A Tobit . .\Nalysis of Fac:Ors Affecting Vegetable Expenditure

$A Tobit . .\Nalysis of Fac:Ors Affecting Vegetable Expenditure$

A Tobit ..\nalysis of Fac:ors Affecting Vegetable Expenditure

?atter~s in U. S. Households

John McDonough Love

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Agricultural Economics

APPROVED:

Oral Capps, J.x., Chairman

Charles W. Coale, JT. Randall A. Kramer

August 1982

Blacksburg, Virginia Acknowledgements

The author expresses his ::;incere appreciation to Dr. Oral Capps,

Jr., committee chairman, for the grace and generosity of his guidance while completing this thesis. He is also indebted to his other committee members, Drs. Charles W. Coale, Jr. and Randall A. Kramer for their constructive criticisms in preparation of this manuscript. For technical assistance, he is indebted to the labors of Tom Finn and

John Harvey.

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by S-165 Regional Project on U.S. Food Demand and

Consumption Behavior, under Virginia Tech Agreement Number 230-01-

023-001-6224270.

ii Table of Contents

Acknowledgements. ii

List of Tables. v

List of Figures . . vii

Chapter I: Introduction .•. 1

Background . • . . . 2 Literature Review. 9 Problem Statement. 19 Objectives •••. 21 Scope ...... 21 Thesis Organization .. 22

Chapter II: Theoretical and Statistical Models 23

Introduction ...... 24 Partitioning Vegetables into Weakly Separable Groups 24 Economic Model • • . . . . . • • • . 28 Statistical Models • 31 Tobit Analysis . • • 35

Chapter III: Data Description and :iethods of Analysis. 39

Introduction • . • . • 40 Income . • • . • . • . . 41 Age-Sex Composition. 42 Education •.• · ..•. • 44 Race of the Household Head . • 45 Fqod Stamp Participation ·: . 46 Earner Composition , ; -. . . • 47 Population Density of Residence. • 48 United States Region • . . . • • • • • 50 Methods of .<\nalys:!s. . • . • . • • . . . . 51

Chapter IV: Results and Conclusions. . 55

Total Vegetable Expenditure ...• • 56 Fresh' and·-Canned Vegetable Expenditure . 62 Vegetable Subgroup Expenditure . . . • • • • • 72 Household Vegetable Expenditure Profile .• 90

iii Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications for Further Research. • 93

References. 98

Appendix A. .101

Appendix B. . .114

Vita. . . . .172

Abstract

iv List of Tables Table

1. Two vegetable subgroups based on frequency of preparation ...... • 26

2. Five vegetable subgroups and three processed forms which are used to estimate the impact of socioeconomic and . demographic factors on household eA"Penditures • • • • • • • 29

3. Variable notation and description for statistical model •• 34

4. Description of Tobit model and some results from McDonald and Moffitt (1980) • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36

5. A comparison of proportions of nonpurchasing households between the BLS CEDS, second sample year, and its subsample of 2,000 households randomly selected •• 52

6. Sutmnary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on total vegetables. • • • • • • • • ••• 57

7. Calculated elasticities.from.Tobit coefficients for total vegetables ••••••••••• . • • . 61

8. Sutmnary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on ·canned vegetables • • • • • • • • • • • 63

9. Calculated eJ.asticities from Tobit coefficients for canned vegetables • • • • • • . 65

10. Sunnnary statistics for Tobit analysis of household .. expenditures on fresh vegetables. • • • • • • • • ••• 66

11. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for fresh vegetables •••• • • • • 68

12. Summary statistics for Tobit aJ1alysis of household expenditures on dark green and deep yellow vegetables • • • 74

13. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for dark green and deep yellow vegetables • • • • • • • • • 76

14. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on light green vegetables. • • • • • ••• 77

15. Calculated elasticities form Tobit coefficients for light green vegetables. • • • • 79

16. Sunnnary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on tomatoes. • • • • • • • • • • • • 80

v Table Page

17. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for tomatoes •••••••• • • • • 82

18. Swmnary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on potatoes. • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 83

19. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for potatoes •.••••••• ...... • • • • 85 20. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on other vegetables. • • • • • • • • ••• 86

21. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for other vegetables •• ...... • • • • • 88 22. Profile of two-week expenditures on vegetables by households under selected conditions of annual income and age-sex composition • • • • .•.•.• , • • • • • • • • • • • 91

vi List of Figures

Figure

1. Changes in per capita consumption of vegetables, since 1967, in fresh, frozen, and canned forms •• 4

2. Changes in total per capita consumption of vegetables and percent total per capita consumption in fresh, frozen, and canned forms, since 1967 .•••••••• . . . 5

vii Chapter One

Introduction

1 2

3acl.

In American households, vegetables significantly contribute to meeting the requirements for a balanced diet. While only occupying

5 to 6 percent of the average total household food budget, per capita consumption of vegetables is ap~roximately 20 percent of total per capita food consumed in the United States. An interest in maintaining or improving the diet of a particular sector of society naturalt"y leads to questions about current vegetable consumption and expenditure patterns. However, a scarcity of current research exists to answer questions about how socioeconomic and demographic factors affect the propensity to purchase vegetables and the expected value of vegetable expenditures.

For obvious economic reasons, 'legetable producers and processors arc interested in factors affecting household demand for various vegetables and their associated product forms. Also, marketers and retailers arc keenly aware of the rising value of supermarket shelf space needed to adequately satisfy the demand for quality and variety in vegetable supply. In general, policymakers, producers, and marketers of food need to 1.

to gain a better understanding of how socioeconomic and demographic

factors affect household expenditure patterns for vegetables. 3

Vegetables arc important in a balanced Jict, as they arc rich

sources of fiber, carbohydr.gtcs, minerals and vitamins. For

example, the dark green and deep yellow vegetables (broccoli,

collards, carrots, etc.) arc high in vitamin A content and

potassium, and potatoes and corn arc high in carbohydrate content.

Also, onions, peas, and beans arc all high in thiamin content

(USDA, 1975). The recently formed guidelines for an improved

quality of American diets recommended increased consumption of

vegetables (U.S. Congress). Since the middle 1960s, per capita

consumption of vegetables has increased gradually (USDA, 1977).

The sharpest increase occurred in consumption of frozen and canned

forms, while there was virtually no increase in per capita

consumption of fresh forms (Figure 1). The United States

Department of Agriculture estimates that, tn 1980, U.S. per capita

consumption of vegetables was 207 pounds, 70 percent fresh, 25

percent canned, and 5 percent frozen (Figure 2).

Since 1960, per capita consumption of the dark green and deep

yellow vegetables has undergone minor proportional changes

(Appendix Figures A.1-A.3). As fresh, the proportion made up of

broccoli has increased, while the share going to carrots has

decreased. As frozen, the proportions going to broccoli, brusscl

sprouts, and carrots have increased. As canned, the proportion of

dark green and deep yellow vegetables composed of carrots has

increased slightly. Similarly, among the light green and "other"

subgroups of vegetables (Figures A.4-A.9), per capita consumption 4

130

120

110

Cmned - 100 Q ~ ... 90 "'~ ..,," "'c - 70 75 80

110

100 Fresh WI _, 1967 68 69 70 71 , - ;3 74 7§ 76 77 ;8 79 80 al 82 Year

Figure 1. Changes in per capita consumption of vegetables, since 1967, in fresh, frozen, and canned forms. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 5

llO, ~ ,...I ...: ....,. lOO ,._.. - -- oo- ..:: ..... 90 o~ 100 Frozen

90·

80 c.nned

70 ...... 0= 60 u.. -...... l! .. ;; .. = 50. ~8 r--0 " .....&I 40' F~aah :: .. .."' ...... 30 .."> "

1967 68 69 70 7l 72 73 74 75 76 11 78 79 80 81 s: Year Figure 2. Changes in total per capita consumption of vegetables (upper) and percent total per capita consumption in fresh, frozen, and canned forms (lower), since 1967. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 6

of vegetables is characterized by minor long-term changes in the proportional mix of vegetables within a given processed form.

Focusing upon tomatoes and potatoes, tt is apparent that long- term changes arc minor in per capita consumption of various processed forms. The proportion of per capita consumption of tomatoes going to catsup, chili sauce and paste has increased, while that going to juices has decreased (Figure A.10). The proportions in whole and pulp/puree remained stable. The mix of product forms of potatoes has shown a gradual shift away from fresh to frozen, while dehydrated, chipped and stringed, and canned potatoes remained stable (Figure A.11).

In general, ·per capita consumption of vegetables indicates long-tcr~_stability in the mix of fresh, frozen and canned forms

(USDA, 1981a). However, among processed forms, per capita consumption of frozen vegetables is more ~rratic, particularly since 1970. During the decade of 1970-1980, per capita consumption of frozen vegetables increased most dramatically for broccoli, carrots, and sweet corn. Tomato products dominated the increase in consumption of canned vegetables. Potatoes were consumed in about equal proportions of fresh and procescd forms. Among fresh vegetables, the increase was the most dramatic for lettuce, onions, and tomatoes (USDA, 1981a).

In the producing sector, a total of 25 million tons of vegetables produced in 1980 were grown in roughly the same proportions for processing and fresh markets (USDA, 198la). Cash 7

receipts by U.S. farmers for vegetables totalled six billion dollars, comprising S.S percent of total farm cash receipts in 1978

(USDA, 1981b). United States exports of vegetables totalled 690 million dollars in 1980, the largest share (40 percent) going to

Canada (USDA, 198la). Imports of vegetables have increased sharply since 1976, due largely to increased imports from Mexico.

In Applachia, vegetable production output has declined since

1967 (Figure A.12a). On Virginia farms, cash receipts for vegetables were 5.6 million dollars, constituting 4.6 percent of the total state farm cash receipts. In Virginia, in 1978, cash receipts were roughly equal for potatoes and sweet potatoes as for cucumbers, beans, cabbage and sweet corn (Figure A.12b).

In 1979, total value of sales for potatoes by U.S. producers was about one billion dollars. Virginia potato producers ranked

18th in value of sales at 9.2 million dollars. The total value of sales for sweet potatoes from U.S. producers was about 127 million dollars. Virginia producers ranked eighth among the leading 13 states producing sweet potatoes, with sales of 3.4 million dollars

(USDA, State Farm Income Statistics).

Progressive Grocer reported that the produce section of supermarkets (which includes fresh fruit) contributes one of the highest gross margins (about 30 percent) to overall store sales

(Progressive Grocer March, 1977). In addition, sales from produce departments typically comprise 6.5 percent of total store sales.

According to recent reports in Progessive Grocer (March 1980), 8

~sing Selling-Areas Marketing Institute Size and Trend Report data, the largest increases in dollar value of frozen vegetables occurred in mixed vegetables, brussel sprouts, spinach, cauliflower, and corn. Among canned vegetables, the largest increases occurred in sauerkraut, green beans, kidney beans, and tomato sauce.

To the marketer, the importance of household socioeconomic and demographic characteristics on food consumption is revealed by referring to the annual Guide to Product Useage published in

Progressive Grocer. Monitoring the movement of grocery goods through the warehouses of a particular mar~et provides grocers with general relationships between the demand for commodities and the dominant socioeconomic profile of community households. For example, in 1980, female homemakers in a household with an income of $25,000 or more, were far more prone to purchase frozen vegetables than other female homemakers. Usually , no firm guidelines were given to aid in the utilization of this information.

In summary, vegetables form an important part of the American food distribution system, from the producer to the consumer. gconomic research examining the relationship between household socioeconomic characteristics and expenditure patterns for vegetables should result in valuable information about vegetable consumption behavior. This information could be used by various private and public institutions to facilitate their efforts to increase the quality and variety of vegetables accessible to 9

consumers.

Literature Review

A review of literature dealing with household expenditure patterns for vegetables should bring forth and summarize the relevant problems and issues which have been treated by economists in a century of household budget studies. The economic literature of household budget studies is broad in scope and appears in various journals, monographs, and texts; therefore, the focus on vegetable expenditures results in a sampling oE this vast literature.

In "The early History of empirical Studies of Consumer

Behavior," Stigler (1954) investigated the reasons for a sixty-year lag between empirical advances and the development of a theoretical base for guiding economists in household budget studies. Stigler speculated that social unrest in europc during the 1840s initiated the study of living standards of impoverished families. Also, timely developments in statistical analysis lent to the burgeoning collection, summarization and interpretation of budget data.

However, " ••• it was not until the 1930s that income came to be analyzed systematically in economic theory." During that time, the work of Slutsky (1915) and Hicks and Allen (1934) " ••• was wholly in harmony with the line of development fofl the theory of utility"

(Stigler, 1954). A historical examination of empirical ~udget studies from the late nineteenth century up to World War II led

Stigler to conclude " •.• the empirical workers who arc pioneering 10

new areas can learn more from theorists •.• so that they will influence the trend of economic thinking." Stigler also traced the origin of "Engel Is Law" to the loose trans lat ion by Carroll wright in 1875, of ~rnst gngel's 1857 study of aelgian family budgets.

For the period following World War II, perhaps the most important comprehensive study of household budgets was published at

Cambridge in a monograph by S. J. Prais and H. S. Houthakker

(1955). Three major areas of their study of 1937-1939 British household budget data were important: (l) a methodological treatment of the form of Engel curves, (2) the development of unit-consumer scales (equivalence scales), and (3) the use of socioeconomic characteristics of households to explain changes in the British living standard. The influence of The Analysis of

Family Budgets on economic thinking during the subsequent 25 years is evident by recent advances in these three areas. Therefore, these developments will serve to precipitate discussion of selected topics in the literature of household expenditure patterns for vegetables.

A mathematical expression of the Engel relationship between expenditure and income requires a compromise between obtaining reliable results from often limited data and deriving theoretically plausible interpretations of the economic significance of household income. For example, Prais and Houthakker (1955) argued against using linear polynomials because of the "degree of scatter of observations" in most family budgets. Also, in the linear Engel 11

curve, income elasticities for all goods t~nd toward unity (Prais

Houthakkcr, 1955).

?rais and Houthakker (1955) argued for the use of a semi- logarithmic form of Engel curve, 1,~sed on the hypothesis that the marginal propensity to consume varies inversely with income. More recently, Salathe (1979a) compared fifteen functional forms across six basic food groups using the 1965 USDA Household Food

Consumption Survey. In both studies, vegetables as a group appeared to be a household necessity; but estimated income elasticities varied dramatically depending on functional form.

Comparing five different equations, Prais and Houthakker (1955) found that income-expenditure elasticities for vegetables ranged from 0.40 (hyperbola) to 0.62 (double logarithmic). Salathe

(1979a) found the range to be 0.049 to 0.298, and that vegetables was the only group for which the quadratic form produced positive, significant coefficients on per capita income and per capita income squared.

Harmston and Hino (1970) tested six different forms of Engel curves and, relying on goodness of fit, chose the natural log polynomial equation. Their analysis of the behavior of income elasticities led to a classification scheme for food groups which allowed them to investigate changes in the nature of demand for food from 1955 to 1965. The income elasticity of fresh vegetables consumed by American households indicated their ''preferred superiori~y'' by an increasing positive elasticity of less than one. 12

Income elasticities indicated dried vegetables were inferior goods for both time periods, and fresh ?Otatocs showed a change in the nature of demand toward inferiority for both years. Harmston and

Hino (1970) concluded that factors affecting household tastes could be related to the nature of demand for food products.

Rockwell (1959), using multiple linear correlation, analyzed

1955 OSDA Household Food Consumption Survey data and found that income elasticities for vegetables varied substantially over the range of incomes reported by farm and non-farm households. Within the group of fresh vegetables (other than potatoes), income elasticities were higher for fresh tomatoes than for dark green and deep yellow vegetables. High income elasticties were observed for frozen and canned forms, ~ut because processed vegetables were grouped with processed fruit, the estimated elasticities were probably high, due to generally higher elasticities often observed for fruit.

Consumer theory recognizes household income as an important economic factor affecting the level of expenditure observed in household budget data. Aitchison and Brown (1954) argued that income may act as a stimulus, much like that in the biological world. Their argument led to the hypothesis of saturation levels for certain commodities similar by example to observations on foraging honey bees. They estimated the income elasticity of vegetables to be 0.54, the saturation level of expenditureto be as second lowest (to fish), and the "cheapness coefficient" (the rate 13

of approach to saturation) t0 be second ~ighcst to farinaceous foods (flour, oatmeal, etc.)

Through the progress of research into the nature of engel functions, income has been found to be a statistically significant variable in explaining household expenditure patterns for vegetables. The magnitude of the effect appears to depend on the mathematical form of the relationship, the level of income, and the constituents of the vegetable group under examination. Equally important, perhaps, is the problem of incorporating into the budget analysis the distribution of income to individual household members and the estimation of the effects of changes in household age and sex composition.

Prais and Houthakker (1955) called household size and composition a "social factor," and argued that it is "necessary to bring them explicitly into the main analysis in order to make any progress." They hypothesized that an increase in household size would lead to increased consumption of inferior goods by both the entire household and individual members, whereas the consumption of necessities would increase for the entire household but decrease on a per person basis. For luxuries, they hypothesized that increased household size would result in decreased consumption, either for the household as a whole or for individual members. Prais and

Houthakker (1955) estimated commodity-specific scales based on the principles found in Sydenstrickcr and King (1921). Since then, researchers have attempted to estimate relative scales in which the 14

adult male is the base unit. For this reason, they arc termed unit-equivalent scales. The present study docs not attempt to estimate unit-equivalent scales; however inf~rmation about vegetable expenditure behavior can be gleaned from past research in

this area.

David (1962). hypothesized that family composition was

responsible, in part, for the preference orderings of households due to (1) pressure from socio-cultural factors to substitute necessities for luxuries as the household grows larger, (2) time- dcpendent processes of learning, aging, etc., and (3) expectations

and planning horizons of the household as it undergoes changes in

age and sex composition.

Prais and Houthakker (1955) estimated specific scales for six

food groups. They observed that for vegetables the scale for the male adolescent was consistently higher than for the female

adolescent and the male adult. For the two age groups, 1-4 years

and 5-9 years, the scale for vegetables was greater than for any

other food group and generally one-third greater than for all food.

An alternative approach to unit-consumer scales was developed

recently by Buse and Salathe (1978). They developed adult-

cquivalent scales which were treated as a continuous function of

age rather than the discrete stepwise function of specific scales

of Prais and Houthakker. Exalliination of the estimated adult-

equivalent scale for vegetables showed a general increase over the

period 1955-1965. Also, males tended to increase their consumption 15

(expenditure) rapidly in the teen years. From the age of 17 to 55 years, changes in consumption were assumed to level off and it was found that in the senior years, vegetable consumption declined more rapidly for females than for males.

From the results of estimating unit-equivalent scales (Prais and Houthakkcr, 1955) and adult-equivalent scales (Buse and

Salathe, 1978), the evidence suggests that household expenditures for vegetables arc determined to some degree by the age-sex composition within the household. Recently, Blanciforti, ct al.

(1981), incorporated the unit-equivalent scales of Price, et al.

(1976) into the analysis of household food expenditures for

"relatively more nutritious" and "relatively less nutritious" foods. Also, they separated the effect of life cycle in the analysis, utilizing seven life cycle stages. The income elasticity for relatively more nutritious foods was greatest for households with no children and the housewife over 40 years of age; it was lowest for households with no children and the housewife 40 years of age or less. Price, ct al. (1980), isolated a single life cycle stage, households containing 8-12 year old children, and examined the number and.diversity of vegetables served in

Washington households. They found that household size positively affected the number and diversity of vegetables served. In terms of the number of vegetables, household size exhibited the

"strongest" effect. They concluded that increased household size

increased the number of individual preferences and that this 16

attribute contributed to the observed consumption patterns.

Prais and Houthakker (1955) analyzed the economic significance of such socio-demographic factors as social class, occupation, and region. It was pointed out that " ••• the concept of social class is regarded as being largely a shorthand expression for a particular combination of economic factors." The effects of occupation on food consumption were attributed to different requirements depending on the exertion common to broadly different job types.

The economic effect of region was attributed to different relative prices, "especially transportation costs and rents," and to differences in tastes from climatic factors. Generally, limited conclusions were drawn from incorporating social factors into the analysis of British household budgets. Also, there appeared to be a clear danger of confusing the effects of income with the effects of social factors.

Rockwell (1959) accounted for differences in food consumption patterns and income levels between farm and non-farm households by conducting separate analyses for each type of residence. Income elasticities for fresh vegetables in low and medium income households ·were lower for farm than for non-farm samples. However,

in high-income brackets, these elasticities were higher for farm

than for non-farm households. Income elasticities for potatoes and

sweet potatoes in medium and high income households were higher for

farm than for non-farm households.

Buse and Salathc (1978) found increased spending per adult- 17

equivalent on nearly all food groups in rural farm and urban households than in rural non-farm households. In general, " ••• the inclusion of additional socioeconomic variables to reflect heterogeneous tastes were ••• useful in explaining expenditure variations." They also examined other variables such as education of the female head, employment of the female head outside the home, region and urbanization.

Price, Price and West (1980) went beyond traditional bounds in their study of household expenditures on fruits and vegetables.

They argued for recognition of psychological need levels of household members, as well as various management styles as effective determinants of expenditure patterns in Washington households. Their results indicated that need levels and management styles were not statistically significant in explaining expenditures on most vegetable groups. However, as the researchers noted, where such data exist, " ••• incorporation of these and other variables into empirical analyses can provide a more complete understanding of food consumption behavior."

Recently, Salathe (1979b) examined the probable effects of changes in U.S. population characteristics on aggregate consumption of sixteen food categories, including vegetables. The population variables were age-sex composition, household size, racial mix, region of the United States, and degree of urbanization. Salathe concluded that projected population changes would have negative impacts on vegetable consumption. However, the 18

precise nature of these impacts was unclear.

In summary, a review of literature on household expenditure patterns for vegetables indicated that vegetables are relatively important items in households of various types. gxpenditure patterns appeared to be influenced by income, household age-sex composition, and other major socioeconomic and demographic measures of tastes and preferences. Income-expenditure elasticities tended to vary inversely with level of income, and several research reports recommended appropriate mathematical expressions for the gngel relationship. Household age-sex catagories were found to influence expenditure patterns on the basis of both discrete and continous functions of unit- and adult-equivalent scales. Other important factors fell into regional, residential, educational, and ethnic categories.

The study of appropriate functi.onal forms, of unit-consumer scales, and of expenditures for broad food groups has given rise to a diverse body of economic literature on vegetables. Long periods of time separate publication dates for papers dealing with vegetable expenditures. Rockwell (1959) preceded Harmston and Hino

(1976) by 17 years in accounting for product form in vegetable expenditures. Also, Rockwell (1959) recognized the need to analyze data which included non-using households, but in general, researchers have not given adequate treatment to this topic when studying vegetable expenditures. Also, vegetables are commonly aggregated into a single group or arc grouped with fruits in the 19

analysis. Finally, the results in the ltt~rature arc not used to predict household vegetable expenditures on the basis of socioeconomic and demographic charteristics.

The present research is motivated by the recognition of the need for a more recent study of nationwide household data, accounting for relevant socioeconomic factors. The focus is placed primarily on expenditure patterns for vegetables in their various product forms and subgroups. It is necessary, therefore, to recognize the contributions of past researchers and to build upon existing theoretical and empirical frameworks.

Problem Statement

In an age of rapid technological development, American social habits and institutions are under pressure to change concomitantly to accommodate consumers' changing tastes and preferences. In the area of food distribution, a new awareness of consumer tastes and preferences has produced efforts to understand the appeal of marketing techniques to local communities. In Little River,

Arkansas, for example, the design and location of appropriate supermarket formats arc based on information about the community's socioeconomic and demographic profiles (Progressive Grocer , 1981).

Techniques of convenience packaging have developed as a response to demands by households which serve meals in the midst of diverse

family schedules. Nutrition information is increasingly demanded by consumers exposed daily to the vast array of new food products

in the supermarket. The purpose of this study is to add to the 20

stock of knowledge about the impact of scci.:icconomic factors on household expenditure patterns for vegetables.

The extant body of literature on household expenditure patterns for vegetables is incomplete in several respects. First, current studies arc lacking in attention to just vegetables.

Recent population nutrition studies published in economic journals examine the intake of essential vitamin and mineral constituents rather than food commodities or groups. Also, the study of household consumption activities often dilute the importance of vegetables by grouping them with fruits or by inconsistent definitions of vegetable constituents. While these conditions are not undesirable in their particular contexts, there remains a void in the literature, where a study that focuses primarily on expenditure patterns for vegetables would serve as valuable.

Second, there exists a number of problems in analyses of household expenditure patterns for vegetables which could be grouped u?der the heading of methodology. A study of household expenditure behavior must measure activity over a period short enough to observe stable preferences but long enough to capture representative behavior. The inevitable problem of incorporating observations of zero expenditures has taken two general solutions:

(1) elimination of all zero expenditures and evaluation of just those "user11 households, and (2) inclusion of zero expenditures.

On the one hand, information is lost by eliminating valuable data, while on the other hand, inappropriate techniques of empirical 21

estimation lead to inappropriate results. Another problem is the representative nature of a particular sample. ~aturally, a compromise results from weighing the advantges of sampling broad regions of households throughout the contigous Onitcd States and examining more closely, households over a smaller geographic area.

As a result, pioneering models have been tested using survey data from the states of Washington, Michigan, and Georgia (Price, Price and West, 1980; Hymans and Shapiro, 1974; Raunikcr, ct al., 1966).

However, regional differences in taste and preferences arc important to study for the benefit of our vast network of food distribution.

Objectives

The specific objectives of this research arc the following:

(1) to determine and assess the rclatonship between socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of United States households and their expenditures on vegetables, and (2) to develop profiles of household expenditures on vegetables based on household income, age-sex composition, race, residence, region, education, and earner composition.

Scope

The source of data for this research is the 1972-74 Bureau of

Labor Statistics Consumer [xpenditure Diary Survey. A two-week record of expenditures was kept by each of 23,186 consumer units across :he United States during the period June 1972 to 1974. A 22

survey of this nature is described as "picturesque" by Prais and

Houthakkcr (1955) because it lends itself to evaiuating a number of parameters describing the population. A sample of this size is assumed representative of the population at large.

Thesis Organization

Theoretical and empirical models of household expenditure patterns are developed in Chapter II. Data subsampling methods and descriptive statistical information on the various subsamples arc presented in Chapter III. The results of the empirical analyses are discussed in Chapter IV. Finally concluding comments and implications for further research arc presented in Chapter v. Chapter Two

Theoretical and Statistical Models

23 24

Introduction

Consumer demand theory relies on the premise that rational consumers will act as if to maximize their utility function subject to constraints such as income. Derived demand equations, resulting from Lagrangian optimization of the utility function, give rise to gngel expenditure relationships. In this context, Engel expenditure relationships can be tested using household budget data if the underlying household utility function is known. Knowledge of the underlying utility function is never certain, but consumer demand theory aids in specifying a model whose arguments belong in the Engel expenditure function. The purpose of this chapter is to specify an Engel expenditure relationship for households purchasing vegetables for home consumption. The discussion will encompass:

(i) the separability of vegetable subgroups, (ii) an economic model of household expenditure patterns, and (iii) a statistical model for testing hypotheses about household expenditures for vegetables.

Partitioning Vegetables into Weakly Separable Grouos

As a single group, vegetables are composed of commodities diverse by nature. For example, the edible portion of tomatoes, potatoes, and sweetpotatoes is a fruit, a tuber, and a root, respectively. Celery is mainly leaf petiole, lettuce is entirely

leaf, and broccoli is mostly immature flower. Vegetables th~n comprise a diverse group that can be divided into subgroups having certain attributes in common. However, the task of assigning 25

vegetables to subgroups is without well-defined criteria.

A diverse group such as vegetables lends itself to further classification by recognizing the concept of separability among subgroups. Separability is defined by a constant ratio of marginal utilities of two commodities under the influence of changes the in quantity consumed of a third commodity. One type of separability, weak separability among vegetable subgroups, is illustrated by distinguishing the dark green and deep yellow vegetables from potatoes. For example, the ratio of marginal utilities of spinach and kale is assumed constant under conditions of changing levels of consumption of white potatoes. The assumption of separability is difficult to test empirically; however, it allows for aggregating a large number of vegetables into subgroups.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of consumers' vegetables purchases resulted in grouping vegetables by the frequency of preparation: (i) at least 2-3 times per month, versus (ii) less than 2-3 times per month (Table 1). With this dichotomy, Weimer and Stevens (1974) analyzed consumer preferences, uses, and buying practices for selected vegetables. Prais and

Houthakker (1953) identified seven kinds of vegetables: potatoes, greens, roots, tomatoes, onions, dried legumes, and tinned and bottled vegetables. However, they reported only results for vegetables as a single group. Rockwell (1959) presented household income elasticities for vegetables in various subgroups and forms of processing. Three subgroups of vegetables were dark green and 26

Table l. Two vegetables subgroups based on frequency of preparation. Frequent prepa=aticn is at leas: two t~mes per month, infre- quent preparation is less than two times per month (from Weimer and Stevens, 1974).

Freouent !nfreouent

Cabbage Asparagus Carrots Beets Celery Black-eyed Peas Corn Broccoli Cucumbers Brussels Sprouts Green Beans Cauliflower Green Peas Eggplant Green Peppers Lima Beans Lettuce or Escarole Okra Tomatoes Radishes White Onions Spinach White Potatoes Squash Sweet Potatoes Turnips 27

deep yellow vegetables, other green vegetables, and potatoes and swcetpotatoes. Vegetable subgroups were further divided into fresh, frozen, canned dried, and juiced. Price, Price, and West

(1980) used factor analysis to group vegetables into ten subgroups and estimated the impact of traditional and nontraditional socioeconomic and demographic factors on the number and variety of vegetables served in Washington households. Because of the large proportion of households serving tomatoes, lettuce, corn and carrots, these vegetables were excluded from consideration in the factor analysis.

gvidence from the preceding examples points to two major problems in assigning vegetables to subgroups. First, the broad boundaries outlining most subgroups highlight physical characteristics such as color or morphology. For example, a clear contrast exists among leafy greens, tomatoes, and potatoes. For other examples, such as beans, peas, and corn, the contrast is less clear. Second, explicit definitions of subgroup constituents are often omitted in the published literature. For instance, what vegetables arc included in "other greens" (Rockwell, 1959) may affect the income elasticity of households with varying ethnic character. Comparisons of results from different studies is more difficult without clear definitions of group constituents.

The present study of household expenditures considers five vegetable subgroups, and three processed forms (Table 2). The source of the subgroup constituents is the Consumer Nutrition 28

Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture. This format is used in surveys of household food consumption by Consumer Nutrition

Council, U.S. Department of Agriculture. gconomic Model

A household, or consumer unit, can be defined as is (i) a group of two persons or more, usually living together, pooling their income and drawing from a common fund for their major items of expense; or (ii) a financially independent person living alone or sharing a household with others, or as a boarder in a private home, lodging house, or hotel (Capps, Spittle, Finn, 1981). David

(1962) explained the difficulties of directly applying consumer demand theory for an individual to the consumption behavior of a household. Assuming that each member within a household optimizes their respective utility function leads to aggregation problems, especially when purchased items arc intended for consumption by all members. The present study of household expenditures for vegetables " ••• consider(s) the household preference ordering as the end-product of a set of decision rules and interactions among family members" (David, 1962). Therefore the consumer unit is defined properly as a household whose preferences arc influenced by socioeconomic and demographic factors such as household income, age-sex composition, race, residence, level of education, and occupation status.

A review of literature has already established the importance of socioeconomic and demographic factors in shaping household 29

Table 2. Five vegetable subgroups and three processed forms which are used to estimate the impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on household expenditures.

(i) Dark Green and Deep Yellow Vegetables ~Broccoli -Brussels Sprouts -Peppers -Leafy Greens (including kale and escarole) -Carrots

(ii) Light Greens -Squash -Asparagus -Lettuce -Cabbage -Beans -Peas

(iii) Tomatoes

(iv) Potatoes -White Potatoes -Sweet Potatoes

(v) Other vegetables -Cauliflower -Beets ~Onions -Cucumbers -Celery -Corn -Mushrooms -Rutabagas -Turnips

(vi) Fresh

(vii) Canned

(viii) Frozen 30

preferences. Changes in household income arc viewed as changes in the opportunity to purchase various quantities of vegetables in their various forms. Differences in household age-sex composition lead to differences in nutritional requirements or in levels of acceptance for some vegetables, e.g. a child's acceptance of broccoli or spinach. Race affects household expenditures for vegetables through ethnic and cultural influences. Residence, or degree of urbanization, may affect expenditure behavior through opportunities for home gardens and choices of retail market, while

United States regional differences may reflect disparities in distribution costs, in general availability, and in different cultural habits. Level of education of the household manager reflects degree of awareness of the importance of vegetables in the diet. Occupational status, defined as whether one, both, or neither of the male and female housc~old heads arc employed, reflects the opportunity cost inherent in meal preparation and thereby partially influences the choice of vegetables which are purchased. The purchase of food stamps represents explicit efforts by government to increase the opportunity to obtain food for low income households •

• In summary, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics enter the model of expenditure behavior as variables representing the variety of tastes and preferences in U.S. households. The economic model can be written in the implicit form as follows: ~XP = g(INC, PeR, eDN, RAC, CMP, ReG, DeN. FST) where: g.xp = household expenditure for vegetables INC = total annual household income, PeR = number of persons in the household, according to age-sex category, eDN = educational level of household manager, RAC = racial category of household, CMP = occupational status of the household, REG = region of the United States in which household is located DeN = density of population of household residence, FST = food stamp purchases

Statistical Model

This section will define the statistical model, first by specifying the appropriate mathematical form of the engel expenditure relationship, and second by specifying each variable influencing expenditures. Also, the framework of Tobit analysis is presented to explain the treatment of expenditur~ data containing zero and positive dollar amounts recorded by households in the

1972-1974 BLS Consumer Bxpenditure Diary Survey (egos).

A quadratic engel expenditure relationship was suggested by

Salathe (1979) for use in the study of household expenditures for vegetables. The quadratic form possesses several attractive features. It allows the income elasticity and the marginal propensity to spend to vary with income level. Salathe (1979a) suggested that such flexiblity .is desirable when examining household expenditure. Salathe (1979a) found that vegetables was

the only food group (among six groups) that produced a statistically significant, positive coefficient on per capita 32

income squared. Similarly, the results of analyzing income and household size as separate regressors led Salathe to suggest that the quadratic form was the most appropriate form for use with household food expenditures. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the statistical model of household expenditures for vcgetabies is quadratic in two of the variables: total household income and household age-sex composition.

The model regressand, household expenditures for vegetables, is defined as the two-week total dollar amount of vegetable purchases recorded by the household during the survey period.

Separate regrcssands arc defined for the five vegetable subgroups and three processed forms in Table 2. Households not recording any vegetable purchase during the specified period, but having otherwise complete records of socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics are included as consumer units (CU) which purchased no vegetables. Vegetable expenditure data which contain zero as well as positive purchase amounts arc consequently distributed over

a limited range. The problem of analyzing limited dependent

variables was used by Tobin in 1958 to motivate the development of

Tobit analysis. An explanation of Tobit analysis is reserved for

the end of this chapter.

The model regressors, income, age-sex composition and other

socioeconomic and demographic factors, range in nature from

continuous to binary variables. Total household income is recorded

in dollars, the range of which ensures reasonable continuity. The 33

numbers of persons recorded in any age-sex category were necessarily integers. The remainder of the regressors --race, educational level, earner composition, rcgi0n, residence, and product form--are defined as binary variables.

Mathematically, the statistical model for the research study is given by: EXP= CiQ + a1INC + a2INC2 + a3Ml + a4M12 + asM2 + a 6 ~~2 + a7M3 + a8M32 + agM4 + a10M42 + a11M5 + a1zM52 + a13Fl + a14Fl2 + a15 F2 + a16 F22 + a17 F3 + a13F32 + a19F4 + azoF42 + a21 FS + azzF52 + a23 oME + az40MU + a25 oFE + a26 0FU + a27 BEU + azgBUE + a29Buu + a 30EDHM1 + a 31 RAC + a 32 FST + a33MCC + a34MOC + a35 LCC + a36 LOC + a37NER + a3gNCR + a39WER + e.

Binary variables assume the value of zero or one, depending upon the attainment or non-attainment of particular attributes.

Binary variables, or classification variables as they arc sometimes called, must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive, and within any single classification, binary variables must have a reference point. Binary variables may be specified as intercept shifters or slope shifters. This study employs binary variables as intercept shifters, implying that they affect mean vegetable expenditures.

The estimated coefficients from such binary variables indicate the numerical amount by which the included classifications of discrete variables differs from the reference intercept.

The statistical model of household expenditures for vegetable forms and vegetable subgroups is the same except for regrcssands

(Table 3). The reference group of households is defined as having 34

Table 3. Variable notation and description for statistical model.

