 SE 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.17

 $70,000+ 1.73 1.51 2.71 1.45 5.71 12.44

 SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.12

IRI as percentage of CE 

 $0-9,999 72% 70% 139% 81% 107% 111%

 $10,000-19,999 82% 59% 121% 77% 94% 103%

 $20,000-49,000 70% 63% 105% 69% 80% 93%

 $50,000-69,999 71% 61% 91% 65% 71% 84%

 $70,000+ 56% 45% 68% 50% 59% 65%

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2012.

Examples of these spending differences across income groups are also illustrated in figure 8, which 

shows spending in IRI as a percentage of CE across years for four food categories: fresh vegetables, 

fresh fruit, beef, and miscellaneous food. 

Some differences in spending among income groups may be due to quality of household reporting. 

Low-income households may respond better to the rewards and incentives offered by IRI to report 

their purchases. For example, households collect points for reporting each trip, so rewards-focused 

households may be better incentivized to report all trips, including small purchases such as candy 

or beverages, food categories that showed larger discrepancies among income groups. Alternatively, 

high-income households may report a less complete record of expenditures due to the voluntary 

nature of the survey and the high cost of time devoted to reporting. 

Table 4

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household income, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued
23

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 8

Expenditures in IRI as a percentage of those in Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) by 

income group, 2008-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent Percent

$0-

9,999

$10,000-

19,999

$20,000-

49,999

$50,000-

69,999

$70,000+ $0-

9,999

$10,000-

19,999

$20,000-

49,999

$50,000-

69,999

$70,000+

$0-

9,999

$10,000-

19,999

$20,000-

49,999

$50,000-

69,999

$70,000+ $0-

9,999

$10,000-

19,999

$20,000-

49,999

$50,000-

69,999

$70,000+

Fresh vegetables

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percent Percent

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Beef

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Miscellaneous food

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fresh fruit

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2008-12.

Another possibility is that low-income households in IRI may not be representative of low-income 

households in the population. Households in IRI self-report income and are not drawn from a statistical sampling frame. IRI weights the households to be representative of the population, but expenditures from very-low-income households in IRI are projected out from a relatively small number 

of households. If these households are nonrepresentative in a way that results in higher expenditure 

patterns, expenditures for low-income households would be overstated in the IRI data. However, 

overall, it is very difficult to discern the reasons for these differences among income groups.

By Race and Ethnicity

Expenditures in IRI were lower than those in CE across racial groups for almost all food categories (table 5; 2012 data only). The majority of households in the IRI panel are headed by a White 

household member, so IRI’s coverage of expenditures relative to CE for White-headed households 

was similar to the average for all races. In general, IRI covered a higher percentage of expenditures 

relative to CE for Black-headed households and a lower percentage of expenditures relative to CE for 

households headed by a member of another race (non-Black, non-White). 
24

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table 5

Average weekly household expenditures by category and race, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012

Race

Cereal 

and cereal 

products

($)

Bakery 

products

($)

Beef

($)

Pork

($)

Other Meat

($)

Poultry

($)

CE

 White 3.50 7.17 4.46 3.10 2.45 2.94

 SE 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.06

 Black 3.06 4.70 3.62 3.44 1.86 3.64

 SE 0.14 0.25 0.22 0.31 0.16 0.26

 Other 4.54 6.78 4.38 3.89 2.01 3.65

 SE 0.51 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.23 0.36

IRI

 White 2.54 4.80 2.77 1.94 1.85 2.02

 SE 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

 Black 2.05 4.02 2.18 2.46 1.47 2.71

 SE 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08

 Other 2.51 4.07 2.60 1.89 1.55 2.28

 SE 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.07

IRI as percentage of CE

 White 73% 67% 62% 63% 76% 69%

 Black 67% 86% 60% 72% 79% 75%

 Other 55% 60% 59% 49% 77% 62%

—continued
25

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Race

Fish and 

seafood

($)

Eggs

($)

Fresh milk 

and cream

($)

Other dairy

($)

Fresh fruit

($)

Fresh 

vegetables

($)

CE

 White 2.24 1.02 3.06 5.53 5.18 4.43

 SE 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08

 Black 2.64 0.87 1.85 3.01 3.18 2.85

 SE 0.29 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.16

 Other 4.42 1.32 3.41 4.07 6.89 6.49

 SE 0.41 0.09 0.28 0.31 0.49 0.34

IRI

 White 1.13 0.50 2.20 4.93 2.52 2.10

 SE 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

 Black 1.69 0.48 1.16 3.04 2.14 1.55

 SE 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.04

 Other 1.44 0.52 1.88 3.92 2.62 2.23

 SE 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07

IRI as percentage of CE

 White 50% 49% 72% 89% 49% 47%

 Black 64% 55% 63% 101% 67% 54%

 Other 33% 39% 55% 96% 38% 34%

Table 5

Average weekly household expenditures by category and race, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued

—continued
26

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Race

Processed 

fruit

($)

Processed 

vegetables

($)

Sugar 

and other 

sweets

($)

Fats and 

oils

($)

Nonalcoholic 

beverages

($)

Miscellaneous 

food

($)

CE

 White 2.23 2.52 2.94 2.27 7.46 14.08

 SE 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.13 0.30

 Black 1.87 2.28 1.98 1.77 5.13 8.96

 SE 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.24 0.44

 Other 2.25 2.58 2.91 2.07 6.36 14.14

 SE 0.14 0.30 0.34 0.20 0.43 0.94

IRI

 White 1.44 1.44 2.66 1.41 5.33 11.25

 SE 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07

 Black 1.47 1.28 1.97 1.22 4.33 9.39

 SE 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.24

 Other 1.43 1.10 2.16 1.17 4.76 10.46

 SE 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.27

IRI as percentage of CE

 White 65% 57% 90% 62% 71% 80%

 Black 79% 56% 99% 69% 84% 105%

 Other 63% 43% 74% 56% 75% 74%

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2012. 

For most categories, reported expenditures by Black households were more similar to their counterparts in CE than those by White households or households of other races. For other dairy, sugar 

and other sweets, and miscellaneous food, Black households’ reported expenditures in IRI were not 

significantly different from those in CE. 

Households of other races in IRI had particularly low expenditures for fresh fruits and vegetables, 

eggs, and fish and seafood compared to CE. For these categories, reported expenditures by these 

households in IRI were less than 40 percent of CE spending.

Expenditures in IRI were also lower than CE in most categories for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

households. There were no clear, systemic differences in how well IRI captured expenditures of 

Hispanic households compared to non-Hispanic households. However, the number of Hispanic 

households is relatively small in both the CE and IRI surveys; therefore, estimates of household 

spending by category were more variable for these households, and differences were less likely to be 

significant.

Table 5

Average weekly household expenditures by category and race, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued
27

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

By Region

Expenditures in IRI were lower than those in CE for most categories in each census region (table 6; 

2012 data only). There was some variation, but no regions showed a consistent pattern of higher or 

lower expenditures relative to CE across categories. 

