1 food includes non-alcoholic beverages
² alcoholic beverages included in food
³ food includes alcoholic beverages and tobacco

There has also been a clear increasing trend in away-from-home food. Away-from-home meals and snacks accounted for 46% of the U.S. food bill in 1997, up from 38% in 1977.⁵⁷ A combination of increased discretionary income and lack of time and skill to prepare foods at home is likely responsible for this trend. While increases in away-from-home meals have fed a thriving restaurant industry that provides 7.6 million jobs,⁴⁵ eating away from home makes it more difficult to monitor personal nutritional intake. Food consumed away from home typically has a higher content of fat, saturated fats, and cholesterol.

Relatively cheap food in the United States is of social benefit because it makes food more accessible to poorer members of society. In addition, federal nutrition assistance programs, aimed at improving access to food for children and needy families, appropriated a total of $35 billion in fiscal year 2000, reaching one out of every six Americans.⁴⁷ As a result of affordable food and food assistance, more than 90% of U.S. households were food secure, meaning they had assured access at all times to enough food for an active healthy life. Still, 9.7% of U.S. households -- about 10 million -- were food insecure over the 1996-1998 period. In other words, these households did not always have access to enough food to meet basic needs. Included in these were the 3.5% of households in which one or more household members were hungry at least some time during the year due to inadequate resources for food.¹¹⁴

A sustainable food system must be founded on a sustainable diet. In the most general sense, this would be a diet that matched energy intake with energy expenditure while supplying necessary nutrients for a healthy lifestyle. However, consumers make dietary decisions based also on economical, physiological, psychological, sociological, and even spiritual considerations.¹¹⁵ Eating becomes more than just a biological necessity, often being a focus of social, business, and family events or a simple act of pleasure. Nutritional problems of a century ago that resulted in deficiency diseases such as scurvy and rickets have been replaced with problems of nutritional overindulgence: obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension. A recent report, entitled "America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences," compiled by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture¹¹⁶ provides a good starting point for understanding the complications of dietary choices. Certainly, a life cycle evaluation of a sustainable food system must also include the effects and impacts of the dietary choices that drive that system.

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys of 1977-80 and 1988-1994 demonstrate that the prevalence of obesity is on the rise throughout the American population. The 85^th percentile of body mass index (BMI, is the body weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters - kg/m²) has previously been set as the definition for overweight. The number of overweight individuals rose over the time between surveys from 25.4% to 34.9% among American adults, from 7.6% to 13.7% among children ages 6-11 years, and from 5.7% to 11.5% among adolescents.¹¹⁷ Under an updated definition presented in the 2000 Dietary Guidelines, a BMI greater than 25 is considered overweight and a BMI over 30 is obese.¹¹⁸ By these standards, 60% of males and 46% of females 20 years and over were overweight in 1994-1996.¹¹⁹ Increasingly, scientific studies confirm that America’s diet of high fat intakes and low intakes of whole, fiber-containing foods such as whole grains, vegetables, and fruits has a significant impact on our health, quality of life, and longevity. Diet is a significant factor in the risk of coronary heart disease, certain types of cancer, and stroke -- the three leading causes of death in the United States. Estimates of diet-related medical costs, loss of productivity, and value of premature deaths reach $71 billion annually.¹²⁰ Estimates of the direct health care costs of obesity alone range from $39 billion¹²¹ to $52 billion¹²² annually. The prevalence of overweight and obese Americans was highlighted as a major agenda issue at the National Nutrition Summit in May of 2000.¹²³

Multiple sources suggest that there has been a slight increase in food energy consumption by Americans over the past 20 years. The food energy available for consumption, based mainly on national disappearance of food, increased by about 15% from the 1978 value to 3800 kcal per capita per day in 1994.¹²⁴ However, this value includes food that is wasted at the retail and consumer level and the increase in per capita food available could partly reflect increases in food wastes. The Agricultural Research Service of the USDA also conducts the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) to gain insight into what Americans are eating. The surveyed caloric intake rose from 1854 to 2002 kilocalories between the 1977-1978 and 1994-1996 surveys,¹¹⁹ an increase of only 8%. Survey-based data on food intake are typically plagued with underreporting by participants, and some of the increase in dietary intake may be due to improvements in the ways that data is collected.¹¹⁹ Increases in food energy intake alone do not easily account for the considerable change in the number of overweight Americans. The population also appears to be engaging in less physical activity: there has been a shift by a large portion of the workforce from manual labor to white-collar jobs that "require nothing more active than pushing keys on a keyboard".¹¹⁷ Establishing trends in physical activity and energy expenditure in a population is very difficult, however, due to lack of a reliable means of measuring such things. Methods of surveying personal energy expenditure demand increased attention since this provides this missing element needed in designing a sustainable food system approach where food production matches necessary intake.

Marked changes have occurred in U.S. food consumption patterns over the past 25 years. While some of these changes reflect dietary recommendations presented by professional science and health groups, others appear to arise from changes in lifestyle: faster paced life, more women in the workforce and single parent households, increased discretionary income. Consistent with health recommendations, Americans now consume two-fifths more grain products and a fifth more fruits and vegetables per capita than they did in 1970. They also eat leaner meat and drink lower fat milk. But while red meat consumption decreased by 15% between 1970 and 1997, poultry increased by 90%. Total annual meat consumption (red meat, poultry, fish) in 1999 reached a near record high197 pounds (boneless, trimmed-weight equivalent) per person, 20 pounds above 1970 levels.⁴⁷ While the health implications of such high meat consumption can be debated, the environmental and resource burdens of a meat-based diet greatly exceed those of a plant-based diet (this will be further addressed under environmental indicators of consumption). Average annual use of added fats and oils remains near record-high levels. Per capita consumption of cheese increased 2½ times between 1970 and 1998.

Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners -- mainly sucrose and corn sweeteners -- continues to increase. Each American consumed a record average 154 pounds of caloric sweeteners in 1998 -- 53 teaspoons per person per day. Of course, some of this is wasted in the food system or at home, but even if an assumed 40% is lost, the remaining 32 teaspoons still greatly exceeds the recommended maximum intake of 18 teaspoons for a person consuming a 2800 kilocalorie diet (6 teaspoons for a 1600 kilocalorie diet).⁴⁷ Corn sweeteners (especially high fructose corn sweeteners) continue to replace sucrose (made from cane and beets), increasing from 16% of total caloric sweeteners in 1970 to 57% in 1998. Sugar has become America’s number one food additive, accounting for 16% of total caloric intake. Carbonated non-diet soft drinks, for which per capita consumption rose 51% between 1986 and 1998, account for more than a fifth of the refined and processed sugars in the American diet.⁴⁷

As mentioned earlier, large sums of money are spent on advertising of food in the United States. Food manufacturers spent $7 billion on advertising in 1997, whereas the U.S. Department of Agriculture spent only $333.3 million on nutrition education, evaluation and Demonstrations.¹⁰² Foods that are intensely advertised tend to be the ones that are overconsumed relative to dietary recommendations. Confectionery and snacks, prepared and convenience foods, and soft drinks are all heavily advertised (relative to their share of the food-at-home budget). On the other hand, fruits and vegetables, for which Americans consume lower than recommended amounts, receive very little advertising.

There is ongoing debate as to how best inform consumers of the health effects of their dietary choices. Policy changes in the mid-1980s allowed manufacturers to explicitly link diet to disease in advertising and labeling. It is unclear whether this has lead to market-driven improvements in consumers’ dietary knowledge and choices, or has added to confusion.¹²⁵ Measuring consumer awareness of both nutritional knowledge and knowledge of the consequences of food production is a complex and difficult task. General observation, however, suggests that Americans are not well informed of the health and environmental effects of the food that they buy. Inconsistent information presented by diverse stakeholders (food producers, food manufacturers, government, special interest groups) certainly can hinder understanding by creating confusion.