EXP = two-week total household espenditures for vegetables INC = total annual household income INC2 = total annual household income squared Ml = number of males, ages 0-4 years Ml2 = number of males, ages 0-4 years squared M2 = number of males, ages 5-12 years M22 = number of males, ages 5-12 years squared M3 = number of males, ages 13-29 years M32 = number of males, ages 13-19 years squared M4 = number of males, ages 20-64 years M42 = number of males, ages 20-64 years squared M5 = number of males, ages 65 + years M52 = number of males, ages 65 + years squared Fl = number of females, ages 0-4 years F12 = number of females, ages 0-4 years squared F2 = number of females, ages 5-12 years F22 = number of females, ages 5-12 years squared F3 = number of females, ages 13-19 years F32 = number of females, ages 13-19 years squared F4 = number of females, ages 20-64 years F42 = number of females, ages 20-64 years squared F5 = number of females, ages 65 + years F52 = number of females, ages 65 + years squared OME = 1 if only male CU head present and employed OMU = 1 if only male CU head present and unemployed OFE = 1 if only female CU head present and employed OFU = 1 if only female CU head present and unemployed BEU = 1 if male and female CU heads present and male employed BUE = 1 if male and female CU heads present and female employed BUU = 1 if male and female CU heads present and both unemployed EDHMl= 1 if education of CU manager exceeds high school RAC = 1 if race of CU head is black FST = 1 if food stamps were purchased during month prior to survey MCC = 1 if household resides in central city of 1 million or more MOC = 1 if household is outside central city of 1 million or more LCC = 1 if household resides in central city of 1 million or less LOC = 1 if household is outside central city of million or less NER = 1 if household located in Northeast region of United States NCR = 1 if household located in Northcentral region of United States WER = 1 if household located in West region of United States

Reference household is defined as non-black, with male and female household heads present, both employed, CU manager (spouse, if present) not college educated, living outside SMSA, in the South region, and not purchasing food stamps during month prior to survey. 35

non-black, male and female household heads present, both employed, household manager not college educated, living outside Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) in the South, and not purchasing food stamps during the month prior to the survey. The coefficient of INC is hypothesized to be positive and the coefficient of INC2 is hypothesized to be negative. Also, coefficients of the age-sex categories arc hypothesized to be positive and their squared counterparts arc hypothesized to be negative. Therefore, one-sided tests of statistical significance were possible for income and age-sex categories. Two-sided tests of statistical significance were necessary for all binary coefficients because of limited information about their expected signs. All tests of statistical significance are performed at the

10 percent level.

Tobit Analysis

First introduced in 1958 by James Tobin, Tobit analysis seeks

to solve the problem of estimating coefficients in regressions with

limited dependent variables. The problem, as it pertains to this

study, is represented by equation (1) (Table 4). A limited

dependent variable can be defined as a lower or upper limit which

takes on the value for a substantial number of respondents. For

the remaining respondents, the variable takes on a wide range of

values above or below the limit (Tobin, 1958). The essence of

Tobit analysis is the mix between probit analysis and multiple

regression. 36

Table 4. Description of Tobit model and some results from McDonald and Moffitt (1980).. y = xe + e ifXB+e>O (1) y = 0 if xe + e < 0

E(Y] = XBF(z) + crf (z) (2)

E(Y*] =XS + crf(z)/F(z) (3) oE[Y]/ax = F(z)(oE[Y*]/oX) + E[Y*](oF(z)/oX) (4) oE[Y*]/ax = 8(1 - zf(z)/F(z) - f(z) 2/F(z) 2 (5) oF(z)/oX = f(z)B/cr (6) where: X = a vector of regressor variables, B =a vector of unknown coefficients (Tobit coefficients), e = a vector of independent and identically distributed normal random variables assumed to have mean zero, and constant variance,cr2, z = XB/cr, normalized index, f(z) = the standard normal density function, and F(z) = the cumulative standard normal distribution function. 37

McDonald and Moffitt (1980) made significant advances tn the concept and application of Tobit analysis by demonstrating how to obtain two components inherent in the Tobit coefficient (Table 4).

As shown in equation (4), a total change in the expected value of

the limited dependent variable is composed of a change in its expected value above the limit weighted by the probability of being above the limit, plus a change in the expected probability of being above the limit weighted by the expected value above the limit.

Hagemann (1981) recently applied the results of McDonald and

Moffitt (1980) to the analysis of travel expenditure records from

the 1972-74 BLS CEDS. For the analysis of household expenditures on vegetables, the framework of Hagemann (1981) is closely

followed. Three important results can be obtained from Tobit

analysis according to equations (3) and (4) (Table 4). gquation

(3) calculates the expected value of vegetable expenditures

conditional upon being above zero. gquation (4) presents the two

components of a total change in the expected value of vegetable

expenditures. The two components in equation (4) can be converted

into elasticities. As the elasticity of probability of being above

the limit,nF(z)' exceeds the elasticity of expenditure above the

limit,nE[Yi' a change in household income or age-sex composition

suggests a greater impact on the number of households entering the

market to make a purchase rather than on the current number of

households actually making a purchase.

These three results have important economic implications. For 38

example, supermarket executives arc ccncc::-ne

For each subgroup and for total vegetable expenditures, estimated Tobit coefficients are obtained using the maximum likelihood method. The Tobit coefficients are decomposed into their component parts, and elasticities are calculated for changes in household income and age-sex composition. Also, mean values of vegetable expenditures are presented for households of various socioeconomic and demographic profiles. Chapter Three

Data Characteristics and Methods of Analysis

3.9 40

Introduction

The data used to estimate parameters in the statistical model arc obtained from the 23,136 household records in the 1972-1974

Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer gxpenditure Diary Survey (BLS egos). A random subsample of 2,000 observations is drawn from a total sample of 10,145 usea~le household records in the BLS egos second survey year, July 1973-1974. Two major reasons exist for random subsampling from the second survey year: (i) the BLS egos data set composed of 23,186 observations is simply too large for practical applications of Tobit analysis, and (ii) records from the second survey year are more complete in the information about spouse education and household food stamp purchases. An added benefit to subsampling is the opportunity for cross validation of the results at a later date. One purpose of this chapter is to characterize the data set of 10,145 useable household records from which the random subsample is taken.

The BLS egos sample of 10,145 useable household records arc characterized by the following: (i) the number of households reporting and not reporting purchases of vegetables in the five subgroups and in all processed forms; (ii) mean value of expenditure, (iii) standard deviation, (iv) maximum value, (v) percent of the total vegetable expenditure allocated among vegetable subgroups and processed forms, and (vi) percent of the

total household income allocated among vegetable subgroups and

processed forms. This information is presented in tables (Appendix 41

B), arranged according to income classes, age-sex categories, earner composition, educational levels of household head and spouse, race of the household head, food stamp purchase, location of residence, and geographical region. The discussion will follow this order, and include highlights of cross sectional trends and point out noteworthy contrasts. At the beginning of each section, the relevant tables arc denoted for reference during discussion.

All expenditure values arc given in 1973-1974 dollars.

Income (Appendix Tables Bl-B6)

The largest number of households in the uscable data set is found in the $10,000-$19,999 income group, 12.7 percent of which report no bi-weekly vegetable expenditure. The 0-$1,999 income group has the largest proportion of non-purchasing households (37 percent) while the group reporting $20,000-$34,999 has the smallest proportion (9 percent). In general, households with lower total annual income are more likely to report no vegetable expenditure.

With the exception of households in which processed form is not reported, more households report purchases of fresh, canned, and frozen vegetables than report purchases of packaged and dried forms.

The mean expenditure on total vegetables increases as household income increases. The highest mean expenditure consistently occurs on fresh vegetables. Bowever, the lowest mean expenditure occurs on frozen vegetables in low income households and on packaged vegetables in high income households. Among the 42

five vegetable subgroups, the highest mean expenditure occurs on light green vegetables while the lowest occurs on dark green and deep yellow vegetables.

Of the total food-at-home expenditure, total vegetable expenditures arc 5.25 to 5.86 percent, nearly one-third of which is comprised of light green vegetables. Among vegetable forms, fresh and canned vegetable expenditure occupies the largest proportion of total vegetable expenditure, while packaged and dried vegetables occupy the smallest. As income increases, household vegetable expenditure appears to shift from canned to frozen forms.

In summary, households with greater annual income are more likely to report a purchase and tend to have greater vegetable expenditure. Vegetable expenditures occupy 5 to 6 percent of total at-home food expense and as income increases, household vegetable expenditure shifts slightly toward frozen vegetables.

Age-Sex Composition (Appendix Tables B7-B26)

eleven percent more households report having adult females, ages 20-64 years, than households with similar aged males. Also,

29 percent more households contain elderly or senior-aged females

(65 or more years old) than contain males in that age group. except for households with elderly members, households with members in a particular age category arc more likely to purchase vegetables vis-a-vis households with no members in the corresponding age groups.

Mean expenditure on vegetables is highest in households with 43

children 5-12 years old and 13-19 years old. The lowest mean expenditure is reported in households with senior-aged members.

With the exception of these latter households the presence of members in a particular age category results in higher mean expenditure than occurs with their absence. Also, the presence of males results in higher mean expenditure for vegetables than does the presence of females and this difference is greatest for the senior-aged members.

Among the five vegetable subgroups, the range of mean expenditure is bounded by dark green and deep yellow vegetables

(lowest) and light green vegetables (highest). Among the processed forms, generally the highest mean expenditure occurs for fresh and packaged potatoes and canned, packaged, and dried light green vegetables.

The allocation of total vegetable expenditure among the five subgroups remains stable across all age-sex categories.

Approximately 36 percent of total vegetable expenditure occurs on light green, 30 percent split between tomatoes and potatoes, and the remainder on dark green and deep yellow and other vegetables.

Of the total expenditure for food-at-home, vegetable expenditure comprises an increasing proportion as the age of household members increases. Ho useholds with members less than five years old report that vegetables occupy approximately f ivc percent, whereas those with senior-aged members report approximately 5.9 percent. 44

In summary, the presence of children in households apparently leads to greater probability of purchasing vegetables and in greater mean expenditure. The presence of elderly members tended to shift expenditures away from frozen vegetables in favor of fresh vegetables; however, the proportions allocated to the five subgroups appear to be stable. Also, households with elderly members spend more of the total at-home food dollar on vegetables than households with no elderly members. gducation (Appendix Tables B27-B36)

The household manager is defined as the female in households with both male and female heads present, or as the head of households with only one present. Households in which the manager is a high school graduate outnumber all other households. In general, the proportion of households reporting bi-weekly vegetable purchase is inversely related to number of years of education.

Mean expenditure for fresh vegetables is highest for households with the highest levels of educaton. Generally, as education increases, mean expenditure on canned and frozen vegetables decreases. Also, as education increases, mean expenditure on potatoes decreases while mean expenditure on other vegetables increases.

The share of total vegetable expense is largest for light

green and other vegetables, and declines for potatoes as educaton

increases. Also, the share of total food ~t-home expenditure for

vegetables ranges from 5.2 to 5.6 percent in households with male and female heads present. In households with no spouse present, the share for vegetables is S.8 percent.

Race of Household Head (Appendix Tables B37-B38)

gleven percent of the households are headed by blacks, and this group has the largest proportion of nonpurchasing households.

Among purchasing households, households headed by blacks reported a larger proportion purchasing fresh vegetables, and a smaller proportion purchasing frozen and canned vegetables. Forty-five percent of black households purchasing vegetables report purchasing potatoes compared with 35 percent in all other households. Among black households purchasing vegetables, 42 percent report purchasing tomatoes compared with 54 percent in all other households. Among all households, more households report purchases of light green vegetables than all other vegetable subgroups.

Mean expenditure is larger in black households than in all other households, due to larger mean expenditure on all vegetables except tomatoes and other vegetables. In households headed by blacks, mean expenditure on dark green and deep yellow vegetables is 42 percent higher than in all other households; and for fresh dark green and deep yellow vegetables, mean expenditure is 58 percent higher. Regardless of race of the household head, mean expenditure for potatoes is highest for fresh and packaged forms.

The form of vegetables purchased is reported more of ten in black households than in other households. Compared with all other households, black households spend more of their total vegetable 46

expense on dark green and deep yellow vegetables, light green vegetables, and potatoes. Also, black households report a larger percentage of the total at-home food dollar spent on vegetables than do other households.

In summary, fewer households headed by blacks report a vegetable purchase, and of those which do, higher mean expenditure is reported on all vegetables except tomatoes and other vegetables.

Food Stamp Participation (Appendix Tables B39-B40)

Approximately six percent of the households are participants in the food stamp program and 80 percent of this group report a bi- weekly vegetable purchase. eighty-two percent of the non- participant households report at least one vegetable purchase.

Participating households report more fresh and canned vegetable purchases than other forms. Among households participating the food stamp program, a smaller percentage report a frozen vegetable purchase than do nonparticipating households.

Mean expenditure on total vegetables is higher in households purchasing food stamps. This group reports higher mean expenditure for all vegetable forms and subgroups except fresh tomatoes and packaged and dried potatoes. In general, the patterns in mean expenditure arc similar among all households.

Households purchasing food stamps report a larger percentage

of the total vegetable expense going to light green and other vegetables. Also, participating households report a larger

percentage of the total at-home food bill spent on vegetables than 47

do non-participating households. garner Composition (Appendix Tables B~l-848)

The group of households characterized by having only a male head present and unemployed contains the fewest number of observations and the largest proportion of non-purchasing households. The group of households with both male and female heads present and only the male employed have the lowest proportion of non-purchasing households. In general, households characterized by both male and female present and at least one of them employed typically have the lowest proportion of non-purchasing households.

Mean expenditure is generally highest for fresh and canned vegetables. The mean expenditure among all households is highest in households with male head present and unemployed. This group reports the highest maximum expenditure. gxcept for this latter group, mean expenditure is generally lowest for dark green and deep yellow vegetables and highest for light green vegetables.

In households with both male and female present, the proportion of total vegetable expenditure occupied by each subgroup is relatively stable regardless of employment status. This finding holds generally for households headed by a female only, but does not hold for households headed by a male only. Households in the latter group tend to purchase more dark green and deep yellow vegetables and less light green vegetables if the head is unemployed. The highest proportion of total vegetable expenditure is comprised of fresh and canned vegetables (60 to 77 percent) 48

while the lowest is comprised of packaged and dried (1.8 to 8.9 percent).

The proportion of total food dollar going to vegetables ranges from s.12 percent in households characterized by both male and female heads present and female employed to 9.05 percent in households with only male head present and unemployed. Vegetable expenditure occupies the largest proportions of the total at-home food expenditure in households with only one head present or in which both are present and unemployed.

Population Densitv (Appendix Tables B49-B53)

Among the five categories in the classification population density, the largest percentage of households lives outside central city areas of SMSAs (37 percent), the next leargest percentage lives within central city areas of SMSAs (34 percent) and the remainder (29 percent) lives outside boundaries of any

SMSA.Households within central city areas of SMSAs have the largest proportions of nonpurchasing households, followed by households outside of SMSA boundaries. Among the purchasing households, expenditure for fresh and canned vegetables arc reported in a greater number of households than other forms, regardless of population density. Also, more households report purchasing light green and other vegetables than report purchasing any other subgroup. The smallest number of households report purchasing

potatoes.

Mean expenditure for total vegetables is highest in households 49

residing outside central city areas of SMSAs with less than one million population. Mean expenditure is 12 percent lower in central city areas of SMSAs of similar size. The lowest mean expenditure is reported in households residing outside SMSA boundaries.

The highest mean household expenditure on dark green and deep yellow vegetables occurs in central city areas of SMSAs with more than one million population, while the lowest occurs in households outside SMSA boundaries. The highest mean household expenditure on potatoes occurs outside central city areas with less than one million population and in areas outside SMSA boundaries, while the lowest occurs in central city areas of SMSAs with less than one million population. The range of mean expenditures for light green vegetables is bounded by the mean for households outside central city areas of SMSAs with less than one million population and by the means for households inside and outside central city areas of

SMSAs with more than one million population. In general, the patterns of mean expenditure for vegetable subgroups appear to be somewhat different for each subgroup with respect to density of population.

Households in the more densely populated areas tend to spend more of their total vegetable expense for dark green and deep yellow vegetables and tomatoes, while spending less on potatoes and light green vegetables than do households in less densely populated areas. so

Among all households, the proportion of total food at-home expense for vegetables ranges between S.3 and 5.6 percent. The smallest proportion occurs in households outside SMSA boundaries, while the largest proportions occur in central city areas of SMSAs.

Region (Tables 854-857)

The largest proportion of households (31 percent) reside in the South, followed by the North Central (28 percent), and by the

Northeast and West regions (approximately 20 percent each).

Households in the Northeast have the smallest proportion of nonpurchansing households (14percent) with the remaining three regions reporting approximately 20 percent each. Consistently more households purchase fresh and canned vegetables while less purchase packaged and dried vegetables. Across all regions, the largest number of households purchase light green vegetables while the fewest households purchase potatoes.

Mean expenditure is lowest in the North Central and highest in the South, with the highest mean expenditure occurring on fresh and canned vegetables. Among the five subgroups, the highest mean expenditure occurs on light green vegetables and the lowest on dark green and deep yellow vegetables. Mean expenditure on potatoes in the West is 75 percent of what occurs in any other region.

Total vegetable expenditure is comprised largely of expenditure on light green and other vegetables. Dark green and deep yellow vegetables occupy a larger percentage of total vegetable expcndeturc than docs potatoes in the North Central and 51

South whilt the opposite holds for the Northeast and West. The share of total food at-home expense for vegetables ranges from 5.04 percent (North Central) to 5.73 percent (South).

Methods of Analysis

In summary, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the useable sample of 10,145 household records from BLS egos are presented for analysis of vegetable expenditures. The great volume of detail is captured in brief highlights of cross sectional trends within socioeconomic and demographic categories and results of the

Tobit analyses in Chapter IV will clarify these relationships.

Characteristics of the useable sample 10,145 households indicate that fresh, canned, and frozen vegetables are the most important processed forms of vegetables. Therefore, Tobit analyses arc not performed on packaged, dried, and unreported categories. expenditure patterns for the five subgroups appear to be stable within all socioeconomic and demographic categories, therefore it is expected that valuable information can be obtained by analyzing each subgroup separately. In all, nine Tobit regressions arc performed: one for total vegetables, three for processed forms, and five for vegetable subgroups.

The random subsample of 2,000 household records is

accomplished with the aid of an exact-sized random sampling

algorithm. A check on the representative nature of the subsample

entails a comparison of percentage nonpurchasing households between

the subsample of 2,000 and the useable sample of 10,145. Table 5 52

Table 5. A comparison of propor:ions of nonpurchasing households between the BLS CEDS, second sample year, and its subsample of 2,000 households randortly selected.

Ve~etable Group BLS CEDS Random Sat11Ple (percent)

Total Vegetables 18 18 Fresh 38 37 Frozen 70 72 Canned 50 51

Dark Green/Deep Yellow 49 57 Fresh 67 67 Frozen 89 88 Canned 94 93

Light Green 30 31 Fresh 75 76 Frozen 87 88 Canned 67 68

Tomatoes 54 58 Fresh 66 67 Canned 88 88

Potatoes 72 72 Fresh 87 88 Frozen 89 89 Canned 96 95

Other Vegetables 46 43 Fresh 80 79 Frozen 93 93 Canned 73 72 53

illustrates that both samples arc similar with regard to proportion of nonpurchasing households.

The estimated Tobit coefficient, standard error, and predicted probability of expenditure, obtained under the assumption of normally distributed disturbance terms, arc obtained using maximum likelihood methods.

As demonstrated in McDonald and Moffit, the Tobit beta coefficients must be adjusted to obtain the total effect of changes in expenditure attributable to changes in independent variables.

Thus, the Tobit beta coefficient becomes an adjusted Tobit cocf f icient which is subsequently decomposed into two components

(for reference, sec Table 4, Chapter II). Decomposition of the adjusted Tobit coefficients and elasticities are obtained from hand calculations.The calculations involve computing the value of the index, z, at mean values of the independent variables,X.

Calculated values of f(z) are obtained using the associated computed index and the estimated variance in the probability density function for the normal distribution with mean zero. With the remaining information on standard deviation and estimated probability of purchase, F(z), all other results are obtained. Of course, a check of precision for all calculations is that the elasticity of unconditional expenditure is the exact sum of elasticities of conditional expenditure and probablility of purchase. In the present study, all elasticities are given for mean values of the independent variables. 54

The assumption that random disturbance terms arc distributed as normal with mean zero and constant variance permits testing coefficients for statistical significance. Comparisons of asymptotic t-ratios with critical t-values are made for tests of hypotheses using an alpha level of ten percent. Chapter Four

Results and Discussion

55 56

Introduction

The results of the Tobit analyses indicate that socioeconomic and demographic variables are important factors in household decisions to purchase vegetables. The most important factors are household income, age-sex composition, population density , and region. Level of education of the household manager, empl,oyment status of the household head and spouse, race of the household head, and the purchase of food stamps arc statistically significant variables for some vegetable subgroups and processed forms. The purpose of this chapter is to present a detailed account of these results for total vegetable expenditure, then for canned and fresh forms of vegetables, and finally for vegetable subgroups.

The process of normalizing coefficients in the Tobit analysis became difficult due to underflow problems in the analysis for frozen vegetables. The underflow problems stemmed from the difficulty of computing the square of a very small number; therefore results of the Tobit analysis for frozen vegetables are not available.

Total Vegetable fxpenditure

The results in Table 6 indicate that socioeconomic and demographic factors explain a statistically significant amount of variation in household vegetable expenditure. Columns one and two show the coefficients and their asymptotic t-ratios. Column three shows the change in probability of purchasing vegetables with a

change in each independent variable. Columns four and five show Table 6. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on total vegetables.

Asymptotic ()F(z) aE[Y *]F(z) ()F(z)E[Y*] Variable a t-ratio ax ax

INC o. 75590-04 4.38 0. 61730-05 o. 29250-04 o. 21800-04 INC2 -0. 47960-09 -2. 02 Ml -0. 1253 -0. 27 -0. 0072 -0.0342 -0. 0255 M12 o. 2184 0.79 M2 o. 1410 0.46 0.0150 0.0712 o. 0531 M22 0.0322 0.24 M3 0.4766 1. 37 0.0482 0.2283 o. 1701 ,..... M32 0.0636 0.39 U"l M4 0.9856 2.62 o. 0720 0.3413 o. 2543 M42 -0. 1578 -0. 91 M5 -2. 6723 -1.62 -0. 1790 -0. 8482 -0.6321 M52 3.5685 2.30 Fl -0. 0860 -0. 17 -0.0105 -0.0497 -0. 0370 F12 -0. 0921 -0. 29 F2 o. 1743 0.51 0.0020 0.0093 0.0071 F22 0.4521 2. 78 F3 0.0422 o. 12 0.0118 0.0560 o. 0417 F32 0.2044 1. 17 F4 2.8236 7.75 o. 1521 0.7208 o. 5371 F42 -0. 7605 -4. 88 F5 0.8854 0.75 o. 1070 0.5070 0.3778 F52 0.7963 o. 73 Table 6.. (Continued).

Aysmptotic aF(z) ;m[Y *]F(z)

OME -0.4541 -0. 69 -0.0434 -0. 2057 -0. 1532 OMU -0. 0460 -0. 03 -0.0044 -0. 0208 -0.0156 OFE 0.2723 0.76 0.0260 o. 1233 0.0918 OFU 0.5497 1. 29 0.0525 0.2489 o. 1854 BEU 0.3774 2.06 0.0361 o. 1709 o. 1275 BUE -0. 2823 -0. 55 -0. 0270 -0. 1278 -0. 0953 BUU 0.4816 1. 35 0.0460 0.2181 0.1624 EDHM1 -0. 2043 -1. 16 -0.0195 -0. 0925 -0.0689 RAC 0.0660 O.Olt91 kX) o. 1lt57 0.57 0.0139 II') FST o. 7051 2. 01 0.067lt 0.3193 0.2380 MCC 0.7016 3.28 0.0671 0.3177 0.2369 MOC 0.4782 2. 4lt 0.0457 0.2165 o. 1677 LCC O.lt016 1. 74 0.0383 0.1819 o. 1352 LOC 0.4223 1. 75 O.Olt04 o. 1912 o. 1lt26 NER o. 3171 1. 52 0.0303 o. 1436 o. 1070 NCR -0. 4832 -2. 60 -0. 0462 -0.2188 -0. 1631 WER -0.4439 -2. 15 -0. 0424 -0.2010 -0. 1497 CONSTANT -1.5551 -4. 94

Note: 1he unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 2.790. 1he conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 3.531. 1he standard error around the Tobit index is 3.0312. 1he predicted probability that y > 0, at mean x, is 0.7903 and 1heil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.2560. z = 0.8073, f(z) = 0.2880. 59

the two components of a total change in 2(Y), given a change in each independent variable.

gxamination of columns one and two indicates apparent success

1n model specification and choice of functional form. The coefficients on household income and age-sex categories indicate that saturation levels are approached as income increases, and economies of scale arc apparent only in households with adult females. Households with increasing numbers of adult males show increases in vegetable expenditure, while those with elderly males show decreases in vegetable expenditure. However, the numbers of both male and female children under the age of 19 years are not statistically significant factors in influencing vegetable expenditure.

Spouse unemployment is a positive factor affecting household vegetable expenditure, perhaps due to greater opportunities to obtain and prepare vegetables for consumption at home. The coefficient on FST, food stamp particicpation, suggests that added income restricted to the purchase of food is also an important

factor influencing vegetable expenditure. The statistical nonsignif icance of the coefficients on race of the household head and education of the household manager suggest that these variates

are not important factors with regard to explaining vegetable expenditure patterns. Households located within the boundaries of

SMSAs, representing densely populated areas, spend more on

vegetables than households located outside SMSAs. Households 60

located in the North Central and West spend less on vegetables than households located in the South. On the other hand, households located in the Northeast spend more on vegetables than households located in the South. These results are possibly due to differences in availability of vegetables, culture, and climate.

From a comparison of the last two columns in Table 6, a change in any single regressor has a greater effect on the change in magnitude of expenditure than the change in probability of purchase. The income-expenditure elasticity reported in column one of Table 7 supports the notion that vegetables arc economic necessities. economic necessities are denoted by expenditure elasticities between zero and one. That is, a one percent change in income elicits a fraction of one percent change in vegetable expenditure. Other researchers report similar elasticities for vegetables (Harmston and Hino, 1970; Prais and Houthakker, 1955;

Rockwell, 1959; Salathe, 1979).

The differences in elasticities between income and age-sex composition, and also among the various age-sex categories, point

to the relative importance of adult members in affecting vegetable expenditure. In particular, the response to a change in the number of adult females on vegetable expenditure is greater than the response to a change in household income. Also, on the basis of

the elasticity decomposition, the probability of making vegetable

purchases is affected by changes in income and age-sex composition.

This result suggests potential marketing strategies for effecting 61

Table 7. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for total vegetable~.

Variable

INC 0.2099 0. 1200 0.0899 M1 -0. 0024 -0.0014 -0.0010 M2 0.0112 0.0064 0.0048 M3 0.0308 0.0177 0.0131 M4 o. 1570 0.0900 0.0670 M5 -0. 0595 -0. 0340 -0. 0255 F1 -0. 0040 -0. 0023 -0. 0017 F2 0.0012 0.0007 0.0005 F3 o. 0070 0.0041 o. 0029 F4 0.3654 0.2091 o. 1563 F5 0.0466 0.0267 0.0205 62

changes in vegetable consu:nption and should be important to

industry and government.

Fresh and Canned Vegetable gxpenditurcs

The results in Tables 8 and 10 indicate that household total

annual income and age-sex composition are statistically significant

factors explaining fresh and canned vegetables, differences exist

in impacts of these two factors on the probability and magnitude of

expenditure.

While the coefficients on income are positive and

statistically significant for fresh and canned vegetables, the

coefficient on income squared is statistically significant for only

canned vegetables. This finding would suggest that at high

incomes, housholds shift their vegetable expenditure from canned to

fresh forms.

The number of adults, ages 20-64 years, is statistically

significant in explaining both fresh and canned vegetable

expenditure, but economics of size are evident only in households

with adult females. Also, the number of males 0-4 and 13-19 years

old is statistically significant in explaining expenditures for

canned vegetables but not so for fresh vegetables.

Changes in income and age-sex composition have greater effects

on the probability of making a purchase than the magnitude of

expenditure (Tables 9 and 11). This difference is greater for

canned vegetables than fresh vegetables, due to the greate r

proportion of households not reporting a bi-weekly purchase of Table 8* Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on canned vegetables.

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y * ]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable s t-ratio ax ax

INC o. 28390-04 2.26 o. 46560-05 o. 34430-05 o. 64380-05 INC2 -0. 32500-09 -1.60 Ml 0.5376 1. 83 o. 1170 o. 0865 o. 1618 H12 -0. 0493 -0. 29 M2 -0. 1452 -0. 75 -0. 0216 -0.0160 -0. 0299 M22 o. 094 7 1. 13 H3 0.2992 1. 37 0.0102 o. 0519 o. 0971

C1 M32 0.0384 0.38 \() M4 0.5875 2. 34 0.0842 o. 0623 0.1165 M42 -0. 1418 -1. 24 M5 0.2892 0.29 0.0758 o. 0560 o. 1048 H52 0.2312 0.25 Fl 0.2467 0. 74 0.0440 0.0325 0.0609 F12 -0. 1890 -0. 19 F2 -0. 0300 -0. 14 0.0088 0.0065 0.0122 F22 0.1619 1. 61 F3 o. 1821 0.81 0.0435 0.0322 0.0602 F32 0.0344 0.32 F4 1. 3490 5. 42 o. 1529 o. 1130 0.211lt F42 -0. 4073 -3. 85 F5 0. 6927 0.88 0.1519 0.1123 0.2100 F52 -0.0328 -0.04 Table 8. (Continued) •

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y *]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable B t-ratio ax ax ax

OME -0. 1652 -0. 37 -0. 0367 -0. 0271 -0. 0507 OMU -0.5798 -0.54 -0. 1289 -0. 0953 -0. 1782 OFE 0.0407 o. 17 0.0090 0.0066 0.0124 OFU 0.2473 0.89 0.0549 o. 0406 o. 0759 BEU 0.2166 1. 86 o. 0481 0.0356 0.0665 BUE -0. 0236 -0. 07 -0.0052 -0. 0038 -0.0072 BUU -0.0084 -0. 04 -0.0018 -0.0013 -0. 0025 EDHM 1 -0. 2284 -1.96 -0.0507 -0. 0375 -0.0701 RAC -0. -0. ..j -0. 1422 85 -0.0316 -0. 0233 0437 FST 0.4256 1. 85 0.0946 0.0699 o. 1308 '° HCC o. 0803 0.57 0.0178 o. 0132 0.0246 MOC o. 1746 1. 37 0.0388 0.0287 0.0536 LCC o. 1986 1. 32 0.0441 0.0326 0.0610 LOC o. 3265 2. 11 0.0726 0.0537 0.1004 NER -0.2612 -1. 92 -0. 0580 -0. 0429 -0. 0802 NCR -0. 2035 -1.70 -0. 0452 -0. 0334 -0. 0625 WER -0. 5423 -3. 97 -0. 1206 -0. 0891 -0. 1668 CONSTANT -1. 7110 -8. 12

Note: 111e unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 0.6526. 111e conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.3827. 111e standard error around the Tobit index is 1.7893. 111e predicted probability that y > 0, at mean x, is 0.4720 and 111eil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.6401. z = -0.0704, f(z) = 0.3980. 65

Table 9. Calculated elastici..,ies from Tobit coefficients for canned vegetables.

Variable

INC 0. 1735 0.0603 0. 1130 M1 0.0433 0.0151 o. 0282 M2 0.0177 0. 0062 0.0115 M3 0.0493 0.0171 0.0322 M4 0.2015 0.0702 0.1313 M5 o. 0276 0.0097 0.0179 F1 0.0184 0.0065 0.0119 F2 0.0061 0.0021 0.0040 F3 o. 0282 0.0098 0. 0184 F4 0.4037 o. 1407 0.2630 F5 o. 0726 0.0253 0.0473 Table 10. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on fresh vegetables.

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y * ]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable f3 t-ratio ax ax

INC o. 40970-04 3.47 0.73720-05 o. 94630-05 o. 13130-04 INC2 -0. 12980-09 -0. 81 M1 -0.4301 -1. 31 -0. 0726 -0. 0932 -0. 1294 M12 0.2442 1. 26 M2 0.0632 0.30 0.0120 o. 0154 0.0214 M22 -0. 0022 -0. 24 M3 0.1210 0.50 o. 0261 0.0335 0.0465

\C M32 0.0315 0.28 \.0 Ml.! 0. 4978 1. 91 0.0697 o. 0895 o. 1242 Ml.!2 -0. 0939 -0.79 M5 0.2411 0.22 0.0558 0.0716 o. 0994 M52 0.2077 0.20 F1 -0.0937 -0.26 0.0255 0.0328 0.0455 F12 -0. 1480 -0. 64 F2 -0. 1093 -0. 47 -0.0027 -0. 0035 -0. 0048 F22 0.2210 2.01 F3 -0. 1928 -0.78 -0.0242 -0.0311 -0.0431 F32 o. 1700 1. 42 Fl.! 1. 8448 7.07 o. 1985 o. 2549 0.3536 F42 -0.5058 -4. 63 F5 0.6087 0.77 0.1510 o. 1939 0.2690 F52 0.5775 0.79 Table 10. (Continued) •

Asymptotic ClF ( z) ClE(Y *]F(z) ClF(z)E(Y*] Variable a t-ratio ax

OME -0.5057 -0. 99 -0.0981 -0. 1259 -0. 1758 OMU -0. 0455 0.45 0.0088 0.0113 0.0157 OFE 0.2174 0.89 0.0421 0.0541 0.0750 OFU 0.3070 1. 04 o. 0595 0.0764 o. 1060 BEU 0.2340 1. 86 0.0454 0.0582 0.0809 BUE -0.0743 -0. 21 -0.0144 -0.0185 -0. 0256 BUU 0.4813 1. 97 0.0933 o. 1198 o. 1662 EDHM -0.6555 -0. 08 -0. 1271 -0. 1632 -0. 2264

,-...: RAC 2.9418 0.51 0.5708 o. 7327 1.0166 '° FST 0.2614 1. 07 0.0507 0.0650 0.0903 MCC 0.7223 4.87 o. 1401 o. 1799 o. 2495 MOC o. 3271 2.38 0.0634 0.0814 o. 1129 LCC 0.3200 1. 99 0.0620 0.0796 o. 1104 LOC 0.3342 2.00 0.0648 0.0832 o. 1154 NER 0.3515 2.45 0.0682 0.0875 o. 1215 NCR -0. 3754 -2. 89 -0. 0728 -0.0935 -0. 1297 WER -0. 1904 -1. 33 -0. 0369 -0.0474 -0. 0657 CONSTANT -8. 6267 -1.95

Note: The unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.0592. The conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.7811. The standard error around the Tobit index is 1.9977. The predicted probability that y > O, at mean x, is 0.5947 and Theil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.4849. z = 0.2397, f(z) = 0.3876. 68

Table 11. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for fresh vegetables.

Variable

INC 0.2445 o. 1024 o. 1421 M1 -0. 0239 -0.0100 -0. 0139 M2 0.0087 0.0036 0.0051 M3 0.0163 0.0068 0.0095 M4 o. 1485 0.0622 0.0863 M5 0.0180 0.0075 0.0105 F1 0.0095 0.0040 0.0055 F2 -0.0016 -0. 0007 -0.0009 F3 -0. 0139 -0. 0058 -0. 0081 F4 0.4665 0. 1954 0.2711 F5 0.0642 o. 0269 0. 0373 canned vegetables.

Adult females comprise the most important single age group of household members affecting household eKpenditure for vegetables.

For every one percent change in the number of adult females, canned vegetable expenditure changes by 0.40 percent and fresh vegetable

expenditure changes by 0.47 percent (Tables 9 and 11). A

decomposition of the total elasticities indicates that percentage

increases in income or number of adult females effects much larger

percentage increases in the probability of purchase than in the magnitude of expenditure. However, the elasticity of conditional

expenditure is greater for fresh than canned vegetables.

Total elasticities for age-sex composition, other than for

adult females, are higher for canned than fresh vegetables. In

general, this relationship holds for the decomposition of total

elasticities, with the exception of elderly females, for which the

elasticity of conditional expenditure is higher for fresh

vegetables.

Both education of the household manager and purchase of food

stamps arc statistically significant factors affecting mean

expenditure for canned vegetables, but not for fresh vegetables.

Households in which managers have at least some college education

and in which food stamps arc not purchased have lower mean bi-

weekly expenditure for canned vegetables. The effect of race of

the household head is not statistically significant in explaining

variation in canned and fresh vegetable expenditure. 70

Spouse unemployment is a statisticaily significant factor explaining canned and fresh vegetable expenditure. Households in which both male and female heads are present and spouse unemployed are found to have higher mean expendicurc for both forms of vegetables. However, mean expenditure in households with both head and spouse unemployed is higher for fresh forms but not for canned forms of vegetables.

Population density is statistically significant in explaining household vegetable expenditure; however, this factor is more important in households purchasing fresh forms than canned froms of vegetables. Fresh vegetable expenditure is higher in all Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) than in areas outside SMSAs.

In the same manner, canned vegetable expenditure is higher in non-

central city areas of SMSAs with less than one million population.

The largest difference in mean expenditure, compared to households

outside SMSAs is, found in central city areas of SMSAs with more

than one million population.

Regional differences are statistically significant factors in

explaining fresh and canned vegetable expenditure. Compared to

households in the South, households in all other regions spend

less, on the average, for canned vegetables, and the difference is

greatest in the West, least in the North Central. Expenditure for

fresh vegetables in the Northeast is higher than in the South,

while lower in the North Central. The difference in Mean

expenditure for fresh vegetables between households in the South 71

and West is not Statisiically significant.

In surmnary, the evidence suggests t~at changes in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics affect expenditure patterns for vegetables in the two major forms, canned and fresh.

Increases in household income may be accompanied by apparent shifts in expenditure toward fresh vegetables. An increase in the number of infant and young adult males inplies increases tn canned vegetable expenditure, and no apparent change in fresh vegetable expenditure. Also, an increase in the number of adult females in the work force may bring about changes in expenditure patterns, the net effect depending, in part, on the status of employment.

Increases in levels of education of the household manager and cutbacks in food stamp purchases suggest decreases in canned vegetable expenditure. Changes in residence toward greater population densities may be accompanied by increased expenditure, most motably on fresh vegetables. Households moving to the South are expected to increase their expenditure for canned vegetables.

Finally, changes in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are shown to affect the probability of vegetable purchases and the magnitude of expenditures. Such changes effect changes in the probability of purchase more than changes in magnitude of expenditure, suggesting market strategics for

anticipating future expenditure patterns. The most important

factors affecting expenditure for both forms of vegetables are

annual income and the number of female adults in the household. 72

Vegetable Subgroup gxpenditurc

Household total annual income is a statistically signifecant

factor explaining bi-weekly expenditure on all vegetable subgroups,

except tomatoes (Tables 12,14,16, 18,20). The Tobit coefficients on

income and income squared all possess the hypothesized direction of

sign, indicating that as income increases, vegetable expenditure

increases at a decreasing rate. However, for light greens, the

income squared coefficient is not statistically significant.