Table 6

Average weekly household expenditures by category and region, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012

Region

Cereal 

and cereal 

products

($)

Bakery 

products

($)

Beef

($)

Pork

($)

Other meat

($)

Poultry

($)

CE

 Northeast 3.73 7.49 4.18 3.04 2.76 3.40

 SE 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.07

 Midwest 3.59 7.26 4.40 3.01 2.52 2.70

 SE 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.13 0.14

 South 3.15 6.20 4.39 3.43 2.09 2.96

 SE 0.13 0.28 0.23 0.18 0.10 0.12

 West 3.83 7.03 4.42 3.06 2.24 3.36

 SE 0.18 0.27 0.30 0.14 0.13 0.16

IRI

 Northeast 2.65 5.30 2.72 1.84 2.23 2.50

 SE 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05

 Midwest 2.46 4.51 2.47 2.00 1.69 1.80

 SE 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03

 South 2.32 4.56 2.70 2.09 1.68 2.14

 SE 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

 West 2.66 4.31 2.85 1.96 1.64 2.14

 SE 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04

IRI as percentage of CE

 Northeast 71% 71% 65% 61% 81% 74%

 Midwest 69% 62% 56% 66% 67% 67%

 South 74% 74% 61% 61% 80% 72%

 West 70% 61% 65% 64% 73% 64%

—continued
28

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Region

Fish and 

seafood

($)

Eggs

($)

Fresh milk 

and cream

($)

Other dairy

($)

Fresh fruit

($)

Fresh 

vegetables

($)

CE

 Northeast 2.75 1.06 2.94 5.66 5.48 4.79

 SE 0.15 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.28 0.16

 Midwest 2.00 0.96 2.81 5.41 5.07 4.00

 SE 0.21 0.05 0.09 0.21 0.15 0.18

 South 2.24 0.96 2.84 4.48 4.19 3.80

 SE 0.14 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.15

 West 2.81 1.15 3.17 5.53 6.05 5.26

 SE 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.15 0.30 0.17

IRI

 Northeast 1.52 0.54 2.17 5.22 2.63 2.39

 SE 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.04

 Midwest 0.90 0.45 2.07 4.63 2.46 1.77

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02

 South 1.25 0.50 1.97 4.16 2.29 1.93

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02

 West 1.28 0.52 2.04 4.80 2.73 2.26

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.04

IRI as percentage of CE

 Northeast 55% 51% 74% 92% 48% 50%

 Midwest 45% 47% 74% 86% 49% 44%

 South 56% 52% 69% 93% 55% 51%

 West 45% 45% 64% 87% 45% 43%

Table 6

Average weekly household expenditures by category and region, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued

—continued
29

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Region

Processed 

fruit

($)

Processed 

vegetables

($)

Sugar 

and other 

sweets

($)

Fats and 

oils

($)

Nonalcoholic 

beverages

($)

Miscellaneous food

($)

CE

 Northeast 2.43 2.61 2.59 2.19 7.08 12.57

 SE 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.23

 Midwest 2.33 2.70 3.07 2.29 7.08 14.22

 SE 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.32 0.49

 South 1.87 2.40 2.60 2.04 7.10 12.35

 SE 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.22 0.46

 West 2.36 2.39 3.15 2.36 7.24 15.31

 SE 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.10 0.25 0.81

IRI

 Northeast 1.56 1.38 2.45 1.43 5.37 10.42

 SE 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.15

 Midwest 1.44 1.37 2.72 1.31 5.04 11.04

 SE 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.13

 South 1.35 1.48 2.41 1.35 5.13 10.84

 SE 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.12

 West 1.51 1.25 2.59 1.38 5.13 11.47

 SE 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.16

IRI as percentage of CE

 Northeast 64% 53% 95% 65% 76% 83%

 Midwest 62% 51% 89% 57% 71% 78%

 South 72% 62% 93% 66% 72% 88%

 West 64% 52% 82% 58% 71% 75%

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2012. 

By Household Size 

Household FAH expenditures increased as a function of household size across the 18 food categories 

in both CE and IRI (table 7; 2012 data only). Just as with income, however, expenditures in IRI did 

not increase as much as those by corresponding households in CE as household size increased. The 

largest difference in IRI coverage of expenditures occurred between one-person and two-person 

households, and each increase in the size of household led to cumulatively larger differences in 

spending between IRI and CE. 

Table 6

Average weekly household expenditures by category and region, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued
30

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Table 7

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household size, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012

Household size

Cereal 

and cereal 

products

($)

Bakery 

products

($)

Beef

($)

Pork

($)

Other meat

($)

Poultry

($)

CE

1 1.62 3.57 1.77 1.47 1.18 1.48

 SE 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.08

2 3.20 6.65 4.33 3.25 2.30 2.98

 SE 0.09 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.09 0.12

3 4.18 7.87 5.77 3.86 2.65 3.72

 SE 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.21 0.13 0.14

4 5.19 9.83 5.58 4.64 3.42 4.38

 SE 0.17 0.37 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.17

5+ 6.68 11.45 8.26 4.98 4.04 5.24

 SE 0.33 0.48 0.76 0.29 0.22 0.28

IRI

1 1.30 2.97 1.40 1.16 1.05 1.17

 SE 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

2 2.27 4.72 2.92 2.19 1.83 2.01

 SE 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03

3 2.78 5.09 3.16 2.24 2.07 2.59

 SE 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.06

4 3.46 5.76 3.18 2.34 2.26 2.82

 SE 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06

5+ 4.29 6.26 3.75 2.64 2.31 3.28

 SE 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.09

IRI as percentage of CE

1 80% 83% 79% 79% 89% 79%

2 71% 71% 67% 67% 79% 67%

3 66% 65% 55% 58% 78% 70%

4 67% 59% 57% 50% 66% 64%

5+ 64% 55% 45% 53% 57% 63%

—continued
31

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Household size

Fish and 

seafood

($)

Eggs

($)

Fresh milk 

and cream

($)

Other dairy

($)

Fresh fruit

($)

Fresh 

vegetables

($)

CE

1 1.08 0.56 1.45 2.53 2.56 2.27

 SE 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.08

2 2.70 1.01 2.63 5.34 5.04 4.67

 SE 0.18 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.17

3 2.58 1.19 3.40 5.97 5.76 4.86

 SE 0.16 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.14

4 3.51 1.34 4.44 7.42 7.40 6.09

 SE 0.19 0.07 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.22

5+ 3.55 1.69 5.45 7.73 7.77 6.12

 SE 0.36 0.08 0.26 0.34 0.45 0.32

IRI

1 0.87 0.32 1.17 2.99 1.79 1.43

 SE 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03

2 1.40 0.54 1.96 4.71 2.64 2.35

 SE 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03

3 1.34 0.54 2.34 5.10 2.69 2.25

 SE 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05

4 1.30 0.59 2.77 5.73 2.90 2.21

 SE 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.05

5+ 1.34 0.64 3.10 5.97 2.91 2.14

 SE 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.06

IRI as percentage of CE

1 80% 57% 81% 118% 70% 63%

2 52% 53% 75% 88% 52% 50%

3 52% 46% 69% 85% 47% 46%

4 37% 44% 62% 77% 39% 36%

5+ 38% 38% 57% 77% 37% 35%

Table 7

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household size, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued

—continued
32

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Household size

Processed 

fruit

($)

Processed 

vegetables

($)

Sugar 

and other 

sweets

($)

Fats and 

oils

($)

Nonalcoholic 

beverages

($)

Miscellaneous food

($)

CE

1 1.23 1.30 1.43 1.13 3.85 6.80

 SE 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.23

2 2.09 2.45 2.88 2.22 7.27 13.16

 SE 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.23 0.46

3 2.56 3.01 3.20 2.56 8.51 15.99

 SE 0.08 0.13 0.20 0.11 0.32 0.56

4 3.11 3.43 3.91 2.99 9.35 19.85

 SE 0.18 0.16 0.26 0.14 0.37 0.69

5+ 3.45 4.13 4.64 3.59 11.02 21.18

 SE 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.51 1.00

IRI

1 0.89 0.84 1.79 0.87 3.39 7.49

 SE 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.11

2 1.35 1.47 2.61 1.43 5.39 10.83

 SE 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.10

3 1.61 1.59 2.71 1.51 5.95 12.42

 SE 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.21

4 1.99 1.65 2.90 1.58 6.15 13.33

 SE 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.23

5+ 2.13 1.83 3.32 1.84 6.30 14.50

 SE 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.15 0.34

IRI as percentage of CE

1 72% 65% 125% 77% 88% 110%

2 65% 60% 90% 64% 74% 82%

3 63% 53% 85% 59% 70% 78%

4 64% 48% 74% 53% 66% 67%

5+ 62% 44% 72% 51% 57% 68%

SE = Standard error

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2012.