Perhaps even more deeply polarized is the debate around product labeling to provide consumers with information regarding such things as the geographic origin of food, means of production, or genetically engineered content. Although some food manufacturers and retailers volunteer the place of origin of their products, this is rare. Rarer still is sufficient information to allow consumers to make educated choices on the environmental and social impacts of the origin of their food. While the organic foods market continues to grow in the U.S., a consistent definition for this claim on production methods still has not been developed. The national organic food standards proposed by the USDA in 1998 received record numbers of public comments identifying problems in the standards. Numerous interests throughout the food system must be considered in establishing such national standards. Still, the lack of a clear understanding of the organic claim, complicated by related claims such as ‘natural’, ‘chemical free’, ‘free farmed’, or ‘Amish grown’, creates confusion for the consumer trying to understand the impact of production methods. A number of polls have indicated that a majority of American consumers support labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, as is presently required in Europe.^126,127 Bills on both the house (HR.3377.IH) and senate (S.2080.IS) floor would require such labeling. But proponents of genetically engineered food (including biotechnology companies, food manufacturers and retailers, and farmers’ organizations protecting the interests of the farmers planting genetically engineered crops) feel that labeling would be equivalent to placing a "skull and crossbones" on genetically engineered foods. They argue that government regulatory bodies have agreed with claims that approved genetically engineered food is "substantially equivalent" to non-engineered food.¹²⁸

Consumer choices have major influences on the environmental impact of the food system. A recent study by researchers at the Union of Concerned Scientists named food as one of the most environmentally harmful consumer activities, second only to transportation by cars and light trucks. According to this study, the second most effective environmental choice that a consumer can make is to eat less meat and poultry (second to driving less and/or driving an energy efficient car). Following this, the authors list buying organic produce as a very effective environmental choice.¹²⁹ The authors suggest that such food choices make a greater environmental impact than household operations such as installing efficient lighting and appliances, and certainly more impact than rather benign choices like ‘paper versus plastic’ or the occasional disposable cup. Indeed, when one considers the fossil energy inputs alone required to sustain a meat-based versus a vegetarian diet, the differences are surprising. Pimentel calculates that providing a 3600 kcal diet with 1000 kcal from animal products requires about 35,000 kcal of fossil energy whereas a 3600 kcal vegetarian diet (with more than sufficient levels of protein) takes about 18,000 kcal of fossil energy -- almost half that of the non-vegetarian diet. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (including milk and eggs) requires around 25,000 kcal of fossil Energy.¹³⁰ If we return to our can of sweet corn (Figure 2) which took 3065 kcal of energy to produce, providing the same 375 kcal of food energy with beef would require 13,497 kcal of fossil energy -- most of which (96%) goes into producing the beef as opposed to processing, packaging, etc.¹⁰⁹ From an energy efficiency standpoint alone, choosing a vegetarian diet, or at least one greatly reduced in animal products, significantly reduces the environmental impact of.35 our food system. Replacing poultry and red meat with nutritional equivalents of grains and pulses would also significantly cut food-related land use and common water pollution.

Containers and packaging generated in the U.S. municipal waste stream in 1997 totaled 71.8 million tons, or 33% of the total generated waste stream. As mentioned in the previous section, about 16.9 million tons of this can be directly attributed to food and beverage packaging.¹¹⁰ However, there are many categories in the municipal solid waste characterization (such as paper or plastic bags and sacks or plastic wraps) that are used extensively for food packaging that may also be used for packaging other goods and have therefore not been included. Containers and packaging have maintained a relatively steady fraction of the total municipal solid waste stream since 1970, but recovery of packaging has greatly increased. In 1970, a reported 7.7% of total containers and packaging was recovered while in 1997, this had increased to 39.4%.¹¹⁰

A large portion of food loss occurs at the food service and consumer level of the food chain. The Economic Research Service of the USDA attributed 94% (by weight) of 1995 food loss to the food service and consumer stage. At 90.8 billion pounds, this amounts to 26% of the edible food available for human consumption in the U.S. Fresh fruits and vegetables accounted for 19% of these losses, and an additional 18% was fluid milk.¹¹¹ This is roughly enough milk to serve everyone in the U.S. one-third of an 8-ounce glass every day. Examinations of household garbage by researchers at the University of Arizona concluded that large quantities of single food items -- entire heads of lettuce, half-eaten boxes of crackers -- accounted for a larger share of household food loss than did plate scraps. They also found that specialty products such as sour cream, hot dog buns, or impulse items had a higher frequency in household garbage than did frequently purchased staples like bread, milk and cereal.¹¹¹

According to a report issued by the Economic Research Service of the USDA, retail, food service, and consumer food losses in 1995 totaled 96,266 million pounds, or 27% of the total edible food supply.¹¹¹ This does not include pre-harvest, on-the-farm, and farm-to-retail losses. In its annual report of the U.S. municipal solid waste stream, the EPA found that 10% -- 44,260 million pounds -- of the solid waste stream was food wastes in 1998.¹³¹ The discrepancy in these two studies is mostly attributable to differences in scope and definition: the EPA report only accounts for food that becomes part of municipal solid waste. For example, the USDA report included loss of 17 billion pounds of fluid milk that, in most cases, would not be included in municipal solid waste. While the absolute amount of food waste in the municipal solid waste stream has nearly doubled since 1960, the proportion of food in the total waste stream has remained relatively constant.¹³¹

Disposal of food waste generally occurs either through additions to landfill, incineration, or by garbage disposals connected to sewer systems. All have associated costs. Nationwide, the weight-averaged tipping fee for landfill disposal was $32 a ton in 1996.¹³² If all of the 21,550 thousand tons of food waste discarded in 1998 were landfilled at this rate, the cost to Americans would be $690 million annually. However, about 10% of municipal solid waste is incinerated, with an average tipping fee of $63 a ton.¹³² This brings the estimated cost of discarding food waste nationwide to $756 million. This only accounts for the food that is disposed of through municipal solid waste channels. Large amounts of food are fed to garbage disposals and treated along with municipal sewage. Food in sewage contributes to biological oxygen demand, adding to the burden of wastewater treatment.

The USDA Food Loss report did not estimate the share of food loss that was recoverable for human consumption (unrecoverable food loss would include diseased or otherwise unsafe produce and meat, spoiled perishables and plate waste from foodservice establishments).¹¹¹ However, if a mere 5% of the 96 billion pounds of food loss were recovered, this would be enough food to feed 4 million Americans every day. Recovering 10% of the edible food loss would feed the entire population of New York City! While not yet at these levels, significant food recovery efforts are made in the U.S. Second Harvest, the nation’s largest domestic hunger relief charity, provides more than 1 billion pounds of food and grocery products annually through 45,000 local charitable agencies. Another national recovery network called Foodchain collects surplus prepared and perishable food from restaurants, corporate cafeterias, caterers, grocery stores, and other foodservice establishments. In 1997, Foodchain distributed more than 150 million pounds of food. The Society of St. Andrew, the nation’s leading field gleaning organization, rescues over 20 million pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables yearly that would normally be discarded at packing and grading sheds or directly from farmer’s fields. Mickey Weiss’ Charitable Distribution Facility distributes more than 2 million pounds of fresh produce a month from the wholesale produce industry to emergency feeding programs throughout Southern California. The project is being emulated nationwide through a program called From Wholesaler to the Hungry.¹³³

Food losses can also be recovered through composting. A 1997 nationwide survey found 214 commercial composting sites for food wastes, 3.7 times the number found in 1995. The sixty-eight projects reporting tonnage data in this survey totaled to 360,000 tons of food residuals processed annually.¹³⁴ The EPA reports 580,000 tons of recovered food waste in 1998, though this number includes recovery of paper for composting.¹³¹ Model programs highlighted by the EPA demonstrate the enormous potential for waste reduction through food discard recovery.¹³⁵ For example, the New York State Correctional Facilities recovered 6,200 tons of food discards and other organics (90% of the food discard waste stream) in 1997 through on- and off-site composting. Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont recovered 90% of their pre-consumer food discards, amounting to 90 tons in 1997.¹³⁵ Still, food wastes are characterized by low levels of recovery: in 1998 less than 2.6% (by weight) of food wastes were recovered, making food wastes the second largest single source of discards (waste remaining after recovery) in the municipal solid waste stream.¹³¹

Material and energy flow analyses provide a means to assess overall system efficiencies and the distribution of consumption across life cycle stages, and to identify areas for improvement. The flow diagram in Figure 3 gives an overview of the material flow throughout food production and consumption in 1995. The mass flow analysis here concentrates on feed,

food and food products and does not include other inputs into the food system such as chemicals, fertilizers, mass of fuel consumed, or packaging materials. The left side of Figure 3 represents the plant-based production in 1995. A large fraction of this is used to feed animals (light green section) and is thus converted to animal products (orange section). After exports (light blue section, including both raw and processed exports) and food-crop based industrial products (purple section) are removed, the remaining portion of the plant based production (by difference), along with the addition of food imports (dark blue), makes up the food consumed in the U.S (pink section). The following paragraphs detail this food mass flow model.

Over half of the grains (corn, sorghum, barley, oats, wheat, rye and rice) grown in the U.S. get fed to farm animals in this country. A large portion of the "biomass" that gets fed to animals exits the system through respiration and manure or is used to maintain the live animal population. Manure is recoverable as soil nutrient amendment, but as discussed in the agricultural growing and production section, concentration of animal production facilities has made this recovery less feasible. The rough animal food products resulting from the year’s production amount to about 25% of the weight of feed given to the animals. This efficiency estimate is somewhat complicated by the fact that water consumed by animals is not explicitly included as an input in this mass flow model. Most of the water fed to animals (5.49 billion gallons per day) simply exits the system again through animal respiration and manure, but part of the weight of the animal food products shown will be water, especially in the case of raw milk.