The number of adult females in the household is statistically

significant in explaining variation in household expenditure for

all vegetable subgroups. Only for dark green and deep yellow

vegetables is the number of elderly females statistically

significant; and for potato expenditure, the numbers of females,

5-12 and 13-19 years old, are statistically significant factors.

gconomies of size are apparent in households purchasing other

vegetables with 0-4 year-old children and adult females.

Households with increasing numbers of 0-4 year-old children,

regardless of gender, tend to purchase less tomatoes, perhaps due

to the high acid content of tomato products.

The number of adult males in the household is statistically

significant in explaining expenditure for light greens, tomatoes,

and other vegetables. Also, increases in the number of elderly

males is associated with decreases in expenditure for other

vegetables. gconomies of size associated with increasing numbers

of adult males are apparent for households purchasing tomatoes and 73

other vegetables.

A change in household total annual income results in the

largest total change in expendi t11re for other vegetables. The difference between the two components of the total elasticity is greatest for potatoes, followed by dark green and deep yellow vegetables. This suggests the relative importance of these two subgroups with regard to potential changes in market

partici tpation.

A change in age-sex composition, leading to a change in vegetable subgroup expenditure, largely influences th e probability of purchasing vegetables. Among all the age-sex categories,

changes in the number of adult members appear to be most important,

regardless of vegtable subgroup. The range across subgroups of expenditure elasticities for the nt.unber of adult females is 0.26

(potatoes) to 0.51 (tomatoes), and for the nt.unber of adult males is

0.10 (other) to 0.20 (potatoes). Finally, the potatoes subgroup has the smallest number of negative age-sex group elasticities

while the other subgroup has the largest number.

Households with managers having at least some college

education have lower mean expenditure for tomatoes and potatoes

than other households. This relationship does not hold

statistically for the remaining vegetable subgroups.

Increased mean expenditure for dark green and deep yellow

vegetables and potatoes is statistically significant in households

headed by a black person. Also, in households headed by blacks, Table 12. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on dark green and deep yellow vegetables.

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y *]F(z) aF(z)E[y*J Variable 8 t-ratio ax ax ax

INC o. 26950-04 3.57 o. 74140-05 o. 29260-05 o. 63870-05 INC2 -0. 17180-09 -1. 72 Ml 0.0512 0.23 0.0098 0.0039 0.0084 M12 -0. 0909 -0. 65 M2 0.0776 0.57 0.0248 0.0098 0.0213 M22 -0. 0013 -0. 02 M3 -0.1119 -0. 73 -0. 0189 -0. 0074 -0. 0162

...;j M32 o. 1236 1. 76 ...... M4 0.2506 1. 47 o. 0722 o. 0285 0.0622 M42 -0. 0180 -0. 23 M5 0.0003 o. 480-03 0.0110 0.0044 0.0095 M52 o. 1513 0.24 F1 -0. 4950 -2. 12 -0. 1413 -0. 0558 -0.1217 F12 0.2194 1. 54 F2 0.0594 0.40 0.0239 o. 0094 0.0206 F22 0.0345 0.49 F3 0.0026 o. 16 ~0.0008 -0.0032 -0. 0007 F32 -0. 0130 -0. 17 F4 0.7400 4.37 o. 1367 0.0540 o. 1178 F42 -0. 1962 -2. 76 F5 1. 0021 1. 89 0.2806 o. 1107 0.2416 Table 12. (Continued).

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y *]F{z) aF(z)E(Y*] Variable t-ratio f3 dX

OME -0.2399 -0. 72 -0. 0773 -0.0305 -0.0666 OMU -0.3137 -0.44 -0. 1011 -0.0399 -0. 0871 OFE o. 1599 1. 01 0.0515 0.0203 0.0444 OFU 0.2713 1. 40 0.0874 0.0345 0.0753 BEU 0.0118 o. 15 0.0038 0.0015 0.0033 BUE 0.2402 1. 08 0.0774 0.0305 0.0667 BUU o. 1619 1. 00 0.0522 0.0206 0.0450 EDHM 1 o. 0820 1. 05 o. 0264 0.0104 0.0227

<() RAC 0.2599 2.29 0.0838 0.0331 0.0721 ,..... FST o. 1307 0.81 0.0421 0.0166 0.0362 MCC 0.6200 6.39 o. 1998 0.0788 o. 1721 MOC o. 3482 3.86 o. 1122 0.0443 o. 0966 LCC o. 3944 3.73 o. 1270 0.0501 0. 1094 LOC 0.2378 2. 15 0.0766 0.0302 0.0660 NER 0.3358 3.63 o. 1082 o. 0427 0.0093 NCR -0. 0655 -0. 77 -0. 0211 -0.0083 -0. 0182 WER -0.0303 -0. 32 -0.0100 -0. 0039 -0. 0086 CONSTANT -1.6933 -11. 27

Note: 'Ihe unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 0.3486. 'Ihe conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is O. 8614. 'Ihe standard error around the Tobit index is 1.2026. 'Ihe predicted probability that y > 0, at mean x, is 0.4047 and 'Iheil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.7001. z = -0.2412, f(z) = 0.3875. 76

Table 13. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for dark green and deep yellow vegetables.

Variable

INC 0.3060 0.0960 0.2100 M1 0.0040 0.0013 o. 0027 M2 0.0225 o. 0071 0.0154 M3 -0.0147 -0. 0046 -0. 01 01 M4 o. 191 3 0.0601 o. 1312 M5 0.0045 0.0014 0.0031 F1 -0. 0654 -0. 0205 -0. 0449 F2 0.0185 o. 0058 0.0127 F3 -0. 0006 -0. 0002 -0. 0004 F4 0.4001 o. 1257 o. 2744 F5 o. 1486 0.0467 0.1019 Table i4. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on light green vegetables.

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y * ]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable 8 t-ratio ax ax ax

INC 0.0256 2.73 0.54600-05 o. 73180-05 o. 84800-05 INC2 -0. 75340-10 -0. 59 M1 o. 0170 0.01 0.0047 0.0063 0.0073 M12 0.0161 o. 10 M2 o. 1797 1. 09 0.0360 0.0483 0.0559 M22 -0. 0432 -0. 59 M3 0. 1959 1. 04 0.0488 0.0655 0.0759 r-- M32 0.0422 0.48 r-- M4 0.4468 2.16 0.0799 o. 1071 o. 1241 M42 -0. 0658 -0.69 M5 -1.0903 -1.23 -0. 1678 -0. 2249 -0. 2606 M52 1. 5853 1. 91 F1 -0.2133 -0. 76 -0.0474 -0. 0636 -0. 0737 F12 0.0208 0.12 F2 -0.0446 -0. 24 0.0054 0.0073 0.0084 F22 o. 1590 1. 81 F3 o. 1841 0.95 0.0462 o. 0620 0.0718 F32 0.0467 0.49 F4 1. 4792 7.29 o. 1968 0.2638 0.3057 F42 -0. 3799 -4.45 F5 0.6361 1. 00 o. 1579 0.2116 0.2452 F52 o. 1891 0.32 Table 14. (Continued).

Asymptotic ()F(z)

OME -0.3114 -0. 83 -0.0710 -0. 0952 -0.1103 OMU 0.4190 0.52 0.0956 o. 1282 o. 1485 OFE o. 1665 0.86 0.0379 0.0509 0.0589 OFU 0.0053 0.02 0.0012 0.0016 0.0019 BEU o. 1923 1. 94 0.0439 0.0588 0.0681 BUE -0. 1490 -0. 53 -0.0340 -0.0455 -0. 0528 BUU 0.2867 1. 48 0.0654 0.0877 o. 1016 EDHM 1 -0. 0784 -0. 81 -0.0179 -0.0239 -0. 0278 co RAC o. 1073 0.11 0.0244 0.0328 0.0380 I'- FST 0.3894 2.01 0.0888 0.1191 o. 1379 MCC o. 1548 1. 32 0.0353 o. 0473 . 0.0548 MOC 0.2205 2.06 0.0503 0.0674 0.0781 LCC o. 1205 0.95 o. 0275 0.0368 0.0427 LOC 0.2440 1. 86 0.0557 0.0746 0.0865 NER -0. 1014 -0. 89 -0.0231 -0. 0310 -0. 0359 NCR -0. 2771 -2. 72 -0.0632 -0. 0847 -0.0982 WER -0. 2036 -1.80 -0. 0464 -0. 0622 -0. 0721 CONSTANT -1. 1493 -6. 54

Note: 1lle unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.0259. Tiie conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.5530. 1lle standard error around the Tobit index is 1.6037. 1lle predicted probability that y > 0, at mean x, is 0.6606 and 1lleil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.4173. z = 0.4141, f(z) = 0.3662. 79

Table 15. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for light green vegetables.

Variable

INC o. 1764 0.0817 o. 0947 M1 0.0015 0.0007 0.0008 M2 0.0255 o. 0118 0.0137 M3 o. 0296 o. 0137 0.0159 M4 o. 1656 0.0767 0.0889 MS -0. 0530 -0. 0245 -0. 0285 F1 -0. 0171 -0. 0079 -0. 0092 F2 0.0032 0.0015 o. 0017 F3 o. 0260 0.0121 0.0139 F4 0.4508 0.2088 0. 2420 F5 0.0654 0.0303 0.0351 Table 16. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on tomatoes.

Asymptotic (ff(z) aE[Y * ]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable 8 t-ratio ax ax

INC o. 21960-04 2.41 o. 52280-05 o. 25580-04 o. 54930-05 INC2 -0. 10560-09 -0. 87 Ml -0. 4666 -1.77 -0. 1106 -0. 0541 -0. 1162 M12 0.2333 1.49 M2 -0. 1145 -0. 70 -0.0224 -0.0109 -0. 0235 M22 0.0613 0.86 M3 0.0243 o. 13 0.0079 0.0039 0.0083 M32 0.0118 o. 14 0.0766 0 M4 0.5689 2. 75 o. 7293 0.0357 00 M42 -0. 2014 -2. 13 M5 0.2638 o. 32 0.0735 0.0360 0.0772 M52 o. 0486 0.06 Fl o. 1704 0.57 0.0237 0.0116 0.0249 F12 -0. 3178 -1.60 F2 -0. 1822 -1. 00 -0. 0285 -0.0140 -0. 0300 F22 o. 1754 2.07 F3 -0. 1671 -0. 87 0.0311 0.0152 0.0327 F32 o. 1273 1. 40 F4 1. 2175 5.83 o. 1779 o. 0871 o. 1870 F42 -0. 3401 -3.77 F5 0.2363 0.40 o. 1008 o. 0493 o. 1059 F52 0.4778 0.89 Table 16. (Continued).

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y *]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable 8 t-ratio ax axc:

OME -0.5631 -1. 31 -0. 1506 -0. 0737 -0. 1582 OMU 0.2967 0.38 0.0794 0.0388 0.0834 OFE o. 1864 0.97 0.0499 0.0244 0.0524 OFU -0. 1087 -0.45 -0. 0291 -0.0142 -0. 0306 BEll 0.0931 0.95 0.0249 0.0122 o. 0262 BUE -0. 1860 -0.10 -0.0498 -0.0244 -0.0523 BUU -0.0540 -0. 27 -0.0145 -0. 0071 -0.0152 EDHM1 -0. 1645 -1. 71 -0. 0440 -0. 0215 -0. 0462 -0. 1021 rl RAC -0.3634 -2. 54 -0.0972 -0. 01176 00 FST o. 1111 0.56 0.0296 0.0145 0.0311 MCC 0.4256 3. 62 o. 1139 0.0557 o. 1196 MOC 0.2796 2. 60 0.0748 0.0366 0.0786 LCC 0.3027 2.40 0.0810 0.0396 0.0851 LOC o. 1839 1. 39 0.0492 0.0241 0.0517 NER o. 1199 1. 07 0.0321 0.0157 0.0337 NCR -0. 3056 -2. 98 -0.0818 -0.0400 -0. 0859 WER -0.0463 -0. 42 -0.0124 -0. 0061 -0. 0130 CONSTANT -1. 6827 -9.43

Note: The unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 0.4329. The conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.0507. The standard error around the Tobit index is 1.4548. The predicted probability that y > O, at mean x, is 0.4120 and Theil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.7190. z = -0.2224, f(z) = 0.3892. 82

Table 17. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for tomatoes.

Variable

INC 0.2133 0.0678 0. 1455 M1 -0. 0449 -0.0143 -0. 0306 M2 -0. 0200 -0. 0064 -0. 0136 M3 0.0060 0.0019 0.0041 M4 o. 1908 0. 0606 0. 1302 5 o. 0293 0.0093 0.0200 F1 0.0108 0.0034 0.0074 f 2 0.0218 0.0069 0.0149 F3 0.0221 0.0070 o. 0151 F4 0.5140 o. 1633 0,3507 F5 o. 0527 0.0167 0.0360 Table 18. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on potatoes.

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y * ] F(z) aF(z)E[Y* ] Variable a t-ratio ax ax ax

INC o. 29230-04 2. 11 o. 41820-05 o. 41820-05 0.43440-05 INC2 -0. 3337D-09 -1.45 M1 o. 2924 0.94 o. 0582 o. 0202 0.0604 M12 0.0348 0.20 M2 0.2663 1. 29 0.0446 0.0155 0.0463 M22 -0. 0719 -0. 78 M3 o. 3275 1. 38 0.0459 0.0159 0.0477 M32 -0. 0676 -0. 61 M4 (") o. 3921 1. 45 0.0558 0.0193 0.0579 00 M42 -0. 0709 -0. 58 M5 -0.4340 -0. 44 -0. 0489 -0. 0170 -0. 0508 M52 0.8116 o. 91 F1 o. 1747 0.50 0.0313 0.0109 0.0325 F12 -0. 0512 -0. 24 F2 0.3981 1. 79 0.0762 0.0264 0.0791 F22 -0.0114 -0. 11 F3 0.4523 1. 86 0.0764 0.0265 0.0794 F32 -0. 1412 -1.20 F4 0.6319 2.36 0.0656 0.0277 0.0682 F42 -0. 1805 -1.65 F5 0.6453 0.85 o. 1250 0.0434 o. 1298 F52 -0.0006 -0. 01 Table 18. (Continued) •

Asymptotlc ilF(z) aE[Y *]F(z) ilF(z)E[Y*] Variable t-ratio 8 dX dX

OME -0. 9542 -1.50 -0. 1849 -0. 0641 -0. 1920 OMU -0.5044 -0. 46 -0.0339 -0. 0977 -0.0352 OFE 0.2249 0.90 0.0436 0.0151 0.0453 OFU 0.5128 1. 84 0.0994 0.0345 o. 1032 BEU o. 1711 1. 37 0.0331 0.0115 0.0344 BUE -0. 1043 -0. 27 -0. 0201 -0. 0070 -0. 0209 BUU 0.2442 0.99 0.0473 0.0164 0.0491 EDHM1 -0. 2329 -1. 81 -0. 0451 -0. 0157 -0.0468 0.0661 -::t RAC o. 3285 1. 92 0.0636 0.0221 co FST 0.2960 1. 25 0.0573 0.0199 o. 0595 HCC 0.0236 1. 36 0.0395 0.0137 0.0410 MOC 0.0586 0.42 0.0114 0.0039 0.0118 LCC -0. 0952 -0. 57 -0. 0184 -0. 0064 -0.0191 LOC 0.0005 o. 01 0.0960 0.0333 0.0997 NER o. 1929 1. 36 0.0374 o. 0130 0.0388 NCR -0.2145 -1.65 -0.0416 -0.0144 -0. 0432 WER -0. 5168 -3.43 -0. 1001 -0.0347 -0. 1040 CONSTANT -2. 2716 -9. 90

Note: 'flle unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 0.2789. 'flle conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.0387. 'flle standard error around the Tobit index is 1.7016. 'flle predicted probability that y > 0, at mean x, is 0.2685 and 'flleil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.8352. z = -0.6175, f(z) = 0.3297. 85

Table 19. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for potatoes.

Variable

INC 0.2382 o. 0596 o. 1786 M1 0.0330 0.0083 o. 0247 M2 0.0558 0.0140 0.0418 M3 0.0493 0.0123 o. 0370 M4 0.2038 0.0510 o. 1528 M5 -0. 0272 -0. 0068 -0. 0204 F1 o. 0200 0.0050 0.0150 F2 0.0816 o. 0204 0.0612 F3 0.0757 0.0190 0.0567 F4 0.2648 0.0663 o. 1985 F5 0.0913 o. 0229 0.0684 Table 20. Summary statistics for Tobit analysis of household expenditures on other vegetables.

Asymptotic ClF(z) ClE[Y *]F(z) ClF(z) E[Y*] Variable 8 t-ratio -- Clx Clx Clx

INC O. 40100-04 4.69 0. 97060-05 o. 66230-05 o. 10440-04 rnc2 -0. 45140-09 -3. 10 M1 -0. 0602 -0. 31 -0. 0284 -0. 0194 -0. 0294 M12 0.1121 0.98 M2 -0. 0424 -0. 33 -0. 0060 -0. 0041 -0. 0062 M22 o. 0480 0. 84 M3 o. 1502 1. 03 0.0539 o. 0368 0.0557 M32 0.0347 o. 51 \0 00 M4 o. 3074 1. 87 0.0470 o. 0321 o. 0486 M42 -0.1110 -1. 47 M5 -1. 5484 -2. 29 -0. 3848 -0. 2626 -0. 3979 M52 1. 6462 2. 62 F1 0.4517 2.08 o. 1261 0.0861 o. 1304 F12 -0 2531 -1. 84 F2 -0. 1436 -1. 01 -0. 0262 -0. 0179 -0. 0271 F22 o. 1466 2. 19 F3 -0. 1189 -0. 80 -0. 0240 -0. 0163 -0. 0248 F32 o. 1139 1. 58 F4 o. 9626 5,95 o. 1553 o. 1060 o. 1606 F42 -0. 2996 -4. 33 F5 -0. 1920 -0. 40 0. 0024 0.0016 o. 0025 F52 0.6780 1. 53 Table 20. (Continued).

Asymptotic aF(z) aE[Y * ]F(z) aF(z)E[Y*] Variable B t-ratio ax ax ax

OME 0.0605 0.21 0.0198 o. 0135 0.0205 OMU -0.5094 -0. 69 -0. 1662 -0. 1134 -0. 1719 OFE -0. 0219 -0. 14 -0. 0071 -0.0049 -0.0073 OFU o. 1470 0.79 0.0479 0.0327 0.0495 BEU o. 2172 2. 82 0.0708 0.0483 o. 0732 BUE 0. 1061 0.49 0.0346 0.0236 0.0358 BUU 0.2990 1. 95 0.0976 0.0666 o. 1009 EDHM 1 -0.0332 -0.44 -0. 0108 -0. 0740 -0.0112 r--. RAC -0.0915 -0. 83 -0. 0298 -0.0204 -0. 0308 co FST 0.0680 0.44 0.0222 0.0151 0.0230 HCC 0.2662 2.90 0.0868 o. 0592 0.0898 MOC 0.1516 1. 80 0.0494 0.0337 0. 0511 LCC 0.2163 2. 19 0.0706 O.Oll81 o. 0730 LOC 0.2043 1. 99 0.0667 0.0455 0.0690 NER 0.2005 2.25 0.0654 0.0446 0.0676 NCR 0.0855 1. 07 0.0279 0.0190 o. 0289 WER 0.0088 o. 10 0.0029 0.0020 0.0030 CONSTANT -1.2872 -9.26

Note: The unconditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 0.5790. The conditional expected value of y, at mean x, is 1.0341. The standard error around the Tobit index is 1.2092. The predicted probability that y > O, at mean x, is 0.5599 and Theil's goodness- of-fit statistic is 0.5653. z = O. 1507, f(z) = 0.3944. 88

Table 21. Calculated elasticities from Tobit coefficients for other vegetables.

Variable

INC 0.3299 0.1311 o. 1988 M1 -0. 0096 -0. 003,8 -0. 0058 M2 -0. 0045 -0. 0018 -0. 0027 M3 0.0345 0.0137 o. 0208 M4 o. 1025 0.0408 0.0617 M5 -0. 1278 -0.0509 -0. 0769 F1 0.0480 o. 0191 o. 0289 F2 -0.0168 -0.0067 -0. 0101 F3 -0. 0142 -0. 0056 -0. 0086 F4 0.3742 o. 1490 0.2252 F5 0.0010 0.0004 0.0006 89

mean expenditure on tomatoes is less than in other households.

Households purchasing food stamps show higher mean expenditure for

light green vegetables, as compared to households with no food

stamp purchases. For all the remaining vegetable subgroups, the

purchase of food stamps ~oes not result in a statistically

significant difference in mean expenditure.

As a factor explaining vegetable subgroup expenditure, spouse

unemployment is statistically significant only for light green

vegetables and other vegetables. Also, households with only a

female head, who is employed, show higher mean expenditure for

potatoes. This latter observation may be related to the expected

budgetary problems encountered in households with one principle

earner.

Population density is a statistically significant factor

explaining mean vegetable expenditure for all subgroups except

potatoes. Compared with nonSMSA residences, households in central

city areas of SMSAs are found to have higher mean expenditure for

dark green and deep yellow vegetables. Also, households outside

central city areas of SMSAs are found to have higher mean

expenditure for all subgroups except potatoes.

Geographic region a statistically significant factor affecting

mean expenditure for all vegetable subgroups. Compared to

households of the South, mean expenditure in the North Central

region is lower for light greens and tomatoes; and in the West

region, it is lower for light greens and potatoes. In contrast, 90

the difference in mean expenditure for these three subgroups in the

Northeast and the South is not statistically significant. Finally, households in the Northeast arc found to spend more on dark green and deep yellow and other vegetables than households in the South.

In summary, the analyses of vegetable subgroup expenditure reflects many of the same results found in the analyses for total, fresh, and canned vegetables. ~ouschold total annual income, age- sex composition, residence, and region are important factors in explaining variation in subgroup expenditure. Education, race, food stamp purchase, and employment status are less important, and show up as statistically significant factors for particular subgroups.

Differences among subgroup expenditure patterns are evident when examining households with differing racial characteristics and educational status of the manager. Also, while economies of size are evident in all households with adult females, this phenomenon also occurs in households with adult males under the tomatoes and other subgroup analyses. In general, employment status is not important in a majority of subgroup expenditure patterns.

Household Vegetable Bxpenditure Profile

This analysis permits the construction of vegetable expenditure profiles based selected on contingent households. A sample profile is presented in Table 22 for households with non- black male and female household heads present, both employed, household manager not college educated, living outside SMSAs, in 91

Table 2.2. P':"ofile of Two-week. ::X?endi::-es 011 Vegetables Sy llouseho!ds Ouder Selected Conditions of A.imual Income and Age-Sex Ca11-pos i ti 011

Annual llousehold Income

Age-Sex Characteristics of Household $7,SOO $12,SOO $17,SOO $22,SOO

!lumber Age-Group Sex !Xl'enditure (1980 Oollars)a/

2 s-12 Female 8.49 9.17 9.79 10.39 1 0-4 Male

2 13-19 Female 6.08 6.76 7.38 7.97 l s-12 Male

2 over 19 Female 8.90 9.S8 10.20 10.80 l 13-19 Male a/ Ca11putatiom made using the Comumer Price Index for all food items.

SOOB.~ : Ca11~atiom by the authors. 92

the South, and not purchasing food stamps. each cell contains the estimated bi-weekly expenditure on vegetables, given in 1980 dollars.

The sample profile illustrates the effect on vegetable expenditure of changes in age-sex composition of household members as well as changes in household income. To illustrate, a household with an annual income of $7,500 as well as two female children (5 to 12) and one male child (0 to 4) would spend $8.49 bi-weekly for vegetables. The tremendous wealth of detail in the classifications of the socioeconomic and demographic variates permits the construction of numerous unique profiles of the type in Table 22.

The readers are left to pursue those which are of most interest to them. Such profiles are useful for market research programs by the vegetable industry. Chapter Five

Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

for Further Research

93 94

The present study examines household expenditures for vegetables in their canned, fresh, and frozen forms and in five major subgroups. An econometric model is constructed in which socioeconomic and demographic factors arc hypothesized to explain variation in household vegetable expenditure patterns. Tobit analysis is employed to account for behavior in non-purchasing and purchasing households from the 1972-1974 BLS Consumer gxpenditure

Diary Survey. Due to the size of the total sample and the more complete information on spouses' level of education in the second survey year, a random subsample of size 2,000 is drawn from a total of 10,145 useable observations from the July, 1973 - July, 1974 survey. The proportion of non-purchasing households in the subsample is quite similar to the proportion found in the total

sample. However, the proportion of households not purchasing

frozen vegetables was high enough (72%) to inhibit normalization of

coefficients for that analysis. Therefore, results are reported

for households purchasing canned and fresh forms, the five

vegetable subgroups, and total vegetables. A sample household

profile is presented as one possible applicaton of the results.

The quadratic form of household total annual income is concave

to the abcissa in all Tobit regressions, and it is statistically

significant for total vegetables, canned vegetables, dark green and

deep yellow vegetables, potatoes, and the other vegetables group.

The income-expenditure elasticity for total vegetables is 0.21, 95

confirming that vegetables are economic necessities in O.S. households. A one percent change in household annual income is associated with a smaller percent change in the probability of expenditure than in the conditional expected value of expenditure on total vegetables. Due, in part, to the larger proportion of non-purchasing households in the other regressions, the difference in impact was reversed in favor of a larger percent change in the probability of expenditure.

The most important age group of household members is adults of ages 20-64 years. Households with adult females demonstrated economies of size in expenditures for all vegetable forms and all vegetable subgroups. House holds with adult males demonstrated economies of size only for tomatoes and the other vegetables subgroup. glasticities of expenditure with respect to adult females are consistently greater than income-expenditure elasticities. Other age-sex categories are statistically significant for particular vegetable subgroups. For example, households with females ages 5-12 and 13-19 years arc statistically

significant, positive factors in household expenditures for

potatoes.

Population density and region are important factors in

affecting the mean level of expenditures. Location of csidence within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas is found to increase mean level of expenditures for fresh vegetables, dark green and

deep yellow, light green, and other vegetables subgroups. In 96

general, households in the Northccntral and West regions have 1 ower mean vegetable expenditures than households in the South regions.

Also, households in the South region have higher mean expenditures on canned vegetables than in all other regions.

Other factors affecting the mean levels of household expenditures on various vegetable forms and subgroups arc employment status of the household head and spouse, educational level of the household manager, purchase of food stamps. These variables are, however, statistically significant in fewer instances.

The results of these Tobit analyses suggest items for an agenda of future research topis. Regarding the sample of houeholds used in the present study, other random samples could be drawn to test for the robustness of results. Of particular interest would be determination of the effects on components of the Tobit coefficient by changing he proportion of non-purchasing households while holding all other factors constant. Also, some knowledge of

frozen vegetable expenditure patterns was lost due to the high proportion of non-purchasing households.

An analysis of vegetable consumption data from the 1977

U.S.O.A. Household Food Consumption Survey would provide material

for future research which could be compared to the results of the

present study. Per capita consumption of vegetables has remained

fairly steady throughout the decade of the 1970's, but the

characteristics of American households have tended to change toward 97

smaller family sizes with both household head and spouse employed.

Additional variables could ~c sought for inclusion in new models of household •1egetable expenditure behavior. Occupational status, housing tenure, and family psychological need levels arc recieving more attention by social scientists in other research programs. More sophisticated statistical techniques could be employed to compare the differences among factors affecting mean levels of expenditures. For example, comparisons among regions other than the South region are beyond the scope of the present study, however, the proper techniques exist for such tests.

Finally, the results of this study should be compatible with the work of other universities, marketing organizations, and goverment research agencies. Integrating the results of research on household expenditure patterns will lead to new hypotheses which add to, and improve, our base of knowledge about economic behavior of the American household. R€ Ff!: RB NCE S

Aitchison, J., and J .A.C. Brown. "A Synthesis of t::ngel Curve Theory." Review of Economic Studies 220954):35-46.

Blanciforti, L., R. Green, and S. Lane. "Income and expenditure for Relatively More Versus Relatively Less ~utritious Food Over the Life Cycle." American Journal of Agricultural economics 63(1981):255-260.

Buse, R.C., and L.e. Salathe. "Adult Equivalent Scales: An Alternative Approach." American Journal of Agricultural economics 60(1978):460-468.

Capps, O., Jr., G.D. Spittle, T. Finn. "The Virginia Tech Version of the 1972-1974 BLS Consumer expenditure Diary Survey: Data Descriptions and Data Inconsistencies." Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University staff paper SP-81-4, 1981.

David, M.H. Family Composition and Consumption. ed. Strotz, R., J. Tinbcrgen, P.J. Verdoorn, H.J. Witteveen. North Holland Publishing Company. Amsterdam.

Hagemann, R.P. "The Determinants of Household Vacation Travel: Some Empirical Evidence." Applied economics 13(1981):225-234.

Harmston, F .K., and H. Hino. "An Intertemporal Analysis of the Nature of Demand for Food Products." American Journal of Agricultural economics 52(1970):381-386.

Hicks, J .R., and R.G.D. Allen. "A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value." economica 1(1934):52-76.

Hymans, s., and H. Shapiro. Five Thousand American Families. ed. Morgan, J. Vol. 11, 1974.

McDonald, J .F., and R.A. Moffitt. "The Uses of Tobit Analysis." Review of economics and Statistics 60(1980): 318-321.

Phlips, L. Applied Consumption Analysis. Amsterdam. North Rolland Publishing Company, 1974.

Prais, S.J., and H.S. Houthakker. Analysis of Family Budgets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955, second edition, 1971.

Price, D.W., et al. evaluation of School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs in the State of Waihington. Final Report.

98 99

Washington State University, Pullman. 1976.

Price, D.W., o.z. Price, and D.A. West. "Traditional and Nontraditional Determinants of Household trxpendi tures on Scl ccted Fruits and Vegetables." Western Journal of Agricultural economics 5(1980):21-36.

Progrcssi ve Grocer. "Produce: Bulk is Back!" 56(March, 1977):47-60.

Progressive Grocer. "1980 Guide to Product Usage." 5 9(Augus t, 1980): 80.

Rauniker, R.C., J.C. Purcell, and J.C. Elrod. "Consmnption and Expenditure Analysis for Fruits and Vegetables in Atlanta, GA," Georgia Agricultural experiment Station. Technical Bulletin number 53, June, 1966.

Rockwell, G.R., Jr. "Income and Household Size: Their l!:ffccts on Food Consumption. U.S. Department of Agriculture, AMS MRR 340. June, 1959.

Salathc, L .g. "An Empirical Comparison of Functional Forms for l!:ngel Relationships." Agricultural Economics Research 31(1979a):l0-15.

Salathe, L .e:. "The Effects of Changes in Population Characteristics on U.S. Consumption of Selected Foods." American Journal of Agricultural economics 61(1979b):l036-1045.

Slutsky, B.e:. "Sulla Teoria del Bilancio del Consumatore," Giornale degli Bconomisti 51(1915):1-26; translated by O. Ragusa as "On the Theory of the Budget of the consumer", Readings in Price Theory, ed. Stigler, G.J. and K.e. Boulding. Homewood,Ill. Irwin Publishing Company. IL.

Stigler, G.J. "The Barly History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior." Journal of Political Economy 62(1954):95-113.

Tobin, J. "estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables ••" B conometrica 26( 1958): 24-36.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dietary~ for the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C., Dec., 1977.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Handbook of Agricultural Charts. Washington, D.C.: USDA e:RS, 574, 1981.

United States Department of Agriculture. State Farm Income 100

Statistics, Washington, D.C.: USDA e:Rs, 627, 1981.

United States Department of Agricultural. Changes in Farm Production and efficiency, Washington, O.C.: USDA e:RS, 628, 1981.

United States Department of Agricul~urc. Food Prices, Consumption, and expenditures, Washington, D.C.: USDA ~RS, 138, 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nutritive Value of American Foods, Washington, D.C.: USDA ARS, 456, 1975.

Weimer, J., and P. Stevens. "Consumers' Preferences, !Jscs, and Buying Practices for Selected Vegetables: A Nationwide Survey." USDA g RS MRR 1019, 1074. Appendix A

101 102

Leafy Greens & Others

Broccoli

Carrots

Leafy Greens & Others

1970 Broccoli

Carrots

Leafy Greens & Others 1980 Broccoli

Carrots

Figure A.l. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of fresh dark green and deep yellow vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 103

Leafy Greens & Others

1960

Carrots Broccoli

Leafy Greens & Others

1970

Carrots Broccoli

Leafy Greens % Others

1980

Carrots Broccoli

Figure A.2. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of frozen dark green and deep yellow vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 104

Leafy Greens & Others 1960

Carrots

Leafy Greens & Others 1970

Carrots

Leafy Greens & Others

1980

Carrots

Figure A.3. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of canned dark green and deep yellow vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 105

Asparagus Lettuce 1960

Beans

Asparagus Lettuce

Asparagus Lettuce 1980 Beans

Figure A.4. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of fresh light green vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 106

Pumpkin/Squash/ Beans Asparagus 1960 -r----...;:111,----...J

Pumpkin/Squash/ Asparagus 1970

Pumpkin/Squash/ Beans Asparagus 1980

Figure A.5. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of frozen light green vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 107

Pumpkin/Squash/ Beans Asparagus 1960

Cabbage

Pumpkin/Squash/ Beans Asparagus 1970

Pumpkin/Squash/ Beans Asparagus 1980

Figure A.6. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of canned light green vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 108

Clauliflower Cucumbers 1960

Corn Celery

Cucumbers

Clauliflower Cucumbers 1980 !-----~"'--

Corn Celery

Figure A.7. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of fresh other vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 109

Clauliflower

1960 i------i.

Clauliflower Corn

Onions

Claulif lower Corn

Figure A.8. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of frozen other vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: .USDA, Food, Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) llO

Beets Cucumbers 1960

Beets Cucumbers

Cucumbers

Figure A.9. Proportional shares of per capita consumption of canned other vegetables: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) trj t-'• Percent Total Per Capita )Q Potato Consumption i::t; rt> ~ ...... N VJ .i:-- Vl -....J CX> \0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'0 0 0 0 0 .0 (") ...,.. I'd Fresh 0 0 rt> t:::I t; t; m 3 n Dehydrated i:: (/) rt> 8 •• !j rt Chip/String rt t-'· ...... rt I~ 0 \0 0 Frozen t:::I "'Oil> rt .. I-' Canned Ill t:::I f-' 'O 0. rt> "'-....J t; Fresh tr! 0 x .. n t:1 p1 Dehydrated rt> ...... 'O ...... t:::I ,...... 0. "'00 rt I-' ,_..Oil> Chip/String ..... rt • I~ i:: 'O Frozen t; 0 ro ,,...... rt en tll II> Canned .._.,c rt 0 ct; n n rt> 0 Fresh .. t:::I ;qi:;:en Dehydrated ({,) 8 ti 'C II>- rt .. t-'• Chip/String 0 Ii hj t:::I Frozen 0 0 ,...... Q. ::=' Canned 'I "d ...,.. t1 ,...... t-'· rt> ..en 112

100

80 1960 1970 1980

t't1 ._i ~ 0.. c: 60 t't1 0 u~ ~ 1-1 0.. Ql 5 p.. ::l 50 Cl) .-4 c: t't1 0 ~u 0 H O 40 ._i ._i t't1 c: s Ql 0 CJ H 30 1-1 Ql p.. 20

Ql Cl) Ql Cl) Ql Cl) Ql 1:1.) Ql 1:1.) Ql 1:1.) .-4 Ql Ql Ql .-4 Ql Ql Ql .-4 Ql Ql Ql 0 CJ 1-1 CJ 0 CJ 1-1 CJ 0 CJ 1-1 CJ ::l ::l ~ ::l ::l ~ ::l ::l ~ t't1 p.. ::l t't1 p.. ::l t't1 p.. ::l s CJ) 'J s tr.l 'J s tf.l 'J 0.. 0.. 0.. .-4 .-4 .-4 ::l -::l ::l -p.. p.. -p..