Expenditures were more similar between surveys for one-member households, where IRI spending 

was around 80 percent or greater of CE spending for most categories. Additionally, spending on 

sugar and other sweets, other dairy, and miscellaneous food in IRI surpassed spending in CE for 

one-person households.

Table 7

Average weekly household expenditures by category and household size, Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012—continued
33

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

For larger households (4 and 5+ members), expenditures in IRI were particularly low for fresh fruit, 

fresh vegetables, eggs, and fish and seafood. For these larger household sizes, IRI spending was less 

than 40 percent of CE spending for most of these categories. 

Across all household sizes, weekly expenditures were more concentrated at lower expenditure levels 

in IRI than CE, but this effect was especially pronounced for larger households (fig. 9; 2012 data 

only). These differences among household sizes may have implications for research using IRI to 

understand larger households or households with children.
34

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 9

Distribution of weekly food-at-home expenditures by household size, Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (CE) and IRI, 2012

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

CE: 1 member

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

CE: 2 members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

CE: 3 members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

CE: 4 members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

CE: 5+ members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

IRI: 1 member

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

IRI: 3 members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

IRI: 4 members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

IRI: 5+ members

0 100 200 300+

Expenditures ($)

IRI: 2 members

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Percent

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service estimates using IRI and CE data, 2012.
35

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Overall, across almost all demographic groups, IRI expenditures were lower than CE expenditures 

for most food categories. IRI expenditures relative to CE did show variation across demographic 

groups, with lower relative spending by certain demographic groups in IRI. In particular, as income 

and household size increased, households in IRI showed smaller corresponding increases in expenditures compared to similar households in CE. 

However, the patterns in IRI spending relative to CE by category were consistent across demographic groups. For all demographic groups, IRI expenditures on eggs, fresh fruit and vegetables, 

fish and seafood, and processed fruits and vegetables were among the lowest relative to CE. IRI 

expenditures on sugar and other sweets, other dairy, and miscellaneous food were the highest relative to CE across demographic groups. 
36

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Conclusion

Estimates of household food expenditures from the IRI Consumer Network survey were compared 

to two Government surveys, CE and FoodAPS. The results show that expenditures in IRI were lower 

than expenditures in CE and FoodAPS for all food categories. The magnitude and variation of these 

differences across food categories, years, and household demographic characteristics may have 

implications for research using the data. 

IRI expenditures across all product groups were consistently, but not uniformly, lower than those 

in CE and FoodAPS. The differences in estimated expenditures varied by product group, with 

comparatively lower expenditures in IRI for many of the food categories containing random-weight 

items, including fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and fish and seafood. Expenditures in IRI were more 

comparable to CE and FoodAPS for food categories comprising UPC-labeled products. Therefore, 

researchers should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on purchases of random-weight 

items, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. 

These expenditure trends also held across time, as expenditures in IRI were also lower than CE for 

all food categories across all years studied—2008 to 2012. IRI expenditures showed some variation 

relative to CE across years but were relatively consistent overall. IRI expenditures as a percent of CE 

expenditures varied by less than 10 percentage points over the 5-year period for 17 of the 18 categories. However, the year-over-year comparison also showed that households’ responses to macroeconomic conditions over the period were slightly more muted in the IRI data compared to CE. 

Expenditures in IRI also varied by household demographic characteristics. Expenditures in IRI 

were lower than those in CE across almost all demographic groups studied, but some demographic 

groups showed larger relative differences. In particular, as income and household size increased, 

IRI showed larger differences in expenditures relative to corresponding groups in CE. Despite this 

variation across demographic groups, the patterns in IRI’s expenditures relative to CE by category 

were consistent across demographic groups. That is, random-weight categories, such as produce and 

meat, had comparatively lower expenditures in IRI for all demographic groups, and packaged food, 

including sugar, other dairy, and miscellaneous food, had comparatively higher expenditures in IRI 

for all demographic groups. 

Compared to the cross-sectional CE and FoodAPS surveys, the panel design of the IRI survey 

confers unique benefits for conducting economic research. Almost 27,000 households are in the 

static panel continuously across all 5 years of the IRI data purchased by ERS (2008-12). However, 

the long-term nature of the panel is likely a factor in the greater level of underreporting, as households must report their expenditures for the majority of a calendar year to be included in the static 

panel. This results in a longer record of expenditures for each household, but households may be less 

diligent about recording every trip. The 1- and 2-week reporting periods of the FoodAPS and CE 

surveys appear to lead to a more complete reporting of household food expenditures over the reference week(s). 

In addition, differences in the level of item detail, scope of purchases, and data-recording process for 

each survey may impact households’ responses. IRI panelists recorded purchases of FAH and other 

consumer packaged goods at the UPC level using a scanning device. FoodAPS respondents recorded 

only food items, but reported both purchases and free acquisitions for all FAH and FAFH events. 

FoodAPS used a combination of scanning device and paper booklets and also collected data at the 
37

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

UPC or item level. CE respondents recorded a range of household expenditures using a paper diary, 

but expenditures were collected at a less detailed product or category level. Resulting differences in 

the data-collection tools, respondent burden, privacy concerns, or other factors associated with the 

data-collection process may affect the degree of compliance and reporting across sources.

These comparison results show that researchers should be cautious when using the IRI household 

data for certain types of studies, such as research focusing on fresh fruits and vegetables, or on highincome or large households, and for those studies that draw conclusions about the overall composition of consumers’ purchases or diets. Alternatively, research that draws on the strengths of the IRI 

data may take advantage of the detailed product characteristics and prices for UPC-labeled food 

items, large sample size, and panel design. Understanding differences in data coverage, in the nature 

of reported differences, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using the IRI Consumer 

Network data versus other data sources will allow researchers to design suitable studies and draw 

appropriate conclusions when using these data for food economics research. 
38

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

References

Bee, A., B.D. Meyer, and J.X. Sullivan. 2012. The Validity of Consumption Data: Are the Consumer 

Expenditure Interview and Diary Surveys Informative? NBER Working Paper 18308, National 

Bureau of Economic Research. 

Boonsaeng, T., and C.E. Carpio. 2014. A Comparison of Food Demand Estimation from Homescan 

and Consumer Expenditure Survey Data, Selected Paper presented at the 2014 AAEA 

(Agricultural & Applied Economics Association) Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.

Browning, M., T.F. Crossley, and J. Winter. 2014. “The Measurement of Household Consumption 

Expenditures,” Annual Review of Economics 6:475-501.

Clay, M., M. Ver Ploeg, A. Coleman-Jensen, H. Elitzak, C. Gregory, D. Levin, C. Newman, and 

M.P. Rabbitt. 2016. Comparing National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey 

(FoodAPS) Data With Other National Food Surveys’ Data, EIB-157, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Einav, L., E. Leibtag, and A. Nevo. 2010. “Recording Discrepancies in Nielsen Homescan Data: Are 

They Present and Do They Matter?” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 8:207-39. 

Leicester, A., and Z. Oldfield. 2009. “Using Scanner Technology to Collect Expenditure Data,” 

Fiscal Studies 30(3-4):309-37. 

Lusk, L.L., and K. Brooks. 2011. “Who Participates in Household Scanning Panels?” American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(1):226-40.

Muth, M. K., M. Sweitzer, D. Brown, K. Capogrossi, S. Karns, D. Levin, A. Okrent, P. Siegel, and C. 

Zhen. 2016. Understanding IRI Household-Based and Store-Based Scanner Data, TB-1942, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

RTI International. 2012. SUDAAN Language Manual, Volumes I-II, Release 11. Research Triangle 

Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. “Consumer Expenditures and Income,” 

in BLS Handbook of Methods.