While much of the plant material fed to livestock is not appropriate for human consumption (pasture, roughages), strong arguments can be made for improving the sustainability of the U.S. food system through reducing animal based food production. As mentioned earlier, fossil energy demand for producing animal protein through current grain-intensive means is nearly twice that for a pure vegetarian diet. In addition, livestock production as it is widely practiced today also has a significant impact on land use, water use and water quality, and air emissions. Reduced animal protein scenarios are undergoing life cycle based systems research by the Protein Foods, Environment, Technology and Society Programme (PROFETAS), a research project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP),¹³⁶ with the end result being policy options. This is not to say that livestock management should be excluded from the food system. However, reducing meat consumption (and thus production demand) and replacing input intensive row crop grain production with carefully managed, integrated pasturing systems can have positive effects on many of the sustainability indicators presented here.

Nearly 40% of the food and feed crops produced in the U.S. were exported in 1995. While the U.S. is the second largest grain producer in the world and boasts the world’s largest grain surplus, grain exports from the U.S. amount to only about five percent of global production and go primarily to feeding animals in Europe and Japan.¹³⁷ Interestingly, feed grains (grains fed to animals) are both the largest export and import by weight in the U.S. While it is recognized that international trade is complex and dependent on many factors, a simple assessment would point to this as an unnecessary inefficiency. The second largest agricultural import (by weight) into the U.S. is bananas. Agricultural imports experienced a 26% (by weight) increase from 1995 to 1999, with larger increases occurring in red meat and poultry (37%), fruits and nuts (46%), vegetables (36%), and cocoa and cocoa products (49%).¹³⁸

While the previous year’s stored grains and beans are greater than those stored in 1995, this is a bit of an anomaly. Over most years, the incoming and outgoing stored grains are closer in value. While there are a number of agricultural crops (such as cotton or industrial grade rapeseed) that are grown specifically for an industrial market and are thus not included in this food system diagram, a portion of the food and feed crop is also utilized by industrial sectors. Over 34,800 million pounds (622 million bushels) of corn were consumed for industrial uses in 1995/1996, including industrial starch and fuel and manufacturing alcohol.¹³⁹ Some edible oils and fats also are routed to industrial uses. Current efforts are underway to increase plant/crop-based fuel and industrial products, replacing petrochemical-based feedstocks with renewable, plant-based ones.¹⁴⁰ The diagram also shows two "processing losses" (from both animal products and plant products) that are arrived at by difference: these losses are not characterized, but it is anticipated that much of the weight loss is water. For example, the 10 pounds of fluid milk required to produce 1 pound of cheese would show up primarily as a water loss.

Finally, the annual edible food available to the U.S. population represents about 20% of the biomass inputs into the system. This amounts to 3800 kilocalories of food energy available per capita per day, nearly 15% more than what was available in 1970.¹²⁴ This available food is reduced 27% (by weight) due to spoilage and waste at the retail and consumer level.¹¹¹ Food loss at the consumer level is one of the larger losses in the entire food system. Inexpensive food, a desire for convenience, and perhaps the devaluing of food in our culture has led to a situation where edible food is considered disposable, despite the vast resources consumed to produce it. When the connection between consumption practices and production is made, great opportunities arise for reducing the environmental burden of agricultural production and the whole food system, as well as reforming economic and social stresses, simply through reducing demand by minimizing food loss.

Figure 4 shows the value (in present dollars) of agricultural imports and exports over the past 65 years. Growth in U.S. agricultural exports has largely exceeded the growth in imports, leading to a positive trade balance. However, agricultural imports have grown significantly in recent years. U.S. imports of agricultural commodities and products are projected to reach $39 billion in fiscal 2000, a 72% increase from 1990.¹⁴¹ This growth is attributed to the strong U.S. dollar combined with slower growth or recessions elsewhere in the world. As a result, more and more of the production of the food that Americans eat is being moved outside the country.

Agriculture is ultimately a process of energy conversion: converting solar energy, along with various chemical and fossil energy inputs, into food energy that will sustain a human population. A series of technological changes in agriculture over the past century have greatly increased yields, but have also increased the amount of energy that is consumed in this conversion process. Many of the tasks that were formerly performed by the plant (extracting nutrients, restraining disease and insects) or by animals (self-foraging of feed) have been taken over by the farmer through the input of external energy (fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels).¹⁴² What’s more, human labor in the agriculture of developed countries has been largely replaced by fossil fuel driven machinery. As a result, modern agriculture has developed a strong dependence on industrial inputs and industrial (largely fossil) energy. Pimentel calculates that the energy ratio (output energy divided by input energy, including inputs from human and animal labor) for producing corn in the U.S. has decreased from 5.8 in 1910 to 2.5 in 1983.¹⁴³ Thus, while agricultural technology has allowed greater yields in terms of bushels per acre as well as bushels per man-hour of labor, more primary energy is consumed in producing the same amount of food.

Yet, it is not only agricultural production that is a large consumer of energy in the U.S. food system. Figure 5 provides an estimate of the (industrial) energy that goes into supplying food in the U.S. Indeed, processing and packaging of food and household storage and preparation both require energy inputs of near or greater magnitude than agricultural growing and production. Details of the data compiled in Figure 5 is included in Appendix B.

By our estimates, agricultural production of food in the U.S. accounts for only 20% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. food system. Given that nearly 40% of U.S. agricultural production is exported, this fraction should likely be smaller (energy consumption data was not adjusted for exports). The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers and pesticides makes up almost 40% of the energy allocated to agricultural production. Another 25% is diesel fuel consumption. Energy use in agriculture reached a peak in 1978, but declined by 25% from 1978 to 1993, due primarily to reduction in direct use of energy (gasoline, diesel, natural gas) on farms.⁷⁷ Over the same period, the value of U.S. agricultural output increased by almost 47% (in 1987 dollars), causing the ratio of energy use to agricultural output to fall by 50% between 1978 and 1993.⁷⁷ By this measure, agricultural production has become more energy efficient.

The transportation component of Figure 5 is composed of energy in transporting raw and processed foods from manufacturing and distribution sights to areas of retail distribution as well as the estimated energy consumed in household food shopping trips. Transportation energy in the food system is a strong function of the distance between areas of production and areas of consumption. A Cold War era study estimated that the average food item in the U.S. travels 1300 miles.¹⁴⁴ Fresh produce in the U.S. travels an estimated 1500 miles,¹⁴⁵ primarily because 90% of all fresh vegetables consumed in the U.S. are grown in the San Juaquin Valley of California.¹⁴⁶ In addition, the large quantities of off-farm inputs used in today’s agriculture (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, animal feed) contribute to the energy consumed in transportation. Given the volatile nature of current energy prices, transportation and distribution are extremely vulnerable sectors of the current food system. While a recognizably simplified analysis, locating areas of production and handling of food physically close to areas of population density has great potential in reducing energy consumption and therefore improving the sustainability of the food system.¹⁴⁷

The "packaging material" component of Figure 5 represents the energy that goes in to making packaging for food and beverages. The value presented here is based on food related packaging material as it shows up in the Municipal Solid Waste stream and is most certainly a conservative estimate because it does not include a number of packaging categories that can not be exclusively attributed to foods. While the recycling of glass, steel, and aluminum containers aids in reducing the energy requirements for making food packages out of these materials, food grade plastics must be virgin material and thus require large amounts of petroleum based energy as feedstock.

Energy consumption in commercial food service in 1995 totaled 332 trillion BTU, 6.2% of the total commercial building energy consumption. Nearly a third of this energy was used for cooking. Food service is the most energy intensive user in the commercial building sector, consuming 246 BTU/square foot of building space.¹⁴⁸

Household storage and preparation energy includes operation of refrigerators and freezers, energy for cooking (stoves, ranges and microwave ovens), operation of dishwashers, and the heating of water for dish washing. Over 40% of the food related household energy consumption is used in operating refrigerators. Improvements in appliance efficiencies have decreased refrigerator energy consumption over the past decade, but the number and size of refrigerators in American households continues to grow.¹⁴⁹ Cooking at home accounts for about 20% of the household food related energy use, while hot water heating (primarily for dishwashing) is estimated to be another 20%.

In total, providing the 3800 kilocalories of food energy available per capita per day in the United States is estimated to consume 10.2 quadrillion BTUs annually. This represents about 10% of the total energy consumed in the United States.¹⁴⁸ By our estimates, therefore, it takes about 7.3 units of (primarily) fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy in the U.S. food system. This estimate is somewhat lower than others presented. Pimentel¹³⁰ and Hall¹⁵⁰ both put the ratio of output food energy to input energy at 1:10.