Figure A.11. Percent total per capita tomato consumption in four forms: 1960, 1970, 1980. (Source: USDA, Food Prices, Consumption, and Expenditures) 113

110

0 -0 -II 100 ,.... '°0\ - 90 -x

1967 70 75 80 (Year)

Figure A.12a. Changes in vegetable production in the Appalachi~n region, since 1967. (Source: USDA, Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency)

Tomatoes Sweet Potatoes

1980

Cucumbers/Beans/ Miscellaneous Cabbage/Sweet corn

Figure A.12b. Proportional share of producer cash receipts in Virginia for vegetables, 1980. (Source: USDA, State Farm Statistics) Appendix B

114 Table BL. ---·-·---·· ·-- Income Cl mm: $0 to $1,999

PP: rr.ent nr,e rercent'1p,I' Ver,et:ibl r of Tot"! of Total Group Form Rrport lnp; _ Exprndlture ($) Vep,.,t.•bl r Food Households Mean s.o. M:ix Exp.,ndlt"re Expl'ndlture No Vegetnhl<> F.xpf'nditurc ?36 0.00 o.on 0.0ll o.oo

Total Vc1>.rlahlcs 198 7. 11(1 7.. '>5 19. 75 IOO.llll 5.8<> rorm Not reported 201 o. 79 0.83 9. 10 16.% 0.97 Fresh 261 I .•10 l .•19 17.66 Ill. (l 7 2.llO rro1rn 71 0.96 0. 15 11. 51 1. IO 0.112 Canned 216 l. 211 I. 28 9.112 ;>fL 35 1.66 P•cl<•ged 36 l. II 1.69 9.0'; If. 11.J 0.26 Or ir.d IA 1. J] 1. 119 6. r,r, ? . '•CJ 0.1'.j Dark Grren and Deep Yellow Vcp,etables 161 0.111 n.6n 5.0ft IJ.511 11.60

ff P.Sh 12? 0.6'1 0.62 5.116 9. 36 0.55 r rozr.11 J l 0.62 0.111 l. 111 2.00 0. 12 Ctnhles ..--i 111] 0. 53. o. Jl1 2. 10 7. 97 0.116 ..--i fo,..m Not reror·ted f rc~h 108 0. 76 0.83 6. 16 6.611 0.51 rro1en 32 0. IJ II. 51 2 .119 2 .113 0. 111 c.1nned 137 U.90 0.80 5. 75 12.86 0. 75 P•ckagr.d 23 1. 26 1.80 9.05 J.02 0. 18 Or Ind 17 1. JJ '. 5'• 6. 51, ? . J6 O. lit Toma toe,; 166 0.66 0.?1 0.68 Ill. 06 0.67

rorm Not reported 20 0.53 0.26 1. 35 1. 10 0.06 f rP.~h 121 o. 111 0.66 11. ?2 ?. J7 0.55 C.1rm~d 55 0. 75 1.10 1. 90 11. JO 0.25 rockaged 2 0. 50 o. 16 0.61 0. 10 0.01 Potntocs P5 1. 10 1. 18 9. 111 Ill. Jll 0.811

ror·m Not rr.ported 26 1. 0 I I. 71 9. 16 2. 75 o. 16 r rcsh 73 1." 0.96 5.112 e. ,,~ 0.119 r f"Olr.n 23 0.6) o. J6 1.116 I. 51 0.0? C;1nucd 12 0.59 ,, . '• l 1. I 3 o . .,~ 0.011 rnr.kaqf~d 6 1. •12 1. 6 I 11. 61 n.n9 0.0'j Other Vpgrtnhles ;>79 0.63 0. 711 5.25 19.?7 I. I 7

form Hot r~portcd 103 0.115 0. JO I. 98 11. 79 o. <'6 r rcoh 65 0.59 0.61 5.25 5.26 o. JI r ro1en 19 0.511 0.26 1. I;> 1. 16 o. 07 Canucd 1119 o. 13 0.55 2.91 6. J3 O.h? P;u;tc.aqr.d 1 o. •11 0.22 o. 76 0.30 0.02 Or·ied l 1. JI 1. J 1 o. 111 0.01 I

rercent age rcrcl'nt :Jge Vegetable of Totnl of Total Group Form Rrportinr. ~~~dlturc ($) Ver.rt able food llouseho lr.Ptnhle Exprncllt11re I 119;> 0,00 (J. 00 0.111) o.on

Total VC>p.P.t'1hlc>s I J'> 1 ,, 6 7 2. 12 111. 51 1(1(). l)(l 5. 5J Form Not reported 771 o. 19 0.611 5.61 I 7 .OJ 0.911 r rcsh 961 1. ~3 I. 99 J6.J9 111 .86 2.32 r ro1r.n Jl19 0.69 0.65 J.69 8.61 0.118 Cnnncd 7" I. J;> I.JO 10.07 ?5.91 1.1111 rack.cwd 167 I .00 IJ.811 5.62 11. (,! 0.2'} Dried 75 0. CJJ 0.68 11.?ll I. CJJ 0. I 1 Dark Green nncl Deep Yellow Vegetables 629 (), 71 o. 71 6.59 I J. J9 0. 711

r rcsh ,, 15 0.66 0. 71 6.59 9 01 0.50 f rn1en 1119 0.(>6 0.119 2.511 2. 71 0. 1~ Canned 91 0, 59 0.1111 2.110 I. 59 0.09 rack•qecl 6 O.h7. f ro?.en IJ5 0.67 0.112 2. JC) 2.52 0. 111 C:HUU?d •112 1),911 o. 82 6. 11 12.23 0.66 racknqr.d 96 I .05 O.llJ 5.62 2. 19 o. 15 Ur ir.11 17 0.95 0.6'1 ••. ;'8 1.119 0.10 TomntoE'" 5113 0.95 I. 16 2?. '.iO l'j. JC) 0.05

rorm Not rcpor·tr.d 71 0.67. o. J'} 2.36 I.JI 0.07 f r(~!;h ~··2 0.8'/ I. 23 27.'HJ ICJ.911 0.61 Canned 1111 CJ, 71 o . ...,,, If, 56 2.116 o. 16 P•c:k•gccl 1 J o.n o.r111 1. 79 0.?6 n.01 Potnt:oes 112 J I. 16 I. In 9.110 13 - 59 o. 75 rorm Htll reported 68 o. 75 0.119 2.65 1. IJ2 o.oo r rcsh 221 I. 29 1. 19 9.60 7.90 (l,llll f rO.""CO 11'; ().(, 7 0.1111 ;>.'.,ii ;>. 12 0.1;" Canned 58 0.66 0.55 3.20 I .09 0.116 P,tc k:l~JCd Jl1 1. 17. o. 76 J. 911 l.O'; 0.06 Other VPr,et.nhlrs 1111 0.91 0.63 11.611 19.1111 1.00 fr1r~ Not rt?pt1r·t~d 355 o. 51 0. 36 7..96 11. 9'} 0.?8 f rr.sh ;'6'1 0.62 0.66 7. 7.1 11. 51 0. ?.'j f rOlf!O lJ 0.6~ 0.110 ?..?'.> 1. ~'5 0.01 Cannert 361 11.112 ll. 6R •r.oo 8. 18 0.115 rnck:iqrd 15 0.113 O.?lt '. ?5 u. 11? 0.07 f)r I •?d 3 O. llJ 0.01 o.11? 0.011 o.oo ------Table 113. IncomP Class: $5,000 to $9,999 rrrr.cntnr,r rercentngc Vrr,rtnbl<' of Totnl of Totnl Vrgrtnhle Food Group Form RPportlnP. ~endlturu~ Households Henn S. 0. Max ExrPndlture Expenditure No Vcr.etahle Expenditure 5119 0.00 0.00 U.flfl IJ. 00

Totnl VegC't:nhle,,; ;>116 J. 20 ?.98 ]II. 19 100.on 5.60

furm Not reported 11116 0.65 o. 70 9.06 17. 111 0.99 rresh 15 73 1. 66 1. 71 2 3. 13 38. 62 2. 16 rro;:cn 699 1.011 1.111 :??.00 10. 1•1 0.60 Canned 1;>~8 1. 111 1. 111 20.11~ ?6.?2 1. 111 r:.ck

r re!llh 600 0. 70 0.77 11 . ,.., 6.25 o.11c. r ro7en 26;? fl.(, 7 U.Q2 2. 1' 2. '16 0. 111 Canned 157 0. ~9 O.Q3 J .011 1. JI 0.08 rar.k•gr.d 111 11.111 O.QI 1. 7n 0. !fl 0.01 r-.. rl J.lr,ht Gr<'en v.. r,.,t:ihle,,; 1 7•,n 1. 111 1.6•1 30.97 ]R.118 ;t. 1 J rl for~ ~ot reported 11;>7 0.59 0.117 5.5?. 9. 11 0.55 fresh 6311 o. 19 I. 12 11. 70 7. 4 3 0.112 frozen :?99 o. 79 0.6'; 11. !19 J.~1 0.20 Canned 8~'' 1.1) 1 0.96 11 . IH) 12. 70 o. 71 r•ckaqcd l~ti 1. 1 ;> 1.:?2 7. 00 :?.59 0. 111 Ori Pd 101 1. JI :?.69 26.UI 2.09 0. 12 Tomatoes 1055 1.00 0.119 9.03 15. (, 1 0.68 form Not rcpor·tc(f 1;>7 0.67 0.52 5.:?3 1. 26 0.01 frrst1 811') u.91 o. 76 7. ll 7 11. J3 0.611 Citm1cd 2 78 0. 71 o. 76 9.03 ?. 911 o. 16 P;tck

form Nles 1389 1.01 1. 12 ?2.UO 20. ](, 1. 16

form Hot rcport~

rrrcr.nt:1r,r r .. rcentap,e Ver.et :ihl e of Tot'1l of Total Vep.etahl<' Food Group Form Reportinp, ~.!'._n.i_i_ture ($) Households Me"n s .ll. n.u Expend It ure F.xpPnd iture

No Vegetable Expendlture 116 I 0.110 0.110 o.on 0.00

Total Vep.etahles ];' 1 l ]. 65 1.07 56.99 1011. 011 5.2'> form tlot reported 2111)1) 0.99 o. 19 9.05 21. 03 1. 10 r re sh 21193 1. 111 1.85 112. 60 31. I~ 1. 96 r ro1Hn 1;>1111 1. 1(1 0.911 Iii. 12 11.69 0.61 CC'nncct 706 I 1.111 1. 2.'\ 11. 93 7'•· 90 1. l 1 rackaf)ed •16? !I. 90 1 .011 8 .116 3. <·6 0. 19 Oried 131 0.110 o. 10 6. 11 I 0. 9.1 0.f)'j ll:irk Grl'en ancl llr>l'p Yellow Vep,etahles 1152 0.115 (1. 8? 16. 1? 17. 13 0.61

rrosh 1 J9'; 0. 11 0. 75 12. 1? 8. 3'J 0.1111 f f07C'1 '•9'• o. 73 0.113 16. 1;> 3. 116 0. 16 C:lnnr.rt 269 o. 50 0.113 ,, . 15 1. 16 0.06 r~ck"fJ"rl 21 0.66 0.58 2. 59 II. 1? 0.01 co Lip,ht Green VC'p,etnble~ ?fl?'"' 1.116 1. 75 16.09 J'j. f)() I .811 ...-l ...-l form Not rr.,,ortcd ?0511 0.66 0.111 5.00 I I. '.)O 0.60 r rcsh 931, 0. 79 0.89 13. 15 6.28 o. 33 f ro;en 513 0. 16 0.57 •1. 18 3 .111 o. 18 C;irmcd 1111 I o. 911 o. 18 6.59 ". 3J 0.59 rackaqed l'J9 1. 03 1 . I 11 8.116 1. '15 0.09 IJr I e1t 110 () .116 0.05 6. 111 0.82 0.0•1

Tomatoes I 790 I.() 1 0.91 11. 56 16 ..111 0.86

f(nm Not r-rpnrtrd 330 0.65 0.116 5.05 1. 83 o. 10 r rr.sh 1368 0.9'; o. 19 9.99 I I .O'; 0.58 Cannr.d 5'i5 0. 11 0.60 5.66 ]. JI 0. 18 r;ir:k:t9Pd 19 (). 1ll 0.';9 I. 95 (). ll 0.01

Potatoe!' 12.Jll I. 27 I. I 3 18.99 I;> .113 0.67

rorm ttot rr.pfJrtcd 251 o. 78 0.112 2.58 1. 61 0.09 f rr.sll 518 1. 11 J 1. 33 18.99 6. 3 I o. 33 r ron~u 525 0. /'j O.lt8 11. 16 3.35 o. 18 C:innert 18'; 0.';6 0.35 :?.00 0.119 O.O'j rat:k;Jlj(!lf 73 0.99 0. 9'1 1. 00 0.67 0.03

Other Veget:1ble.i ?h06 1. 12 1. 03 20.96 2?.911 1.21

rorm Uot rr.port.f!d 1296 o. ~>'j O.ft'j 5.00 6.n;> o. 32 f rr.!:.h !136 0.81 o. 16 7.JO 'j. l'i o. 30 f ro1en 310 0. 71 0.56 6. 5? 1. 81 0. 10 C<1nned 1217 11.1'1 0.66 II. It ll. 16 0.111 Pac~.agr.d ?t:'• u. J6 0. 50 6.02 1. 0 I O.IJ6 lJr·icd 7.1 O.ll'j 0. 16 o. 61 0. 10 0.01 Tahle, 1}5. ------Incom<' Cl:iss: $20,000 to $14,999 Percent :ip,e Percent age V!'r,<'tllow Vegetables 620 0.91 1. 211 ? J .1111 1?.AA 0. 70 frosh 1191 o. 71 1. 20 ?3 .110 6. 70 0.1111 r f ozr.n 186 o. 71, 0.61 5. 311 3. 12 o. 1 / Crtrmed flO (),'j6 0. 38 ?.no 1.02 0.06 racka9rd '.i 0. 39 0.08 0.119 0.011 o.oo

~1 Light Green Ver,etnhles 89'; 1. 711 1. SA 111.(,;> v:·,. ,,,, 1.9•• r-l°' for·m Not reported 691 0. 76 0.5'j 6. 3•, 11. 81 0.65 I r-esh J'jlt 0.86 0.6<' 7. OU 6.90 o. 36 f n1;-en 2011 0.90 0.63 5.89 11. 17 0.23 C;111ned 1116 I. 10 1 . 1 7 10.23 10.113 0.51 rar.kaqed 116 0.89 0. 76 .•. 56 0.93 0.05 !Jr ied 35 1.113 ?.. 15 1?.50 1.111 0.06 TomRtoes 662 1. 15 0.86 6. 10 11. :'8 0.911

rorm Not reported 111 0.69 0.111 2. llJ 1. 7 3 0.09 r r·r.~h 5;>11 I. 01 0. 111 6.00 12. 01 0.66 Carmed 192 o. 16 0.65 5. 15 3.111 o. 19 Packaged 10 0.53 0. 17 0. 19 0. 1? 0.01 Potatoes 3117 I.;>;> 0.96 1. on 10.59 O.'jR

form Ht1t r·eportcd 70 0.90 0. 71 11.9? 1. 59 0.0? r rcsh 15'; 1. 311 o.n9 11. 90 11. 12 u.u, r ro1cn 166 o. 7J 0.111 J. 6, 2.60 0.15 Cnnnerl 11 0.611 0.112 2.06 I. 09 o.o<> r01rk'19t~fl 10 o. ')'• 0.511 2.26 0. 30 0.07 Other VPg<'t :ih lPs 769 1. J J 1. 21 111. JO ?J. n I 1.30

ror·m Not fCJ'Ort~d 503 o.5g 0.113 3. 2 .I 6. 79 0. 37 f' rc!'.h J;>6 0.91 o. 73 11. ~,o 6. 17 0. 37 f ,-o;r.n 9~ o.n9 1 . '• ~) 1? .119 I. 92 n. 111 C011111cd 358 0.<)1 0.011 7. 2? 7.38 0.11!1 r~ekaqed 65 o. 511 0. 3f) 1. nu o.oo 0.011 f)r ir.tl 16 0.51 0. 31 1.11;> II. 19 0.01 Ta!!_!_~_n6-'- lnr.omP. Clns,;: Grenter thnn $35,000

rr.rcc-ntar,e rercentar.e Vep,Pt!1blf! of Tot:il of Totnl Gro111' Form Rl'port lng -~~llture <_V_ Ver,.,tabll' Food llou,.eholds tlrnn s.n. tl'1X ExpP.nditure Expenditure No Vep,etahle F.xpendfture ;>11 o.on 0.00 O.IJll o.oo

Total Vep.t>tahle!! 167 5, 111 11, 35 JO.OJ 100.no 5. 19 Form Not reported 1119 1. 39 1.0'j 6.?0 2;!.05 1.28 f rr. sh 1511 2.119 2.50 111.110 112.02 2.113 r ro;r.n 011 1. J6 1.0) 11, 95 12.211 o. 71 C;tnncd 1n 1. 73 2. 3J 19. 11 70. 111 1. 21.1 rackaged 75 O.OJ 0.51 2.09 7..?.2 o. 13 Orir.d 6 1. 1J 1.01 7.9'; 0. 17 0.011 Dnrk Gr('(•n 1111<1 Deep Yellow Vegetables 1111 1.00 0.112 11, I I l:?.66 o. 73 fresh 96 0.83 o. 7U J.60 A. 5't 0.119 I rozr.n J? o. tl6 o. 711 11. 11 J. '.19 0.21 Canned IJ 0. J6 0.17 0. 811 u. '.ifJ O.Ol Pnckngr.d I 0.?.8 0.?.11 0.03 0.00 0 16. J(, 39.115 7.?.6 N I.Ip.ht Green Vep.t>tables 169 2. 16 2.18 .--l form Not rr.portr.d 132 0.92 0.611 11.27. 12.91 0. 75 Irr.sh 65 1. ~o 1.61 10.08 9. 15 0.56 rro7.en 53 0.8'; 0.52 ·2. 16 11. 18 0.?.8 Canned 711 1.21 1. 78 111.011 10.0'> 0.58 rackagf!d 9 0.811 0.57. 1.611 0.81 0.05 Orir.d 5 1.?.9 1.011 2.95 0.69 0.1111 TomntoC'!I 119 1. 39 1.29 9.?8 11.61 1.02 form Not reported 18 0. 70 0. 38 1. 11 1. J~ 0.06 r .-r.~h 105 1. 1'? 0.90 5. 51 12.';5 o.n C:tnnrd 311 1.07. 1. ;>;> 1.11•1 J. 17 ll.7.?.

Potators 63 1. 15 1.19 1. 7.11 7. 17 0.115

rorm Nnt rr.portr.d 8 0. 71 0.51 1. 93 0.66 0.011 fresh 26 1.116 1.118 7.~8 11.0~ 0.2J r r07f!f1 25 0.68 o. J2 1. 111 I. n I 0. 111 Canrir.d 11 0.60 0.29 1.05 o. 71 0.011 11 rar.k:111"d I. 26 0.71 7..119 o. ~·· O.OJ Other Vep.r.tnblt>s 1113 1.50 1. 31 9.73 ?.?.92 1. 3J For-n1 Not r"portr.d 92 0. 12 0.611 J.9? 1.06 0.111 frl!c.h 12 0.9J 0.611 J.62 1. 111 0.111 J ro;rr.n 211 0.80 0.511 2. 10 7..06 0.17. Canricf.I 56 0.96 0.89 5. J' 5. II o. 3J r•cknqr.d IJ 0.61 o. 35 1. 38 0.8'; 0.05 Dried 1 0. JI 0. 31 0.03 0.00 Table R7. rresence of Male Members 0 to 4 Yearn of /\p;f' ------···--

Perrr.nti1p,e rercPnt:igr. Vrr,<'t:ible of Total of Total Vrr,

Total Ver.Nahl C's 9?? J. 79 3.30 ll0. •111 100. no ';.(Ill form Not reported 697 0.95 0.81 9. 18 17. 63 0.89 r re sh 760 1. 11 1. 91 ?.J. 7l Jl1. '.i9 1. 75 r ro.;r.n 391 1. 27 1.116 22.80 I J .11;? 0.66 Ct1nned 611 1.62 1.116 12.117 ;>9.110 1.•16 rackagr.d 160 0.98 1. JO 9.05 11. 16 O.?.I llried 55 0.67 0.59 ;>. 71 1. 70 0.06 Dark Green and Deep Yellow Vegetables 539 O.ll7 o. 711 5.67 II.II;> 0.60

r rn•h 11().1 0.66 0.611 ... 711 1.09 0.36 r ro1cn 163 o. 71 0.59 5. Jll 3. 10 o. 16 C:tnned 99 0.'.">8 (1.118 2.611 1. '.">J 0.08 rackagr.d 9 (1.116 O.;tR 1.0?. o. 11 0.01 r-1 1.ip;ht Green Vep;etnhles 86!i 1.51 I. 59 19.?6 36. Vi 1.6? C'I r-1 form Not reported 567 0.65 0.112 2.56 9.61 0.119 r rr.sh 2'.">6 f).86 i.n I' .20 5. 811 0.29 Frozen 166 0.81 o. 711 11.91 J. 011 0.19 C:tnncd 11'16 1.06 0.91 1.61 1J.J9 o.66 rack"g"d 69 1. 18 1.113 9.05 2. 18 0.11 Dried '•5 0.91 0.61 2. 77 1.09 0.06 Tomatol'~ 5211 1.011 0.69 7 .117 111.116 0. 7J

form Not rP.portr.d 71 o.65 o.•16 2. 75 1.27 0.06 f rc~h 1117 0.89 o. 76 7 .81 9.90 0.50 Cannr.d 17?. 0. 72 0.62 ~- 15 J.27 o. 17 Par:ka'Jed 11 0.111 0.19 0.68 0.11'."> 0.011 Potatoes 1112 1 ..12 1. 111 9.111 "' ·'•5 o. 7~ form Not reported 6?. 0.91 I.OJ 9. 18 2." o."11 r re sh 110 1. 111 1.00 7 .OU 6. (17 o. Jll rro7cn 181 o. 71 o.55 II.OJ J. 1 J o. 19 c01rmcd 59 0.611 o. 32 I. 'J I. 0 I 0.05 rar:kagr.d ?.6 1.211 1. llJ 7.00 0.93 0.115

Other V••gl'tablrs 730 I. 19 1. 17 111. JIJ 23." 1. I 7 Fotm Not reported 3211 o. 5?. 0.110 J. 7'."> 11.119 0.23 rrc~h 2J6 0.01 o. 16 . 6.00 5.09 0.26 frozen 105 II. 98 1.111 12.119 2. 111 0.111 cauncd 112J 0.117 o.69 ll.50 9. 78 0.119 racka9r.d 69 0.119 0.76 1.116 0.90 0.05 Dried 10 0.111 O.?fl 0.89 0.11 0.01 Table ll3. Ahs.,nce of Male Mrmhern 0 to 4 Yc,,r.<; of Ap,e ---·-·----·-·-

Percf!nt ,,~r. Percent11r,<' Vrp,rt:ihle or Tot:il of Totnl Group Forni Rrport lnp, ~~1_dlture ($) Vep,,.t:ihle food llou,;ehold5 Me:in S.ll. MilX f.J

Total Vcr.rtahlrs 7705 3. 311 l. 06 56.fJ? 100.00 5.50 form Hot rrportr.d 51118 0.96 0. 111 9.06 ?0.09 1. 10 f rc~h 5511;> 1. 75 1. II 1 '•?. 60 3'). 61 2. 18 r f O./Cll 2•179 1.0~ 1.00 n.oo 10.61 n.~8 C;innr.d 11313 1.lllJ 1. 311 20.hJ ? 11. •19 1. 3'.i r•ckoqrd 100? 0.'11 0.98 1(1.1111 3.69 0.?IJ Orir.d 31111 I. OT 1. 76 ;t(,_ 0/ 1. •,n 0.08 llark Gref'n and lle£'p Yellow Vegetables 31(,q 0.1111 o.n 73. llO 1?.91J 0. 71

fresh 79119 0. 7? 0.06 2 3, Ill) 8. 711 0. llfl r r07f!O 9'J0 ll. 71 U.60 16. 1? 7.(16 0. 16 ~119 0.112 1.?1 0.01 C:tnncd 0.')'1 ''· 7'j rilckil

form Not rnport~d 61<' 0.65 0.116 'j. ;' J 1. (,] 0.09 rtesh 2906 0.911 0.66 72. 50 1 I .115 0.63 C<1rmrd 1089 0.13 o. 71 9.03 3. 25 o. 18 r:u:kflged 56 0.69 0.116 ?.no 0. 1(, 0.01 Potatoes 2555 I • 111 1. 00 111. 'I? 17. ;>6 0.67 form Not r1?portcd 1193 o. 79 n. 52 11. 99 1. 59 0.09 f rr.sh 115] 1. 311 1. 7. 3 18.99 6.?9 o. 35 r r·u7cn 971 0.13 0.116 ~- 16 2. /11 o. 15 C011uu?d 3'J 1 0.61 0.111 ].70 0.99 0.05 rar.k

form Not re11ortnd 2691 o. 511 0.1111 ~.00 5.93 0.33 r re sh 18111 o. Ill o. 76 6.011 5. 611 IJ. l 1 J r·o7cn 511 0.10 1.01 ?;>. lll) 1. 67 0.09 C"uncd 2359 0.80 0. 111 12.00 1. 611 0.112 P

rr.rr form Not reported 1199 1.12 11.91 9.06 18. 9'1 0.91 r rc~h 12111 2.0J 2. l•J J6.J? J6.61J I. 87 f ro~en 6?.? 1. 21 l. ll ?2.no II. 11 0. 57 C~nnr.d 1065 I. 11 1. 17. 19. 11 ~6.<>5 l.J6 l'ack:..qr.d J 10 1.06 I. JO 10.08 •1.611 Oried 9J l.•r? J. 10 26.07 1.96 "·"''0. to Dark Green and llef'(' Yellow Vegetables 88? 0.9•• O.Rl1 6.- 59 11.86 0.(.1 r rcsh 100 0. 79 o. 11 6.5'1 1.85 O."O f ro7.en 775 0.82 0.611 ~- l'• 2.59 O. lJ C:anncd 1511 0.6J I. 11.l 0.1)7 0.00 llrJO 1.87. l.87 JO. 9/ 36.81 1.88 M I.Ir.ht Green Ver.ct :ib les N 102? o. 15 6.35 I0.81 0.56 ..-I form llot rr.portr.d 0.55 fresh 1196 0.90 1.07 9.111 6.2'1 0. J;> r rozen 2H 0.88 o. 17 ''- 91 2.95 0.15 Cannr.d 15J I. 15 I.Oil 111. 08 12.7.5 0.63 f':u;kaqrd 1113 I .2fl 1.11 I 8.116 <'.51J 0. 13 Orled 17 I. 71 3. J7 ;>6 .(l l 1.86 0.11) Tnmntocs 1199 I.?:> I. 25 ?.l. 50 15,1111 o. 19

Form Not rr.ported I JO o. 78 0.62 5.73 I. 11 J 0.07 f rf-?~h 1111 1.09 I.? I n.5o 10. 16 0.55 Canrmd ?91 o. 76 o. 10 1.911 J. 11 0.16 rttc~;,gcd 17 O.MI 0.6J 2.00 o. 11 0.01 Potatoes 61? I. II] 1.27 9.811 IJ. 10 o. 711

f'orm Hot rP.portr.d 1112 0.88 o. 511 J. 51 I. 11 0.09 r 1·csh 266 1.65 I. 29 9.80 6. I? II. 32 f J"O?f?ft JO I 0.68 0.60 ". !IJ J.RIJ o. 19 C11mu~•t 1011 0.7J o.••~ 7..00 I. 01 0.(l5 rnr.kaqr.d 51 1.?1 1.11•1 Ir. li"T 0.81 0.0•1 Other VC'gctnhlf's 1116 I. JJ I ..l6 ?O.'lli ?;>. 16 I. I J 1),116 rorm ff•Jt rrporlt!d 61? 0.51 5.0U ''· 9? O.?'."> f n~5h 392 o. 9'} I .OJ 7 .119 'i. ~o 0.28 I nnr.n 15? o.o•, I. 11 12.•1•1 1.8.I 0.11? C;1rmr.cl 619 0.98 0.9J 12.!Jll 8.6? o.•15 0. 5(, 6.02 U.'I? 0.1)'.; r.1cl«19r.d I JI n. ~''' Or·i1nt 11 0.111 0.111 0. 77 n. 10 n.111 !.:.'!.~_le _n_!_P_._ Ah,;pnc-<' of Hale Mernbprs 5 to 12 Years of Ap,e

Pf"rcP-nt .1r,(' rPrcenta,p,e Veg<'t:ihl_<~_j l t ure_J1L_ VeRrt:thl

Total VegetahJr,; 66 711 J. 19 2.83 '>6.99 100. Cl[) 5.55 form ~<>t rr.portcrJ 116116 o.n 0. 711 '}.Ill 20.fJ? 1. 11 r rr.~h 50611 1. 6 7 1. 18 112. r,o J9. 7 J 2. ;?I} r ro?en ?.25'• I .OJ 0.99 22.00 111. 92 (l. 61 C<1rmcd 3'.}19 1. JI( 1. 78 ?O. ''~ ?•1. ~ 1 1. 36 r

I J. 06 0. 77_ Dark Green and ll.-.e>p Yellow Vegetable,; Jiil 9 0.111 0.91 ~J. ''"

rr~sh 76?? 0.69 0.86 ;:>J. •10 8. 711 0.111) r ro71~n 936 0.60 0. 6 7 16. 12 2.99 o. 17 t:.1nned 11911 0.53 0.311 2.80 1. 2? tl. 117 P;ic-l<;tgcd J? 0. 5 7 0.50 ? . '>9 0. 10 (I.Ill

I.fp,ht GrPen Vpp,etab]e,; 5511 1.39 1. ?9 19.?6 36.33 ?.O? ..;t N form Not rcportrd 36911 0.6? n. ,,r, 5. 52 IO. 77 0.60 .--l r r csh 1999 0.01 0.96 17. ?O 1. 56 o.•12 r ro?r.n 999 0. 11 0.58 5.69 3 .67 0.2!1 C:-tnncct ?611 0.93 0.07 11.11() 11.1111 o.63 P;ickaqed 366 0.97 0.97 9.05 I. 76 0. 10 l>r Ir.ti ?6'> 0.96 0.111 6. 5'• 1. 19 0.07 Tomatoes JI( 7(, I. 0 I 0.85 11.56 16.•16 0.91

ft rr.portPd 5JJ 0.6? o.~o 5.05 1.62 0.09 f rf!~.h 210•1 0.90 0. 72 9.99 1 1.111 0.63 Cannpfl 9611 o. 7 J 0. 711 9.0J J.~8 o. 16 r:ir::k;iqed 1111 o.r,1 0.11() I. 95 0. I') II. 0 I Pot:ttOPS 2?811 1 . I J 1.0•1 Ill.

for·m tfot rr.ror-tr.d 11 J J 0.6() 0.65 9. 111 1.62 0.09 r rr.~ft 1or,7 1. ?9 1. , 7 18.99 6. J? 0. 35 f n>?f'fl 6111 0.68 0.111 11. 16 2.~1 0.111 C;i11npcl 352 0.50 o. 311 3. ?O 0.96 0.0'..> r .... r.k,.,4n1I I 36 0. 99 o. O'; 7.00 o.63 0.0•1 OthPr Vegrtahlrs '•'>'"''' I. OJ 0.95 ?? .IHI ?1.0fl 1. 2? form Not. repnrtf'd 211(Jl 0. 'jJ CJ.II] r1. 7'"y 6.0? o. Jl f n~~h 1611~ 0. 73 0.67 8.11n ~-63 0.31 r ro'"'' 5~'' 0. 71 1. O'; ?2.00 1. 75 0. 10 C;irmctl 21113 0. 1r, 0.65 9.0~ 1.61 o. 1(3 P;u:k;,gr.ct 328 0.53 0.35 2.08 0.81 0.0•1 or·ied 117 II. 511 0.27 1.112 0.11 0.01 _Ta~~':-~_l_l_. Prer>rnce of tl:t I e MPmbers I J to 19 YP:trs of Ar.('

rerr~ntnp,f' Percentnr.e Vrp,<'tahlr of Total of T~_!l_d_~il__ llousehnlds tlenn i;.n. H:u: Exprndlture Expenditurr No Vegetnhle Expendlt11re 111 0.00 0.0Cl o.no o.oo

Tot:tl Vep:<'t:thl<'S lJJ] '• · ,,,, J. IR It 1 , ~) 1 100.0!J ~.OJ rurm Ntll rcportnrt 1023 1. 17 0.96 9.06 19. JI 0.97 r rnsh 106"1 2. 17 2. 311 36. 39 fa. 12 1.92 r ro;r.n 5?0 1.n 1.00 / .ll6 10. 33 (l.52 Carmr.ct 9?'; 1 . 70 1. 59 19. 11 ?5. llf\ 1. 211 ?113 rackn11r.d 1.09 1. ?8 6. "6 '•· 21 o. 71 Orir.d 99 1. ')7 3.02 ?6.01 :'.It] 0.17 Dark l.rren :tnd llePp Yellow VC'p,et:tbles i9? 0.91 o.n? 6.';9 11. Ill IJ.';9 r rco:oh 6'Hl O. RO 0.71 6. 59 8.?6 0.11?. I rozr.11 18'• o. 13 o. 119 2.69 2. Ill 0. 11 C;uuwd 125 n.55 II. J(, 2. 311 1. 11 0.06 racka9cd 11 fl. fl(, n.<;I 1. 70 1).1'; 0.01 I.Ir.ht Green Ver,et:tbles 1;>o1 1. ll'J 1. 91 J0.91 l(>. "1 I.II'; If) N form Not rcportr.cf f\75 0. 11 0. ~) 1 6. 3'> 10.\11 o.~5 .-l f n?Sh 1160 0.95 1.09 R.UD 1. 03 o. 3'; f ro;cn 1?9 O.OR o. r,~, i1. rn ? .011 0. 1'1 Canncct 633 1. 11 1.0•1 111. 08 11. 3'; o. ';7 l'ackngr.d 1211 1. 22 1. 113 8.116 ?. .11~ 0. 12 (Jr lr.d 83 1. 17 3.26 ?6.0I ;>.JO 0. 17 TomatoC'S 1111 I. ?O 1. ?9 77.50 16.!JI 0.80 rorm Hc1t reported 119 u. 70 0.60 5. ?.l 1.36 0.01 J rnsh ';98 1. 15 I. 31 22.70 11. 09 0.56 Crm Not reported 118 0.91 0.62 3. 56 1. 73 0.09 f rc5h 236 1.69 I. 36 9.80 6.51 0.33 rrn7Ufl 765 0.91 0.61 11. '6 3.811 0. 19 Cannpfi 811 0.6'j o. 311 2.06 0. r}2 0.05 r.-u~ka9f'!d Jll 1. 13 0.97 '. 911 o.r.2 0.03 Other VegPtahles 995 1.35 1. 1(, g. 73 71. 7(, 1.09 form Nol rr.pnrlr.d 563 0.59 O.'j2 5.00 5. 311 0. 21 r re sh 3 l'.'> tl.91 0.91 1. 13 ).?3 IJ.26, r ro/f?'1 11;> o.oo 0. 5'• 3. 7;• 1.1111 0.117 c~nncrl 551 0.97 11. 19 6. ?•1 8. 67 0.1111 Par.l6 0. 31 2.06 ll. 91 0.05 ()rird I 7 n. •16 0. 111 (I.Ill o. 13 0.01 _!.able ~-~·- Absence of Mnle Members lJ to 19 Yenrs of Ar,e

Percentnp,1> Percentage v.. p,etnhle of Tota.I of Totnl Group Form Rl'port Ing Expendlture ($) v.. getabll' Food Households ti""" s.n. tlnx F.xprn..tlt.ure F.xpendlture No VeP.etnble Expendlt:urP. 11691 o.uo 0.011 O.Ufl 0.00

Total Vegrtnhlrs 69•1•1 .1. :?n 7..811 56. ()9 1111!.UO 5. 56 lorm ""t reported 111111 0.97. 0. 111 9. 1n 19. 81 1. 10 I resh 5255 1.66 1. 15 •12.60 19. 16 2. 18 f ro;-cn 2]';6 1.05 1.119 22.no 11." 0.62 Ct1nned lt0'.19 1. JI 1.111 21).lt'j 7.lt.911 1.19 rackaqrd 919 0.81 0.95 10.08 J .61 0.20 llried JOit 11.87 0. 75 7 .8<1 1. 7.0 O.lll