Wölter, K.M. 1985. Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Woodruff, R.S. 1971. “A Simple Method for Approximating the Variance of a Complicated 

Estimate,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66 (334): 411-14. 

Zhen, C., J.L. Taylor, M.K. Muth, and E. Leibtag. 2009. “Understanding Differences in SelfReported Expenditures between Household Scanner Data and Diary Survey Data: A Comparison 

of Homescan and Consumer Expenditure Survey,” Review of Agricultural Economics

31(3):470-92.
39

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

Appendix

IRI Weighted Weekly Total Expenditure and Standard Errors

Using IRI Consumer Network data, the weighted weekly total expenditure was computed as 

follows:

, ,

1 ,

Li

i jl

l

IRI

i j X z =

= ∑ , (1)

where ,

IRI

i j X is the IRI weighted weekly total expenditure for category j in year i;

Li is the number of records of household weekly food expenditures in year i; and

zi jl , , is the weighted expenditure amount spent on food category j in household weekly expenditure record l in year i. 

Zi,j,l can similarly be written as

z re q f i jl il i jl il i jl ,, , ,, , ,, = + ( )( ) ⋅ ⋅ , (2)

where ri l , is the “random-weight” weight for the household record l in year i;

ei jk , , is the amount spent on “random-weight” UPCs in food category j in household weekly 

expenditure record k in year i;

qi l , is the “fixed-weight” weight for the household record l in year i; and

fi jk , , is the amount spent on fixed-weight UPCs in food category j in household weekly 

expenditure record k in year i.

Because strata and PSUs are used to compute standard errors, the method for computing standard 

errors differs from the methods for the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), which use replicate 

weights. The method described below was provided by Cochran (1977) for computing variance 

of a sample with strata and PSUs selected with unequal probabilities and with replacement.9 RTI 

International (2012) describes how the Taylor linearization is represented in the variance formulas 

below. 

The standard error of the weighted weekly total expenditure was computed as follows: 

( ), 2

, ( ), 1 11

) , ( , ), , , ( , ) ( (( ) 1

H nm i h ha i h

h i h h ab

IRI IRI IRI

i j i j hab i j

n SE X X X = n = =

) = − − ∑ ∑∑ , (3)

9 Unequal probabilities of selection are assumed, given IRI’s nonprobability sample design that targets certain groups, and 

the unequal weights are similar to having unequal probabilities. Sampling with replacement is assumed for variance estimation purposes when the sampling fractions are small (RTI International, 2012). 
40

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

where , ( IRI

i j SE X ) is the standard error of the weighted weekly total expenditure estimate for subcategory j in year i;

Hi is the number of strata in year i;

n( )i h is the number of PSUs in year i within stratum h;

mh a, is the number of records of household weekly food expenditures within PSU a and 

stratum h;

( , ), , ,

IRI

i j hab X is the IRI total expenditure for subcategory j in year i by household weekly food 

expenditure record b within PSU a and stratum h ; and

 is the IRI weighted weekly mean household expenditure for subcategory j in year i

within stratum h.

IRI Weighted Weekly Mean Household Expenditure and 

Standard Errors

Because the weights are assigned at the item level in IRI data, the weighted weekly mean expenditure per household was calculated by computing the weighted weekly total expenditure and dividing 

it by the sum of the “fixed-weight” weights among the static panel. Thus, this is dividing the total 

weekly weighted expenditure by the number of households it is projecting to.

For the standard error computation, the weekly expenditures were divided by the sum of the “fixedweight” weights. The standard error of the resulting quotient was computed by modifying the 

statistic input into the standard error computation described above in equation 3 for the IRI total 

weekly expenditure estimates.

The weighted weekly mean expenditure per household was computed as follows:

, ,

1

,

1

,

i

i

L

i jl

l

M

i m

m

IRI

i j

z

X

q

=

=

=

∑

∑

, (4)

where ,

IRI

i j X is the IRI weighted weekly mean expenditure per household for subcategory j in year i;

Li is the number of records of household weekly food expenditures in year i;

zi jl , , is the weighted expenditure amount spent on food subcategory j in household weekly 

expenditure record l in year i as defined above in equation 2;

Mi is the number of households in the static panel for year i; and

qi m, is the “fixed-weight” weight for household record m in year i.
41

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

The standard error of the weighted weekly mean household expenditure for subcategory j in year i

was computed as follows: 

( ), 2

, ( ), 1 11

) , ( , ), , , ( , ) ( (( ) 1

H nm i h ha i h

h i h h ab

IRI IRI IRI

i j i j hab i j

n SE X Y Y = n = =

) = − ∑ ∑∑ − , (5)

where Hi is the number of strata in year i;

n( )i h is the number of PSUs in year i within stratum h;

( , ), , ,

IRI

i j hab Y

is the IRI total expenditure, divided by the sum of the weights, for subcategory j in 

year i by household weekly food expenditure record b within PSU a and stratum h; and

( , ),

IRI

ij h Y

is the IRI weighted weekly mean household expenditure, divided by the sum of the 

weights, for subcategory j in year i within stratum h. 

( , ), , ,

IRI

i j hab Y can be rewritten as:

,,,,

,

1

( , ), , , i

i jhab

M

i m

m

IRI

i j hab

z Y

q

=

=

∑ , (6)

where zi jhab ,,,, is the weighted expenditure amount spent on food subcategory j in year i by 

household weekly expenditure record b within PSU a and stratum h as defined above in equation 2;

Mi is the number of households in the static panel for year i; and

qi m, is the “fixed-weight” weight for household record m in year i. 

When computing subpopulation estimates, the preceding formulas were applied only to the data for 

the subpopulation of interest.

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS ALL OTHER BAKING MIXES 384

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS BREAD MIXES 382

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS

BREADING/BATTER/COATING MIXES (BATTER MIX, COATING, 

COATING FLOUR, COATING MIX, TEMPURA BATTER MIX) 402

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS BROWNIE MIX 414

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS CAKE/CUPCAKE/PIE MIX 1095

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS CHOW MEIN NOODLES 82

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS COFFEE CAKE/GINGERBREAD/PASTRY MIX 225

—continued
42

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS

COOKING STARCHES/RENNET (CORNSTARCH, FOOD 

THICKENER, STARCH) 151

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS

CORNMEAL/BAKING OAT BRAN (CORNMEAL, FLAXSEED 

MEAL, FLOUR, MASA, OAT BRAN, POLENTA, RICE BRAN, RYE 

MEAL, WHEAT BRAN)

530

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRIED BEANS/GRAINS (BARLEY, GRAIN, WHEAT) 304

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRY NOODLES 1371

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRY RICE 2777

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRY RICE MIXES 1408

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRY SALAD/SIDE DISH MIX (PASTA SIDE DISH) 4

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS DRY SPAGHETTI/MACARONI/PASTA 8040

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS FLOUR 1112

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS FZ PASTA/NOODLES 1657

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS HOMINY GRITS 222

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS HOT CEREAL/OATMEAL 2321

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS MUFFIN MIX 471

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS PANCAKE/FRENCH TOAST/WAFFLE MIX 711

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS PIECRUST MIX 21

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS PIZZA CRUST MIX 54

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS READY TO EAT CEREAL 8312

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS RFG/DELI PASTA/NOODLE 827

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS RICE CAKES/POPCORN CAKE 585

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS SS HARD/SOFT TORTILLAS/TACO KIT 2667

CEREAL AND CEREAL 

PRODUCTS WHEAT GERM 23

BAKERY PRODUCTS ALL OTHER CRACKERS 5680

BAKERY PRODUCTS BREADCRUMBS 657

BAKERY PRODUCTS

BREADING/BATTER/COATING MIXES (BATTER AND 

BREADING MIX, BREADING MIX, CRACKER MEAL, CRUSTING 

BLEND)