The food system’s dependence on industrial energy inputs is closely linked to the system’s sustainability. Current agricultural and market practices heavily rely on the availability of cheap (relative to the cost of labor) concentrated energy, typically from fossil sources. Estimates of the remaining availability of crude oil vary somewhat,^151-153 but it is certain that petroleum based fuels are a finite resource that can only continue to rise in price. Reliance on this unstable energy source makes the food system increasingly vulnerable. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by the centralization and consolidation trends in agricultural production and other stages of the food system. Consolidating farms, animal production facilities, meat packing plants, and food processing operations, and distribution warehouses often places further distance between food sources and buyers or consumers and requires added transportation energy for distribution. Energy consumed in managing and storing food in the household is also greatly affected by the current food distribution system. Many prepared or processed food items rely on refrigeration for storage (as opposed to dry goods). The replacement of neighborhood grocers and markets with "superstores" encourages people to stock the refrigerator rather than making daily purchases of fresh foods. Indeed, household refrigeration has become an assumed luxury where capacity often greatly exceeds need. Home refrigerator size continues to increase¹⁵⁴ while at the same time, fewer meals are eaten at home. It should be noted that great improvements in the energy efficiency of the food system could also be made by reducing demand through minimizing food loss, as mentioned in the previous section.

The food system is managed by a diverse set of actors including farmers, the agriculture industry, food processing industry, retailers, and government. Market consolidation throughout the food system, however, is rapidly concentrating management decisions. Consolidation or concentration in food and agriculture is not a new phenomenon. Throughout the past century, there have been periodic concerns about a small number of non-farm businesses gaining excessive power in the market place. Indeed, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed in part because of farmers’ concerns over concentration in the packing industry. These concerns were echoed three decades later, resulting in the passing of the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921. Again in the 60s, national concern led to a comprehensive study by the federal government of competitiveness in food processing and retailing. Concentration in agribusiness firms has once again come to the forefront of agricultural policy: trepidation of non-competitive market practices spurred recent legislation (H.R. 1906) that will require mandatory reporting of prices paid for livestock by packers. With each passing decade, issues of market control and consolidation have become more complicated and difficult to address. Today’s markets are global in scope and often dominated by multinational corporations; vertical integration has made it increasingly difficult to define market sector boundaries; an increasingly non-agrarian society is removed from the effects of consolidation on rural America and more tolerant of a concentrated agribusiness sector that may appear to provide immediate short-term, price-based benefit to consumers. A life cycle approach to assessing our food system should also consider how farms and agribusiness are organized and how they relate to each other. Here we will briefly consider the organization of the food system and how trends towards concentration may impact sustainability.

Evidence of consolidation arises in nearly every stage of the food system. Consolidation in the seed industry (see origin of resource: social section), food processing, food distribution, and food retailing has been discussed in previous sections. Consolidation is occurring in agricultural production (farms) as well, with larger farms greatly increasing their market share. Still, production agriculture remains close to the purely competitive economic model. That is, large numbers of independent producers compete in the same market, driving low costs, low prices, and relatively rapid innovation. However, agricultural producers are faced with input markets (seeds, chemicals) and buying markets (meat packers, grain mills, food processors) that are increasingly concentrated and dominated by a few firms. Disperse producers have little bargaining power in the market, even through association with large co-operatives, and become price-takers, not price-makers. This imbalance of market power can be further exacerbated through market and production contracts, as discussed in the Agricultural growing and production: social section of this report. The underlying fear in this imbalance is that long-term profit opportunities in the food sector will tip mostly away from producers and towards the large agribusiness firms. Given the economic recession that American farmers are experiencing in the wake of prosperity by much of the rest of the country, this may be a warranted fear.

There is no clear way of determining the extent of "competition" existing in a particular market. Market structure can be further complicated by the increasing number of alliances, partnerships, contracts, and less formalized relationships that exist between firms. One straightforward indicator still in use is the concentration ratio -- the percentage of market power held by a certain number of the largest firms. As a rule of thumb, when the top four firms hold more than 40% of the market, competition begins to degrade and oligopolistic control is possible.^19,20 Figure 6 shows the four firm concentration ratio for a number of agricultural markets. Many of the big buyers of U.S. agricultural products -- beef packers, flour milling, soybean crushing -- are highly concentrated by this indicator. What’s more, concentration within these markets has been a steadily growing trend. According to one report, the concentration of economic power that has been occurring in the meat packing industry among the four largest firms is the most rapid increase ever experienced in the history of any American industry.¹⁵⁵ A federally appropriated study of market concentration in the red meat packing industry was conducted for the 1992-1993 year as seven separate projects, primarily by land grant university

researchers.¹⁵⁶ The study recognized that the market structure in the packing industry is complex and dynamic and required continual monitoring, but did not present strong, conclusive evidence of market power abuse. Interestingly, the analysis initially proposed to the Appropriations Committee emphasized the need to look at all of the segments of the market chain simultaneously in order to fully understand the impact of packer’s actions on livestock prices. After compromising to opposition brought forth from meat packing industry lobbyists, the Appropriations Committee funded an approach that lost the holistic look at the market to independent studies of specific aspects.¹⁵⁵

Equal concern should be placed on another recent structuring trend in the food system: vertical integration. Vertical integration refers to the concentration of control along the supply chain, from gene to supermarket shelf. If one looks at the top firms in the various markets represented in Figure 6, the same names reoccur in numerous markets. ConAgra’s market share, for example, is second in flour milling, second in dry corn milling, third in cattle feedlots, second in beef packers, third in pork packers, and fifth in broiler chicken production and processing.³⁸ Through its United Agri Products business, ConAgra is a leading distributor of crop protection chemicals, fertilizers and seeds both in the U.S. and in many international markets. ConAgra ranks second behind Phillip Morris in food processing, selling well known labels such as Armour, Swift, Butterball, Healthy Choice, Peter Pan Peanut Butter, and Hunt’s. Another food system giant, Cargill, ranks first in grain elevator companies and animal feed plants, second in wet corn milling, dry corn milling and soybean crushing, third in flour milling, and fourth in turkey production and pork packing.³⁸ Until recently, Cargill was one of the largest seed firms in the world; although it has sold off its seed business, Cargill has maintained a connection to the gene and seed sector of the food system through joint ventures and alliances. Still another food system "integrator" is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Quaintly known as the "supermarket to the world" to National Public Radio listeners, ADM ranks first in flour milling, wet corn milling, soybean crushing and ethanol production, second in elevator companies, and third in dry corn milling.³⁸ A recent book by labor lawyer James Lieber details the federal government’s 1996 price-fixing criminal case against ADM and some of its top executives, revealing the type of market control that this large food system corporation holds.¹⁵⁷ ADM now appears to be nurturing connections with Novartis, a Swiss-based, leading global firm in agrichemicals, seed, animal health, and human nutrition products.

Thus, it appears that there is a small number of dominant food chain "clusters" emerging. Much of the business world argues that such integration leads to increases in efficiencies that benefit both producers and consumers. Vertical integration raises a number of other issues, however. First, the mergers, joint ventures, alliances, agreements and other relationships between firms that form the "clusters" make the food system exceedingly complicated and difficult to describe. This limits society’s ability to recognize non-competitive market practices.

Secondly, vertical integration is eliminating many of the open markets within the food chain. When firms control all sectors of the system - from seed and production inputs to grain buying, shipping and processing to animal production and processing to final on-the-shelf food items - there is little to no price discovery for intermediate products. In other words, intermediate products do not sell on the open market where prices are publicly known, but pass from one business entity of the firm to the next. Ninety five percent of the broiler chickens in the U.S. are produced under contract by fewer than 40 large farms. There is essentially no national competitive market for chicken feed, day old chicks or live broilers.³⁸

A third implication of both horizontal (within a market) and vertical integration is that decision making is concentrated to a small number of core firm executives. Independent farmers, family mills, and smaller processors are forced to resign their decision making -- how and what to grow, when to buy and sell -- to the food chain "cluster." As the Organization for Competitive Markets highlighted in a written testimony to the Senate Agriculture Committee, this contradicts economics lessons learned:

In 1945, the Noble prize winning economist Frederick Hayek pointed out that a free enterprise, market economy is most efficient as long as the economic decisions about what to produce and how to produce are made by those closest to the economic circumstances of time and place. In other words when economic decisions are disbursed [sic] among many independent resource owners, in the aggregate, their decisions will result in the most efficient use of resources. Hayek went on to say that the more resources and economic decisions are concentrated in the hands of a few, whether they be government bureaucrats, as in the former Soviet Union, or powerful corporate executives of large companies with substantial market power, the less productive and the less efficient the economy will be.¹⁵⁵

Indeed, the tangible benefits that may arise from consolidation and concentration often reappear as externalized social and environmental costs. The indicators considered in this report point at many of these costs. Concentration in the food industry seems to magnify the risk of such external costs. Take, for instance, the rather simple example of hamburger that gets contaminated with E. coli. If the contamination occurs in a huge centralized beef packing plant, the losses and liabilities connected with the recall of millions of pounds of hamburger, as well as the number of people at risk, are far greater than if a similar contamination were to occur in a locally owned, diversified butcher shop. A recent research conference organized by the Economic Research Service of the USDA entitled "The American Consumer and the Changing Structure of the Food System" explored many elements of the increasing consolidation in the food system. Proceedings from this conference provide further investigation into this concern.¹⁵⁸

Numerous indicators considered in this assessment demonstrate that the U.S. food system is not economically, socially, or environmentally sustainable. The key indicators leading to this conclusion are summarized in Table 11.