D;irk Green nnd llr.ep Yellow VegE'tnbles 1516 0.87. 11.91 7. l. 1111 1.1. 0'j II. 1]

f rr.!>h 21'i2 o.69 0.86 21. •10 8.59 0.118 f r-07.en 911 0. 70 11. IU 16. I? 3.09 0." Ct1rmcct 52 l 0. ~,5 0. 1•5 ,, . 15 1.29 0.01. rackngr.rl lR 0.11'.j u. 39 ? . ~19 0.011 o.oo l.ight C:rer.n Ver,etnhles 57911 1. ]'I 1. Jn 1?.7.6 36 . .l3 7..n?-. N "'H form Not r~portr.d 38'>2 0.67. 0.115 5.57 10. 16 0.61) J rr.sh 203'; 11.80 11.95 17. 20 7.Jo 0.111 f ro;un 1017 0.1R 1).6;> 5.8fJ 3.62 0.20 Ct1nfU?d 2731 0.9'.i 0.90 11 .1111 11. 12 0. 6'.> l"nckaqrd IHJ'j 1.01 0.99 9.05 1. 83 0.10 IJrlcd 259 0.911 o. 79 1. 89 1.09 0.06 Tom.'1toes 3601 1.00 o.n5 11. 56 16. 71 0.90

form tfot reJ>Ortr.d 5611 o. 6'1 0.112 5. u~. 1. 63 0.09 r re? sh 2801 (l.89 {I. 10 0.1111 11.7.9 0.63 c ..,nru::•rl 1012 0. 70 0. 70 9.113 3.<'IJ o. 18 118 1).67 11.116 7..011 (J. 01 rachaged fl. "' Potatoes 7.375 1. 1~ 1.113 18.99 17.711 0.(18 form Not reported 11n 0.60 0.62 9. 18 1. (,11 0.09 f rr.!;h 1085 1.7.9 1. 15 18.99 6.~9 o. J5 f"ro~r.n 5111 0.66 o.•12 11. OJ 7..59 o. 111 O.lt?. 3. ?!J 0.06 Ca11m?d 366 0.61 1. '" rilr.k019r.d 1c;1 1.03 0.911 7.IJIJ o." 0.011 Other Ver,<'tahl('S lt73' 1.0•1 1. Ill ~;!.00 :'i. 10 1. 7.3 form Not reported 21157. o.5J 0.111 ••. 75 5. 611 0.32 f rr.-;h 1102 0.111 0.10 6.08 5.10 0.12 r ro7r.u 5611 o. 73 1. 16 :n.110 1.66 0.10 Canned :?231 o. 11 0." 12.IJU 1. 16 0.113 rilcl<:eqr.d 361 o. 'j2 o.IJJ 6.0;.! 0.611 0.05 o,.;.,.i It/ 0.1111 o. 7.1 1.11;> II. Ill 0.111 Ta~l~_]l_I_)_'. Presenre of Male Mcmbeni 20 to 65 Yenrs of Ar.e

r,. rccnt ,,p,,. rercentap,e Vrr,et :ihlc or Tot"l of Tot;ll Foot.I Group Form RepoTt inp, ~~_!l_dJ_ture ($) v,.r.ct.1b I e Households tie an s .o. Hax f.i o.oll o.on II.Oil fl.110 IlOH Total Vcp.rtahlrs 5A?l1 3. 111 }.?6 5(,. 9'1 lOfL Oil 'j.J? form Not reported 11309 I. 02 0.82 9.06 ;>o. 111 1. 01 f rP.sh 14';?5 I. 6.l 7.UO 11;>. 60 Jll. () 3 2.0;> I r·o;-cn 21~tahles 31 J(, 0.116 0.90 7 l. 1111 17. llf) 0.66

r rr.~tl 711111 0. 7 J 0.88 ;> J. II() 6.28 0.1111 r ro;r.n 6~1 o. 71 0. ~10 5. 3'• ;>. 18 o. 15 C:.nned 'j(l2 0. 5'• U. llJ ,, . 1 ~-, 1. ?6 0.07 rockogr.d J(, 0. 56 O.'jO 7..'j'J O.ll'l o.on r-... Lir.ht Grren Vrr,etahlrs 50'>7 1. 5(, 1. 50 30. 9, 36. ?.'"1 I. 93 N ..-I form Nr>t rr.port~d J5B'I 0.68 0.50 6. J5 11. 7? 0.60 r re sh 1 /OJ 0.8•1 1. 06 17. 21) 6.60 0. 35 r ro71'.!fl 901 ll.62 0.66 'j. 6') J .112 0. 111 C<1011cd :'529 1.00 o.n 111. 06 11. 61 0.62 P:tcknqcd IHJJ 1.06 1. 1 ;' 8.116 1. 95 0.10 Orlr.d f'lj'j 1.18 1.99 ?6.117 I. Jo 0.111 Tomato<>s 3?2 3 1. 11 I. OJ t'?.. ~,(I 16.111 0.6, form Hot rcportcct ';t? 0.67 0 .116 5- 2 3 l _60 0.09 r re~h 2531 0.98 0.92 27.. '.iO t 1.112 0.61 Carmed 91111 o. 75 n. 111 9.0l J. ?.5 o. 11 rackoqc~ ••6 0.69 0.119 7.011 0.1'; 0.01 Pot aloes 2166 1. ?'j 1. I] 18.99 1;>.11 7 0.66 rorm ''''l reported 11211 0.811 0. 'j~j 11.99 I. 6 3 0.09 fresh 901 1. ~II 1. JO 16.99 6. 12 0. 33 Jro1en 90•; 0.119 11. 16 J. 12 o. 17 C;11111nd Jl1J o.0.61 ''"' o. 37 2.nn 0.97 o·.u~ l'ackaQ•HI 133 1. 05 0.911 7 .0(l 0.61• 0.03 ??.00 77 .111 Other Ver.et :ih J I'S 1119•; 1, 1 7 1. 12 t: 20 form Hot n?pot·tr!d 2;'311 0. 'j'j 0.115 5.00 ';.69 0. JO r rc~h 11182 0.83 o. 77 r. n ~-63 O. JO frozen ~2'j o. 79 1. 2 I 72. (JI) 1. 91 o. 10 Canned 7125 o. flll o. 111 12 .llll 8. Ill u.1111 rock"'Jr.d Jr 1 O. r;r1 (J _ 111 6.02 0. 911 0.05 IJr ied 50 0.111 n.;>;> 1.112 o. 1 J 0.01 _i_:~~l!!. _p,_1_1._. Ahsence of M:t I e Memhers 20 to 65 Years of Ap,e

rrrcrnt:tP,t' Perc<'ntap,e v.,r,rtable or Tota_l o( Tot:tl Group Form Report inp. _E_p.£!1~1_!__t u re ( u__ Vef!"tahle Food Households MC':tn S.D. M.1x F.xprntll l nre Expend l tnre No Vep,et:thle Expenditure 835 0.00 0.00 n.no o.oo

Total Vrp.et.,hl r,; 2'1'.>.l 7. 10 ?.5? .10.95 1111).00 5.RJ

rorm Uot rr.portr.d 1536 0.60 0. (,'j 9- 18 18 - 53 1 .06 f re~h 1011 1, 53 1. 51 1 ~. IJ'.> 111. 96 2.•15 rro~·cn /;>11 0.91 0. g;> 16. 1? IO. 18 o. ~,9 C<1nnr.rt 129~, 1. 2'i 1. 311 70. •15 711. 311 1 .112 r;ick;H1r.rl 761) 0.91 1.02 9. o~:, J.69 O.;>;> Or if?d 93 0. 9.1 0.RJ 'j.09 1. 31 !I.Oil

Dark Grern ancl Deep Yellow Vep,etahles 11 I? 0. 19 0. 69 16. 1;> 13.9? 0.81

r ,. n ~;,1, 910 0. 6 7 o. 13 1 1 . l'j 9. J;> o. 511 f ro7r.rl JIU o. 70 1.00 16. 1;> 3.26 o. 19 C.1flf1Cd 1116 0.% (). l1J 2.6<' l.;>11 0.07 rackoged 1 J 0.';1 ()_ 36 1.1111 fl, I() ().01

00 Lip.ht Green Veger·ables 19119 1. 76 '- 25 lA.91 JI. 1 J 2. 16 N .---! Form Not rr.s>or·tr.tf 11113 0.55 o. 39 5, 19 9_ 110 0. 55 f rr.sh 792 o. 16 o. 79 7. 00 9_ 37 0. r,5 fro;e11 379 0. 71 0.50 3.30 3. 5) 0.21 Cd 126 1 .06 1. I? 9-05 2.01 o. 12 llrled 87 !1.96 0.tl5 5.09 1.26 0.07 15. •,I 0.91 Toma tors 1157. 0.90 0. 61 ''· 5r, rorm tfot reported 1611 0.60 0. 36 ? . 36 1. •18 0.09 r ,. .. ~.h 6 ,,, 0.61 0.56 ''·us IU.69 0.6;> C:uu1c1I 311 0.66 0.5'; ,, . 'j(, 3.27 0.1<) r:u:~a9r.d 111 0.6.l 0. _JO 1. Ill (1 - 1 _J 0.01 Pot a tors 1\1)1 1. 06 0.9'J 9. 111 1?. R 1 o. 15

rcnm Not r-cported 151 o. 16 o. 79 9. 16 1. 1•1 o. 10 r re~h '•?2 1. 11 0.97 1. 50 7. 01 0.111 r rolef1 203 0.68 ().1111 ? .1)1 2 .0 7 u. 12 Canned 11 _l 0.63 o. 50 J.20 1-0 7 0.06 rark;iqcd 511 1.116 0.011 ... (, 7 0.06 O.ll'>

Other Vrp,ctahlcs 1~J5 0. 0'1 0.611 9.05 20.57 1. 2!•

ro1m tlot rP.pOf0 l1!tt 781 0. so 0.18 3. 61 S.9n o. Jl1 rrr.~h 555 0.66 o. 72 6.00 5.51 o. 32 f ro7r.n 151 o. 5 I 0.32 1. 99 1. 30 0.06 Can11cd 657 0. 73 (), 70 9.0'; 7.c.'3 o.•12 Packoqr.cl 8? 0.117 0 . .16 1. OIJ 0.59 O. !IJ Or· ied 6 O,';? 0.110 1. 31 o.or, o.no .:r~~b_l _~_ _!~1}. ·. l'rf'scnce of tt:1lc Memhers C:rf':tter th:in 65 Years of Ar.e

r .. rccnt:tp.I' PercPnl:tp.e VrP,rt<1hlr of Tot:tl of Tol<1l Group Form RE'port lnp. ~-nj~!:_U1L_ Ver,ct:tbl.P. Food l1011sehold1< Mean s.o. M:tx Expf'ndlture Expendfturf' No Vep.etnhll' Expf'ndit11re 27~1 o.on II. Oil 0.00 0.00

Total Veget:1hlcs 917 3 . .15 J. ~,,, 56.99 1011.1)0 5.R6 form Not reported 67.3 0.90 0. 77 6.6(, 16. 36 1.08 f rf'Sh 1?5 I. 91 2.11r; 117.60 115. 31 7 .(,'j I rt.1Zt?rt 25;'! I .UR I. 3 1 l(r. ·~ 8.95 o.n Cannr.d 57.2 I .32 1.117. ~o.•1'.1 72.6'j I. JJ 1'ackou1Pd 105 0.911 o. 96 5. 10 3.119 0.111 Orir.d 119 1.07 0.11? 11. 711 I .611 0.10 ll;nk Green nncl llr.C'p YC' I low VC'p,f'tnh I es 1179 0.'.1::' I.;> I u .. 17. !Ir.Ir(, O.R5 r r-r5h 3119 II. 70 I. Ill 17.. 19 9.89 0.58 r ro;r.n 1111 n. n'; t. ~l 16. 17 3. 18 (I. I? C:111ncd 68 o. 5, 11. 37 2.•1' I. 21 0.07 rack:tgr.rt R O.l11J o. 19 O.R.1 11.1.1 11.01 1.';6 .16.611 7.15 O"I 1.ip.ht Green Vep,('tnbles 110 1.h5 18.91 N ~i form Not rr.portod 1117. U.60 0.116 3.<];' 9.<'I) o. 511 Irr.sh 366 0.85 I. 18 13. 911 10. 17 o.60 r r o;cn 138 U.67. 0.68 5.89 3.69 0.7.2 Carmccl 3.16 0.911 1.01 11.111) HJ. JO 0.60 rnr.kagcd '•5 I. 10 1. 16 5. 10 1.62 0.09 flrir.d 111 1.ur; 0.911 ••-~n 1.67 0.09

Torn:itoc~ 1157 1.05 0.98 11.56 15.'j<) 0.91

form Nut rr.ported <•O 0.60 o. ?.9 1. 31 1. 18 0.07 '1"4'!!'.h 3110 0.98 0.90 8.1111 11.18 0.65 C;umr.ct 1?.0 0. 75 0.59 3.6(1 3. 1'j 0.18 Pockogr.d 5 11.115 0. 15 n. '",g 0.07 11.00 Potntoes 315 1.?.6 I. 13 8.51 1;>.98 o. 76

rorm Not rr.rortcd 611 o. 76 0.113 2.58 t.58 0.011 f rcsh 105 1. 31 1. 18 7 .116 1. 91 0.117 rro?cn 58 0.66 0. 38 2.51 1.7.6 0.07 C:urrmd ~'} I}. 17 o. 59 J. ?fl 1. 19 11.118 rnr.k:llJ<'d 211 1.IJO o. 55 7.. 81 0. I? 0.0'.> Other Vegr.tnhles 607. 1. 113 1, Ill 9.'j(, ;>U.2? 1.19 rorm Hut r1•1un·tt?d 336 0.51 0.5'} 5.00 6. ll 0. JT rrn,.h 735 0. 7? o.n 8.08 6. 10 o. 36 f ro?f?fl "1 0.53 o.~8 1. 7. J 0.6;> 0.IJ~ 6. ~,,, Canned ?63 o. ,,, O.R5 9.U5 IJ. 38 ror.k:tQr.d 32 0.116 0.113 I. 99 0.119 0.113 l>rir.d 7. 0.110 11, 1 3 0.'JO 0.01 0.1111 TRbleB16. l\br.cncc of M11 l.r tlC'mhrrs Grt'atrr th:m 65 Yen rs of l\p.c ------·-·-· - - -·

re! ft~t'?nt ;t~~ rercent:ip,t' Vcl'lrt:ihl<' or Tot"l nr Tot'11 Group Form RPrort lnp, F.xp<'ndlture ($) v,.gPt'1blc Food Ho11sC'hnl 1o::: Hr1n S.ll. M.u F.xrr.ndlt:url' F.xpt'ndlture No Vcr.ctnblc F.xpcndlturc 1611J 11.00 o.oo (l.lJ(I o.ou

Total Vri:et:iblcr: 1365 ].1111 J.OJ 111. 5 I IO•J.00 5.J9 form Not reportr.d 5222 U.97 o. 1'} 9. 18 19. 911 1.01 f rcsh 5617 I. 77 I. 79 J6.J9 36. If! 2.116 f ro1r.n 262'• 1.08 1.05 22.60 I I. 2J 0.611 C01nncd 11•167. 1.1111 1 ..l9 19. 11 :15. JR I. J7 r:1ck:1gcd 11157 0.92 1.011 10.08 J.nJ 0.21 f)rir.d J'jll 1. OJ 1. 1J 26.0I 1.1111 0.1)8

Dark Grren 11ncl !Jeep YelJow VegrtablPs J879 0.8J 0.1111 ?J .1111 1;-, ~'j 0.68 r rf?Sh JOO] o. 71 o.n1 7J. •an 6.J'j u.115 f rvlr.n 111117 0.69 0.119 5 . .l'I 7..86 0.15 {,;inned 580 0.55 0.1111 '• · 15 I. 25 0.07 rnckoqr.d 111 (l. 5(, n. ~,n 2. '19 0.119 O.IJIJ

1.1111 1.117 Jll.97 J(j. •1;' I. 9li 0 I.Ip.ht Green Vcr,t'tahl!'s 6731 <""l (),11(1 10.')6 .-f form Not reported 11<>55 0.65 6.J5 0.59 f rr.sh 7.1?.9 11.67 0.9'; I 7 .70 6.89 o. J7 f ro/r.n 1098 o. 79 0.67. 11. 91 J. •12 0. 18 Cannr.tl J0211 0.99 0.9? 111.116 11. 80 0.611 rackoged 116•1 1.05 I." 9.05 7..01 o. 11 llrled ?95 1.111 1.111 76.111 I. JJ 0.07 Tomato!'S J97J f ,()'j 0.9'; 77..50 16. 79 0.66

Form Hot rr.f'orted 67.l 11.66 0.111 5.?l 1.67 0.09 J r·rsh 3057 0.9J 0.811 77.. 511 I 1.75 0.61 Citmwd 11 J3 (l. 1J o. 71 9.0J J.76 0.16 r:1ckn9r.d 55 ().(,9 0.111 2.0IJ 0. 15 0.111 Potatoes <'65?. I. 19 I.Oii 18.99 17. 511 0.67

fu,-m Not reported 511 0.81 0.611 9. 16 I .6(J 0.09 r rr.sh 11 Jll I. 31 1.21 18.99 6. 111 0.33 r roll~n 1050 o. 111 0.116 11. 16 3 .01 o. 11 C.:n1111r.d 397 0.611 0.36 2.nn 0.?11 0.05 r1u:knqt~d 16J 1.06 0.95 7 .on 0. r.n 0.1111

Other Vcgr.tahlcs 5126 1, 10 1.06 <'2.1)1) 22.211 1.20

f onn Not rr.1tortnd <'617 0.51, 0.111 ~.75 5.67 O. 3 I Fresh 16l•2 0. 16 o. 7J 7. 7J 'j, 511 o. Jn r rolf?n 67.9 o. u, I. 12 ?2.00 l.ff6 0. IO Ct1nur.d 2519 0.82 o.n 12.011 6. I J 0.1111 r01r.kuqr.ct 1121 o.~J 0.112 6.ll?. IJ.?11 0.0'."> 01·ir.d 67 IJ. 118 0.711 I • la;> o. !;' 0.01 _'!~hle ll_lcZ. ._ PreRcncc of Female Hemhcrs 0 to 4 YcarR of Age

Prrr.r.nt:lp,P Percf'ntag<' Vrr,<'tahlr or Total of Totnl Group form Rrport inp. ~pcndllurc ($) Vep.ctahlr Food lfousehol

3. 1fl 100.00 5. Total Vegetah}ps 91 l 3. 63 ? 7. ~·· 1J form Not rrportcd 63•1 0.97 (l. 11 5.611 10. rJ6 0.95 rrr.sh 606 1. 15 1.9:' ;> 3. 1 3 36. 10 1.86 f Hli:f!fl 3111 1. 11 0.!13 6. ~·2 11.1111 o.~9 Carmed 606 1. 50 1. 11(, 13. IHJ ;>I. 113 1.111 P11ck0111rd 1(,(j o.98 I . 111 7 _00 •1. 90 0.75 Orlr.d •1? I. 1R 1.90 1?. 'jf) 1. It•) 0.08

Dark Green ;rncl Deep Yellow Vf'getahleR 11(,0 0 .1111 o. 71 •1. 37 11.11•1 0.61

r·osh 361 o. 11 0. 6'1 I. 111 o.•10 r ''· 3? f I Olf!fl 13•1 0.66 o.•1'J 2.'J2 ;J.66 0. ,,, <.;;umert 81 0. ~,,, 0.112 2.6;? 1. 3 3 0.01 racka9rd 'I 0.110 tl. ;' 1 I. 03 11.11 0.01 .... ~ M LI r.h t <:reen Ver.et ab 1 es 790 1. r,r, 1.'ifl 19.76 l6.5n '.88 r-l form Uot rcportnd 5 '.. 65 0.51 5.5<' 10.06 0.5? l r·c~h ;'110 tl.'P 1.1111 1 /. ?.U 6.6l o. 311 rro1r.n 'Jlt o.111 0.62 If. 111 3.50 o. 18 l".;Jf111Ct1 1110 1_1)3 0.85 6.00 12.66 0.65 rackagelf 76 1. 02 0-90 lt.!19 2.33 0.12 IJrlr.d 311 1. 3~ 2.09 17. '.JO I. JI U.O/ Tonmloes ,, 1•1 I.Oil (l. 93 6. •;3 l'j,lfl) o. 19

f1>rm Hot rrport~d 63 0.59 o. 31 2. 32 1. 12 0.116 f rr.~.h 363 1.01 0.87 6.53 11.08 0.57 Ca1u1ctl 1113 0. 71 0. 67 11.011 3.05 o. 1u P:"ck:.gnfl ll 0.61 (1. ]ll '.oo 0, 1 r, 11. fl I

rotntof'S 3 3r, 1. ?II I. 0 I n. o~, 1 ;>, C) 7 0.6/

f(Jrm ff(>t rcpo~t~d 67 11.Q(i 0.59 2.90 1. 911 o. 10 f rcsh 176 '. ~5 1.01 6. 1~; 5. 119 o. <'8 r ro;cn 1~>0 11. 7J 0 . .17 '.90 3 . .10 o. 11 Catm~

Other Vq:l'tnbl<'!' 6"/7 1. 15 1. 01 ". 17 23.21 1.19 fflrm "ot rf?por·tf?cJ 3.16 0.5.1 o. 39 .I. (II) 5. IJJ 0.28 r re:.h ?O'; 0. 8rJ 0.91 I .119 5. ?.\ 0. ?.I f t"Olf'!rl 111 0.61 0. /1 6.57. 1. 'JO I). 10 Cflnncd 316 0.83 0.61 3. 61 9_311 0.118 f'flr;k<\q~d r,5 o. 511 0. 32 2. fl') 1. 05 0.05 Or icd II n.50 0.?6 0_119 n. 1? 0.01 _T_~~-~__I!_ le!!:. Ahs<'ttC<' of Fem:ile Members 0 to 4 YP:trs of Ap,e

rrrcent.1r,P Percentap,e Vep,Ptable of Total of Total Group Form Rf>portlnp, --1'._xeendlture ($) Ver.<'t;ible Food llouseholds Hr an s.o. Max Expenditure Expenditure No Veget:ible Expenditure 1731 0.(1(1 0.00 o.no 0.00

Total Vep.f't:ihles 73611 3. 111 3. 09 56.99 1110.00 5.116 form Not reported 5211 o. 96 o. 79 9. 18 19.93 1.09 frP.Sh 5656 1. 711 1. 8 7 112. 60 39. 3 1 2. \5 f ro;pn 2535 1.06 1. 11 72.110 111. 92 0.60 Cf'nncd llJ76 1.11;> 1. 39 20. lt'j ?11. 7fl 1.36 P:it:knqf!d 996 0.91 1.02 10.08 J. (,I) 0.20 Or ied 361 1.0? 1. 6;> ?6.01 1.116 O.Ofl

n:irk GrePn :ind DPPp Yellow Veget:ibles 38•10 0.11•1 0.92 ;> J •Ill) 1?.flfl 0.71

r rr.!".h 3031 0.11 0.86 2 J. •~o 8.67 0. •17 f" f07,?rl 1027 o. II o.69 16. I? ? . 'J2 0. 16 Cilnncd 561 0.'j'j 0.113 '•. 75 1. 211 0.07 ('ilck:HJf".'d •10 O.';fl o.•19 ;>. 5? 0.09 0.01 N 6711 1. •17 1. •13 JO. 9 7 ]6. ,, J 2.00 CV) Llp,ht Green Vcp,et:ihles •-i form Not rcportr.d 11215 0.65 0.111 6. 35 10.89 !l.60 J n~sh 72')5 IJ. 0 1 o.n 13. 911 1.37 O.llO frozen 1107 0. 78 0.63 5.89 3 .1111 o. 1~ Cf'nr1cd ;>9~•1 0.96 0.9 11 111. 08 11. 50 0.63 rackaql'd 1153 I. 1)6 1. 15 9.05 1. 92 0. 11 Orlr.d J06 I. 111 1. 711 ?6.lll 1.36 0.07 Tomatoes 39111 '.05 o. 9•, 77.50 16. l? 0.fl9 form Hot reported 6?0 0. (,6 0.116 5.23 1.63 0.09 'rf!!;h 10•12 0.93 0.85 22.50 11 .21 0.62 Carmcd 1118 0.111 0. 71 9. 11.l 3.28 o. 16 r:tr:~:'lfJCd 57 O.fifl 0.111 2 .1111 11. 111 0.01

Potatoes 26]1 1. 19 I .119 18.99 12. r)o 0.68 form "ot reported 5ll0 o.oo 0.63 9. 18 1. 62 0.09 r rr.5h 1191 1. 35 1. ?2 18.99 6. I~~ o. 35 r ro?en 9';6 o. 711 o.•19 11. 16 2.82 o. 15 Canru~ct 1110 0.61 o. 39 J.20 0.99 0.05 rar.h:19r.lf 1(j l o.~5 0. 70 •1. 38 0.67 0.0~ Other VegPl:tbl<'S 50511 1.f'fl 1. 07 ??.00 21. 01 1.20 rorm Not rrpf1rtcd 2611 n. 5'• 0.1111 5.01) 5. 7A 0. 32 r rr.f.h 1832 IJ.,, I). /II 8.08 'j.6') 0.31 f rozcn ~ ?2.110 1.1•1 0.10 Canned 211[)(, o. 61 0. 75 12.011 7. 11 0.113 rnct<.nqr.d 3911 0.53 0.113 6.02 0.83 0.05 Dried 56 O.IU 0.2•1 1.11~ 0. 11 0.01 _T'!!>.l.~_!1_1_9_:. Presrnr-c of F<>male Members 5 to 12 Years of Ap,e

r('rcent..,~e Percentagr Ver,Pt.,h le of Total of Totnl Group Form Reporting ~<'_!1_<1.!_ture (1L Ver.rt ab),. Food lto1rneho!

Total Ve!!<>lahles 1551 11. 211 3. 66 llO. 1111 1!111. "" 11. 96 form Not rr.portcd 1166 1. 07 0.03 6.90 16. 111 0.93 r re sh 1225 2.UO 2.00 23.57 36. 70 1. 83 f f07t:?f1 600 1. 7.3 1. 25 77. 811 11. 08 0.55 C,OR 76.01 1. II 0.!19

[)ark Green and !Jeep Yellow Vegetables 81t'j 0.96 1. 13 ;>LllO 12.71 0. 61 r tr.:;h 661 0.111 1. 12 73, II() 8.32 0.111 f ro;cn 210 0.112 0.61 5. 311 '?.. '"J8 0. 1J Canucct 133 0.59 0.% '•. 1~ 1. 18 0.06 racka9r.d 16 o.rd 0.116 1. 711 (). 17 0.01

Lfp,ht Crecn Vep,ct'1b!Ps 131!1 1. 711 1.113 JO. 91 36. r)o 1. 82 C") C") rr1rm Hot rcport«?Ct 911.l u. 71 o. ~2 5.52 !{). 5 .l (). 52 .--I f"resh 11611 0.91 1. 03 9.111 6. J 1 0. 31 f rn7Cfl 232 0.90 0.68 11. 91 3. 12 o. 16 Cnnnr.d 11 3 1. 111 1. 12 1~.00 1;>. 16 0.61 J"aekaqrd 130 1.30 1.111 9.05 2.69 0. 13 Ori rd 18 '·'''' J. 11 76. O I 1. 69 0.08 Tomatoes A;.;11 1. 18 1.01 9.76 15. 01 0. 75

for·m Not repor·tJ?d 05 0.69 o.•11 2. 1'; 1. '9 0.07 f rf! !;h 670 1.011 0.112 7. 61 1u.111 U.5?. Canned :'60 0.61 0.86 7. 90 J. ,., 0.16 r;tck:ts 670 1.Jll 1. 13 6.05 13. Ill 0.69 form Not reported 151 0.85 o. 51) l.51 1.911 o. 10 r rr.sh 263 1. 62 1. 1 7 7. 50 6. 39 o. 32 rro1en 2?1 0.62 o.~7 ]. 61 J.62 0. 16 CtlftUCft 1110 0.66 0.1111 2.86 0.99 0.05 P;u:~a9r.d 116 1.711 0.96 ''· 38 0.11'1 0.011 Other VegPtnbles 111111 1. JO 1. 72 111. 30 7?. •in 1.12 rorm Not rcpot·tr.d 576 0.57 o.••5 3. J'j •1. 66 0.2•1 r rer.h 361 (). 9.1 0.69 I. 119 5. 35 0.21 r rn1cn 1 ]II 0.811 1. 12 12 .119 1. 16 0.119 c:uuwfl 659 0.911 0.6~ 12 .on 9. 311 0.111 rack~qnd 119 U.55 o. 32 1. 63 o. '.16 0.0~ 0.-1 ed 111 o. 39 0. 15 0.83 O.OR II.OU !.·,_1:!~_2_0_ ._ Ahsencc of Female M<>mhers 5 to 12 Years of Ap,P

Pf'rcent;\P,,P Percent,.r,e Veg('t:ihle of Tot:il of Total Group Form Rrportlnr, Exprndlture ($) Vp~et:ihle Food House ho I •ls Mr;in S .D. Max f.xprndtture Expenditure No Vpp,et:ihlc Expen

Total Ver,rt:-ihlrs 61?0 .L ;>J 7.. 91 56.99 100.00 5.59

rorm Not rr.portctt 11617 0.93 0. 7 7 9. Ill 20.U8 1. I:> f n~sh 5117 1. 66 1.811 11;>.(,() 3'1. 61 2.21 f f"Oif?fl ?7 l(i 1.05 1. U?. 2?.00 10. 9'j 0.61 CClnned 3961 1. 3~> 1. 30 ?0.115 "''. 55 1. 31 rach

Dnrk Grc<>n and Drcp Yd.low Vrp,Ptables Jl1(,3 0.111 ". 83 16. 1? 1?.9? u. '/?

f r-r.!'h 7.10') U.69 0. l'j 1?. 19 8. r,11 0.118 f rozr.n 951 0.68 U.611 16. 17. 7.99 0. 1 7 C:-.nned r, 1'j o. 51, o. J? 3. 011 1 . 7. 7 D.07 rocl

-.j' I. i r.h t Green Vep,r t ah lc>s 5611 1. 111 1. 37 10. -;>(, 36. ,,,, 7.011 C") rl Form Not rr.portr.d 3 71111 0.63 0. "6 6. 35 10.8/ 0.61 rrcsh 7031 0.61 0.91 1 7. 20 1. 53 0.117 rro;en 10011 o. 71 0.61 5.89 3. 55 U.20 C<1m1ed 7651 0.911 0.66 11.110 11.118 U.611 l'iH;kaqrd 391 U.?I 0.95 8.116 1. 15 0.11) Ori rcJ 7611 1. 03 1 . 11) 12. ')O 1. ?6 0.07

Tomatoes 3521 1.(12 n. ?3 72.')0 16.56 0.93

form Not report~rl 5110 o.65 0.111 'j.73 1. 63 0.09 r n~!".h 2 / 3'> 0.91 0.85 22.~I) 11. 50 0.611 C;trUUJll 1UOI u. 71 o. (,~ 9.03 ).76 0. Ill r11cJ-.019J?d 57 0.63 0.11() 1. 511 0. 15 0.01

rotators '2?91 1. 15 1.07 18.')9 1?. 16 o. (,11

f<>rm Ntit rcport~d 11211 0.60 0.66 ?. 18 1. 51 0.09 f r~sh 10(•0 1. 30 1.?U 18.9? 6. 32 n. 35 frozen 81'.; 0. 71 0.116 11. 16 7..6~ o. 15 Ca11r1ed 3'16 U.60 o. 39 3.711 0. 'J9 0.06 r.,c'1.ar11?d 139 0.99 0.69 7. Oil o.r.J 0.011 Other Vegetah)c>s J1r,nr, 1.0•1 1.01 2? .no ;>t. '11 1.27

form Hot reported 21139 0. 511 0.113 5.110 r..ot 0. 311 r f(' ryh 16~6 o. Vi u. 72 8.110 5.66 o. 37. f f"O/f.!11 5112 o. 71 1. 0 7 ?';!.OO I. 77 0. 10 Ctlnnurt 2 t ;>J o.n o. 70 11. I I I. 53 0.11;> racl<~9crl 1110 0.52 0. '•5 6. 112 0.1)2 0.0'J Orl"d 50 0. 50 o. ;•6 1.11? 0, 11 0.01 _!_;}Ql~_n_2_1 _. __ Prer.rnce of Fema 1 e Members ]) to 19 Years of ARP

PC'rc'!nt ap.e rercentap.P. V<'r,ct.,hl<' of Total of Tot;il Group Form Reportlnp, F.xp<'n!l_!._t~~ Vc~rtahle Food llou~eholds Hean $.ll. Max· F.xpcndltttrP. F.xpenrllturc

No Ver.etahle Expru

Total Vep,f'tahles 11151 11.llO 3. 17 If I. 51 100.0ll s. 19 form Not rcp(Jrted 1111 1. 12 0.91 9. 1fl 19.59 1.02 r rn5h 11 "6 2. lll 7. JJ .l6. 39 37. 16 1. 9.l r ro7f!n 578 1. 1'j 0.92 6.111 10. •11 o. 511 c--rmcd 916 1 . 71 1. 60 13.00 ;>(;. 19 1.36 r~cko9r.d <'69 1.06 l. 311 9.0~ lt.5•• 0.211 Drir.d 90 1. so 3. 13 76. 11/ ?.11 0. 11 ();irk Green and IJE'ep Yrllow Ver,etables 11?7 0.90 1. 11) ;>l.110 11. 60 0.60

fresh 6112 o. 16 1. 15 7J.110 1.66 O.llfl r rozcn 2 Ill O. /'j 0. 'j3 5.0ll ;>. 51 0. 13 C;innc«I 156 o.~3 0.33 2. 311 1 . .llJ 0.01 rack•qr.d 12 0. 70 o. 111 1. 6'1 ". 13 0.01 tr) Llp,ht Green Vegetables 1302 1.811 1. llll 30.97 3 / .(,;> 1. 9'; C") r-l for~ Not r~portf!d. 9116 0. 7'j 0. 'j6 6. JS 11. 11 o. 'j6 f rc5h lt'j6 0.99 1.73 13. 911 1. Oil o. 31 fro;en 211 0.61 o. 59 •1.61 2. 10 0. 111 100 1. 11 (l.92 6.60 0.63 C11n11r.d 12. "' l'ar.kogf?d 126 1. 31 1. 6'1 9.05 2.59 0. 13 Dried 7'j 1. 71 3.110 26.0I 7.01 0. HJ Tomatoes 1173 1.?0 1.72 ??..50 15.116 O.RO

form Hot reported 139 0.61 0.112 2. J;> 1.116 0.06 f f'p•;h 6113 1.0(, 1. 19 ;>;>.so 10. 73 0.';6 (;annf'd ;>116 0.1!2 0. 16 9.0.J J. 1 7 o. 16 rar.k:.ocrf R 0.110 11 . .lll 1. ()0 II. 10 0.01 PotatoE's 6J;> 1. 3(, 1.n 9.,.., 1). ~I) 0. 70 form Not reportr.d 13 1 0.91 0.00 9. 16 1. no o. 10 r rr.-;h 2(,\) 1.611 1. 31 9. 75 6.(•6 o. 3'j J ro;cn ~75 0,6f) 0.52 3.61 J. lt'j 0. Ill Canm~d 11(1 11.61 n. 35 2. •10 0. 16 0.0•1 r;1r: ka~Jf!tl 1111 0.97 0. 75 3. ~3 0.1.l 0.(lh Other Vegrtahlrs 10110 1. 711 I .?.II 70.96 ;> 1.R7 1. 13

rorm ~<>l rrport~d s110 0.57 0.118 5.00 5. 15 0.21 r n~sh J'j3 0. 'JO o. 011 I. 13 5.01 0.76 fro1en 111() o. l'J o. 'jll 3. /;> 1 . /11 0.119 canncrl 596 0.?•1 0.96 12.l!O 6.113 o.•16 rar.k:lgr. 0. 13 0.6? n. 11 0.01 '!_1_1_b_!_~~2_2_ '.. Ahsenccr of Female Members 13 to 19 Years of Ap,C'

rercent ap,e Perc:t»ntnr,e Vrp,etahl

r<>rm N<>t rep(trte(t 117?6 o.n u. 75 9.06 19.82 1.09 f rn!;h 5196 1. 61 I. /'j 112 .60 39. 117 ;>. 17 r, q;pn 7298 1. 07 I. 11 22.110 11. 15 (). 61 C:irmccf l10l18 1. 36 I. 311 211.115 ;>11. IT 1. 36 l':ick:lqed 893 0. 0 / 0.91 HJ.1111 J.52 0. 19 Or ir.tf 3 IJ 0.90 o. 79 (,. 111 1. ?t\ !J.07 Dark Green and Drep Yellow Vegetables 31166 0.113 0.811 16. 12 13 .09 o. 12

frnsh 21'.10 o. 70 o. 75 1~. 19 0. IT 0.118 f ro;en 9111 IJ. 7U o. 10 1(,. 1~ 3. IJIJ 0. 11 Canned 1192 o.~5 0.116 11. 15 l.;'11 IJ. 0 / rockaqnd J1 0.119 0.'•5 7.5!J 0.118 0.011 Lip.ht Grern Vep,etah)E's 5699 1.1111 1. 30 19.76 36. 11 1. 99 \0 form Not rcporte o. 79 0.63 5.89 J. 61 0.20 C:lrmr.tl 76(,11 0.97 o.93 111. Oil 11.119 0.6] rackaqed II() 3 0.98 0.86 5. 72 1. /9 I). 1IJ Orir.d 26/ 0.96 0. 8.l 6. 111 1 . 1 7 0.06 TomatOE'S 3752 1. O? 0.87 11. 56 16,llJ 0.91 form Not reported 51111 0.65 0.116 5.23 1. 61 0.09 r .-r.~h 2162 u. 91 0.111 9.99 11. 39 o.63 Carlflrd 1013 o. 71 0.61 1. 90 3.76 o. 10 P<1C~.1qr.rt ~,? 0.65 0.111; 2.00 0. 15 0.01 Potatoes 7.137 1. 16 1.011 18.?9 12.?ll O.lill ror-m Not r-rportcd ,,,,,, o. 79 o. 52 11. 99 1. ~9 O.U'I 1063 1. 7.9 1. 1 7 16.'19 6. 0. Jll r r esh ,, . 1 ,, ?.'• f fOlCfl 833 o. 72 0. "6 ". 7 I 0. 15 C;lrmt?rl 316 u.67. 0.111 J.?IJ 1.06 0.06 J>ackalJf?tl 09 1.!lfl 11.?6 1. 00 0.60 o.o•r Other Vrgetahl<'s l1(,l1;> 1.05 1.011 27.1111 ?7.ll

Percent :1Y,l' Percentnge v.. r, .. t:ihte or Total or Total Group form R<'porting ~nrll ture ($) Vegrt:ibl" Food llouseholcls ti"''" s .IJ. H:ix F.xpendlture F.xpendlture No Ver.etnhle F.xprndlture r101111 O.Oll o.oo II. Oii 0.110

Total Vcr,..tnhll's 65711 J.72 J.25 56.99 1Ull.OO 5.111

form Nol rr.portnd ~809 1.00 0.81 9.06 19. ,.., 1.07 f rn5h 5Vi0 1. 6l 1. 9 7 112.611 36. 5?. 2.116 f f07f?ll 211•11) 1. 13 1.09 22.1111 11. 711 0.61 G;1nnert 1018 1.119 1. 116 20.115 75. n 1. 3<· racka11r.d 1009 0.911 1.06 10.116 1.na 0.7.1 Or ir.d Jlr2 1.116 1. 11 26. 07 1.1111 0.08 Dark Green and Deep Yellow Vegetahlf's 3';60 0.67 0.91 ;>J.lrt) 17 .(16 0.611

r r r.~h ?812 0. 711 0.88 ?J.11() 8.116 0.116 fro7r.n 9115 II. 71 0.51 5. Jll 2.88 o. 16 c01nncd 5'•~ 0.55 0.113 11. 15 1. ?.7 0.07 racka9r.1I 1111 0.5<> 0.1111 7..59 0. IO 0.01 I.fr.ht GreC'n Vcr,etnhles 5676 1. 'j, 1. !;;:> 30. 97 36.111 1. 97 ,...._ form Not rr.portr.d 3957 0.67 0.119 6. 35 I0.89 0.59 (Ill ("") J rcsh :!UOI 0.86 1.05 17 .20 1. 0.38 .-I f"rozen 1UJJ 0.82 0.6'j 5.89 J. 110 0.19 camtt'.!d 7781 1. 00? o.96 111. 08 11. 63 0.6] rackaqr.d l16J 1.09 1. 17 9.l•'."> 2.01 0. 11 Or led 2116 1. 17 1.91 26.07 1. 31 0.07 Tomatoes 3618 1.09 0.99 ?.~.50 16. to o.n7

form N1Jt rcport~d 573 (1.66 0.111 5.23 I. 55 0.08 f rP.r.h 7.1139 0.96 0.87 ?2.51) 11.16 0.60 canned 11160 0. 75 II. 12 9.11.1 J .?II 0.11' rackagr.d ''" o. 73 0.1111 ;t.no fl. 1'1 0.01 rot:itocs 21t65 1.211 1. 1? 111.99 17.611 11.68

form Nut rcport~d 1191 0.62 0.5'• 11.99 1.65 o.o? r rr.f;h 1078 1.112 1. 25 18.9? 6.26 o. 311 r rozcn 983 o. 1'..i o.•19 11. 16 J. OJ 0.16 c:11111cd Jn2 0.62 o.J9 2.n6 II. 96 0.05 tac~OIJ"d 1~9 I.DI 0.9'; 1 .11(1 0. Ill 0.011 Other Vrgetahlrs 11111 1. 15 1. 12 22.110 7?. 17 1.20 rorm Hol rcportr.d 2570 0.55 0.1111 5.11(1 5.66 0. 3 I • f rc!th 1663 0.01 o. 79 8.1111 5.61 O. JO f fOlf!fl 581 0. 11 I. 15 22.110 1. 86 O. IO C:trmcct 23(11) 0.011 0. 75 12.0U 8.116 o.r1ri rac::ka~r.r! 1&()5 0.53 0.117. 6.0;? ll.ll8 U.115 Urir.d ~n o.•10 u.~11 1.11? O. II 0.01 _,~,bl~_)l_2_4 ~- /\hsrnr.e of Frm:1lc Members 20 to 65 Yenrs of /\p.e

rercent11r.r rrrcent1111P Ver,et11hle of Tot11l of Tota.I Group Form Reporting Expenditure ($) Ve11r.t11ble Food Households Henn s.n. tl11x F.xprndltnre F.xpendlture No Vep.etnble Expr11<1i ture ! 8?8 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo

Totnl Vep.r.tnhles 1703 7.. 3;> ?..05 16. 12 100.00 5.'H form Nut reported 1U36 o. 76 U.63 9. 18 19.8r1 1. 11 f rn sh 119Z 1. 38 1. 32 11. 79 111. 58 2. 37. r rol(?fl 1136 0.85 0.97 16.1;> 9. 39 0.52 r.:umr.d 866 1.111 1. Uj 8.llfl ;>Ir. 911 1.39 r11cka~1r.d 151 0. 75 0.% 7.87 2.92 o. 16 ()r· ir.d 61 O.ll!l o. 70 11. ?8 1. 36 0.08 Dark Grcl'n nnd lleep YE>llow Vegetables 1rro o. 71 0.83 16.17. 1]. ]8 o. 75

r rc~h 580 0.61 0.56 6.011 0.90 0.50 I ro7r.n 176 U.61 1. 7.3 16. 12 2.90 0. 11 Canned 106 0.1111 2.80 1. r15 0.(10 rncknqcd <; o.ll.11(1 ~·· 0.1;> 0, 5r, 0.05 0.00 00 ("') 1.ip.ht Green Ver,ctnblf's 137.J 1.08 0.93 8. 111 36. ]11 2.03 .--i form Not r·r.portf:!d 770 0.52 U.31 5. 19 10.70 0.57 f rcsh 1188 U.69 0.62 6. 18 8.53 0.115 r,.u .. ·c11 2113 IJ. 611 O.llJ 2.67 ). 27 0. 16 Carmr.d •.,, 7 0.60 0. 17. 5.75 11.68 0.(,r; rnckagr.d 66 0.81 0.55 7.. 7fl 1. 36 0.1111 IJrlr.d 56 0.91 o. "I? 11.76 1 ..rn 0.01

Tom.,tol's 757 u.n8 0.73 5. 7;> 1(,.911 0.911

form Not rnportcd 110 0.61 0.36 2.ll~ 1. 69 0.09 f rl?!.h 566 0.8Z 0.69 5. 17. 11. 80 0.66 Cc:111nrd 7.01 0.6'j 0.52 11. 12 J.37 o. 18 rack.aged 1;> o.rrr. O.:r>;! 0.88 0. 111 0.01 Potntors 1187. 1.00 0.119 9. 18 17..7? 0.68

form Hot r·rrort~d 811 o. 78 0.99 9. 18 1. 67 0.09 fresh 2115 1. 10 0.92 7.50 6.80 o. J8 f rn;:r.n 125 0.61 o. ]J 2.06 1.97- 0.11 Canru~d 111 0.62 0.111 J.7.0 1. 16 0.116 f'flck:1')r.d 28 0.95 o.66 2.87 0.68 0.011

Other Vegetables 1019 O.R;> o. 71 7. !Ill ;'1. 17 1.18

rorm Hot f"P.flOrtr.d 1195 0.50 0. 37 2.96 6.?8 0. 35 f r"sh 35'• u.67. 0.56 5.25 'j.~6 0. 31 f ro?r.n 8'J o. 5r1 O. ll 2.25 1. ;>7 0.07 Canund 1127. o.6n 0.56 3. 56 7. '?9 0.111 rnck~gr.d 511 o. 51 0.113 2.06 o. 70 0.011 IJrl"d 6 0.115 o.;>11 0.11? 0.07 0.00 _l~~-~~ _8_2_}_._ l'r<'s.-nce of Female Memhers Grenter than 6'; Years of Ar,<'

Pc n:rnt .1.Rf:' PPrcentage Vrr,rtable or Total of Total Group Form RE'portlng f.xp<'ndg~~ Vrp,rt:ible food llougeholds tfran s.n. ti.ix Exprndlture Expenditure No Ver.etnhle Expenditure 790 (). 00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo

Totnl Vegetnhlf's 11110 2. 75 2 .113 ?0.06 HHJ. 00 'j, 97

r<1rm ttot repor·ted 760 0. 79 U.62 'j. 81 18. (jr) 1. 11 r re~h 9~1 1. 511 1.119 1 J. 16 l1J. 93 ?.62 r r071'11 Jiii 0.92 1. 1 J 16. 12 9.1111 o. 59 1.110 C

r f'f~Sh ,, 7~ 0.60 0. 6 7 10.55 6.111 0.53 f ro?.r.n 1118 0. 71 1 ..l'I 16. I? J. 23 0.19 Canned 12 0. 51 0.1111 2.60 1. ?7 0.118 raclrngcd 10 0. 611 0. 711 ?. 59 o.~o (1.01 Lip,ht Gref'n Vep,etables 9110 1. ;>11 1.09 11. 111 J '. 5(, 2.711

C"l rorm Not rcportr.d %7 o. 511 O. llO 5. 19 9,111 o. 'j6 °'....-! rrr.sh '•56 o. 73 0. 6 7 6. 18 1(). Jll o.67 f ro1r.n 168 o. 10 0.63 5.119 •1.011 O.;>~ C:11111cc1 111?. 0.81 o. 78 5. 75 11. 011 0.66 rar.kaqcd 111 D.83 0.57 3. 7.11 1.20 0.07 (Jr ind 1111 1.llll o. ,,, 3. ~,5 1.119 0.09 Tomntoes 557 0.93 0. 75 t1. rn 15.91 0.95 form Not rr.portr.d 83 O.'j9 0. J'."> 7..02 1. ~2 0.09 f r·esh lo?U 0.83 0.63 ,, . 05 IU. I.! 0.611 0.21 Caru1P.t 162 0. 11 0.66 ''· 56 J. 55 P:ick01qrd I 0.50 ll.?.O 11. llll r). 11 0.01

rotntoes 3?5 I.Oil 11.9(, n.51 1.l.13 0. 76

for·m Not reportt'.!d 60 0. 6 7 0. J.I 1. 51 1. 73 0.01 f f"f?Sh 239 1. 111 1.0•1 I. 50 6. •13 0. 50 f nJ.""Cft 79 o. 51 0.28 1. •11 1. 39 0.08 Cann~d o. 511 1. 30 0.011 67 "· 61 J. 20 f';ir.ktlljf!d ?2 1. () J 0.69 ?. • 61 o. 10 0.011 Other V<'r,etnhl<'s 71111 0.86 0. 79 II. II 19.no 1. 19

rorm Uot rrp<1rtcd ,, 111 O.';O o. 37 2.96 6.1111 0. 38 f f'f?Sh 7.91 0.62 o. 611 6.06 5. <;I 0. 33 f ro1r.n 11 0. ~,, o.JJ 1. 83 1. 111 0.01 C:tnncd -;9 7 U.66 0.5'i 11. 50 6.73 o. 31 rackaqcd JU ll. 118 0.11) 1. 99 o.•1•1 O.OJ 1>r· I rd 1 0.110 0.110 0.01 u.oo _r.!!Hc:J_1_2_6 _. _ Abc.PncP of FPmale HemlJf'rs Greater than 65 YPars of AP,e

rPrcent .1p.~ Percentage Vegrtable of Total of Total c:roup Form Reportln11. ~pPndlture ($) Vr11.pt;ible food Households tlran S.fl. Max F.xpencll t ure Expend lture No Vrgetnhle Expenditure Il'j76 0.00 0.011 0.00 0.00

Totnl Vrgetnhles 7097 J. ';II 3. 10 56.

for·m Not rcport~d 508'..) 0. <)') o.oo 9_ 111 19.92 1. 07 r re~h 5'• 15 1. 76 1. 93 112. 60 JO. J 1 2.06 r r·o;-en ?')?? 1. 11 1. 01 72.110 11 - 11 0.60 C~nucd '•352 1.116 1. II] 20. •1'} 75. JO 1. J6 rackaqed 10'.j 1 o. 93 I .06 10.!•6 J.O

n~~h ()_Tl 0. o.•16 r ?911 or. ?3. '"' 6. ''" 'f07.f!ll 1013 0. 71 Jl1 o. ~'o 5. ?..RJ 0. ·~ c:urned r, 76 0. 5~; (). •1 J '' · 15 1. ~5 0.01 rnckaqr,d J<) n.57. 11.30 1. 70 0.011 0.00 LiP,ht Green VeP,etnhlrs 6021 1. r,7 1.•19 l0.97 36. J 1 1.9'.i 0 -::t form Not reported 11160 0.66 I). •10 6. J'.j 10. 'Jl O.'i9 ·--i ;>0_11 0.11•1 1.011 1 , . 71) 6. 8 11 0. J7 I"""f'rn;nn 10116 0.111 0.62 11. 97 3. l7 U.111 c.1rmr.d ?9'"J2 1.00 u.95 111. Oii 11. 12 0.6J f';lckagt?d 116? 1. 06 1.1 1; 9. ll'.i 2. 0, 0. 11 IJr ird ;>9•1 1. ·~) 1.119 76.01 1.1'1 0.07

Tomatoes ]1110 1. 01 0.90 2?.50 16.?'j 0.81

form Nol rcpt>rtr.ct 600 0.66 0.117 5.21 1. '18 0.01) f re!>h 7965 0. 9'.i 0.81 ?2. 50 11. J 1 0.61 r..1m1rd 1099 n. 111 o. 10 9.03 J. ;>I o. 11 r.,cktHlf~ci 'j] 0.69 0. 111 ?.on o. 15 (1.01

rot '~ 1. 77 1. 11 18.99 17. •18 0. 6 /

f o,.m Uot rC!port cd 515 0.1111 0.65 9. 1ll 1 . I 1 0.09 f rr sh 100•1 1.111 1. ?] 18.99 6.07 o. J] r rozc11 10<'9 o. 75 o. •19 11_ 16 J .n1 o. 16 C:iont>d 389 u.61 O. JR 2. Oii 0-9•1 0.0') f'ack;1qt?d 16'; 1.06 0.911 1.00 0.69 0.0•1

Other Vcr,Pt

form Not ,.,~poru~d <'6111 0.55 0.1111 5.01) 5. (i'j 0. JO r re !;h 1711(> 0.61 o. , / I. I J '). 60 I). 30 r f()7(~n 605 0. 11 1 - 111 ;>?.00 1. 0•1 0. 111 C:lfllU!d 21105 0.63 o. l'.j 12.IJIJ 8. HI 0.11•1 rJ 0.112 6.0? o_ •11 0.05 lJr·ir.d 63 0.1111 o.;,11 1 .112 {). 12 0.01 T:lble------ll27. Educ:tti.on of llousehold lle:ld: Some Grade Sehool

Percrnt <1R£1' r .. rcE'nt ap,t> Vcp,<'t'1ble of Tc>tal of Totnl Group Form RE'portlnp, ~ndlture ($) v .. r, .. tahle Food llou~ehold9 ''""" s.n. Max Expenditure Expenditure No Vep,etahle Expenditure 5no fl.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 I

Total Vep.et:lbles 1175 J.J9 3. 'j6 56.99 111{). 00 5. 'j'j

f<1rm Not revortcd lO'Jlt 0.66 o. 19 9.06 ,., . 68 0.86 r rr.sh 1J 16 1. 85 2.B 112. 60 h' .611 2. J 1 r ro;--r.n .192 I. 11 1. 5'• 2?.. 00 7.11 l O. l1J Ci1rmcd 962 I. 511 1. 58 ?U. 115 ?5. 81 1. 11 J f'ttcktHJCri ?9?. I. 211 1. 56 10.06 6 . .18 O.J5 Orir.rl 1 Jl1 1.(111 0.115 5.09 2 .1111 o. 1J Dark Green and Deep Yellow Vegetables 199 0.9') 1.71 16. 12 1?, 9r, 0. 77 r ro;c;.h 6.19 0.0•1 1.08 12. 19 9. 11 0.51 rnnr.n 1116 ll.81 1. JI 16. 17 2. 16 0. 12 canned 111., 0.59 0.111 2.60 1. 119 0.08 rnck,.Jcd ,,, 0. 5~> 0.11.1 1. 711 0. 1.1 0.01 Light <:reen Vegctah 1 es 111111 1.60 1.611 19.76 .10. (,fl 7. 15 H -.j' form Not rr.portcd 810 0.611 0.52 5.52 8.90 0.119 H f rc;c;.h 510 0.89 1. JO 17.20 8. 12 0.1111 J" ro?en 163 0.88 0.68 11 . .111 2. 115 0.111 C:.nued 652 1.07 1.00 11.110 11. 98 0.66 rnckagrd 165 1. 35 1. 5'• 9.05 It. 29 0.211 Or ir.d 1?5 1.09 0.86 5.09 7.33 o. 13 Tom11toes 017 1.11 1,01 11. ~>6 1'), 118 0.86

ror~ Not rcportr.d 95 0.111 0.611 5.73 1. 20 0.07 J r·~sh 627 1.01 0.61 8. ~11 10.86 0.60 Cilnfl~d ;'35 IJ. 81 0. 70 5.28 3. 211 o. 18 rnckn9r.d 17 0.59 O,llf\ 7 ,Ill) (). 11 0.01 Potatoes 5113 1.1111 1.76 9. 15 13.97 0. 71 rorm Not rcportrd 97 o.81 0.52 3.51 1. 311 0.07 frrsh Bl1 1. ~ 1 1. 31 9. 75 6. 11] 0.111 fro1cn 1112 o. 19 0. 117 2. 611 1.92 0.11 C;inncd 90 o. 73 o. 5 1• 3.20 I. 12 0.06 rnrk"gcd 119 1.36 1. JO 7.00 1. 16 0.06 Other Vep,et ables 101111 1.06 1. 35 ?.7.00 16.93 1.05

form Hot rCflOrted 1185 o. 511 0.115 11.60 11.115 0.25 f re!;h 3311 o. 78 0.98 6.06 11.116 0.7.5 r rozcn 112 0.92 2. 39 ;:2.00 1.29 0.07 Carmcd 5111 0.87 0.85 11.11 8. 011 o. 115 rac~.nged 61 0.511 0. 7 3 6.02 0.62 0.03 Or 1.,d 9 0.110 0.20 n.n7 0.06 0.00 J_'!h!e__ ~_2_!l_. Education of llounehold lle>ad: Some lligh School

T'rrcrnt .1p,e Perce-nt:i~e V<'grt .,bl

?'j. ,,__, Totnl Vep.rt .,h I C'S 1396 .l .118 ;,>. 91 100.rm 5. ?It

rurm flot rrport~d 965 0.9) o. 72 5.97 18. ~10 0.97 r rcsh 111'>9 1. ll 1 1./6 llJ.111) 39. •15 2. 01 I 'o;-r.n 1111 J 1.1111 ll. 611 6. 65. 9. llll 0.51 C0tml(!d n~r, 1. ,, ' 1. 50 12. 63 ?6.9;> ,. ,., r·:ir:t..;iqed ;10•; 0.}J 0.83 6.05 l.93 {), 21 (lrif!d 70 0.911 1. 13 7.119 1. 111 0.07

Drtrk GrPPn nntl ll•.'ep Yellow Vegetables 6117 0.86 0. 76 6. lT I<'. 1;> 0.6•1

f rn~h 51,7 0. 111 0.11 6.96 8. JO 0.1111 f ro7Cf1 I 111 0.69 0.1111 2.'j2 2.110 o. 13 c:inncd 1011 {). 53 n. 12 2. ]II 1. 19 0.06 racka9

Ll~1t Gree11 VegPtahles 11 76 1. 51 1. l l 10.?'j 36.111 1.91 form Not reported 765 0.611 0.111 ] . IHJ 10.01 o.~2 N 11211 1. 01 10.08 7.60 0.110 ~ r rcsh 0.66 J,111 0.1~ <--l fro?cn 170 0.62 0.59 7..tl'j Canned (,{)6 , .01 0.91 Ill. 7. l 12.61 0.66 f'ackaqed 1011 0.95 0. 70 11, 11 T 2.0l 0. 11 Or icd 60 1. OT 1. 19 7.119 1. 32 0.07 Tomatoes 715 1. 10 0.98 9.99 16.19 0.85

rurm Not reported 1n 0.66 0.35 1. 96 1. 67 0.09 f r~!'.h 5~8 ll.95 o. 76 9.99 10.67 0.57 C'1flfH!tl <'06 0.83 1. 05 9.lll .l. 56 0. 19 l'acka'J

ror·~ Not reported 103 o. 76 o. ~l 2.26 1.62 0.08 f r~sh 250 1.119 1.30 9. 00 7. 66 0.110 r ro1cn 175 0. 71 0.56 11. 16 <'. 19 o. 15 CnnttC'd 83 0.63 0.112 2, llO 1.U!I 0.06 f';wch019cd 36 1. 2, fl. ll? 11.00 (). 90 0.05 0th£>r VegetnhlPR 9511 1.0fl 1.00 , 3. 35 ?1. ?2 1. 11 fc1rm Nol rcportr.d 1199 o.51 0. 31 3. 75 5.21 0.27 r, r.5h 317 o. 71 o.67 5.00 5.00 0.26 I rozcn 110 0. ,~ o. 72 6. 52 1.68 0.09 C

Perccntn~('I Percf!nlage Vr.r,r.t11ble or Total or Total Group Form Rr.portfnR ~-E~nJlturr. ($) VeR<'t<1hl" Food Households tl,.nn S.ll. tl;iJ< f.xpr.ndll ure F.J6 1).011 0.00 o.oo o.oo

Total Vcr.ctahles 7(,1111 J.115 2.92 llO, 1111 um.no 5. 37 I orm Not reported 1669 0.98 o. 17 9. 18 <'0.111 1. 10 r rr.sh 1913 1.61 1. 59 18.99 J6. 15 1. 91 rro;:r.n 9611 1.09 1. 15 22.811 11.61 l),(,J Cnnnr.fl 161111 1.1111 1. 3J ll.110 76.llf) 1.112 rackaqrd 361 0.83 0.811 6. !jO 3. JJ o. 18 Dried 115 1.118 7. 119 ~6.07 1 ..18 0.07 nark Grc<>n and llr."r Yellow Vegetables 1 J;>J 0.81 o. 71 5. 111 11. 911 0,611

r r·o~h 10116 0.67 0.611 5.29 7. ~,, 0.111 f ro?cn J/7 0.69 0.51 5. Jll <'. 86 o. 15 C:tnncd ?.~'· 11.58 0.50 11. 75 1.•16 0.06 f1 acknqr.d 1J 0.118 0.110 1. (,9 0.111 IJ.00

("') I.fr.ht Green Vep,etnhles 77J7 1.1111 1.111 JO. 9 / J5. R(, 1.93 -.::t .----l form Not rrportrd 1511 0.66 0.111 5.110 11.08 11.60 r rnsh ,~,, o. 711 0.68 8.(11) 6.?1 o. JJ f r·n7r.11 J(,11 0.80 0.69 5.89 J.25 O. II Canur..t 11115 0.98 II. 911 9.56 12.50 0.61 rncknqed 1110 0.98 0.911 5,112 1. 53 0.08 IJrird 98 1. 18 2.68 76.07 1. 29 0.01 To"latoes 111711 1.0.I 0.8J 9.78 16. JO 11.68

form Not reported :?26 0.66 0.119 5.05 1.66 0.09 f rr.~h 1 lllJ 0.91 0.69 5. 1?. 11. 16 0.60 Cilr'm!d IHIO o. 111 0.67 7 .1111 J.28 0.18 P•r.kagr.d 25 0,(,9 0.111 1 . -,~, IJ. 19 0.01 Potato"s 990 1.77 1. 15 111. 99 1J,11•1 o.n

fon" Hnt rf?portr.d ?OJ 0.82 o. 75 9.18 1.011 0.10 f rl!Sh 1111 1.111 I. JO 18.99 6.116 0.35 r ro71?J1 1126 0. 78 0.53 II. (IJ 3. 71 0.20 C0111rmd 131 11.'H 0.29 1. 56 0.67 0.05 Pac:kaqr.d 57 0.911 o.65 J. ;>2 0.60 O.OJ Other Vf'p,l'tahlcs 1870 1.08 0.96 111. JO :>?,111 1.20

Form Hut rr.porU?d 961 0.55 0.111 J.2J 5.81 o. 32 Fn?r.h 6?.6 o. 77 o.n I. 71 5.36 0.29 rrn7r.n 2~'· o. 75 (1.88 12.119 1. 86 0.10 Cot1111r.d 9111 II. 78 0.65 6.21 8.<'n 0.1111 Packaged 166 0. 51 o. 3J ?..1)8 O.

rrrcent np,e Peuentngr Vrgrtnblt' of Tot:1l of Total Group Form Rrportlnf: ___!!!<.I'.£!'_~~~ Vrr,rt:ible Food l1011"rhold!1 Mean s.n. tl:ix f.xpl'n1lll11re f.xp1!Rdlture No Vep,etn!Jle F.xpr1111fture ?6R 0.110 0.110 0.1111 o.oo

Total VegC'tah )C'!l 1706 3. ?.'.i ?..86 Jn. OJ IOO.IJO 5.115

rurm Hot rCJlOrtt?d 891 0.96 0. 77 5.117 21. 70 1. 19 r rr. sh 9?.5 1. 51 1. 59 16.95 J6.'16 ?.02 r ro;r.n 1190 1.06 0.08 6. J3 1.1. ;'9 0.73 c:innP.d 772 1. JJ 1. ;>11 10. 12 ;>11. 1111 1. JJ l'•cka11r.d 1':i2 o. 71 o.~6 11. J 1 2.,, o. 1'.i Orit!d J8 o. 76 0. 811 •1.62 0. 1•1 0.0•1 Dark Green and llerp Yellow Ver,etnbles 678 0. 71 0.60 5.81 1 J. 1'1 o. /]

rrr.sh 52~ 0.6•1 0.60 11. 15 e. n 0.116 f ro;en ?16 ll.68 o.115 2.55 3. 75 0.20 C;trmcd 0/ 0.115 ll. J2 2.00 1.no o.o':i rack•9cd 5 11,';11 0. JI 1.02 (I. 01 O.!lO Lip,ht Green Ver,etnhfo!l 10?1 1 ..111 I. ?.6 1;>.'.>0 J5. OJ I. 91 ...j- ...j- form Not rr1iortr.d 736 0.6?. 0.111 2.911 11. 63 0.63 (). 111 6. 18 6. 11 0. JJ .-I f rr.sh J25 0./0 f rO.lfH1 216 o. 11 0.65 11.89 It. 2 J 0.?.1 C:.nned 111 J 0.9'1 0.911 1. 99 11. Jll 0.6?. f'•r.k:19r.d 511 0. 16 0.1111 2.00 1.01 0.06 Uri•?d ?II 0.8'.i 0.91 lt.67 0.61 0,03 Tomatoes 6311 1.0J 0.91 1. 8 7 16.61 0.91 Form Not rr.portr.d 111 0.611 0.36 2. llJ 1. 81 0.10 119~ 0.91 0.8.1 I. fl I I 1. 55 0.6J CannedF "'""" 1111 ,, . 71 0.50 J. 15 J. 1•1 o. 11 r:1ck•9ed 1 0.611 O. 5r, 1.811 o." 0.01 Pot a tors llJJ 1.05 0.82 5.fl6 11. '">'> 0.63 Form Not reported 96 0.68 II. 511 J.56 2. 15 o. 12 f rr.sh 161 1. 16 0.86 11.90 11, II 0.?.6 0. 17 r rn/'t?'1 187 0.66 o. J1 2.58 J. "' Cilmmd 611 0.6?. 0. JO 1.1111 1.118 0.06 l'ack;i(1cd 7.11 o. lll O.'j1 ?. 'jl1 o.•16 o.o?.

Other Vep,ctnhll'!l 865 1.06 0.9? 6. Ill :?3. •rJ 1.7.8

f 01 m Not rr.pnrtt?d ll'.i9 0.53 0. 1•5 5.00 6. 19 o. Jl1 f l'C'-h J?.O 0. 72 0.66 11. J1 6.02 O.JJ f fOlUfl 135 o.6J O. JO 1.62 2. 18 o. 12 Canned 1105 o. 76 0.63 5. 1J 7.85 o. '1J rar.kagr.d 76 0.511 O.JI 1.68 1.06 IJ. 06 Ori"d 10 0.5? 11.<'1 O.llJ n. 13 0.01 !~_b_!C!_ -~_J_I _._ F.d11cntlon of llo11srhold Head: Collep,e Graduate

Percrnt'1P,C PercP.nt:1ge Vrgrt11blr of Totnl of Totnl Vp~rt11ble Food Group Forni Rrport lnp, -~~~!!_!ure ($)_ lloui:eho his Mr:ln s.o. time F.xprndfturr. Expenditure No VeP.etnhll' F.xprndlt11rl' ?35 0.1111 o.no 0.00 o.oo

Total Vep.rtahles 1Jlt6 J. 57 J. 15 i.1. 51 100.01) 5.61 I urm Not reportr.d 11166 I. OJ 0.81 9.0'J 27.. 87. 1.28 r rosh 1069 1.811 2.06 l6.J9 •111. 88 2.7.9 r rf'Zl!U 591 1.(llt 0.87 1. ~6 17.85 o. 17 CAnned 780 1. 7.~ 1. ?A 19. 11 70. 36 1. 111 l'•ck11qcd 152 0.67 o.•1•1 2. 19 1. '}6 0.11 Oricd 1. 19 I. 99 n. •,o 1. 111 0.06 Dnrk Green and lll'rp Yellow Vegetnbles 821'"' O.RJ 1.06 2J. llO 111. 71 O.RO

r rr.~h 680 0.69 1.06 7J.llfl 9. 1•1 0.55 r rn;en ~~J IJ.68 0.57. 5. 011 J.56 ll.21l Carmcd 82 0.51) o. Jll 1.66 o.8'; 0.115 r11ck'19cd 6 0.18 11. 1;> 0. 50 0.05 0.00 1.fp,ht Green VP.p,etnh.les 11';11 1.119 1. It 1 16. J6 36.0'j 2.07. tr) form Not rrportr.d 899 0.68 0.5J 6.J5 12.68 o. 71 ...j I ro•sh •118 0.91 1.09 9.81 1.

rorm Not reported 129 o. 58 O. JR 2. 15 1. 51 0.09 r rr.sh 6;:'7 0.9.l 1. 12 22.50 12.00 o. 61 CatmPd ?•1•1 0.59 o. 39 ... 12 7..9<) 11. 11 r;tck;1gr.d 11 0.95 0.69 1.95 11. llll II.Oil Potatoes ltJ8 0.91 0.69 5.37 8. ]II o.•11

Form Not rc11ortcd 76 0.8•1 0.68 r1.99 1.32 0.07 r rrsh 161 1.00 o. 70 5.J2 3.119 0.20 f rO.ll?fl 178 0.6J o. ]2 1.90 2.35 o. 13 C:umed 78 0.55 (l.117. 2.88 11.911 0.05 r"r.kaq

Other VrgPtnhlrs 991 1. 19 1. 01 9.2.l 7.•1. 76 1. J9

for·m Not rr.r1ortt?d 611 0.57 0.119 ,.. 75 1. ;>'.j 0.111 r "'sh II]?. 0.86 0. 111 6.211 7. 10 o. •11 17.5 o. 111 0.81 1.56 1.97 0.11 r ro7r.n 6. ,., Cilnncct 1111 o.7? o.66 '.i. 31 o. J8 P•ck•qr.d 85 0.52 o. J•, 1. 88 0.91 O.ll'; Or·iP.d 16 u. '.ii o ..16 ,,,,;, o. 19 0.01 _T?_l?k__llJ2. Educntlon of Spou,.e: Some Grade School

r{'rc~nt ClP,f" Percent:or,<' Vcr,<'tahle of Tot:ol of Tot:ol Group Form Rrportinp; _Expl'ndlture ($) Vegrtahle Food llou<;ehol

Total Vegetablr>s 613 3.90 3.63 JO. 'Vi 100. (II) 5. ''I form Not reported 5211 U.96 U.811 6.66 15.89 0.87 rresh 6~16 ?.OJ 2. 19 7?. no 112. 10 ;>.JO f r·o;f'n ;ro1 1. 71 o. 911 5.56 7. 811 0.11] C;inned 1190 1. 61 1. 66 20.115 2•1. 011 1.]6 r:-H;k;HJPd 159 1. 311 1. 60 10. (Ill 6. 13 o. 3 7 Ori r.rl 71 1.111 1. 13 6. ~'· ?.56 o. 1'1 Oark Green anti neep Yellow Vegetables 399 1.02 1. 13 11. Vi 1;>. !16 o. 70

r1n5h ];' J 0.90 1.011 11. 7", 9. 1l Q.';O r ro7f!J1 80 o. 76 0.50 2. I/ 1. 93 0.11 Carmed 76 0.62 u. •11 2. ,, 1 1. '10 o.oo rack:iqr.d 1? o. 79 0. 71 ?.5Q 0. ]I) 0.02 Light Green Vegetnbles 700 1. 7? 1. 111 111. 91 39. ",? 2. 16

..j form Not r~ported 1119 0. 70 l).'jll ~. :_,7 9.21 o. ~o '°.--l rrcsh ?93 U.95 1. 1 7 1].911 6. 15 o.•111 r ro.""r.n 93 0.60 0.60 3. 31, 2.59 o. ,,, Canned llf! I. 12 I. 11 11.•10 11. 91 0.65 rac~aqc.110 0. 15 0.01

Pot at.ors ;>flll I. 58 I. 37 8.'jt 111. ~o 0. 78

form Not r·f!ported 111 o. 76 o. 36 1. 711 1. 13 0.06 r rr.sh 158 I. ,.., 1.36 7. 50 6. '"Jl o.•11 f ro:1~11 81 o. 9" 0.51 3.66 ?..-16 u. 13 1 t:" ll f1f~ fl o. 10 0.51 ] . "?O 1. 0 1 U.06 1'<1ckaqetJ '"?6 1. J'j '·'•7 7 .011 1.11 0.06 Olher Vep.elahl!'s 5?1 1.09 I. 01 9.1J'> 11.911 0.9fl

ff>rn1 H{>t rrpf>rtf•

Percentap,e Percentage Veg.,t

Totnl Vrp.r.t11hl<'s 1116 J.68 J. 311 .111. / rorm Not reported 817 0.99 0.611 9.06 18.llfl 0.96 rre~h 819 1.0;> 1.119 23. 73 37 .0() 1. 97 'f°CJ/(?fl 311;> 1.~n 1.117. 27..00 9.1•6 0.50 C:inrmd 17.6 1.10 1.60 12.63 ?II. 6 I 1. 52 f•:.cknqr.d 111 0.911 1.09 6. "6 11. (l 1 o.;>1 Or led 111 1. J 1 2. 9(, 26.07 ~.hit 0.13

Dark Green nnrl flPcp Yellow Vegetnh]es 561 0.111 0.65 ''· 51 10.lrJ o. 'j5 f rcsh 11•,2 0.66 0.60 ••. 51 7. 13 o. 311 f rn1r.n 116 II. 13 0.115 ?.50 1. 97 0.10 c:umcd 1119 (I, 5' 11.JJ 2.02 1.29 II.fl/ rackagcd 5 0.36 0.12 0.511 0.011 0.00 ,.... J.tp,ht Green Vep,etahlrs 975 1.611 1. 76 J0.91 1r•. 911 1. 97 ~ form Nn t re po rtcd 6116 0.68 0.51 5.011 10.1? o. 511 r-l r rr.!>h Jll5 11. 16 1. 19 11.:w 6. ;!;? o.JJ f rotrn 1?.2 o. 6.1 0.611 11. 36 2. 35 (I, 17 Canned 533 1.111 0.99 7 .99 13.96 o. 111 rackagcd 79 1.0.1 1. 21 6.116 1. 61 0.1U Or led '/(I 1.1111 J. 16 26.07 2. 3? o. 12 Tomatoes 6117 1.111 0.96 9.113 15. '12 0.85 form Nnl rr.nortcd 911 o. 70 0.61 5.23 1. ~ 1 0.011 'fr.!",h 1119 1.02 o. 79 6. ~,j 11.26 0.60 c;.1rmr.d 1<·6 0. 111 fl. n I 9.0.1 2.98 0.16 r,,r.k"IJ"d 0.91 II. 57 1.1111 o. 11 0.01 Potatoes l1J o.•J7 11.011 1).97 0.05 Other Vcgctablrs 817 1.?.0 1. JO 27.00 77.55 1,71)

f 01 m Not rr.pnrtnd 1121 0.53 11.1111 11. 12 5. 1 j 0.77 r retl Canned 11.91 "· 86 rackaqrd 72 o. ~,n 0. J(, ?..O'; o. 'J6 n.nr; DJ'i"d 13 0.1111 n. 111 O.f1'1 0. 12 0.111 -~·-~~.!~_R_J_l1_~_ F.duc-:it:l.on of SpousP.: lligh School Gradu:tt<'

r .. rr.rnt .1P,<' PPrcent:ip,e v.. r,rtahle of Tot:il of Tol"l Group Form Rernrtlnp, ____!!r.~nJ It ure ( $) Veget,.hl" Food llou!'rholds tie an s.o. H:ut f.xf•<'n

Total Vep.<'t:tlil<'S 2•189 ]. 17 J .11•1 l11.5t Inn.on 5,;>'j rorm Not rcs>ortcd 19116 I .02 o. 79 6.113 zo. 9'1 I. 10 19';3 I. II I. TO 36. 39 31. 33 1.96 rf rn;·1?n""" 9911 1. 17 I .211 22.81! I I .911 I), 63 Cnnnccl 1632 1. ,,~, 1. 33 13. UO ;>'j,60 1. 3'1 r01r.k;u1ed .l/8 0.80 0.80 6.'>0 J. ?.I o. 11 Ur iml 10/ 0.7J 0.56 ?.?? fl. R'I 0.11•1

Dark Green nnd IJrC'p YPllow Vl"'getnbles 1367 11.Rlt 0.86 16.1;> 1?.117 0. (,.,

r f"fJSh 10~8 o. 10 11.69 6. 13 1 ,'}II o.•12 f rO/f?ll 381 o. 111 0.92 16. 12 3. 10 0.16 Carmc•I 771 o. 511 11. •19 II. 15 I. J3 0.01 rnc~.n9c1I 12 0. 3\1 0.15 0.66 0.115 0.00

00 Lip,ht Gr<'en Vcp,etah]es 7700 1.111 I. 29 111. 67 ]It, l/6 1.811 -...'t ..-! rorm Not rr.portcd 1511 0.66 0.115 It. 01 I I. 18 0.';9 J re sh 115 0. 75 o. 15 8.00 6. JU o. J3 r ro~:en 385 0.86 o. 11 5.89 J. 56 0. 19 (;anrn~d 1102 0.98 0.81 8.llO 11. 63 11.61 l'acknqf!d 152 0.96 0.61 If. 97 I. 58 0.08 !Jrlr.d 63 11.1111 0.61 7.99 o. 72 0.011 TomntoE'S 1383 I. 10 1.05 22.50 16.•11 0.117 rorm Not reported 752 0.6'; 0.117 5.05 1. 18 0.0? f' r1?~h 1081 0.96 0.97 22.50 11. 16 II. 59 C;•ruwd •we o. 77 0. 73 7. 90 3. •11 0.16 r:u:kaqr.d 18 n.53 0.211 1.0IJ II. 1ll 0.111 Potatoes 1011 1.20 0.97 9. 15 I J. l'j 0.69

rnnn Nut rnportcd 20'1 o.eo 0.62 11.99 1. 99 o. 10 fresh 1119 I. J'j 1.00 9, 75 6.10 0. 32 r ro1•?11 1135 o. 72 0.1111 II. 16 ] , II() Q. 18 C:alUU'd 112· 0.59 0.31 1. 111 1.09 0.1!6 f';1<:ka9r.d 57 0.92 o.r;,11 2.76 O.'j6 O.IJJ

Othl"'r Vegrtnblr~ 1860 1. 15 1.10 7ll. 96 :>3.110 1. 2 I

form Hot rr.1u•rtr.d 101'; 0.5'; 11.111 3. 75 6.u•1 o. 32 r, l!~.h 659 0.82 0. 16 1. 73 'j,8(1 0.30 f ro7en 239 II. 75 0.67 12.119 1. 97 0.10 C01nncd 953 I), 19 o. Tl 11. 11 8. Ill 0.113 P01ck:iqr.d 116 0.51 II. 5ll 6.02 0.9/ 0.!15 Uri I'd 211 0.111 0.70 0.81 II. 17 0,01 Tu!>_t~. ~)-~_'._ F.ducat I on of Spouse: Some Coll<>ge

rr.r~!'lltnr.r. Percent:igr v,.r,el:ible of Total of Tot:il Grou11 Form Reporting ~_!'ndl lure ($) VPp,rt:ihle Food llouo;ehold,; Hean s.n. H"x Expenditure Expenditure No Vcr,etahl.C' F.xpcndlture I 81 ll.00 o.no O.O(l 0.011

Total V<>p.etab)11.111 1. 33 racka11ed 119 o. 17 0.60 11. 96 2.111 o. 15 Dried .1~ 0.82 U.67 J.01 0.911 1).05

Dark Grren aml llrcp Yellow Ver,et:ih !es 11111 n.110 0.65 11. 31 17. IJ 0.69

fresh 381 n.62 ti. 55 tr. 3 1 1. 71 O.h7. r ro;.r.re 168 11.(•9 O.'i7. 11. 1 '/ 3. II O.?U C'1nncd 68 0.'j? 0. 36 2.0U 1. 16 0.116 racka9r.d 5 0.'jll 0. 10 U.66 o.nn o.uu I.Ip.ht GrC'E•n Vep,rtahles 7311 1.';1 1. 31 I0.117 36.26 1. 9 7 -..:t r-1°' rorm Not rr.ported 559 0.69 0.111 3.25 12.57 0.611 rrcsh 2111 0.115 1.011 9. ll I 6. 11 0. 36 rro;cn 117 0. 11 o. 57. 2.63 11.111 0.:?11 Canned 358 0.92 0.85 6. 11 10. 16 0.58 rnckn9r.d 35 0.011 11.63 11.96 0.96 0.115 Dried 21 0.90 0.67 3.01 o. 79 o.urr Tomatoes 1190 1. 01 1.011 9.99 11. 11 0.93

form Not rr.portP.d 13 0.61 0.112 2. 15 1.116 0.118 I rnsh 379 U.96 (l.91 9.99 11. 97 0.65 Cannr.d u.11 0.67 o. 711 I. 1111 l.61 O.?U rC1ck .. gr.d 5 o. 16 u. 59 1. 79 ll. 12 0.01 Potatoes 799 1.011 0. 18 5. 55 10. 71 0.55

rorm Not. re,,ortr.d 119 0.11 0.115 2.2'; 1.211 0.01 f r·r.sh 119 1.19 11.97 5.7.U ". 63 U.25 · f r·n."'nu 1l5 0.68 II. 39 1. 93 7.. 16 0.1'j Cannr.fl 511 0.62 0.112 2.53 1. 10 0.06 P:u:kn~1r.d 18 o. 79 o. 39 1. 5~ n.111 O.OJ Othrr Vr.r,<'tahlrs 601) 1.19 1. or. 1. Rl :?.l. 61 1.?8 form Not rr.portnd Jl16 o.5'.i 0.110 7.71 6.70 0. 311 ~JO 6. 19 o. 311 r rc~h ?.31 0.82 ll. 67. 6It , ,. ., f 10.1.P.'1 68 u. I?. 0.111 . ,, 7.111 11.11 canrmd 291 0.81 o. 75 1 . t~

P€'rcf:"nt ar,e Percent.,ge v,.g.,l :thle of Tot'11 of Totnl Group Form R"port inr, F.xprndlture ($) Ver,<>t'1ble Food Households Hr'!