179

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
43

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

BAKERY PRODUCTS CHRISTMAS CANDY (COOKIE) 7

BAKERY PRODUCTS COOKIE/COOKIE BAR MIX 396

BAKERY PRODUCTS COOKIES 19217

BAKERY PRODUCTS CORNMEAL/BAKING OAT BRAN (CRACKER MEAL) 2

BAKERY PRODUCTS CROUTONS-NO STUFFING CROUTONS 565

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ BAGELS 302

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ COOKIE DOUGH 94

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ DOUGH BREAD/ROLLS/PASTRY 387

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ FRESH BAKED BREAD/ROLLS/BISCUIT 1003

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ HARD/SOFT TORTILLA 27

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ PIE/PASTRY SHELLS 210

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ PIES 513

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ PIZZA (DOUGH) 2

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ PIZZA CRUSTS/DOUGH 103

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ PREBAKED MUFFINS 57

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ READY TO EAT COOKIES 15

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ SWEET GOODS - NO CHEESECAKE 835

BAKERY PRODUCTS FZ WAFFLES 919

BAKERY PRODUCTS GRAHAM CRACKER CRUMBS 16

BAKERY PRODUCTS GRAHAM CRACKERS 522

BAKERY PRODUCTS ICE CREAM CONES 280

BAKERY PRODUCTS MATZOH CRACKERS 199

BAKERY PRODUCTS MATZOH MEAL 77

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG BAGELS/BIALYS 278

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG BISCUIT DOUGH 723

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG BREAD 46

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG CAKE (NO SNACK/COFFEE CAKE) 1090

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG CHEESECAKE 817

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG COOKIE/BROWNIE DOUGH 732

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG DINNER/SANDWICH ROLL/CROISSANT 35

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG DOUGH (BREAD/ROLLS/BUN) 352

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG DOUGH (PASTRY/DUMPLING) 322

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG EGGROLL/WONTON WRAPPER 69

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG ENGLISH MUFFIN 72

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG HARD/SOFT TORTILLA 504

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG MUFFIN 5

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG PASTRY/DANISH/COFFEE CAKE 119

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG PIE (NO SNACK PIE) 360

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG PIZZA CRUST/DOUGH 191

BAKERY PRODUCTS RFG SNACK CAKE/DOUGHNUT < 5OZ 102

BAKERY PRODUCTS SALTINE CRACKERS 418

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
44

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS BAGELS/BIALYS 1545

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS BREAD (NO CANNED BREAD) 13538

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS BREADSTICK 540

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS CAKE (NO SNACK/COFFEE CAKE) 7695

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS CANNED BREAD 3

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS CRACKERS WITH FILLINGS 610

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS DOUGHNUT 2143

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS ENGLISH MUFFIN 701

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS FRESH ROLL/BUN/CROISSANTS 6747

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS MUFFIN 2216

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS PASTRY/DANISH/COFFEE CAKE 5312

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS PIES (NO SNACK PIES) 2664

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS RTU PIE CRUST (PIZZA CRUST) 9

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS SNACK/CUPCAKE/BROWNIE < 5OZ 4654

BAKERY PRODUCTS SS STUFFING MIX 491

BAKERY PRODUCTS WEIGHT CONTROL/PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT (COOKIES) 3

BEEF FROZEN MEAT - NO POULTRY (BEEF) 1849

BEEF RFG UNCOOKED MEATS (BEEF) 1046

PORK FROZEN MEAT - NO POULTRY (PORK) 274

PORK FZ SAUSAGE 580

PORK RFG BACON 1902

PORK RFG BREAKFAST SAUSAGE/HAM 1500

PORK RFG CANNED/BOTTLED HAM 73

PORK RFG DINNER SAUSAGE (POLISH/ITALIAN) 5547

PORK RFG PORK PRODUCT HOCK/FEET 230

PORK RFG PREPARED DINNER/ENTRÉE (SAUSAGE) 4

PORK RFG UNCOOKED MEATS (PORK) 396

PORK SS CANNED/BOTTLED HAM 55

OTHER MEATS FROZEN MEAT - NO POULTRY (BISON, BUFFALO, GOAT, 

LAMB) 64

OTHER MEATS FZ FRANKFURTERS/WIENERS 29

OTHER MEATS RFG FRANKFURTER/WIENERS 1992

OTHER MEATS RFG NON SLICED LUNCH MEAT 942

OTHER MEATS RFG PREPARED DINNER/ENTRÉE (LUNCH MEAT) 3

OTHER MEATS RFG SLICE/SHAVED LUNCH MEAT 5703

OTHER MEATS RFG UNCOOKED MEATS (BISON, BUFFALO, LAMB) 67

OTHER MEATS SS LUNCH MEATS 1055

POULTRY FROZEN MEAT - NO POULTRY (CHICKEN AND BEEF) 7

POULTRY FZ RFG POULTR/POULTRY SUBSTITUTES 4956

POULTRY RFG PREPARED DELI/GOURMET FOOD (CHICKEN, TURKEY) 6

FISH AND SEAFOOD FZ FISH/SEAFOOD 8718

FISH AND SEAFOOD RFG FISH/HERRING/SEAFOOD 2146

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
45

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

FISH AND SEAFOOD SS ALL OTHER FISH/SEAFOOD 2009

FISH AND SEAFOOD SS CLAM JUICE 42

FISH AND SEAFOOD SS SALMON 384

FISH AND SEAFOOD SS TUNA 1250

EGGS FZ EGG SUBSTITUTES 18

EGGS RFG EGG SUBSTITUTES 236

EGGS RFG FRESH EGGS 3256

EGGS SS EGG SUBSTITUTES 21

FRESH MILK AND CREAM EVAPORATED CONDENSED MILK (TABLE CREAM) 3

FRESH MILK AND CREAM FZ COFFEE CREAMER 14

FRESH MILK AND CREAM RFG COFFEE CREAMER 609

FRESH MILK AND CREAM RFG DAIRY CREAM/HALF & HALF/SOY TOPPING (CREAM) 1860

FRESH MILK AND CREAM RFG FLAVORED MILK/EGG NOG/BUTTER MILK 2659

FRESH MILK AND CREAM RFG SKIM/LOW-FAT MILK 4931

FRESH MILK AND CREAM RFG WHOLE MILK 1873

FRESH MILK AND CREAM SOUR CREAM 1106

FRESH MILK AND CREAM SS COFFEE CREAMER 1087

FRESH MILK AND CREAM SS RTD MILK/MILK SUBSTITUTES 207

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS ALL OTHER PROCESSED CHEESE 450

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS AMERICAN CHEESE-ALL FORM 1384

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS CHEESE SPREADS/BALLS 1403

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS COTTAGE CHEESE 1536

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS CREAM CHEESE/CREAM CHEESE SPREAD 1212

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS EVAPORATED CONDENSED MILK (CONDENSED MILK, 

EVAPORATED MILK) 456

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS FZ ICE CREAM/ICE MILK DESSERTS 276

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS FZ NOVELTIES SINGLE SERVING 5957

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS FZ YOGURT/TOFU-CARTON 973

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS ICE CREAM - CARTON 13530

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS ICE CREAM MIX 59

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS ICE MILK/FZ DAIRY DESSERT 8

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS IMITATION CHEESE - ALL FORMS 265

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS NATURAL CHEESE - NO SHREDDED 11067

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS NATURAL SHREDDED CHEESE 3108

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS POWDERED MILK 232

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS PROCESSED SHREDDED CHEESE 20

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG BUTTER ALL FLAVORS 1035

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG FLAVORED MILK/EGG NOG/BUTTER MILK (EGG NOG) 1257

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG GRATED CHEESE 276

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG KEFIR/SUBSTITUTES MILK/SOY MILK (MILK) 541

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG MILKSHAKE/NON DAIRY DRINK (MILK) 40