The current system continues to rely on limited genetic resources that are rapidly moving out of public control and are managed by corporate interests. Farmers are shrinking in number and growing in age, with large percentages of agricultural producers unable to survive economically on income from farming ventures. Where field practices have not been completely mechanized, producers are forced to use cheap, illegal labor. Production is highly subsidized both by the government and by off-farm incomes of producers. Soil erosion continues at rates greatly exceeding soil regeneration, and global declines in fresh water availability threaten the sustainability of irrigation farming. Food related illnesses and deaths appear to be on the rise, demanding a reevaluation of the food processing and distribution system. The health and social costs of diet related diseases are accumulating, and a surprising amount of the edible food available in this country is lost at the consumer level, primarily due to easily preventable wastage. Heavy reliance on non-renewable energy poses additional environmental burdens and leaves the food system vulnerable to supply side price increases in fossil fuels.

Addressing these challenges through a life cycle based approach to the food system as presented in this report serves many important roles. First, a systems approach aids in reestablishing the connection between consumption behaviors and production practices. This connection has been largely lost from the American social consciousness. Food comes from the supermarket and little thought is given to what is involved in getting food to the market. The environmental movement has succeeded, to some extent, in establishing the link between consumption behaviors and environmental health, resulting in such behavioral changes as increased recycling. Establishing the link for the general public between food consumption and the related environmental and social burdens can create "only produce what we consume" attitudes and lead to reduced food wastage. A reduction in food consumption and wastage can lead directly to improved health and a corresponding reduction in the environmental stress of agricultural production, food distribution, and disposition. Benefits are compounded; for example, one calorie of food saved can result in a seven-fold reduction in the energy use across the life cycle. Direct marketing methods, especially those operating on the community supported agriculture model,¹⁵⁹ help foster a recognition of the link between production and consumption. However, maintaining the connection between production and consumption is important at all levels of food planning and policy.

A life cycle perspective also assists in identifying particular areas within the food system where priorities should be placed. Often these areas are not the obvious or traditional portions of the system that receive attention. For example, discussion of the food system’s dependence on fossil energy often focuses on the consumption of fuels in operating tractors and equipment for agricultural production or the energy consumption in fertilizer manufacturing. Yet, the data in Figure 5 suggest that food related energy consumption in the home is of equal if not greater significance. As part of the European Union funded SusHouse (Strategies towards the Sustainable Household) research initiative, researchers in the Netherlands, Hungary and the UK have been focusing on how households obtain food, cook, and deal with kitchen waste. Normative scenarios of possible developments in shopping, cooking and eating in the year 2050 that utilize both technological and cultural innovations are being formulated and evaluated for their decreased environmental burden, economic burden, and acceptability to consumers.¹⁶⁰

The life cycle indicators presented here are useful in communicating the full impact of providing food in the U.S. This is not an end in itself, however. Further development and refinement of a methodology for measuring progress through such sustainability indicators is needed. It is our hope that the life cycle framework will be used by researchers, business analysts and planners, and policymakers in addressing the challenges at hand and moving the food system towards sustainability. Sustainability requires a long-term time perspective in seeking solutions, as well as attention to the balances and tradeoffs seen throughout the food system. Thus, research, planning, and policy must proceed with an integrated systems approach in order to arrive at sustainable solutions. Work on Food Consumption and Production Systems initiated by the European based Global Environmental Change Programmes¹⁶⁰ takes an important step in this direction. The words of Rick Welsh, a policy analyst with the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, serve as encouragement to the seemingly daunting task of reorganizing our food system. He reminds us:

that the structure of agriculture in this or any other country is not an evolutional or inevitable process, but a socially constructed arrangement of institutions, rules and relationships. The organization of agriculture today has resulted solely from decisions made by people, and can be altered and reorganized if enough people wish to alter or reorganize it.¹⁶¹

Many of the indicators presented in this report were identified in a workshop on "A Life Cycle Perspective to Sustainable Agriculture Indicators" organized by the Center for Sustainable Systems in February, 1999 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The workshop was funded through a grant from U.S. EPA region V. Over 50 participants from academia, federal and state government, farmers, and food industry representatives contributed to this workshop.

Guntra Aistars and Jonathan Bulkley of the Center for Sustainable Systems had a primary role in organizing the workshop. Dennis Keeney, Ron Meekhof, Michelle Miller, and David Pimentel have made valuable contributions in the preparation and review of this report.

1 | Hoag, D.L. Agricultural crisis in America: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA: 1999.

2 | Sands, G.R., and T.H. Podmore. (2000) "A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems." Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 29-41.

3 | Lewandowski, I., M. Härdtlein, and M. Kaltschmitt. (1999) "Sustainable Crop Production: Definition and Methodological Approach for Assessing and Implementing Sustainability." Crop Science 39: 184-193.

4 | Hansen, J.W. (1996) "Is Agricultural Sustainability a Useful Concept?" Agricultural Systems 50: 117-143.

5 | USDA. (1996) Secretary's Memorandum 9500-6: Sustainable Development. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm.

6 | ISO. (1997) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO 14040. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

7 | Sleeswijk, A.W., R.K.H.v. Zeijts, J.A.W.A. Reus, M.J.G.M.-v. Onna, H. Leneman, and H.H.W.J.M. Sengers. (1996) Application of LCA to Agricultural Products. report no. 130. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

8 | VITO. (1998) Proceedings of the International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Agro-Forestry and Forestry. Brussels, Belgium, 3-4 December.

9 | VITO. (1996) International Conference on Application of Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Food and Non-Food Agro-Industry and Forestry: Achievements and Prospects. Brussels, Belgium, 4-5 April.

10 | Wang, M., C. Saricks, and M. Wu. (1997) Fuel-Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from U.S. Midwest Corn. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory.

11 | Sheehan, J., V. Camobreco, J. Duffield, M. Graboski, and H. Shapouri. (1998) Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. NREL/SR-580-24089. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

12 | Andersson, K., and T. Ohlsson. (1999) "Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales." International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4(1): 25-40.

13 | Moller, H., M. Vold, K. Toresen, and I. Ormstad. (1996) Life Cycle Assessment of Pork and Lamb Meat. International Conference on Application of Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Food and Non-Food Agro-Industry and Forestry: Achievements and Prospects, VITO, Brussels, Belgium, 4-5 April.

14 | Keoleian, G.A., and D. Menerey. (1994) "Sustainable Development by Design: Review of Life Cycle Design and Related Approaches." Air & Waste 44: 645-668.

15 | RAFI. (1995) Utility Plant Patents: A Review of the U.S. Experience (1985 - July, 1995). RAFI Communique. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada; http://www.rafi.org/.

16 | USDA. (1997) Seed Use, Costs, and Trade. update on Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/arei/arei.htm.

17 | RAFI. (1999) The Gene Giants. RAFI Communique. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada; http://www.rafi.org/.

18 | RAFI. (2000) Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track. RAFI Communique 64. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada; http://www.rafi.org/.

19 | Scherer, F.M. (1971), in "Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance". Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, pp. 60.

20 | O'Sullivan, A., and S.M. Sheffrin (1998) Chapter 13: Oligopoly and Antitrust Policy, in "Economics: Principles and Tools". Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

21 | Shapiro, R. (1999) Open letter from Monsanto CEO to Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway. Last updated 4 October, 1999; http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/gurt/default.htm.

22 | Kaiser, J. (2000) "USDA to Commercialize 'Terminator' Technology." Science 289(5480): 709-710.

23 | Brown, N.J. (1981) Biological Diversity: The Global Challenge. Proceedings of the U.S. Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity, U.S. Department of State Publication, November 16-18, 1981.

24 | Duvick, D.N. (1984) "Genetic Deversity in Major Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve." Economic Botany 38(2): 161-178.