Total Vegrtnhles 6or, J.?J 3.77 2S_lo 7 100_110 5.h6

rorm Not reportr.d •199 1 .. 11 0.93 6-90 22 .110 1. 22 r rr.5h q811 1. 911 2_(17 23. 57 39. 11 2. 17 r ro;c11 2 /It 1. 16 0.9'> 1. 56 13. JI o. 73 C:11111ed Jiil 1.32 1.119 19. 17 71.03 1. 15 rack019rd 65 11.60 0.111 2. 79 1. 65 0.09 Or it"?d 26 1. 66 2.62 1?. •Jo 1.1111 o. 10

397 0.91 1. 36 1'j. 11 O.tl? Dark Green and DrC'p Yellow Vegetnbles ;> J. '"' r rr.c;h l20 (l. 78 1. llO 23. lt!l 10. /11 0_59 r ro7cr1 121 0. 72 0.57 5.00 3. 6'1 0.20 C:ltllttH.f JJ o.~t 0. 32 1. ')0 0. 71 0.011 P.""f!n 156 0.81 0.62 11.61 5.?6 0.29 Canned 237 0.911 1. 13 111. 08 9. 36 0.51 rar.kag"d 29 U.61 0.26 1- 19 o. 15 0.011 Or l"d ;>;> 1. 85 ?.112 12. 50 1. 71 0.09 1'1. 69 0.60 Tomntoe" Jllfl 1.00 0. 16 '' · 75 form Not reported 56 0. 59 0. JO I. 56 1. ,, J U.U8 f re?;h ?1.1 (I. 811 0.66 11. I? 10-08 n. 55 C01mu·d 111 IJ.63 0.38 2.?1 3 .07 o. 17 r:1r.~:. 9 r.ct 2 1. 2•1 1.00 1. 95 0. Ill 0_()1

Potatoes 2011 0.'17 0.1111 9.110 8. 35 0.116 rorm Nut rcportrd 11•1 o. 16 0.113 2.211 1.111 0.08 frnsh 61 1. 11 1. 16 9.110 J. 79 0.7.1 r r Olf~fl 19 0.66 0.110 2.21 ?.7.6 o. 12 C;uu1cd JU U.56 0.51 2.118 o. /1 0.0•1 r:u:k:tqc~d 6 0.5?. 0.?5 1.06 O. I 7 0.01

Other VC'getahlrs '•6'; 1. 73 1. 18 9.73 211.0J 1. 3 1

for·m Uot reported 289 0.57 0. 511 q_ 75 6-96 0. 36 fresh 19? 0.6'; 0. 78 6.11(1 6.96 o. 38 f r07f?'l 62 11.0•1 1.nr, 7.% 2. Ill 0.12 Canr1rcl 199 0.86 0. ,,, 'j. 3 I I. 19 0. 39 r .. ck

rrrn~ntnge rercentage v .. r,.,table or Total or Total Group Form Reporting _ _I~endl~ure ($L Vep.1•t.1b le Food llmrneholdR Mr an s ,(), """ Expenditure f.xp<'ndlturc No Vl'r.etable Expcntl!turc I26? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Ver.et ables 657 3.6? 3. I •1 19. 79 IOO.flll 5.65 form N(ll rcpor·ted 399 0. 76 0. 70 9. 16 9.62 0.55 r rr.sh 678 2.08 1. 97 11.90 llr)' )II 2.57 f rOZ(!JI 7 I 3 1.20 o. 9~, 6. 33 10.'i9 o.r,o Cnnned It /6 I. 10 1. 56 I I. 38 ?G. 19 I . 'Ill f';H~ k.'1(Jf?ft 166 I .06 0.91 6.0J 5.66 o. 32 nr· iP.d 6'j 1. O'j 0.9A 6.')11 ;>. ?() II. I? Dark Green and DrPp Yellow Vegetables 1169 0.9? 5.66 11. 3.l 0.911 I. "' r n~~ti J'''' I .06 n. ll9 5.06 12. I 3 0.66 f 'oz en 13 I 0. 19 o. Jlt 7.~? 3.33 o. 19 Canned .,,, 0. 10 n. ''~ 2. llll I. 61 0. 09 rock•q"d 9 0.6A 0.11? 1.IHJ O.?O fl. 0 I

...-l J. i r,h t Grec>n Vege t ah I es 686 1. 16 I. 61 IO. Jn .19. o I 2.?ll I.I") ...-l for·m Not rcpor·tc1f 2911 (J. J l 0. 36 ? . lf'j 5.39 0. 30 f rnsh 351 0.99 11.09 6.60 I 1. 21 0.63 r ro;-en 11 7 1. O.J 0.60 •1. 6'} 3 .11'1 o. (~;' Can11~~r1 338 I. ;'I) 1.0.1 6.J6 I 3.011 0. 111 f'tlckaqcd !07 (1 nr:. o. 70 3. 6'I 3. 3l• (1. 19 Dr I P.d 63 I . II I 0.99 6. ~,,, ? . 18 o. 12 Tomatoes 3r,9 0.90 o. 71 11 . .1IJ 10 . .11 0. r,9

JrJrm Not rrported 16 0.61l 0.51 2. 37 0.3'J 0.11? r f'f'"!Sh ?61 O.ll'1 o.r.11 It. 36 7. 61 0.113 C. 21 (). 12 r;ic~agrd 9 (). /() o. 3 3 '. 18 0./0 0.01 Potntoes 311? 1. ](, 1.111 ?.RO 16, fr> 0.95 f'onn Not reportr.d 0.90 1.110 9. 16 1. 19 1).07 f rr."ih 2115'" 1.36 1.08 9.80 10. 111 0.61 r nJ7f!11 61 fl. 76 0.116 7.. 51 2. "' o. 1? C;i 111u~tl '•6 o. 76 0. 39 2.06 I. 18 0.07 rar.k:urr.d 38 1. ?? 0. 79 3. 911 1.119 ll. 08 Other VegctahlPs 50 I 1.fll o.n1 5.?5 16.~3 0.93 form nut rr.ported 10:' 0.'19 (l. 3 .1 2. '•J 2.66 0. 16 r rr.sh I 11 o. rn 0.66 5.2~ 3. R'j 0.72 f 1·0/tHt 51 0. 15 o. 36 1. SR 1.:>.J 0.07 C,"trmetf ?110 0.69 0. 6 I 3. 61 8. (I') 0.116 r41ck:i4r.d ?I 0.53 o. 31 1. 21 o. •16 0.03 O,-icHf ;> 0. 33 0.01 0. J~J O.tl? II.Oil _:!ahl ~- _R}8_. R:wr of llot1sPho 1 ti lle:i

PC"fC'"Clll

Total Vegetables 711?0 3. •11 3.09 ~6.99 1110. 00 5. Ill rorm ttut reported 511•16 0.9T o. 19 9.06 20. 'ill 1. l.l r rr.sh 566•1 1. 70 1. 6' '·~~. 60 311.'lfl 2.06 r ro;en 7603 1 . 0 7 1 .IJ? 2?. llll 11 . llJ 0.60 C<1rmcd ··~08 1.110 1. 38 20. ,,._, 7'• ·9:; 1. J~ rackn~Jr?d 9'J6 0. O o. 19 Or·ir.rl J.lR 1 .11.l 1. T'j ?6.01 1.17 0.(11

flark Green :md llr>Pp Yl'llow VPgetables 311.l'I 0.110 0.1!9 2.l.1rn 1;.'. ?O 0.(,(j

Fresh 3010 O. Ii T 0.8J 73. 110 8.011 0.1111 f ro1en 1(130 0- TO U.61! 16. 12 ;>. 011 o. 1'") Carmcd ~.,,, 0.53 0. 1,3 ••. 15 1. ?U 0.116 rncknqr.d 11(1 0.51 0. •1 r 7.')9 0.llll 0.1111

N Light Green VPgr>tahles 6315 1.11<; 1.11;> JO. 91 36. Ill 1. 9~, V) .--l F(1rm Nc>t r~portcd l1l1JJ 0. (,5 ()_ •16 fi _J'j 11.•1(j 0.6<' r r·esh ? 11111 11. IJO 11.99 1 '. 20 6. 16 o. JT r ro1r.11 1 Ill} 0." 0.6n 5. f\fJ 1. 110 11. 18 C:1n11ed 3026 0.96 0.91 111.1111 ". 111 0.62 rackaqrd 11;>? 1. Oil 1. ?O 9.05 1 .flO 0. 10 !Jr ied 219 1. 111 1. 91 76. ll I 1. ?6 0. 07 Tomat0es 11016 1 .117 o. 91 2?..50 16. 9 l o.n

rorn1 Nt>t rr.pf>rte,f 66 7 0.6'j 0.115 5.73 1. 7? 0.119 J 1 ;>11 0.9~ ?2.~0 11.69 0.63 ' I'(~ !;h 0.86 C:1rmetl 1161 o. 1•1 (). 11 9.01 J. 16 0. 11• r .... r:k;1gr.d 'jl II.(, 1 (). 111 2.011 IJ. 1 3 11.01 Potatoes ?'.JHrJ 1. 111 1. 01 lll. 99 l;>,(}11 0.6'j

rorm Not rr.portr.d 5311 0.81 o. 52 11_99 1. 71 o.o? f r·r.sh 11!16 1. 36 1.73 11l.?9 ~.80 0. J 1 f n>lP'1 10;•1 IJ. 1.1 1).11() 11. 16 2. 96 o. 16 C;11u1ert 1100 o.<.o 0.110 J.70 ". 91 O.U'j P:u:ktl9ed 1119 1. 01 0.93 1. 110 u. ~f} n.oJ Other VegPtalill•s 5??.3 1. 10 1 .on 2?.00 ?7. 70 1. ;>) for"' Nol rrpOf"lf?d 2833 o. 511 0.1111 5.00 6.0? 0. 33 f rc!".li 18<>6 o. 79 o. 11 8. Oil 5.61 11. J 1 J rn1en 6~1 o. 711 1, 1;" 22.0U 1. 83 r.. 10 Cttnned <''.>O? ·· llO ()_ 111 12.uo 7. 911 0.113 Pnck"IJ"d l1J2 u. ~,3 0.111 6.0<' 0.90 0.05 ur·ir.d 62 0.110 0. 711 1. II? 11. 1? 0.01 .Tab.le _ .!!.3.9_~. rartidpntion in Food Stnmp Pror,rnm

Prrcr.ntap,e Percentage V('p,,.tahle 0£ Total of Total Group Form Report lnii: ~_!!nditure (_~ v('~etahle Food llouseholds Hr.an S.D. Max f.xp<'ndlture Expenditure No Vep,£'tnhle F.xp£'ncll lure 113 11.1111 o.no o,on 0.0D

Total Veg<'tabl!'!' .. ,,,, J. 18 3.69 2';.117 11111. DD 5.66 rorm Nol reported 256 0.9/ 1.0'j 9. 18 111. 711 0.61 Jl15 1. 92 1.99 111. 15 J 7. I? 2. Ill fr """rt>lf?fl 122 1. 12 o. 75 11. D3 , . 81 0.1111 C:unmd 209 1. 8, 1. 76 ". 36 JO. 18 1.111 r•r:k•gr.d 66 1. 5c; I. 6 I 10.116 1. Ml 0.113 IJr·lr.d 711 1, II 1. 17 rJ.0? 1. Ill n. 10 Dark Gr£'en nnd llN•p Yellow Vrgetnhlf's 711 1. 10 0.911 6. 5'• 1.1. :'6 (J. 75 frnsh 1(iJ 1.DO 0.911 'j.(16 9. 7.1 0.52 r ro7r.n 118 o. 76 0.59 7. 'j(, 2. 1j 0.12 Canned Jll O. IA 0.57 2. Jll 1. 57. O.U9 rac:kagerl 7 D.65 II. 59 1. 76 0. Jl1 0.02

(") 1.ip.ht c:rcr.n Ver,etahles 3711 1.11•1 I.A? 11. Ill J 0.111 r rr.sh 11111 1. ll'j 1.Ull 6.6U 6.CiO 0.119 r ro;-en 39 U.67 0. 5'• 2.119 1. 93 0.11 Canned ;>06 1.25 1.06 5. 75 111. (,'j D.63 r•<:kagr.d ';Ii 1.611 1.61 9.05 5. 07 0.29 OrlP.d ;>6 1. 11 1. 15 5.09 1. 1 J 0.10 Tomatoes ;> 111 1.0•1 0.91 6. 15 i;>. 17 (). 1;'!

form Not rerortr.d ?O (1.119 1. 12 5,;>J 1.D2 0.116 f r·r!'>h 16~, 0.69 0.(,6 1,. 56 6. 35 0.117 C:tn11rcf 62 II.All o. 711 J. '.Ill J. 12 0.18 Pnc:kitqf?d 6 0.66 o. 26 1.1111 O.?l 0.01 Potatoes 1113 1. ,, , 1.fJ(, 9. 111 15 ..16 D. A7

form Not rrrort~cl 39 1. 16 1. 52 9. 10 2.56 0.15 f rr.sh 911 1.1111 1.2~ 1. 50 1. 7 J 0.1111 r rn1en 57 0.9D 0.611 2. 51 7.60 o. 15 Can111~d 2D 0.69 I). 39 1. 7J u. 19 0.011 P;u:lt:t~1cd 20 I, .19 1. JJ 11.r.1 1. '19 0.09 Other Vegrtnhl<'s 7.fl(l 1.18 0.9~ -;.;-5 19. J6 1. 10 rorrn Not repor·tect 103 I). 56 o.•111 2.0J J.3? 0. 19 ~.2') J. 0.72 r "~ !ih 87 o. 16 o.no nr; r ron!n 25 (). /'j n.1111 1. •}') 1.111 0.06 c:umud 170 1.05 D. 11 11.ou 10. /I) 0.61 1·~r.h9P.d 111 0.116 o. J!I 1. ;!1 o. 17 0.02 IJrir.d 7 0. J? O.ll6 0.1111 0.0'; D.OD _]'abl~ __ ll!1__0_._ Non Participation in Food Stamp Program

Pcrce11t.:ip,e Percent:ir.e v.,r..,t ""!" of Toti1} of Totnl Group form Rep<' rt lnf'( ~,~_!_ture_liL V<'p.rtnbJP Foo

Total Vep,rt :th 1 t'!' 78" 3.11 t J. O'• 56. l}f} tfll).1)0 5.11?

rorm Nc>t rnrtlrtecJ 5~R7 0.96 o.,, 9 _o•; :>o. t 1 '.09 r rcsh 'J??l I. 13 I. 8 7 It:'. 61) J9. f);> 7." 0.6t f ro;en 7 /511 1 .OR 1.09 2? .110 11. '" CClrHWd lt(}'J'j I. II() I. 37 ?O. lr5 ?If_ II '. 311 r:u;k<1qed tu t6 I)_ 0 1 0.92 6. ''6 3. ~o 0. t9 Ori r.d J 1 ~; t .OJ I. (>R ;>(,. 07 '·'''' O.Oll Onrk Gr<'en nnd llf'<'P Yellow Vr>p,etnblr>s ltO

rre~h 37?9 ti. 10 0. flJ 23. ll(J 6. It 7 o.•16 r, 01"11 111 _1 u. 10 u.67 16. 12 2. 911 u. 16 Canned 6111 0. 511 0.112 11. 7~ I.;> J O.U/ rackagr.d II? 0.119 0.11? 2.59 fl.OR D.00 -;t 1. lot JO_ 9 7 :\(,. ;'6 I. 91 tr) I.tr.ht c;rr>en Vep,r>tahles 66? 1 1.116 r-1 form Not reportccl 115211 D.65 0.1111 6.35 11 .02 0.60 r f"CSh 2J51 0.61 0.98 17.20 1 - 15 o. J9 r r 01en 1191 0. 79 0.6J . 5. 69 J.55 o. 19 Cannud J150 0.97 0.92 t ,,_ 06 11. 11•1 0.67 r•cl

form Not reported 6<·1 0.6~ 0.1,7 5.0) '.61 0.09 r rr ·~h J7•ru 0.9'1 0.66 ?2.50 11.•1•1 0.62 c.innr,d 1199 0. 7;> 0.(19 9.0J J.76 0. tO I). tlr 0.01 r:ick:iqcd ~·· 0.67 0.111 ?.on Potntoes 77811 1. Ill '.06 111. 9'} 1?. 11 0.67

form Htll r·cportc1t 5J6 o. 19 0.119 11. 'I? '.60 0.09 frr$h 1 <'?9 1. 35 1,20 10.99 6.25 o. Jl1 n>?cn 10'j6 0. 73 o. •17 lo. H1 2.09 0. t(j r 1. 01) c .. 11ne f';u:katfect t4115 o.~J 0.117 G. 02 0. 89 0.05 Or ind 62 O.llA 0.?•1 '.117 11. 1 t 0.01 J'!:Jbl!!__ ~!· '-·- Employment of Hnle Household !lend: Absrnce of Ft:'mnlf~ Hou,,hold Head

rrrrr.ntage Percent:ir.r. Vrr,..,trible of Tnt:t) of Tot:tl V<'r.r.tablr. food Group Form Reporting ~.P.en~gure <12_ llou!lehold!! ttran s.n. M;u< ~xprndlture ~xpendlturc No Vrr.etnhlc F.xpcndl.turl' 77 11.110 II.On 0.110 (I.OU

Total Vl'r.etnhlPs 116 J. 111 ?..611 111. 1? 11111. on 6.JO Form !Int rr.ported 11 0.9?. 0.7] 11. 51 18.68 1.19 r rn•h 82 1. 911 1.1111 7.01 •12.79 2.67 r rn;r.n ]II o.66 0.1111 2.01 6. 16 u. 39 76.1)3 1. 71 Cnnnpd 66 1. 5? 1. 38 6. rac~.aqr.d 15 o. 18 0.68 2.61''° J. 12 0.70 llr ied ., 1.111 0.97 7.66 1. ')? 0.10

Dark Grern nncl lleep Yellow Vl'getahlcs 511 IJ. TR 0.611 r.'.A6 11. 7•; 0. 71 r r·e•h 116 II. 75 0.57 ?.86 9.16 o.58 rro7cn 1) ". 111 o. 15 0.62 1. 113 0.119 C:tnncd 8 0 ..ln 0, 16 0.6? 0.611 II.Oii

l.ip.ht Green Vcr,etnblC's 93 1.119 1.7.6 1.f\'j J6. 9') 7..Jl 11"'1 11"'1 Form Not re1>0rtr.d 57 11.63 0.1111 J.28 9.61 0.61 ...-! frosh 31 IJ.9J 0.61 ;>. 3 1 7. /7 0.119 r ro7r.11 11 IJ.69 o. 39 1. 1•1 ;>. {111 O. 1J Cf1nnr.tl 50 1.06 1.06 5. '•JJ 111. 19 11.89 rackaqc!d 8 U.90 o. 7J 2.61 1. 9J 0.12 Or Ir.rt 5 1.111 0.9? ?.6(, 1. 52 0.10 Tomntoes 611 1.11 0.8? 11, 1 7 111.911 1. 19 form Not reported 12 0.111 0.115 1.68 2.38 0.15 r r·r.~h '.i? 0.91 o. 77 11.111 13.51 11.65 Carmcd 111 0.60 o. 111 3. {l{l 3.uo 0.1? r:u~kaqr.d 1 0.111 u. Ill n.n~ O.IJO

rotators 29 1. JO 1. 1.1 5.59 111. 011 0.63 form Nol rr.portr.d 5 O. 7Y o. 39 1.;>11 1. Oli 0.07 Irr.sh 15 1. 53 1.01 11.66 0. 39 f ro7on 11 0.51 0.29 1. () 1 6.I. 6,"' 0.11 r.:.nur.d l 5 0.69 (I, ;>J 1.05 1. 111 (I. 01 Other Vl'getnble!l AO 1.01 1.03 7 .no :'~. 1n 1.1111 form Hc>t r~portc1t 311 0.611 11.117 1. 75 5.1111 0.17 r ,. .,,,, 21 0.110 0.65 :>.611 5. 75 (I. 36 f ro;nn 9 o. 113 0.;>7. 0.011 1.02 0.06 Carmell 112 0.81 0.65 J. 17. 9.0? 0.57 Par.l6 ?.OR 1.111 0.07 l£! h 1!' _ _!l_/1 _2_ • IJnemploym!'nt of M.,le llom:chold lfencl: Ahs!'nce of Femalr llouf;ehold llE>ad

re r<~eut ,,p,c Percent :lP,P V<'Jl<'t:lble of Tot:lJ of Total Group F0rm Reportln11 ~ndilure ($) v"~"tahle Food Households Mean s .[). Max Exp•ndlturP Expenditure No VeP.<'table Expendltur" 7 0.00 0.00 O.Oll o.uo

Total V<'P.etahlPs <'ll 5.65 10. 311 56. CJ') 100.00 9.05

fresh 111 1.911 J. 06 l<'.19 17. 16 1. ~~ f 1·011~n 11 0. 911 0.119 1.~?. 2.J6 o.n C:tnrmd 1 o. 16 0.16 o.11n 0.011

\() Light Green Vegetables ;>11 I. 9 / J. 15 16.0'J ??.90 ?. 70 lf) H f'or·m N<>t reported 16 o. 10 0.53 1. 96 7. ?II 0.,., f rn~h 10 2.0ll lt.12 13. 75 1 J. 111 I. 1 ':I fro1cn 6 0.611 O. ltJ 1. 111 2 .11? 0.22 canned 11 0.81 o. 511 1. 88 5.611 0.51 Uricd ;> 0.60 0.31 0.11? o. 76 0.07

Tomatoes 18 I. fir) ;>.I? 11. 56 ?ll. 55 I. 116

rurm Not n~portP.d 3 (I. 03 0.56 1 .115 I. 58 o. 1•1 f rr.sh 111 8. ,,,, 111. 3fl 1. JO 1.6<' "· 36 C ••. 58 0.111

Potatoes / 2.53 2.0ll 6.ll3 11. 19 1.01 r rcsh 6 2.55 2. II 6. 31 ?.67 0.61 f" ro7<.m 1 0.60 U.60 o. 18 0.03 r.annr.d 3 0.60 o. IJ 0. (1'1 1. 111 0.10

Other Vcgetah]('s 16 1.81 ". 15 9.~6 1n. J? 1.66 rorm Not rcput·tect 10 0.99 1. 311 11. 60 6.?'j 0.51 r rcsfl 10 I. 12 1. 12 3.8? 7. 10 0.611 Citnned J 2.0? 0.91 3. II 3.? / o. 36 rackagnd 2 o. /? 0. ]J 1.0? 1.00 0.0? _!ah!1!..___!l_l1_)~ F.mploymrnt nf fl'male llousehol.d !lend: Absrnce of Mair llousrhold !lead

PE'rc.,ntnp,e Percentage Vrr,rtnhle of Total of Tut:1l Group Form Reportlnr, -~_!'mllture ($) Vep,<•tnhle Food Households Mr"m s.o. MnJt F.xpend It ure f.Jtpend lture No Ver,P.tahl<' ~:xprnrllturc lllJ 0.00 o.nn o.on 0.00

Total Vegetables 505 .1. 36 7.. 11 18. ')'I 11lll. llll 5.56 form Not rnportr.d Jiii 0.611 0- 71 9_ 111 17. 56 0.911 r rnsh 39<' 1. 19 1. ,,, 16.99 111. II ?.?9 r ru;:r.n 186 1.06 0.116 5.nn 11 .69 0.66 C::.nucd ?81 1. ,, J 1. llJ 1 '- 311 73.56 1. JI rar:kagr.d 79 1.05 1 .116 6.U'i 11.66 O.?.I th· i r.d 111 0.61 0.111 3.55 0.97. o.n5

Dark Grf?P.n ancl lleep Yell.ow Vegetables 2(,9 0.611 o. 17 •t.9:> 1.1.81 "· 77 fresh 711 0. 1 J 0.67 '•.97. 6.98 o.5n r rozr.n 79 0. 15 0.511 2.56 3 .111 o. 19 Canned 32 0.611 o. 'j? 7..110 1. 1 J 11.06 rackaged 6 0.82 0.6•1 1,(,9 0.79 0.0?. 1.7.? 9.??. 3';.J? 1. 97 r-- I.Ir.ht Grr.en Ver,etables 1.••5 If) Form Not rr.pnrtcd '"":.>711 0. 511 0. 39 ?. 75 9. 39 o. ~·7 .-I I rcsh 1~0 0.9?. 0.91 5. 76 6.0CJ o.•1 1:. rrozr.n 111 0. 7'.1 n.•16 2. 6'j J.25 0.16 C:.rmr.d 190 1.00 ll. 86 5. Jll 11. 19 11.67. rar:kaqed 111 '- 05 0.66 3. ,,, ?.. 57. 0.111 IJrir.rl 11 0.89 11.110 J. 55 0.118 0.05

Tomator.s ?59 0.97 o. 70 lt.05 1 ... 73 0.112

form Hot rr.portr.d 27 o. 70 0.53 2.32 '- 11 0.06 r rr.~h 212 0.83 0.55 3.06 10.?7 o. 5., c .. rmcd 16 0. 72 0.51 3.36 3.23 (). 16 rackagr.d 7 0.911 0.116 1.611 o." 0.01 Potatoes 2011 1. 311 1.65 16.9<1 15. 75 0.811

rorm Not rr.portcd . 311 1.111 1. 51 9. 16 2.76 o. 1J r rr.sh 911 1.117 1 .9.9 18.99 6.01 o.••5 r rnz•~n 71) 0.00 0.111 :?.06 3.26 o. 18 C;um<~'t 21 0.66 0. 39 1.•1•1 o.6;' O.O'; r:u:katJr.d 19 1.20 1.10 3. 911 1 ..111 0.01 Other Vl'1;rtahles 335 1.011 0.117 6.211 ?o . .1;• 1.11

fo•m Not n~pnrtr.d 167 0.119 o. 31 1. 76 11. 61 0.('7 r rr. sh 1?0 0. 11 o. 111 6.;>11 5. 75 o. 32 f ro1cn 50 0.65 0.?11 1.?CJ 1. 'JI o." C:111tu!d 1111 u. 811 o.59 J .61 7. 21 0.1111 rClckaqr.d 21 0.119 0. J5 1. 51 0.611 0.03 IJricd 1 0.56 o. 'j(> 0.01 o.ou J_,'l_l!_l_~ ll!•!•:. llttf'ml'loyment of I'f'm<1lc llouscholcl !lend: Ahscnr;e of Male llowwl1old lle;id

rrrc!'ntap.!' rercent a~.e Ver,ctabl!' of Total of Total Group Form R!'pnrtlnr, __F.xr.,n_d~~ Vrp.rtnhl!' food Household" tlr:m s .n. tla1< f.xpendltttrP F.xpendltttre No Vep,et:ahle F.xpf'ncliture 111 0.1111 IJ.00 o.on O.llO

Tot:tl Vcgf'tnhlf's 202 3. 111 ]. 35 70.06 100.IJIJ '.">. 63

ru,·m riot reported 165 0.91 0.62 3. 311 .... 17 0.00 r rr.!>h 201 2.IJll ?..O'.J 13. 76 39.10 2.21 F f'Olf!O 90 1.011 o.r.o 2.96 ?.6? o. 5'• C11nnt:'d 163 1. C.2 1. '.i2 9.11;> 7fl. l12 1. 5fl r:Jck:.qr.d 51 1.116 1. (,J 9.0'j 1. Ofi O.IHl (l1·ierl 16 1.?.I 1. 111 5. O'J I. II 3 o. 10

Dnrk Grf'en nncl Ileep Yellow Vep,Ptnhles 11111 1. O'} 1. 21 10. ~,'j l'I. 9? 0.1111

fresh 106 1. 0 I 1. 71 10.55 10. )'} 0. 'j'J r roJP.fl 30 0.01 o. (,I) 2.~2 2.93 0. 17 C11Hncd ?;? 0. I'."> 0.67 2.67 1. '.i 1 0.09 r:ick:1qed 2 0. 10 0.111 0. 19 0.011 o.oo

)fl. r,r 00 Light r.reP.n Vcr.<>tables 7.3~ 1. "13 1. 1l 11 . 11.1 1 2. 17 I/") .-i for-m H11t reported 132 0.63 o. ,,,, 2.0J 1.n 0.11') 1 n~sh 93 1.011 1. I 7 6.611 9. 19 0.52 r 'o;:en ~ 1 0. 16 0.1111 ;>. 10 3 .01 0. I 7 C:tnnerl 127. 1. 03 O.!lll 11.111 11. 9'; 0.6~ ri'Ck

rorm Uot rr.r,ortcd 23 0. O'.I 0.110 2. 16 1. 9•, 0. 11 1.08 6.116 o. 3<1 f rr.sh 52 1.39 5. ··~ r f07t!n 37 0.6? o.~1 7.112 2. l1J n.111 C:-iruwrl 19 0. 71 0.119 1. 73 1. 76 0. 0 1 r:u:k:H)f~tf 13 1.70 1. 111 11. 61 1 . 111 0.011 Other V<:>r,etnbles 108 1.no 0.110 11. 71 1'1.28 1.09

ro1·m ttnt rt~pflrlf!(t 68 o. ~6 0. 31 2.09 3. 67 O.?!J f rr.sh 55 0. 71 0.61 J.26 3. 73 0.21 f fOZCU ?.O 0.66 0.1111 1. ')'} 1. ?'j tl.07 C

Pl'rcent:igca Perceni::1r,e v.,r,rtahle of Total of Total Group Form Reportlnr, ~1_1_dlture ($) Vrgrt:ihl<' Food llouseholds H""" s .ll. H:ix F."pencllture F.xpendlture No Vrp,etahlc Exp.-.ndlt11re I wi 0.011 0.110 0.1111 0.110

Total Ver.<'tnhlcs ;>J66 11.0/ J.hll 1•1.51 100.110 5. 37

rorm rtot reported 18?0 1. O.l 0.8;' 9.06 19_ 11a 1.115 rrc~h 16'111 1. 911 ~.O"; 36.39 JI]. 11 7.05 f ro1cn 930 1. 70 1. 11 J ;.>;>. 811 11. 51 0.67. C<1n11ed 1569 1.56 1.56 19. 1 7 ?7. ")2 1. 37 r:tck~Qf!d 389 0.93 1.0'; 10 -08 3. /6 1).7.0 J>1·ir.rl 1n 1. 17 ;>. 35 ?6. 01 I. 'j I O.llll Dnrk Grc<:>n nnd n.-..-.p Yellow VegP.tnhles 11119 11.1111 0,911 016. , ,. 1?. Jn n.66

r rn~h 108" 0. 13 0.110 11 . 15 6.?I) 0.1111 f ro7r?fl J(,5 0. 7 3 n. 911 16. 1? 2. 11 0. 15 c:umr.d 7111 0.52 u. J'l 2. 6 11 1.1•1 11.06 Pack:iqcd ?.;> 0. r,n o. r, I 2.79 II - 13 !J.01 Lip,ht Gr.-.e>n Vep,etnhlcs 7117 1. (,'j 1. 65 JO. 97 16.?] 1.'111 If) form fh>l rr.r>ortr.d {l_ 6') 0.1111 11.91 10.97 0.'.>9 "'H 152'• f rr.~h 775 ll.111 1.00 11. ;~o 6.51 0.35 r ro;-cn 11()2 0.6'; o. 111 5.89 3. 511 0. 19 c~nnrd 1() /!J 1. 07 1. 07 111.118 11. 6'.> 0.611 r-.cknged 1 I 7 1.09 1. 18 8.116 1. 95 o. 10 Orled 111 1. l7 2. 5 7 26. 07 1 . 11 7 0.08

Tomntoe,; 131? 1. 16 1. 16 2?..50 1'j. 77 0.6'}

for·m f~ot rcpor·t~~ 2?') II. 6 I 0. ~)6 5.23 1. 5' 11.06 f r·r~.h 11)31 1.02 1.08 ?2. 51J 10. IHl 0.58 (;armed 3911 0. 79 0.ll7 7. 91) 3.2? o. 1 / r;u:k;i9mJ 11 0.119 0.5') ~.on fl. 10 0.01

Potntoes 935 1. ?9 1. 12 9. T'j 1? - 'j 7 0.61

ro,'" Not rr.porlr.d 166 O.flO 0.11~ 2. /6 1. 311 o. 0 7 r rr.sh 1110 1.119 1. 711 9. I'; 6. 35 o. 311 r rn ... 1?11 395 o. 19 II. 51 11. 16 ],;>;> o. 17 Cttrnu•d 111') u.611 0. 36 ?.66 0.93 !J.O'j rack;irJ•~cl 6'• 1. !Ll U.113 •1. 311 0.69 0.011 Other V.-.gctnhlen 1165 1.76 1. 2r. ?7.1111 73. 1l 1.7•1

fo1m Hot rcpnrU!d 9(,fl o.~6 0.1111 11. 12 5.61 O.Jo r n!~" 6'Jll 0.90 (l.Q\) 7. 13 6. 11 o. 33 r rnir.n 7<'6 0.86 1. 71 ~"-"" 2. ll J 0.11 C;inur1f 93~, 0.86 1).10 12.00 8. 36 0.11~ rackn9r.d 1611 o. ~2 o ..lll 1.66 0.611 0.05 Ur·ied 211 o. llJ 0. 16 o. /5 o. 11 0.01 .I;ib_l_e___ n 11!i_. F.mplriym<'nt of Female !l('luseholcl lleaol and !Jm•mploymrnl of Male llousehold lle'1<1

Prrcf'nt ;ip,e rerccntnr,c Vep,.-tahl<' of Total of Tot'1l Group Form Report lnr, ~_!".'.'_dlture ($) VC'r,rtnbl" fr>od l10115eholds M<':tn s .IJ. tl:tx F.xpC'ndlture Expenditure No Vrr.rtahlr> F.xpendllure ?6 (l. 00 ll.00 IJ.011 0.00

Total Vrp.etahlr,; 16? 3. 59 ?.96 ? .l. 5~ 10IJ. 00 5. 1<' f2 l'ackaqcd 21 u.n 0.911 l. J 3 o. 11 Ur ir.d 6 0. or, 0.'.>9 ''·"''1 . /.1 0.1111 0.05 Dark Green ancl lleep Yellow Vegetables .97 0.1111 0.16 11.011 ,,, • (16 o. 75

f rr.sh 75 (]. 11 0.61 2. R:1 9.89 0.51 rro;en 2•1 0. 611 0.119 2.06 2.llO 0.111 Cannell ?O o.:d 0.29 I. ?fl 1. 67 (]. 09 rockaqed ? O.lt'..J 0.06 0.119 o. 1~ 0.01 0 J.ip.ht Grel'll Ver,etahks 1'111 1. J? '·? l r.. 911 .16 .(,I 1.1111 rl '° f<>rm ttot rr.porte

fofm Not reported 111 U.61 0. 39 1. 51 1. 6? 0.118 f 1·c~h /?. O.Oll 0. 17. •1. ??. Ill.'}(, 0.')6 C."lnnr.d 7(} 0.611 0.?9 1. 71 2. 311 0. 1? r:lr:~;1gr,,1 1 0.(,1 (1. (,f n. I? 0.01 Potato<>s 56 1.?11 0.911 11.11 12. JI o.61 fg<>tahl<>s 1111 1.05 1.05 11.67 71, ?r> 1.09 flJrm N<1t res•or·t•?d 61 0.'}2 0.1111 2. ·111 5. 911 u. 30 r rccoh 35 0. 06 0.99 5.93 '1.?0 0.27 r rn1f!n 9 o. 13 0. 35 1. ~J 1.1.I 0.06 C01nncd 61 0.110 U.62 3. no 6.111} II. 11 J Pac~"Jr.fl 7 0.1111 Cl. 29 0. ')2 O.'j8 0.03 Or ied _1'.i:!!?Jc___!l_l1_~ Unemployment of Hoth M:ile :ind FcM:ilc l1011sehold lle11d

r('r<:('nt.1g1' Percent:>r,e Vrr,rt'1ble or Total of Total Food Group Form Report tnr, F.x11endlture ($) Vep,el.'1ble llousehoJJs t1ran S .II. H"x F.xpcndlture Expendltnre No Vcr.rtahle F.xpendlture 91 11.11!1 II.Oil II.Oii n.oo