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG YOGURT 7038

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
46

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RFG YOGURT DRINKS 775

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS RICOTTA CHEESE 461

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SHERBET/SORBET/ICE CARTON 1318

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SS AEROSOL/SQUEEZEABLE CHEESE SPREAD 118

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SS DAIRY SAUCE/CHEESE 216

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SS GRATED CHEESE 465

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SS RTD MILK/MILK SUBSTITUTES (MILK) 38

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS SS YOGURT/YOGURT DRINKS 55

OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS VARIETY CHEESE/PROMOTIONAL ITEMS 4

FRESH FRUITS UNFM WGHT FRSH OTR FRT 4757

FRESH FRUITS UNFM WGHT FRSH OTR VEG (FRUIT) 6

FRESH FRUITS UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH APPLES 1508

FRESH FRUITS UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH GRAPEFRUIT 102

FRESH FRUITS UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH ORANGES 437

FRESH VEGETABLES UNFM WGHT FRSH OTR VEG 2386

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH BEANS 162

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH BROCCOLI 134

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH CABBAGE 51

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH CARROTS 505

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH CAULIFLOWER 31

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH CELERY 200

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH CUCUMBER 86

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH LETTUCE (LETTUCE) 164

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH MIXED VEGETABLE 1226

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH MUSHROOM 968

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH ONIONS 814

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH PEAS 193

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH PEPPERS 396

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH POTATO 1360

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH RADISH 29

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH SPINACH 89

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH SPROUTS 451

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH TOMATO 847

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH YAMS 158

FRESH VEGETABLES UNIFORM WEIGHT TOFU/SOYBEAN 345

PROCESSED FRUITS CAROB/YOGURT COATED SNACK (FRUIT SAUCE) 2

PROCESSED FRUITS CHOCOLATE CANDY BOX/BAG > 3.5OZ (DRIED FRUIT) 2

PROCESSED FRUITS CHOCOLATE SYRUP/DESSERT TOPPING (FRUIT SAUCE) 1

PROCESSED FRUITS COCONUT 285

PROCESSED FRUITS DATES 284

PROCESSED FRUITS DRIED PRUNES 369

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
47

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

PROCESSED FRUITS FRUIT ROLL UP/BAR/PROCESSED FRUIT SNACK 1720

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ APPLE JUICE CONCENTRATE 77

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ BLENDED FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE 42

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ FRUIT 1652

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ GRAPE JUICE CONCENTRATE 33

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ GRAPEFRUIT JC CONCENTRATE 14

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ LEMONADE/LIMEADE CONCENTRATE (JUICE) 4

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ ORANGE JUICE CONCENTRATE 311

PROCESSED FRUITS FZ OTHER VEGETABLE/FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE 13

PROCESSED FRUITS GLAZED FRUIT 164

PROCESSED FRUITS OTHER DRIED FRUIT-NO PROCESSED SNACK 3099

PROCESSED FRUITS RAISINS 654

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG ALL OTHER FRUIT JUICE 135

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG APPLE JUICE 79

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG BLENDED FRUIT JUICE 398

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG CIDER 419

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG CRANBERRY JUICE/CRANBERRY JUICE BLEND 20

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG FRUIT JUICE LIQUID CONCENTRATE 19

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG GRAPE JUICE 12

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG GRAPEFRUIT JUICE 103

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG LEMON/LIME JUICE 10

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG ORANGE JUICE 1827

PROCESSED FRUITS RFG PINEAPPLE JUICE 11

PROCESSED FRUITS SALTED APPLE CHIPS 23

PROCESSED FRUITS SS ALL OTHER FRUIT 236

PROCESSED FRUITS SS APPLE JUICE NAC 676

PROCESSED FRUITS SS APPLESAUCE/FRUIT SAUCE 1890

PROCESSED FRUITS SS APRICOT JUICE NAC 1

PROCESSED FRUITS SS ASEPTIC JUICE ALL FLAVORS 485

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED FRUIT JUICE ALL FLAVORS 648

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED APPLES 57

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED APRICOTS 158

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED BERRIES 72

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED CHERRIES 94

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED CITRUS FRUIT 486

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED GRAPES 4

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED MIXED FRUIT 1076

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED PEACHES 1095

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED PEARS 628

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED PINEAPPLE 781

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANNED/BOTTLED PRUNES/PLUMS 50

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
48

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CANTELOUPE/MELON 1

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CHERRY JUICE NAC 79

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CIDER NAC 318

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CRANBERRY SAUCE 331

PROCESSED FRUITS SS CRANBERRY/JUICE/CRANBERRY JUICE BLEND NAC 419

PROCESSED FRUITS SS FRUIT DRINK NAC (JUICE) 14

PROCESSED FRUITS SS FRUIT JUICE BLEND NAC 713

PROCESSED FRUITS SS FRUIT JUICE LIQUID CONCENTRATE 83

PROCESSED FRUITS SS GRAPE JUICE NAC 451

PROCESSED FRUITS SS GRAPEFRUIT JUICE NAC 141

PROCESSED FRUITS SS LEMON/LIME JUICE NAC 354

PROCESSED FRUITS SS MARASCHINO CHERRIES 445

PROCESSED FRUITS SS ORANGE JUICE NAC 171

PROCESSED FRUITS SS OTHER FRUIT JUICE NAC 324

PROCESSED FRUITS SS PINEAPPLE JUICE NAC 71

PROCESSED FRUITS SS PREPARED PINEAPPLE SAUCE 3

PROCESSED FRUITS SS PRUNE/FIG JUICE NAC 171

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES DRIED BEANS/GRAINS 2388

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES DRIED VEGETABLE - EXCEPT BEANS 828

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ BEANS 1064

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ BREADED VEGETABLES 165

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ BROCCOLI 696

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ CARROTS 181

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ CORN 630

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ CORN ON THE COB 288

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ MIXED VEGETABLES 2150

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ ONION RINGS 157

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ ONIONS 83

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ OTHER PLAIN VEGETABLE 1026

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ PEAS 798

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ PLAIN POTATO/FRENCH FRY/HASH BROWNS 1612

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
49

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ PREPARED VEGETABLE (IN SAUCE) 242

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ SPINACH 389

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES FZ SQUASH/ZUCCHINI 117

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES POTATO PANCAKE/DUMPLING MIX 67

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES RFG BAKED BEANS 81

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES RFG SAUERKRAUT 100

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES RFG VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL (JUICE) 62

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS ALL OTHER BEANS 2746

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS ALOE VERA JUICE NAC 29

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS BAKED BEAN/PORK & BEAN 699

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS BAMBOO SHOOTS/WATERCHESTNUT 243

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CAN/BTLD GREEN BEANS 996

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CAN/BTLD GREEN PEAS 663

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED ALL OTHER VEGETABLE 1490

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL (JUICE) 268

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED CARROTS 275

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED CORN 1145

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED MUSHROOMS 706

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED POTATO/SWEET POTATO 552

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED SAUERKRAUT 330

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED SPINACH 164

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED TOMATO 2568

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS CANNED/BOTTLED VEGETABLE 495

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS FRUIT JUICE BLEND NAC (VEGETABLE JUICE) 5

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
50

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS INSTANT POTATOES 998

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS OTHER VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL NAC (JUICE) 376

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS REFRIED BEANS ONLY 517

PROCESSED 

VEGETABLES SS TOMATO PASTE/SAUCE/PUREE/ASPIC 1163

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS ALL OTHER SEASONAL CANDY 394

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS BAKING CHOCOLATE/CHIPS/COCOA 784

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS BREATH FRESHENER (INCLUDE SUGARLESS) 657

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS BROWN/POWDER/FLAVORED SUGAR 601

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CARAMEL/TAFFY APPLES 300

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHOCOLATE CANDY BAR < 3.5OZ/UNIT 3218