25 | Soule, J., D. Carre, and W. Jackson (1990) Ecological Impact of Modern Agriculture, in "Agroecology", ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, pp. 175.

26 | Wood, D., and J.M. Lenne (1999) Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization, and Management. New York, CABI Publishing.

27 | CAST. (1999) Benefits of Biodiversity. Task Force Report No. 133. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.

28 | National Research Council. Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.: 1972.

29 | Altieri, M.A. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York: 1994.

30 | Brown, W.L. (1983) "Genetic diversity and genetic vulnerability - An appraisal." Economic Botany 37: 1-12.

31 | Wolfe, M.S. (2000) "Crop strength through diversity." Nature 406: 681-682.

32 | McMullan, M., R. Jones, and D. Gallenberg. (1997) "Scab of wheat and barley: A re-emerging disease of devastating impact." Plant Disease 81: 1340-1348.

33 | Rissler, J., and M. Mellon. The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: 1996.

34 | James, C. (1999) Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999. ISAAA Briefs No. 12: Preview. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY; http://www.isaaa.org/Global%20Review%201999//briefs12cj.htm.

35 | EC. (2000) Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector: A Synthesis. Directorate-General for Agriculture, European Commission; http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/publi/gmo/cover.htm.

36 | RAFI. (1998) Seed Industry Consolidation: Who Owns Whom? RAFI Communique. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada; http://www.rafi.org/.

37 | RAFI. (1997) Bioserfdom: Technology, Intellectual Property and the Erosion of Farmers' Rights in the Industrialized World. RAFI Communique. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada; http://www.rafi.org/.

38 | Heffernan, W., M. Hendrickson, and R. Gronski. (1999) Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. National Farmers Union.

39 | USDA. (1999) 1997 Census of Agriculture. AC97-A-51. U.S. Department of Agriculture; http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm.

40 | Sorensen, A.A., R.P. Greene, and K. Russ. (1997) Farming on the Edge. American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois; http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/foe2/foetoc.html.

41 | Harlin, J.M. (1995) Rangeland to Cropland Conversions in the Western States: Implications for Soil Loss and Sustainability. Forum of the Association for Arid Land Studies XI, International Center for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies, Lubbock, TX.

42 | ERS. (2000) The Aging of Farm Operators and Participation of Beginning Producers in Farming. Issues Center report. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; http://www.econ.ag.gov:80/whatsnew/issues/beginning/index.htm.

43 | ERS. (2000) Farm Business Balance Sheet and Financial Ratios, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated October 15, 1999; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/farmincome/fbsdmu.htm.

44 | Elitzak, H. (1999) "Desire for Convenience Drives Marketing Costs." FoodReview, 22 (3). September-December 1999: 23-25.

45 | Elitzak, H. (1999) Food Cost Review, 1950-97. Agricultural Economic Report 780. Food and rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

46 | ERS (2000) Farm Costs and Returns Home Page, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated September 25, 2000; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/farmincome/car/.

47 | USDA. (1999) Agriculture Fact Book 199. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Communications, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov:80/news/pubs/fbook99/contents.htm.

48 | Shields, D. Economic Research Service, USDA, personal communication, June 21, 2000.

49 | USDA. (1997) Agriculture Fact Book 1997. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Office of Communications, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov:80/news/pubs/fbook97/contents.htm.

50 | ERS (2000) United States and State Farm Income Data, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated September 25, 2000; http://www.ERS.USDA.gov/briefing/farmincome/finfidmu.htm.

51 | ERS (2000) Farm Income Forecast, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated Sept. 25, 2000; http://www.ERS.USDA.gov/briefing/farmincome/fore/fore.htm.

52 | US Dept. of Commerce. (1977) 1974 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.

53 | FAO (1999) FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Last updated 20 August 1999; http://apps.fao.org/.

54 | Banker, D., and J. Perry. (1999) "More Farmers Contracting to Manage Risk." Agricultural Outlook, January-February 1999. 6-7.

55 | Dorgan, B. (1999) "Don't be Down on the Farm: How to Preserve a National Treasure." Washington Monthly (September, 1999).

56 | Kristof, N.D. "As Farm Life Worsens, the Toughest Wither," The New York Times, April 2, 2000. National addition, pg. 1.

57 | USDA. (1998) Agriculture Fact Book 1998. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Communications, Washington, DC.

58 | Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000) Labor Force Statistics from the 2000 Population Survey. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC; http://stats.bls.gov/pdf/cpsaat19.pdf.

59 | Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000) Average hourly and weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last updated January 4, 2000; http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab3.htm.

60 | Runyan, J.L. (1998) Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 1996 Annual Averages. Agricultural Economic Report No. 762. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

61 | NASS (2000) Farm Labor (PFL-BB), National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Last updated May 19, 2000; http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pfl-bb/.

62 | Mehta, K., S.M. Gabbard, V. Barrat, M. Lewis, D. Carrol, and R. Mines. (2000) Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998. Research Report No. 8. U.S. Department of Labor; http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/agworker/report_8.pdf.

63 | Runyan, J.L. (1998) Injuries and Fatalities on U.S. Farms. AIB-739. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/epubs/htmlsum/aib739.htm.

64 | Schreinemachers, D.M. (2000) "Cancer Mortality in Four Northern Wheat-Producing States." Environmental Health Perspectives 108(9): 873-881.

65 | SRA Life Sciences (1999) The Agricultural Health Study. Last updated June 15, 1999; http://www.sra-lifesciences.com/ag/.

66 | Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination (2000) Agricultural Health Study. Last updated February 2000; http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/aghealth.html.

67 | Gray, G.M., B.D. Goldstein, J. Bailar, D.L. Davis, E. Delzell, F. Dost, R.S. Greenberg, M. Hatch, E. Hodgson, M.A. Ibrahim, J. Lamb, T. Lavy, J. Mandel, R. Monson, M. Robson, R. Shore, and J.S. Graham. (2000) "The federal government's Agricultural Health Study: A critical review with suggested improvements." Human & Ecological Risk Assessment 6(1): 47-71.

68 | Fischer, J.R., and J.J. Zuiches. (1994) Challenges Confronting Agricultural Research at Land Grant Universities. Issue paper no. 5. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.

69 | Horne, J., and W.J. Weida (2000) Agricultural Research Policy: Serving Public, Rather than Private, Interests, in "A Food and Agriculture Policy for the 21^st Century", ed. M.C. Stumo. Organization for Competitive Markets, Lincoln, NE, pp. 25-29.

70 | Albright, J.L., J.V. Craig, T. Grandin, H.D. Guither, J.J. McGlone, J.D. McKena, G.L. riskowski, W.R. Stricklin, and C.L. Stull. (1997) The Well-Being of Agricultural Animals. R 130. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.

71 | Netting, J. (2000) "US Dispute over definition of animal distress." Nature 406: 668.

72 | Jackson, W. New Roots for Agriculture. Friends of the Earth, San Francisco: 1980.

73 | USDA. (1999) 1997 National Resources Inventory Summary Report. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

74 | Pimentel, D., C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, K. Sinclair, D. Kurz, M. McNair, S. Crist, L. Shpritz, L. Fitton, R. Saffouri, and R. Blair. (1995) "Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits." Science 267: 1117-1123.

75 | Uri, N.D., and J.A. Lewis. (1999) "Agriculture and the Dynamics of Soil Erosion in the United States." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 14(2/3): 63-82.

76 | Office of the Vice President (2000) Vice President Gore Announces Protection of 2.5 million acres of Environmentally Sensitive Farmland. Last updated May 20, 2000; http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/2000/05/wh05192000.htm.

77 | ERS. (1997) Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97. agricultural handbook no. 712. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

78 | Kellogg, R.L., and C.H. Lander. (1999) Trends in the Potential for Nutrient Loading from Confined Livestock Operations. The State of North America's Private Land, Chicago, IL, January 19-21, 1999; www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/ntrend.html.

79 | EPA. (1996) National Summary of Water Quality Condition. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/OW/resources/9698/sec_one.pdf.

80 | Keeney, D., and M. Muller. (2000) Nitrogen and the Upper Mississippi River. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN; http://www.iatp.org/foodsec/library/admin/uploadedfiles/showfile.cfm?FileName=Nitrogen_and_the_Mississippi.doc.

81 | Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordano, A. Horowitz, and M. D'Amore. (1992) "Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use." BioScience 42(10): 750-760.

82 | Kellogg, R.L., R. Nehring, A. Grube, S. Plotkin, D.W. Goss, and S. Wallace. (1999) Trends in the Potential for Environmental Risk from Pesticide Loss from Farm Fields. The State of North America's Private Land, National Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Chicago, IL, January 19-21, 1999; http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/pesttrend.html.