Total Vep.et:ihlcs 5311 J .111 J. 111 311.?'j 1011.1111 5.96 rurm Not reported 359 U.?11 o. 75 5.0IJ 17.53 1.1111 rresh 11110 1.80 I. 93 n.on 1111. o 1 2.63 r ro;oun 152 U.1/8 o. 15 5. ;''• 0. IJ 0.118 C;111f1Cd 316 1.1111 1. 1 J 20.•·~ ?••. 92 1.•10 rnr.k••I"" 66 0.98 1.?.1 7 .llU J.57 11.21 Orir.d Jll 0.'19 n. (,r, .l.01 I. R.I 11.11 . 1>1uk Grrc>n 11ncl lle"p Yellow Vrgclahles ]I);> o. 7n 0.611 .l.111 l?.?I !I. 11

I tr.sh :?lt2 0.66 0. ~;5 3. 61 n.61 0.57. r ro7.f?r1 75 (1.66 0.1111 2.26 2. 70 0. 16 cannr.d ,., 0.57 IJ. JI 1. 5'i 1.•11 0.119 rar.kagml 2 11.67 ll. JO II.OJ II.Ill 0.1111 I.lght Green Vcget11hlcs 11r.•1 1. 119 1. 59 16. 91 J 1. nn 7..75 rl \.0 form Nnt rrportrd 282 0.56 o.11J l. 7.1 8.8., o.53 rl fresh 731 O.~I 1. 11 13.9'1 If). ?I 0.61 r r·o;.nn 76 0.117 f), 5'• 7..'}6 J.Jn II. ;>II c:umed ?I I 1.00 1.10 11.1111 11. •1? (I, 68 Packaged ?9 1. 33 1. 56 1, (JI) 7. Ill o. 1J Odell 3 I 1.011 0.66 J .111 1. 76 0.10 Tom.1t0es 7111 1. 07 1.05 9.0J 16.0~ 0.95

r orrn Not reported 36 o.sr, 0.27 1. 31 1. 11 0.07 f rl"sh 201 0.97 0.89 6. 15 Ill. 68 0.6•1 C0111npd 11•1 0.60 1.09 9.0J '•. n~> 0.211 r•r.kagr.d 6 0.55 0.21 0.08 II. Ill 0.01 rotators 1117 1. ?n IJ. 911 6.71 I l.117 0. 78 for·m NcJt reported 36 o. 16 0. II] 2.2J 1 . 11 ~, 0.119 f rr.sh 12;: 1. 28 0.96 6.7.7 8.•1? 0.51 fro1un J? 0.61 o. 36 I. 78 I. II 1 0.06 C:-tmu~ct l I 0.01 o.67 J.20 1. 37 0.08 r:11:kaq1?tl Ill 1.09 0. J

Other Ve1;ct ab 1 cs J6] 1.112 1.01 9.0~ 70.76 1. ?.I Form Not rr.por·t.ulf 191 0.57 0.56 5.00 6.011 o. 36 r re sh o. 16 0.01 8.06 6.0;! o. J(, f rozcn ···~J3 0. 511 0.28 1. 16 0.90 0.06 Cttrmctl 16;> II, 711 0.65 9.05 6.53 u. J9 r:tclrnqf'd 7.11 0.1111 o.•11 1.99 0.56 O.Ol Orir.d 3 o.•11 n. "' 0.59 0.01 0.00 Tii!>J.~_B_t,_13_. ~:1nplnymC'nt of lloth Male and Fcmal c llou"eho Id II Paci

r("r<:~nt:tgP l'r.rcentnr.c v .. g<>tahlr of Tntal of Tot:il Group Form RPport ln11: _ ____i_:'

Total Vep,etahl<>R <'187 3 .6'"1 ? . f)'j 7.lj. '•7 wn. no 5. ;>]

Form ~ut rcport~d 2•J63 1.0? U.61 6.90 20.96 1. 10 fresh 2160 1. /If 1. /II 23. '.12 36. 911 1. 93 I' ro;·en 1030 1. 1 3 0.911 0. J. _l? 0.6'j II. 01 0.112 r 'r.sh 11 JI 0. 7? 0.95 7 J. '"' r ro1en •1011 0- 71, 0. '.12 5.00 2.911 u. 16 {;:umcd ?36 0. 56 o.•10 It. 75 I.JO 0.07 rnck.1gr-rl HI 0.1111 11. IJ? o.62 0.011 o.oo

I.fr.ht Green Vep,e>tabl,-.,. ;>l1J7 1. 57 1. J'j 111. 16 ]6. •11 1. 91 N ~o form Not reported 11;?2 0. 69 II. '.17 6.35 11. 6~> U.61 .-i r n~sh 783 0.011 U.92 10.08 6."6 o. 311 r ro~"cn 11?6 o.n2 n.67 11.011 ] . lt'j 0. 111 Cf'rmed 1~2;~ 11. 91l O.OJ 8.11() 11.80 0.62 r•ck:iqrd 190 0.96 I. OJ 8.0? 1. 80 0.(19 (lr IP.d 1711 1. 11 1. 'jf) 1?. 'jO 1. J l 0.1)7

Tomatoes 1~,12 1.117 0.83 6.110 16. 711 o. 87

for1n Not rflportcd 211'1 o.GJ 0. ll(J 7. IU I .60 0.08 f rt'!~h 1731, 0.95 o. 72 6.(1() 11. 55 o. 61) C:1nned 1111 0.69 0. 50 11.(11) 3-26 o. I 7 77 0.611 0.51 1 _1111 O.lll - P:u:kaqcd 0. "' rotatocs 11l59 1.70 1.011 9.llll 1?.)? 0.66

ror~ Hilt rrportcd ;>JO 0.83 0.60 ~-99 I. 811 0. lO f f"(~!;h 111 J 1.112 1. 12 9.110 5. 77 o. JO f ro1c11 11)9 o. 7 J 0.111 11. OJ J - I 7 o. I 7 Cn rim~d 118 0.60 o. J 7 2.83 1.06 0.06 rar.k

Other V<'getahlPs 20?0 1. 11 1 . I! .I ?0.'16 ??. 15 1. 16

form Nut rt!port~d 1003 0.55 0. 11.1 ,, . 15 5. Sit 0. J 1 r rr.sh 6n8 o. 16 0.611 6. Ill 'j. 16 IJ. 27 r ro1nn ;>11<1 o.,, 0.611 1. 56 '- 1)1) 0. IO Cnr111ed 10011 O.ll7 o. 711 8. IJ 0.113 r;u~k:1gcd 185 0. 'j'j 0.51 "."6.02 1.00 0.0'j [)1 if!d 26 II. 119 0.71 1.11;> 0. !11 0.01 !l!!~J~ __ M?.· Popul:it Ion llr.nsf ty: S~1S/\s 1 ,oon,ooo :ind Over Popul:itinn (Crnlrnl CJ tie!!)

fP.rcr.nt ar.<' fP.rcent:111,e Vegl'tahlr of Tot:1J of Total Group Form Rrportlnp, --10J'.!.!1!!!.ture__l1L Vrr.<'t a Me food llousehr 1''" Hr an s.11. H.1x f.xpl'nr, II.On IJ.IJIJ o.nn o.nn

Totnl Vegr.tnli I rs 1569 J. 5r, ],()() ;'5. ,~, 111•1. Oil 5SI f(>rm Hot reported 1118 0.95 0.01 9. 10 18.99 1.06 rnrnh 121'; 1.90 1. 8.1 11. 91J l1J. ~'j 2.11.1 r n17en 586 1. Ol 0.811 1. '.>6 I0.117. 0.60 r.:.nned 90'} 1. ll 1.117 12 .63 77.. •10 1.2'j r:u;kilfJt?d <' 11 0.93 1.00 6. ;:>(, 3. 51 0.7.0 Orir.rl 63 0.66 0. J'; :>.Oil n.111 0.011 Dark Gr<>en and 1Jr.r.p Yellow Vegetables 97.6 0.93 0.91 10. 'j'j 15. r, 1 0.86

f n?sh 755 0.87. 0.86 10.55 11.ll? 0.67. f ro7Cfl 266 ().(,I 0. ··~; 2.5? l. 19 0. 18 C01n11cd 111 0.111 <'.II(> 1.09 0.06 l'ackaqed 11 o.fl. ~··1i. 0.60 1. 18 u. l'j 0.01

C""l I.Ip.ht Gr<>rn Vep,etnhles 112•1 1.117. 1. ?'j 1 l. 35 H.11 1.88 \() r-1 rorm Hot reportP.d 898 0.65 0.50 6.n 10.113 ll. 58 r rr. sh 50•1 0.811 0.811 1.00 I. 61 0.112 rro7r.n 7.119 0.71 o. 59 5.89 3. 113 0.19 cannr.lf 591 ll.93 0.87 8.111) 9.91 o. 55 rar.kagr.d 107 0.90 0.111 11, no 1. 17. 0.10 Dried 51 O. IO 0.16 2.110 0.61 0.011 Tomntc>es 912 1.09 0.95 9.0l 17.88 1.00 form llot rP.portP.d 136 0.63 0.117 2. 75 1. 5 l 0.09 f rP.!>h I';] 0.96 o. 711 6.00 12.91 0. 77. Carmr.d 230 o. 76 0.98 9.111 3. 15 u. 18 relckngr.d 15 1. OI 0.61 7 .Oil 0.?9 0.117 Potntoes 'jlll 1. 18 1.08 9.110 11. 51 0.(,11

f 01·m Hot rnportcd 011 0.05 1.n2 9. 18 1. ;><} 0.07 I rr.•h 276 1. 211 1.08 9.80 6. IJ 0.111 froze,, 191) 0.72 0.51 •1.oJ 2.116 0.1•1 C:tnnt?d 06 0.68 o.•11 7..611 I.Oil 0.116 Packaqr.d 29 1. 16 1. 17. 11, 61 0.67. 0.0] Othl'r Ver,<>tahles 1118 1.06 1. 07 7.0. ?6 21. 21 1. 19 lorn< llot rnpor-tr.d 603 0.5J 0.110 3.67 'j. 711 o. 32 r resh llll II. 76 11.67 11. 50 5.81 0.17 rro;r.n 1511 0.6] o.611 7. 56 1. I l 0.10 Canned 506 II. 79 o. 78 11. 11 7. 18 0.110 rackagr.d 71 0.56 0.111 6.07. 0.111 0.011 Dried 10 0.111 o. 18 0.15 O.OA 0.!10 _T,'!I~!~ _l~~O'._ l'opulat.lon n,,nslty: StlS1\s 1,000,000 nnd Over Populallon (Olher thnn Ccnlr;il CI t I"")

Prrc~nt' :tP,P PE>rcent np.e Vc-g'?tnhle of Tot

Totnl Vep..-.tnhlcs "Ill? J.50 2. R6 JO.OJ 100.00 <;. 31 form "ot reported 16.1'1 1.00 o. 76 6. 911 2 I. 39 1.111 r rr.!;h 1691 1. 13 1. 65 ?3. 57. 311. ;> 1 2.03 r ro;nn 8611 1.•19 0.86 8.39 I;'. 28 0.65 c~mlf?d 1323 I. JI I." 1 9. ')6 ? J. (16 1.26 r.c~:lqed ;;>')6 0 .111 I. 0 I 10. OR J. 38 0. 10 Or ictt 11 1. OJ 1. 61 l?.)ll 1. 06 0.0(1 nark Gn•en nnd ll<'f'P Yc>llow Vcr,etables I;> .111 0. 1111 O. o I ?.1.hO 1.1.61 CJ. 7?

r rt:?!',h 961 0.69 0.90 ;> J .1111 8. II 0.116 f JO/P.fl 3111 0. 11 0. 52 5.UO J. r,9 0. 19 canned I 111 0.)2 o. JO ? . 611 I. 10 ll.!16 rackilqed 17 0. ~>8 II. 'J6 ? . r,9 U. I J 0.01

'1' Lip.ht Grpc>n Vcr,c>tables IRll 1 1 . ,, ~; 1.30 111. 16 )'..). (,,] I. o<> r--1 '° Form Nut r~1>or·ted 13~,o I.(, 1 0.116 11. ??. 11. 16 o. (,;> f f'(!Sh 6~16 (). 19 ().ll9 9.!ll 6. 10 o. 36 rro/en ]•)II 0. 76 0. '.>6 11. 38 3. 9.l 0.?1 Canned 8111 0.91 0.62 9.76 10.1111 0. 55 r•ckaqrd 11 3 I. 11 1. ;> 3 I. \HJ 1 . 7 3 ll.09 l>r i r.rl 6.1 1. 19 1. l'j 12. 'j() 0 .'J!l IJ.()'j

Tomntocs 1?0') l.IJ.1 0.8~, 9.?11 16. ?'; CJ. fl(,

form Hot rrported ?00 0.65 0.117 2. ,, ] 1. 70 0.!19 J' l'f! ~.h 9211 o.

Potntoc>s 71? I. 1 J O.

Jc1rm Uot rcportrd 155 o. 711 0.39 ". 16 1. ~I) II.Oii f rr.sh 3111 I. 2fl 0.9'3 9.05 5.69 0.30 r ro;".r.n 30'; 0. 711 0.117 '•. 16 2. 79 o. 15 Ca nm~rl 1;>;> 0.59 0. 35 ? . llO (1. 911 o.o•; f':u:kay<~d 111 o. ,,,, 0.0;! O.ll'j 0. lfl '' · 38 Other VcgetnblPs 1~>96 1.11 0.97 6. ?II 2.1. I .l 1. ?.1

fo1m Not rrp,1r·t~1t 9116 0. 511 0 •II\) J. 15 6.113 0. Jl1 r rc~h 590 o. 19 0.63 'j. ?IJ 6. 19 0. 33 f r07f!O 219 0.(,9 0.113 3. JI 1. 91 o. 111 Cau11c'1 71tJ o. 11 0.611 (,. 211 1.50 O.hll r;lr.k:-.qcd 1311 o. ~,3 o. 32 I. 99 0.9'j 0.05 Or ied 111 0.116 0. 12 0. l'I u. 0') 0.00 '!~,_~!~__ _!1_51.. Population Drnslty: 50,000 to 1,000,000 l'opulat.lon (Crnt ra I Cities)

ren:rnt;iRe rercentnge V<'r,<'tnbl<' of Total of Total Group Form RPport lnr. _Ep<'ndl_tu~_Jj_L v.. g .. tabl<' Food Households tl(';lll s.n. Hnx Expenditure Expenditure No Ver.etnhle Expenditure 305 0.00 0.1111 0.lH) o.nu

Total Vep:<'tahle,; 11;>0 3. ;>? ? . 16 I 7. Ill 100. on 'j.65

form ~ot reported 79.l 0.91 Q_ 71 6. 11 J 19.66 I. I I r r-c~h 65/ I. 67. I . 11 / 10.n J 7' 'jr; ?. 17. f' ro;:f?n 3 71 1.0(> I. 10 16. 17. Ill.(, 7 I}. 611 Cannrd 690 1. lt'j I. J 3 10.119 ;> /. 09 1. ';3 r~cha11rd 153 0.911 1. 25 9.115 3.90 o.n Oried 'j 3 0. /9 fl. 16 'j. 0'} I . 111 0.06 Dark GrN•n nnd llf'rp Yellow Ver,<'tables 6:>1 O.llJ 0. 9.l 16. 1? 1.l. 93 ll. /9

,, . 9;~ r rr.~h 1183 0.69 0.63 9.on 0.51 frozr.n 15'J 0. 7R I. J 1 16. 1? 3. ;•8 0. 19 Canned IOI 0. ~>5 O.ltfl 3. 011 1. '•? 11.08 rac:ka9ed 7 0.111 IJ_ 30 I .OJ 0.08 fl.On Lip.ht Green Vep:etables 9111 1.11n 1.36 I 1 .113 J 1. (,'j ;>. 13 If) (). (,;> form Not reported 6')0 0.6? (). 11 J 2. 911 10.97 r--l'° r re sh JJO CJ. 01 o. n.1 6. '>9 , . 71 0.111 rro.:.:en t~n (). 76 0. 511 3. 111 3. ;>5 0. 18 C;-inned 1119 l'- 99 U.03 6.59 12. 0'.> o. 7 3 rackaged 13 I . 18 I. 53 9.05 2. 311 o. 13 Or leil lt'j o. n11 n. R.l 5.09 1.U? 0.06 Toma toe,; 67. I 0. 911 n. 7.l 5. 51 ·~). 011 o.R'I form Hnt rrported 911 {I. 68 0.61 5.05 1.n n. 10 ~)9 I r·t'~.h llff2 0.81 0.60 5-51 10. 0.60 Ill I I). II() 3. 11•1 Canm~d 0.68 J. 15 0. "' rar.h,,9ed 6 0. '>O 0. ;~5 1.00 0.0R II.Oil Pot at ors W? 1.011 II. 911 e.nr, 11.111 11.6?

fr>rm Not rc,1orted I? u.,.,, O.lro I. 9 .J I. 111 !I.Oil f rcsh 169 I.;> 1 I. OJ 6. 1'; 5.~2 0.31 rro?cn 1111 ll. 6 / ll. 39 ?.';I 2.~> 1J. Ill Carn1t!d '.j5 11.)1 o. JI I. /11 ll.86 0.05 r

form Not ,-,~p

PercC>ntnr.e Pl'rcl'nt AP,<' Vrr.rtnhle of Tot'11 of Tot'11 Vrr.<'t'1hle Food Group Form Rrportlng -~endlturtill_ Households t!ran s.n. M:ll< [xprndlture Expenditure No Ver.etnblc Expenditure 700 0.00 o.oo o.nn IJ.00

Total Vcg.ctnbles 1023 l. r, r J.66 t1t.l)t 101>. on 5. 5 7 rorm Not reported 716 1.0ll 0.92 9.1)6 19. (,(, 1. 10 f rc~h 7111 1. or 7 .1111 36.H 311. '>I <. tJ r ro11.n1 3J9 1.05 0.6/ 6. J J Ill 110 0. ~'6 Cnnned 611/ 1. 53 1. 1(, ?0.115 76. •1.1 1.117 raclp Yellow Vep,c>tables 5117 0.117 0.09 11. l'' 111.? 7 n.61

r res II 1105 0. 71 0.91 11. 7'> 7. 70 n. 113 131.l 0.1111 <'.58 0. 1;> f ro?.cn 0.65 2. "'' Canned 71 0.'i2 0 ..l'j 2.07 IJ.99 0.116 Packaged 5 ll ..lll 0.01 (). lf· fl.Oii o.oo

Ll~it Grren Vegetables 6111 1.60 1. /1 19. ;>(, 3 I. f>'I 7. 10

"'r~ rorm Not r·cportcd 596 0.66 'j, 19 HJ. l1'J 0.511 '° 291J ll.90 0. ~'· I I. 20 7. HI !), IHI r rcsh 1 ·''" fro;en 1(.8 0.60 0.66 11.119 J. ~>6 0.20 C:trmcd ,,,,, 1. no 1. 25 111. lllJ 13. I);> U.73 racl Or led '•'j 1.06 (l. 7.1 J.55 1. 7 7 II. 0 7 Tomatoes 536 1. 111 1.76 ??.'ill 1 'j. , .., 0.1111

for~ ••ot reported 06 0. 71 0.60 5.?3 1. 63 !). 09 r r r.!i.h 11()9 I. 02 1. 36 7?. ~;{) 11. 15 U.67 Canned 111? o. /2 (). 5~ 11.on 2. O~> 0. 16 P

rorm Hot r~portcd 7J 0.93 0.62 3. J6 1.811 0. 10 r rr.sh 16~ 1.60 1 . .16 9. ·15 7 .112 o. 39 11,.-, 0. ,,, 0. '•5 7.ll6 0.16 rro1t.m 2 · ''" (;<11med 5? o. 57 o.n 1. 211 U.8/ 0.0~ ra c J..;191~tl 23 1.06 0.66 3.2? 0.65 0.011 Othc>r Ver,Ptahlc>s 1111 1.111 1. 11 9.0r> ;';>.1111 1. 25 form Hot rr.po r ted 319 0.57 0.51 11. 15 5. 77 0.32 r rc!i.h ;>](, O.Oll II. 97 6. 2'• ~.52 0.31 rro?.cn 12 (l.6? 0. •t;~ 2. 36 1. 12 0.07 CC'nncrl 376 0.6/ n. n•; 9.0~ ll. 11 11.•19 rackagrd 71 0.53 Q.31 2. II'> 1.110 U.06 Oricd n 0.51 0. 38 1.11? 0. 11 0.01 .Ia_l!_.\,_c_l\_5 J_._ rup11ta1 inn Density: Outi:fdP. SMSM;

Percrntap.t' Percentnge Vegetable of Total of Total Vpp,et.,ble Fond Group Form Rt'portlng Ex~<'ncllture ($) llou!lehol

Total Vcf!~!tahleii 7361 J.?.'j J.71 56.99 100.on 5. 311 rorm llot reported 1~62 0.9.1 o. 16 6.16 111.62 1.00 rrcsh 1711'j I. 6'.; 1.99 112.60 31.n 1. 91 f r·o.-:en <·96 1. 16 1.1111 22.611 t(l. 115 o.~5 Connr.d ,,. 15 1.111 1. 39 17.11?. 76.(11 1.11.? rar.kagr.d J'jl 0.91 O.l!'.j 6. ?(, 0.761 0."" o. 73 ,.. 91 J.ll~ 0.16 C:umcd 963 I. OJ 0.92 111.73 12. 61 0.66 l'ar.kagrd 168 0.91 0.80 6.t'6 2.11 0.11 orlr.d 136 1. JI! 7. llJ 26.111 7.•1.1 o. 1J Tomatocii 1101 1.06 11.91! 11.56 1'j ..Jn II.I!? rnrm Hot reported 167 0.611 o. 32 2.01 I. Jll 0.07 • f rr.sh 631 1.00 0.89 9.9'1 10.111 11.5' J?O n. ,~, 0.61 5. 15 J.09 0. 16 c.1nnc-d 1. ,., PackagP.d 15 O,'Jll 11. JI! II. Ill 0.111

Potatoes 8 75 1. J 1 '. ?.1 16.?9 111. n I II. 19

for~ Hot reported 191 II. (l(o I). 61 11.9'} 2. 17 0.81 0.51 3. 67 J. '1 I o. 18 canned 132 0.611 o.•16 J.~o 1.11) O.U6 P;u:k:wg•?d 69 1. 11 o. 78 J.911 0.9'1 0.05 I. 111 Other Vep,etnhlrs 111911 1. 17 1.?7 ?7.011 :>1. 5? form Not reported 7111 0.56 0.119 5.00 5. 12 0.27 'r1?5h ~61 0.62 0.96 8.118 5. 15 0.21 rnzon 139 1.06 2. 11 ~2.011 I. 89 0.111 f 0.1111 Ca rum rt 712 0.6•1 0. 71 12.00 8. 36 rar.k•9l'd 127 o. 5.l o. Jll ?.08 0.116 0.0'> Orir.d ?.l 11.119 II.;><, I. .11 0.1'; 0.01 I'!.1?.!£.I'~'·-· n('r,fon: No rt hr:rn t

rerc:entngl' rPrcentnge Vt>p,rtnblP of Totnl of Totnl Group Form RPport tnp, __F.xpendlture ($) VP.itPtable food Households Hrnn S.ll. H;ix F.xpl'ncllture Expenditure No Vcp,etnhlC' Exprn87 0.00 0.1111 II.Oil 11.00

Total Vcp.etahlcs 16:>7 ]. 81 3.06 ,, 1. 51 Hiil.Ort 5. 5<>

Io rm Not reported 13111 1.05 O. II 5. 71• 7.0.7.? I. 1 J f rl'•h 1118? ?.01) 1.98 16.3? 11?.90 2. J8 f ro;un 1119 1.08 0.9Z 1. 7.1 11. 61 0.6'i C;.nncd 1135 I. 33 I. J 1 13.UO ?I. 70 I.<' 1 r:n:k:urrd 2511 0.81 0.82 7.00 ?.?J 0.16 Or ir.d 511 0. 13 n.~'' 7..?5 0.';1 O.OJ Dark GrPen and llrcp Yell.ow Vegetables 1131 0.91 0.89 11. 15 t'). 10 0.8'1

r fC!ill 8911 0.81 0.811 11. 75 10.110 0.58 f rOl(?rl J'•5 0.61 o.n 5.1111 J.112 0.19 Canned 1116 o.~'' 0.117. J.011 I. 1 J ().()6 rock,9cd 18 0.61 u.r.o ?.')9 II. 16 0.01 t.i r.h t Green Vrr.et ah ]cs 1'H•6 1.1111 1.111 I!. 11 7 .1? ..IA 1.811 ex:> \.0 form Not rr.rortr.d 1079 0. 71 0.116 J. J 1 11.ll7. n.61 r-l I resh 6111 11.8? 0.11 1. JI) 1. 10 0. JC; J rozr.n ]~9 0. 75 0.60 5.89 J.06 0.21 C:umr.d 7JO ll. 011 0. 71 6.UO 8.87. 0.119 rar.kagr.d 89 0.85 0.68 3.••5 1.0? 0.06 Orir.tl lllJ 0.1!3 ll. '>9 ?.'1~ 0.111! 0.(lJ Tomatoes 1085 t. 1~ 1. 15 ??.'iO 11.93 1.011

form Not rP.portP.d 161 0.611 0. J9 2 · '•J I. 50 0.08 f IP.Sh 860 1.00 I. OJ 7.7..50 12. JJ 0.6? Canrmd 321 o. 8.l 0.93 9.03 J.ffll 11.?I l'ockagr.d ?1 II. 711 n.111 1. 9•, 11.27 0.117. Potatoes 1 Jll 1.?1 1. ;>;> 18.99 1?.83 0. 11

ro riw Not rcportr.d 1:>11 o. 79 o.1io 2. 78 I. 36 0.08 f rr.sh Jl111 1.112 I. J9 18.99 1. 011 o. 39 f ro;:un <'68 11.61! 11.•11! 3. 67 :?.6.l 0.15 C:tnru~d r;~ll 0.62 o.rro ?.5J 1.111 o.or. f';1r.ko1yr.d 116 1.011 1.111 7 .110 o.

Pt"rc·r.nL,ge PercentaJte Vrr,l't:tble of Tot11l of Total Group Form Reporting ~.£!.1_dlture ($) Ver,Ptnbll' Food Household,; Henn S.D. H"" f.xpPn

Total Ver.r.t.~hlc~ ?Jn? 3. 11 2.91 •10.•1•1 IOIJ.Oll 5.11•1

rorm Hot reported l6r11 0.99 ll.R2 9. W1 ?2. 35 I. I J r rn sh 1603 1. 55 1. 17 23.5:> 31. 96 1. 71 r n>7f?r1 "117 1. 10 1. 36 ??.60 11.56 0.511 Canned 1•105 1.1111 1. 39 ~o. r15 ?I. 69 I.Ir() rack•qed ?\Ill 0.63 0.66 6. 76 3.~6 O. II Orir.d 95 o.n9 I.Jn 17, '>0 I. 16 u.11r. Dark Grr.en and llr.ep Y€'llow VcgetnblPS 1011 0.87 I.Oh ?.3 .1111 11.911 0.1'.iO r rr.!!>h 11117 0.69 1.116 73.110 1. 96 0.1111 f ro7r.n ~,,, 0. 15 0.5.l 5.311 2.RI 0.111 Canned 1!}5 0.53 o. 311 2.111 1. I I O.Of'.i rar.k•9r.d 9 o. 56 I. 711 0. 11? 0.1111 "· /1 197;> 1. 31 1. 28 16. 'JI 311. 9;' 1. 16 \,()°' l.iitht Grel't1 Ver,rtnhh>s r-l form Not reported 130.l n.65 o.•18 11.93 11.65 0.59 rrnsh '.">111 0.66 0.67 7.00 5.26 0.21 f rn.len ;><,1, u.,, 0. '.JI h.91 7.. 19 0. Ill C•11mcd 96R 0.98 I). 91 11.1111 17.96 O.(,'j rnckagt!d 1110 0.90 0.19 5. 10 1. ?.J rl.116 Or ir.d 75 1.00 1. '.'>3 17.50 1.0? 0.05

Tomntoc~ 10119 1.00 o.no 9.99 111 ..111 o.n

rurm Hot reported 2<"<• 11.66 O.';n 5.ll'j 2 .1)9 0.11 f rr.!>h 712 0.93 o. 13 9.'19 9. 10 0.116 C;:1rH1r.d 333 ll.66 0. 57 5. I~· 3.11] o. 15 P:tck01ged 9 0.60 11. •1? 1.11•1 n.nn 11.011

Potnt.oc~ 807 1. ~J 1.111 9. 15 13, r,(, 0.68

form Hot reported 190 0.68 11.•16 2.90 2. 2f} 0.12 fresh ?.05 1. 51 1.76 9. 15 5.90 0. JO r ro.~un 353 0. 71 0.119 11. II J J. 71 0.19 Ci1nnr.d I Ill 0.60 u. 36 2.68 11.96 o.o~ r:ick;tgr.d 111 1. 117 0. ~)'j ... 61 0.69 O.OJ Other Vcgctnblrs lc;!JI 1. 15 1. 20 ?.?..110 75.75 I. 27 form Nut reported OJI 0.56 o.•1J 11. 12 6. 31 0. 32 r rr.~h 509 0.8?. 0.83 7. 13 5. '13 0.29 r rn;cu 113 0.9'> 1.96 22.110 2.26 0.11 Canned 810 0.07 o. 11 9.115 9.63 0.119 P•ck~9e11 153 0.56 o. 38 2.116 1. 18 0.06 Dried ?.0 11.110 0.?.8 I. •12 0. 13 0.01 .!~_l_i:_~l_'.;6:. Region: West

rrrcrnt-ir.e rercentar,r Vep,<'tahle or Total of Total Group Form Repnrt fop, ~1~d_!_ture ($)_ Ve.:rtnhle food llouselm ld!'I tlrmt s.n. tfax Expendilur<' Expendltur<' No Ver.ctnhle F:xprndlture I 11111 0.(111 o.nn n.nn 0.(10

Total Ve~etahlcs 16';7 J •JI J.OJ Jl1, 7'1 llJO. on 5,110 form Plot rrportcd !;>. n•; 1. ;>J r:u:kacJt?d ?.11 ().98 1. 16 1. llfl J. /6 0.20 or·ir.d 5;> 1.(J'j J. 7J 26.ll/ 1. ~/ 0.06

Dark Grrc>n 11nd llf?

r rn~h 761 fl.69 0.65 5. 16 9.55 0.';7. r rnzun ;>;>J 0.611 (1.11(1 2.56 ? .6C' 0. 111 c:.nnr.d 10~ O. ~'I 0.67 '•.1'J I. ()CJ 0.116 r"ckngr.d 9 o. •rJ U.16 0.66 0.11"1 0.110 l•rl'.j I .1111 1.63 JO. 91 ?..06 ,.....0 I.Ir.ht Grrf?n Vcr,et11h!C's Jn. "' r-l rorm "ot r·rportf?d 11118 11.65 0.53 6. J'j 12. 11 11.r.9 f n~sh r1•JJ 0.85 0.911 o 26.07 1.1111 o.on

Tomatoes 9~8 11.97 o.nJ ., . n 1 I 7.110 0. 97.

f•1rm Hot rcport~d 1115 0.67 0.52 5.?l 1.16 0.10 f ff?!;h 6D9 o.nc; O. II 1. 61 1?.62 0.(.1) C<1nnr.d 772 0.6J (l.•111 J. II 2. r,6 0.111 rar.kngr.d 6 11.1111 0.71 0.11•1 o.or. (),(Ill Potatoes !1 Jll 0.96 0.8J 9.Rtl 7. (>] 0.111

for·m Nut rr.ported 0•1 0.92 o. 70 ... 99 1.11 I 0.08 f rr.~h 157 0.96 o. 9<' 9.811 ?.. /II 0.15 f tO.'~t?fl 116 11. I? n.~1 11. I(, ?. • J;> 0. IJ C01nru?rl 70 0,(,(J o. Jl1 1.911 0.6'.; 0.0'."> f'tu:k:iqml 7.7. 0. 11 o.•1r, ?.on \1 ..11 0.11?. Othrr Ver,Ptahles 1?01 1.09 1.111 70.

Form Not rr.portf!d 609 0.5'• u.•16 '•. 1~ 6.8J O. JI r r·r.~h 5"0 0.67 O.~I 11.0IJ 6 ..l'J o. Jlr J . .11 I. 11 o. 10 r ro7on o.r.o o. ''" Canned 516"' J u.nJ 0.911 12.0ll 1. 011 o.•1?. rnr.knqr.d 91 0.'.16 0.6J 6.0?. O.'lll O.O'; Or·i•?d IJ o.56 0.29 I.JI o. l.l 0.01 _I'!!!.!~_5_7 . Reg Jon: South

r~rr.t"nl ,,p,f! rercentnr,I' VC>r,<'t ablC' of Total 0£ Totnl Group Form ReportlllR ~11dlture ($) Ver,etable Food llousehol

Total VcRrtahlrs ?1189 3. llfl 3.2J ~>6. '}') 100.1111 5 - 7.l

form Not reportod 1583 0.113 o.c.n 9. 16 1~. ;'6 0.67 fresh 1933 1. 19 2. Ill Ii;>. 60 110.01 2.29 Fro;cn 786 l. 16 l. 07 16. 1;> 10. r,3 0.60 Cnnned 1 ~'?.:! 1. 5'• 1.112 11. OJ 71.112 1. 55 rackaqr.cl' 111 l 1.01 l. 11 111,(111 11. 60 O.;?rJ Or iP.d 2{!? 1. ll? 0.91 (,. ljf1 ;>,JO 0.111 Dark Green and Deep Yellnw Ver,etables 1191 O.Rl 0.119 1(,. 1;' 11, 11 o.r,11

frosh 6911 0.66 o. /It 1;i. 19 6, tl J o. 39 fro7en 3119 0. 16 0.911 16. 17 ? . / 1 0.1(, C;,nned 2112 o. 'i6 0. 39 2.00 1. ~, 7 0.09 .--f racKnged 1 3 o. 39 0. 1/ 0. (1(1 O.flC, o.no r--... r--l LiRht C:rern V!'P,Ptables 20'111 1, 65 1.62 19. ;>(, .39. 9r; ?.29

form Not rer>of·tn•t 1261 0.59 0.113 5.5?. 8. (,11 0.50 J rcsh 0.93 1. 26 11 .20 8. Ill 0.50 f ro7Cf1 83111 "' 0.92 o. 72 11.8? J. 10 0.21 c:umr.d 10R6 1.0 I 0.95 11J. ? 3 13. 111 o. /1 f'ackag"d 21u1 1.10 t.20 9.05 3 .06 (1. 18 D1·if?d 161 1.06 0.93 (,. 51, ? . 30 o. 13 Tomato(',.; 17111 1.011 0.96 11.'j(, 1'j. ~J'j 0.91

fcJ1·m Not r·eportett 1'19 0.6? 0. JI 2. ,\{) 1. U I 0.06 , 1 f!~h 10211 II.% U.61 8.114 11. .11 0.6'; C

for·m N(,t r~port~d 161 o. 12 0.1') \I. 10 1. ~ 1 0.119 f r~~h 531 1 . .16 l. 00 1.66 6. 11 J 0.110 r ro1cn J 11 o. ,~ O.ltlf 2.611 2, 11 0. 16 c;n111u~d 136 0.611 0.111 J.~o 1. 0 I 0.11(, f1 ;u;k.19cd 72 1. 13 0.61 It. Ill 0.

Othl'r Vc1~et;1hl!'s 1576 1. II l 0.91 9. 56 1 fl. J J 1.05

rf) rm Hot rcfHU- lt!d 717 0.119 o.•111 •t.60 11.011 o.n 5~;? 0. IJ 0. 16 I. '>2 11.611 0.?7 rf """ro;·r.n 173 o. 11 0. 'j) 6.52 1.111 O.llR C:lnucd 801 0.61 0.611 7.?9 1 . .,~ 0. It J rock:19r.d 112 o. 111 O.

Patterns in U.S. Households

John McDonough Love

(ABSTRACT)

Household vegetable expenditure patterns are examined using data

from the 1972-1974 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure

Diary Survey. Tobit analysis is employed to measure the effects of

changes in household socioeconomic and demographic characteristics on

changes in the probability of purchase and the magnitude of expendi-

ture for vegetables. The study examines expenditure for the major processed forms and five vegetable subgroups.

The results indicate that household total annual income and age- sex composition are important factors explaining vegetable expenditure patterns. Increases in income are associated with increases in vege-

table expenditure, and economies of size occur in households with adult females. The number of household members in other age-sex

categories are found to be important for expenditures on particular vegetable forms and subgroups. Mean expenditure for vegetables is

affected by U.S. region, population density of residence, employment status, race, food stamp purchase, and educational level. Changes in household characteristics are found to affect probability of purchasing vegetables and the magnitude of expenditure. Household vegetable

expenditure profiles are illustrated as a means of applying the results.