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHOCOLATE CANDY BOX/BAG > 3.5OZ 6895

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHOCOLATE CANDY SNACK SIZE 399

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHOCOLATE COVERED COOKIE/WAFER CANDY BAR 363

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHOCOLATE SYRUP/DESSERT TOPPING 657

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CHRISTMAS CANDY 4847

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS CORN/CARO/CRYSTAL/WHITE SYRUP 226

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS COUGH DROP/SQUARE 1360

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS DIET CANDY 1076

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS DRY WHIP TOPPING MIX 34

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS EASTER CANDY 5298

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS EDIBLE CAKE DECORATION 1666

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS FRUIT BUTTER 339

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS FRUIT FLAVORED SYRUPS 582

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS FZ JAMS/JELLIES/PRESERVE 16

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
51

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS FZ WHIP TOPPINGS 418

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS GELATIN DESSERT MIX 970

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS GIFT BOX CHOCOLATES 973

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS HALLOWEEN CANDY 2360

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS HARD SUGAR CANDY/PACKAGE/ROLL CANDY 2332

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS LICORICE BIG BOX/BAG > 3.5OZ 935

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS MAPLE/PANCAKE & WAFFLE SYRUP 1379

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS MARSHMALLOW CREME 48

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS MARSHMALLOWS 470

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS MOLASSES 104

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS NON CHOCOLATE CHEWY BIG BOX/BAG > 3.5OZ 7207

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS NON CHOCOLATE CHEWY CANDY BAR < 3.5OZ/UNIT 1574

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS NON CHOCOLATE CHEWY SNACK SIZE 124

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS NOVELTY CANDY 3733

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS PLAIN MINTS 1304

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS PLU SOFT DRINKS 4

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS PUDDING/PIE FILLING/MOUSSE MIXES 855

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS REGULAR GUM (NO SUGARLESS) 1230

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS RFG HONEY 4

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS RTS FROSTING/FROSTING MIX 614

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS SPECIALTY NUT/COCONUT CANDY 1525

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS SS HONEY 2276

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS SS JAMS/JELLIES/PRESERVE 4959

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS SUGAR SUBSTITUTES 863

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
52

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS SUGARLESS GUM 1504

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS TAFFY/CANDY APPLE KIT 81

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS VALENTINE CANDY 4307

SUGAR AND OTHER 

SWEETS WHITE GRANULATED SUGAR 627

FATS AND OILS ASIAN COOKING OILS 150

FATS AND OILS CHUNKY PEANUT BUTTER 503

FATS AND OILS COOKING & SALAD OILS 2121

FATS AND OILS COOKING SPRAY 538

FATS AND OILS CREAMY PEANUT BUTTER 916

FATS AND OILS MARGARINE/MARGARINE & BUTTER BLEND/SUBSTITUTE 922

FATS AND OILS OLIVE OIL 2578

FATS AND OILS PEANUT BUTTER COMBO - PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY 77

FATS AND OILS POPCORN OIL 18

FATS AND OILS POWDERED MILK (SUBSTITUTE) 2

FATS AND OILS RFG DAIRY CREAM/HALF & HALF/SOY TOPPING (WHIPPED 

TOPPING) 187

FATS AND OILS RFG LARD 16

FATS AND OILS RFG NON DAIRY TOPPINGS 44

FATS AND OILS RFG PEANUT BUTTER (ALL) 23

FATS AND OILS RFG SALAD DRESSING - POURABLE/SPREAD 770

FATS AND OILS SPECIALTY NUT BUTTER 419

FATS AND OILS SS COLESLAW/FRUIT SALAD DRESSING 47

FATS AND OILS SS POURABLE SALAD DRESSING 4930

FATS AND OILS SS SALAD DRESSING MIX 130

FATS AND OILS SS SANDWICH SPREAD/MAYONNAISE 1420

FATS AND OILS SS VEGETABLE/ANIMAL SHORTENING/LARD 214

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES CARBONATED WATER/CLUB SODA (INCLUDE FLAVORED) 2621

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES CHOCOLATE MILK FLAVORING/COCOA MIX 1294

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES COFFEE SUBSTITUTES 27

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES COFFEE TEA ADDITIVES/FLAVORING 472

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES DISTILLED WATER 288

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES FLAVORED HOT DRINK MIX 74

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES FZ COCKTAIL MIXES 50

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
53

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES FZ DRINK/COCKTAIL DRINK CONCENTRATE 316

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES FZ LEMONADE/LIMEADE CONCENTRATE 154

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES GROUND COFFEE (INCLUDE FLAVORED) 6013

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES GROUND DECAFFEINATED COFFEE (INCLUDE FLAVORED) 1101

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES INSTANT BREAKFAST (ADD TO MILK MEAL) 60

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES INSTANT COFFEE 801

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES INSTANT DECAFFEINATED COFFEE 175

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES INSTANT TEA/ICE TEA MIX 1069

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES LOOSE TEA & TEA BAGS 5448

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES LOW CALORIE SOFT DRINKS 2546

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES MILK CHOCOLATE MILK FLAVORING/DRINK MIX 151

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES NON CARBONATED WATER (INCLUDE FLAVORED) 5202

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES PLU - ALL BRANDS SODA 1

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES REGULAR SOFT DRINKS 8446

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG BOTTLED JUICE & DRINK SMOOTHIE 290

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG COCKTAIL MIXES 6

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG COFFEE CONCENTRATE 13

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG CRANBERRY COCKTAIL/DRINK 26

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG DRINK CONCENTRATE/SYRUP 1

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG FRUIT DRINK ALL FLAVORS 954

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG FRUIT NECTAR 58

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG GRAPEFRUIT COCKTAIL/DRINK 3

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG KEFIR/SUBSTITUTES MILK/SOY MILK (NONDAIRY) 37

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG LEMONADE 431

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
54

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG MILKSHAKE/NON DAIRY DRINK (DRINKS) 89

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG PREPARED TEAS 1027

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG RTD COFFEE 39

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL (COCKTAIL) 10

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RFG WEIGHT CONTROL/PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT 18

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES RTD BREAKFAST MEALS 42

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS ASEPTIC ISOTONIC DRINKS 39

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS ASEPTIC JUICE ALL FLAVORS (DRINK) 17

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS ASEPTIC JUICE DRINK 850

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS BOTTLED JUICE & DRINK SMOOTHIE 73

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS BREAKFAST DRINK MIX 14

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS CANNED FRUIT JUICE ALL FLAVORS (DRINK) 21

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS CANNED JUICE DRINK 1006

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS CANNED VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL (DRINK) 29

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS CANNED/PREPARED TEA 2301

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS COFFEE CAPPUCINO DRINKS 337

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS CRANBERRY COCKTAIL/JUICE DRINK NAC 1231

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS DRINK CONCENTRATE/SYRUP 283

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS FROST/WHIPPED/YOGURT DRINK MIX 116

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS FRUIT DRINK MIX 2054

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS FRUIT DRINK NAC 3147

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS FRUIT NECTAR NAC 237

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS GRAPEFRUIT COCKTAIL NAC 181

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS ISOTONIC DRINK MIX 381

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
55

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS ISOTONIC DRINKS NON-ASEPTIC 2996

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS LEMONADE 530

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS LIQUID COCKTAIL MIXES 1098

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS NON FRUIT DRINKS - NO COFFEE 169

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES

SS OTHER VEGETABLE JUICE/COCKTAIL NAC (DRINK, 

COCKTAIL) 125

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS POWDER COCKTAIL MIXES 119

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES

SS RTD MILK/MILK SUBSTITUTES (NONDAIRY BEVERAGE, 

SOY MILK) 421

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES SS SPARKLING JUICE NAC (DRINK) 568