83 | Pimentel, D., L. McLaughin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W.J. Roach, E. Graap, W.S. Keeton, and G. Selig (1991) Environmental and economic impacts of reducing U.S. agricultural pesticide use, in "Handbook on Pest Management in Agriculture", ed. D. Pimentel. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 679-718.

84 | Porter, W.P., J.W. Jaeger, and I.H. Carlson. (1999) "Endocrine, immune and behavioral effects of aldicarb (carbamate), atrazine (triazine), and nitrate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater concentrations." Toxicology and Industrial Health 15(1-2): 133-150.

85 | ERS. (2000) "Marketing Organic Foods." Agricultural Outlook (272). June-July, 2000.

86 | ERS. (2000) U.S. Organic Agriculture, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated April 4, 2000; http://www.ers.usda.gov/whatsnew/issues/organic/.

87 | Willer, H., and M. Yussefi. (2000) Organic Agriculture World-Wide: Statistics and Perspectives. Sonderausgabe Nr. 74. Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau; http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/s_74.pdf.

88 | Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. (1998) Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, CO; http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/.

89 | Opie, J. Ogallala: Water for a dry land. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln: 1993.

90 | Miller, S.M., C.W. Sweet, J.V. DePinto, and K.C. Hornbuckle. (2000) "Atrazine and Nutrients in Precipitation: Results from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study." Environmental Science & Technology 34(1): 55-61.

91 | Rygwelski, K.R., W.L. Richardson, and D.D. Endicott. (1999) "A Screening-Level Model Evaluation of Atrazine in the Lake Michigan Basin." Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(1): 94-106.

92 | Schottler, S.P., and S.J. Eisenreich. (1997) "Mass Balance Model To Quantify Atrazine Sources, Transformation Rates, and Trends in the Great Lakes." Environmental Science & Technology 31(9): 2616-2625.

93 | EPA. (1999) National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Update, 1970-1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

94 | EPA. (1999) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1997. EPA 236-R-99-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions/us1999/index.html.

95 | Altieri, M.A. (1999) "The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems." Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 74: 19-31.

96 | Andow, D.A. (1991) "Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response." Annual Review of entomology 36: 561-586.

97 | Gardener, J., and S. Clancy (1996) Impact of Farming Practices on Soil Quality in North Dakota, in "Methods for Assessing Soil Quality", ed. J.W. Doran, and A.J. Jones, Special Publication no. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

98 | ERS. (2000) "Rewarding Environmentally Friendly Farming." Agricultural Outlook (272). June-July, 2000.

99 | Heffernan, W.D. (1999) The Influence of the Big Three - ADM, Cargill and ConAgra. Farmer Cooperatives in the 21^st Century (conference), Des Moines, Iowa, June 9-11, 1999.

100 | ERS. (2000) "Consolidation in Food Retailing." Agricultural Outlook (273). August 2000.

101 | Davies, T., and D.M. Konisky. (2000) Environmental Implications of the Foodservice and Food Retail Industries. discussion paper 00-11. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC; http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/PDF_files/0011.pdf.

102 | Gallo, A.E. (1999) Food Advertising in the United States, in "America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences", ed. E. Frazão, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC.

103 | Mays, J.J. "CDC Releases New Estimates on Foodborne Diseases," Associated Press, September 16, 1999.

104 | Tauxe, R.V. (1997) "Emerging Foodborne Diseases: an Evolving Public Health Challenge." Emerging Infectious Diseases 3(4): 425-434.

105 | Collins, J.E. (1997) "Impact of Changing Consumer Lifestles on the Emergence/Reemergence of Foodborne Pathogens." Emerging Infectious Diseases 3(4): 471-479.

106 | FoodNet. (2000) 1999 Surveillance Results (Preliminary Report). Center for Disease Control and Prevention; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/foodnet.

107 | FSIS (1998) Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Systems ... and Beyond, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. Last updated Jan. 29, 1998; http://www.fsis.usda.gov:80/OA/background/bkbeyond.htm.

108 | Cohen, M.L. (2000) "Changing patterns of infectious disease." Nature 406: 762-767.

109 | Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel (1996) Food Processing, Packaging, and Preparation, in "Food, Energy, and Society", ed. D. Pimentel, and M. Pimentel, revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, pp. 186-201.

110 | Franklin Associates Ltd. (1999) Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998 Update. prepared for Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, EPA by Franklin Associates, Prairie Village, KS; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/mswrpt98/98charac.pdf.

111 | Kantor, L.S., K. Lipton, A. Manchester, and v. Oliveira. (1997) "Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses." Food Review, 20 (1). Jan-Apr.

112 | Steever, T. (1999) Food Bill Paid in Forty Days, Farm Bureau. Last updated February 8, 1999; http://www.fb.org/views/focus/fo99/fo0208.html.

113 | Putnam, J.J., and J.E. Allshouse. (1999) Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97. Statistical Bulletin No. 965. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/sb965/index.htm.

114 | Nord, M., K. Jemison, and G. Bickel. (1999) Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger, by State, 1996-1998. Food Assistance and Nutrition Report No. 2. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

115 | Furst, T., M. Connors, C.A. Bisogni, J. Sobal, and L.W. Falk. (1996) "Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process." Appetite 26(3): 247-265.

116 | Frazão, E. (1999) America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Washington, DC, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA; http://www.econ.ag.gov:80/epubs/pdf/aib750/.

117 | Nestle, M., and M.F. Jacobson. (2000) "Halting the Obesity Epidemic: A Public Health Policy Approach." Public Health Reports 115(January/February): 12-24.

118 | USDA. (2000) Dietary Guidelines for Americans. US Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/DietGd.pdf.

119 | Tippett, K.S., and L.E. Cleveland (1999) How Current Diets Stack Up: Comparison with Dietary Guidelines, in "America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences", ed. E. Frazão, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC.

120 | Frazão, E. (1999) High Costs of Poor Eating Patterns in the United States, in "America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences", ed. E. Frazão, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC.

121 | Allison, D.B. (1999) "The Direct Health Care Costs of Obesity in the United States." American Journal of Public Health 89(8): 1194-1199.

122 | Wolf, A.M., and G.A. Colditz. (1998) "Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States." Obesity Research 6: 97-106.

123 | Brasher, P. "USDA to test popular diets: Feds launch battle of the bulge," The Ann Arbor News, May 31, 2000. Ann Arbor, MI, pg. A4.

124 | USDA-NASS (1999) Chapter XIII: Consumption and Family Living, in "Agricultural Statistics 1999", ed. U.S. D.o.A. National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

125 | Mathios, A.D., and P. Ippolito (1999) Health Claims in Food Advertising and Labeling: Disseminating Nutrition Information to Consumers, in "America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences", ed. E. Frazão, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC.

126 | Burros, M. "U.S. Biotech Industry Still Refuses to Label or Safety Test -- Despite Increasing Consumer Concerns," The New York Times, September 8, 1999. New York.

127 | Eisner, R. (2000) Genes with Your Salsa? Public Pushes for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods, ABCNEWS.com; http://www.purefood.org/ge/genesinsalsa.cfm.

128 | Weiss, R. "Giant U.S. Food Corporations & Biotech Industry Are Terrified of Mandatory Labels on GE Food," Washington Post, August 15, 1999. Washington, DC, pg. A17.

129 | Brower, M., and W. Leon. The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices. Three Rivers Press, New York: 1999.

130 | Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel (1996) Energy Use in Fruit, Vegetable, and Forage Production, in "Food, Energy, and Society", ed. D. Pimentel, and M. Pimentel, revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, pp. 131-147.

131 | EPA. (2000) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. EPA530-F-00-024. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.

132 | Goldstein, N. (1997) "The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle 38(4): 60-67.

133 | USDA/EPA. (1999) Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wastenot.htm.

134 | Goldstein, N., and D. Block. (1997) "Nationwide inventory of food residuals composting." BioCycle 38(8): 46-57.

135 | EPA. (1998) Don't Throw Away That Food: Strategies for Record-Setting Waste Reduction. EPA-530-F-98-023. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; www.epa.gov/osw.

136 | Aiking, H. (2000) "The Protein Foods, Environment, Technology and Society Programme (PROFETAS)." IHDP Update, newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (number 2). 4-5.

137 | Meadows, D.H. (2000) A World Food Production Quiz. Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners, VT.

138 | ERS. (2000) Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States (FATUS), Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated April 4, 2000; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/AgTrade/htm/Data.htm.

139 | ERS. (1996) Industrial Uses of Agricultural Materials: Situation and Outlook. IUS-6. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/epubs/pdf/ius6/index.htm.

140 | DOE. (1999) The Technology Roadmap for Plant/Crop-Based Renewable Resources 2020. DOE/GO-10099-706. Renewables Vision 2020 Executive Steering Group.