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES WEIGHT CONTROL/PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT 4217

NONALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES WHOLE COFFEE BEANS 2354

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS ALL OTHER DRY SEASONING MIXES 198

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY ELECTROLYTES 268

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY FOOD/SNACK 2249

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY FORMULA 118

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY FORMULA LIQUID CONCENTRATE 34

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY FORMULA POWDER 505

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BABY JUICE 118

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BAKING POWDER/SODA 236

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS BREADING/BATTER/COATING MIXES (SEASONING MIX) 33

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS CAROB/YOGURT COATED SNACK 616

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS CATSUP/KETCHUP 823

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS CHEESE SNACKS 1527

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS CHOCOLATE COVERED SALTED SNACK 823

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS CHUTNEY 199

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS COOKING SHERRY/WINE 199

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS COOKING STARCHES/RENNET (AGAR, RENNET, STABILIZER) 34

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRIED BEANS/GRAINS (SEASONING) 14

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRIED MEAT SNACKS 3223

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY DINNER MIX WITH MEAT 68

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY DINNER MIX-ADD MEAT 827

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY GRAVY MIXES 748

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY MACARONI & CHEESE MIX 903

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY MEAT/SEAFOOD SEASONING MIXES 1604

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY SALAD/SIDE DISH MIX 779

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
56

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY SAUCE MIX 358

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS DRY/RFG YEAST 111

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS EXTRACT/FLAVORING/FOOD COLORING 1394

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FRESH CUT SALAD AND COLESLAW 2329

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FROZEN REGULAR DINNERS 399

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FROZEN REGULAR ENTREES 4506

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FROZEN RFG MEAT SUBSTITUTES - NO POULTRY 525

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FRUIT/VEGETABLE PRESERVATIVE/PECTIN 160

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ APPETIZER/SNACK ROLL 2911

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ BABY FOOD/JUICE/SNACK 59

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ CHEESECAKE 386

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ CHILI 76

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ EGG ROLL/POTSTICKERWONTON WRAPPER 49

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ HANDHELD NON BREAKFAST ENTREES 2488

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ MEAT SPREAD/SALADS 5

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ MEAT/SEAFOOD SEASONING MIXES 10

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ OTHER BREAKFAST FOOD 1547

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ PIZZA 3760

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ PIZZA KITS/TOPPINGS 1

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ POT PIES 236

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ PREPARED DIPS 64

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ PREPARED PUDDING/MOUSSE 24

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ PRETZELS 109

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ RFG POULTR/POULTRY SUBSTITUTES (POULTRY 

SUBSTITUTES) 113

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ SAUCE/GRAVY/MARINADE 82

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ SIDE DISH 932

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ SOUP 370

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS FZ STUFFING 31

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS KERNEL POPCORN 350

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS KETCHUP/MUSTARD/OTHER COMBO 7

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS NUTRITIONAL SNACK BAR/GRANOLA BAR 7320

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS NUTRITIONAL SNACK/TRAIL MIX 4002

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS NUTS FOR BAKING/COOKING 2458

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS OTHER CORN SNACK - NO TORTILLA CHIP 843

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS OTHER SALTED SNACK - NO NUTS 5341

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS PEPPER 1202

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS POTATO CHIPS 6053

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS PREPARED MUSTARD 1856

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS PRETZELS 2192

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG APPETIZERS/SNACK ROLL 1879

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
57

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG BREAKFAST ENTREE 420

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG FLAVORED SPREADS 1391

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG FRESH SOUPS 1105

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG HANDHELD NON BREAKFAST ENTREE 2420

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG HORSERADISH/HORSERADISH SAUCE 243

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG MARINATED VEGETABLE/FRUIT/EGG 150

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG MEAT SPREAD/SALAD 333

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG MEAT/CHEESE/CRACKER/DESSERT 382

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG MEAT/SEAFOOD SEASONING MIXES 20

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG MUSTARD 6

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PEPPER/PIMENTO/OLIVES 131

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PICKLES 236

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PIZZA/PIZZA KITS 461

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG POT PIES 75

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PREPARED CHILI 110

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PREPARED DELI/GOURMET FOOD 882

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PREPARED DINNER/ENTREE 2089

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PREPARED DIPS 2222

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PREPARED SALAD FRUIT/COLESLAW 2275

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG PUDDING/MOUSSE/GELATIN/PARFAIT 1680

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG RELISHES/APPETIZER RELISH 30

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG SALAD TOPPING/BACON BITS 26

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG SAUCE/GRAVY/MARINADE 1678

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RFG SIDE DISHES 1032

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS RTE POPCORN/CARAMEL CORN 2682

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SALAD TOPPING/BACON BIT 587

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SALT/SALT SEASONING/SALT SUBSTITUTES 1828

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SNACK NUTS 9482

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SPICE/SEASONING - NO SALT/PEPPER 15566

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS ALL OTHER MEXICAN SAUCE/MARINADE 592

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS ASIAN FOOD ITEMS 972

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS ASIAN SAUCE/MARINADE 1696

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS CHILI/HOTDOG SAUCE 294

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS CRACKERS WITH FILLINGS (SNACK BAR) 7

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS DAIRY SAUCE/CHEESE (DIP) 12

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS DRIED BREAKFAST FOOD 9

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS DRY DIP MIX 336

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS DRY SOUPS/SOUP MIXES 2170

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS GARLIC SPREAD 99

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS HOLLANDAISE/BEARNAISE/DILL SAUCE 35

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS HORSERADISH/HORSERADISH SAUCE 248

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
58

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS ICE POP NOVELTIES 354

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MARINATED VEGETABLE/FRUIT/EGG 1734

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MEAT SAUCE/MARINADE/GLAZE 2694

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MEAT SUBTITUTES/VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCT 131

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MEAT/MEAT SPREAD 1074

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MEXICAN FOOD ITEMS 105

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MICROWAVE PACKAGE DINNER/ENTREE 479

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS MICROWAVE POPCORN 1721

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS OLIVES 3174

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PEPPERS/PIMENTOS 2199

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PICANTE SAUCE 202

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PICKLES 2971

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PIE/PASTRY FILLING 679

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PIZZA KITS/MIXES TOPPINGS 25

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED BARBECUE SAUCE 2412

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED CHILI 625

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED DIP 740

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED HOT/CAJUN SAUCE 1453

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED ITALIAN SAUCE 4045

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED LIQUID GRAVY 499

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED PASTA DISHES 801

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED PIZZA SAUCE 246

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED PUDDING/GELATIN 673

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED SALAD 243

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED SEAFOOD SAUCE 387

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED SLOPPY SAUCE 120

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED TACO SAUCE 141

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS PREPARED TARTAR SAUCE 217

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS REGULAR PREPARED DINNER/ENTREE 497

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS RELISH/APPETIZER RELISH 965

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS RTU PIE CRUST 293

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS SALSA 3099

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS SOUP 4815

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS SOUP STARTER/BOUILLON/BOTH 1920

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS STEAK/WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE 525

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SS TOASTER PASTRY/TART 981

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS SUNFLOWER/PUMPKIN SEEDS 1783

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS TOASTED CORN NUT SNACKS 153

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS TORTILLA/TOSTADA CHIPS 2930

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS UNIFORM WEIGHT FRESH LETTUCE (PREPARED SALAD) 15

MISCELLANEOUS FOODS VINEGAR 2068

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued

—continued
59

Food-at-Home Expenditures: Comparing Commercial Household Scanner Data From IRI and Government Survey Data, TB-1946

USDA, Economic Research Service

CE CATEGORY KEYCAT (IRI VARIABLE) # UPCs

Total 643137

CE = Consumer Expenditure Survey; UPC = Universal Product Code

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using IRI data, 2008-12.

Appendix table 1

IRI keycats by Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) categories—continued