141 | ERS. (2000) "U.S. Agricultural Imports Head Higher." Agricultural Outlook (273). August, 2000.

142 | Odum, H.T. Environment, power, and society. Wiley-Interscience, New York: 1970.

143 | Pimentel, D., and W. Dazhong (1990) Technological Changes in Energy Use in U.S. Agricultural Production, in "Agroecology", ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P. Rosset. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York.

144 | US Department of Energy. (1969) US Agriculture: Potential Vulnerabilities. research report prepared by the Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.

145 | Barton, J. (1980) Transportation and Fuel Requirements in the Food and Fiber System. Agricultural Economic Report No. 444. Economic, Statistics, and Cooperative Service, USDA.

146 | The Practical Farmer. (1994), vol. 9 (3). Fall Issue.

147 | Günther, F. (2000) Vulnerability in Agriculture: Energy Use, Structure and Energy Futures. INES, Stockholm, Sweden, June 15; http://www.etn.lu.se/~folke_g/jordbruk/INES.pdf.

148 | EIA. (1998) Annual Energy Review 1998. Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html.

149 | EIA. (1995) Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993. DOE/EIA-0321(93). Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC; ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/pdf/consumption/032193.pdf.

150 | Hall, C.A.S., C.J. Cleveland, and R. Kaufmann. Energy and Resource Quality: Wiley Interscience, New York: 1986.

151 | DOE (1999) World Crude Oil and Natural Gas Reserves, Energy Information Administration. Last updated 12/30/99; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html.

152 | Rogner, H.H. (1997) "An Assessment of World Hydrocarbon Resources." Annual Reviews Energy & Environment 22: 217-262.

153 | Kerr, R.A. (2000) "Oil Outlook: USGS Optimistic on World Oil Prospects." Science 289(number 5477): 237.

154 | EIA 1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, appliance trends. Last updated February 25, 2000; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs97/decade.html#applianc.

155 | Organization for Competitive Markets. (1998) "OCM Testimony at Congressional and Administrative Hearings," June 10. OCM-T-1; http://www.competitivemarkets.com/library/testimony/ocmt1.htm.

156 | GIPSA. (1996) Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry. Packers and Stockyards Programs, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/newsinfo/pubs/packers/conc-rpt.htm.

157 | Lieber, J. Rats in the Grain: The Dirty Tricks and Trials of Archer Daniels Midland, The Supermarket to the World. Four Walls, Eight Windows, New York: 2000.

158 | (2000) The American Consumer and the Changing Structure of the Food System, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC and Arlington, VA, May 4-5, 2000; http://www.ers.usda.gov/whatsnew/events/consumer.htm.

159 | SARE Community Supported Agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education; http://www.sare.org/csa/index.htm.

160 | Green, K. (2000) "Sustainability of Food Consumption and Production Systems." IHDP Update, newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (number 2). 1,3.

161 | Welsh, R. (1997) Reorganizing U.S. Agriculture. Policy Studies Report No. 7. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD.

Figure 3 compiles data from a number of sources. This appendix documents those sources and explicates concern or necessary clarification in the data. Data for the 1995 year is used throughout and was chosen because data on losses from the edible food supply were available for 1995.

Plant based production, feed to livestock, animal - Agricultural Statistics 1999, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1999, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr99/acro99.htm.

Import/ Export - Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States (FATUS). 2000, Economic Research Service, USDA; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/AgTrade/htm/Data.htm. Data from Tables 2 and 3.

Industrial Uses - Industrial Uses of Agricultural Materials: Situation and Outlook. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; IUS-6, August, 1996; http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/epubs/pdf/ius6/index.htm.

Edible Food Supply and Losses - Kantor, L.S., K. Lipton, A. Manchester, and v. Oliveira, Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses, in Food Review. 20(1). Jan-Apr 1997, Economic Research Service, USDA: Washington, DC.

Feed to livestock, taken from Table 1-74 of Agricultural Statistics, is reported in equivalent feeding value of corn. In other words, the weight of "harvested roughage" presented is the amount of corn that would have the same feeding value as the harvested roughage fed to animals. In real numbers, these roughages (harvested roughage and pasture) would be much larger (perhaps double the value). The numbers are presented in Table 1-74 in this fashion because they are back-calculated from the number of animals fed using feed ration conversions (Allen Baker, ERS, personal communication). Flows into "Feed to Livestock & Poultry" ("feed grain imports", "other byproduct feeds", "feed grains to animals", "oilseed cake & mill byproduct feeds") are not in equivalent feeding value of corn.

The flow "other byproduct feeds" is the difference between "byproduct feeds" from Table 1-72 and the total of "oilseed cake and meal" and "mill products" from Table 1-70 in Agricultural Statistics. This difference should be primarily animal protein feeds and mineral supplements.

This appendix details the source and calculation methodologies for the energy data presented in Figure 5. A noted omission from this compilation is the energy consumed by the seed industry in research, development, and production. Energy in food disposal (land fill, garbage disposal/sewer treatment) is also not included.

Agricultural production - Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; agricultural handbook no. 712, July 1997, pg. 136.

The values presented by the ERS represent primarily direct energy used on farms and indirect energy consumed in the manufacturing of fertilizers and pesticides. The values are back-calculated from expenses data that have not been explicitly collected since 1993 (electricity use has not been recorded since 1991) (Mohinder Gill, ERS, personal communication). Energy use expenses in agriculture are now estimated/reported as an aggregate of many types/sources, making it difficult to back out use due to differences in prices. Values for different fuel types were extracted from Figure 3.3.1 in the ERS report and multiplied by fuel specific factors that account for energy consumed in the production of those fuels (see pre-combustion factors at end of this appendix). According to the 1994 edition of the Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, the reported fertilizer and pesticide energy includes the energy used in production, packaging, transportation, and application (see text box "What is a BTU?," pg. 107). A pre-combustion factor was not applied to the fertilizer and pesticide value.

Other indirect energy inputs into agriculture, such as the manufacturing of farm machinery and equipment, is not included here.

Transportation - 1997 Economic Census: Transportation. Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC; EC97TCF-US. Single-mode ton-miles (truck, rail, water) were compiled for all agriculture related shipping identified in the census (live animals and live fish; cereal grains; other ag. products; animal feed and products of animal origin; meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations; milled grain products and preparations and bakery products; other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils; alcoholic beverages; fertilizer). The Commodity Flow Survey does not cover shipments of agricultural products from the farm site to the processing centers or terminal elevators, but does cover the shipments of these products from the initial processing centers or terminal elevators onward. Multiple mode transport was considered insignificant (single mode accounted for greater than 89% of all ton miles in each agriculture related category) as were single modes with small contributions (air, parcel). Ton-miles were then multiplied by BTU/ton-mile estimates from Franklin Associates, Ltd. (Franklin Associates Ltd., Energy Requirements and Environmental Emissions for Fuels Consumption. 1992: Prairie Village, KS). These BTU/ton-mile numbers include pre-combustion energy for fuel acquisition. Truck transport was assumed to be diesel and 80% tractor trailer. Water transport was estimated at barge energy consumption levels.

Transport of food from retail outlets to homes has been estimated as follows: According to the DOE Transportation Energy Book (Davis, S.C., Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 19. 1999, Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL-6958.), U.S. households average 775 person trips for shopping a year, with an average vehicle occupancy for shopping of 1.7. This comes out to 8.7 vehicle shopping trips per household per week. The Food Marketing Institute (http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/superfact.html) reports that U.S. households averaged 2.2 trips to the grocery store per week in 1999. We thus estimate that approximately 25.3% of shopping trips are for groceries. The Transportation Energy Book reports a total of 2.7786 x 10¹¹ vehicle-miles for shopping, and 5822 BTU/vehicle-mile for the average automobile. Thus:

0.253*(2.7786x10¹¹)*5822 = 4.09 x 10¹⁴ BTU

This value was then multiplied by the gasoline pre-combustion factor.

The energy consumed in transporting agricultural products from farms to processing centers has not been explicitly included here due to lack of data. Some of the fuel consumed for this transport may be included in the agricultural production estimates.

Processing (food and kindred products industry) - 1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC; Table A10: Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by Fuel Type, Industry Group, Selected Industries, and End Use, 1994; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/consumption/mecs5.html#mecs2cb.

Totals from food and kindred products (SIC Code 20) were used here. Energy use is divided into fuel type in Table A10, and appropriate pre-combustion factors were applied to each fuel type.

Packaging - The embodied energy in food packaging materials was compiled from Municipal Solid Waste data (Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. 2000, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: Washington, DC. EPA530-F-00-024) to estimate usage and Life Cycle Inventories for Packaging (Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings: Volume I. 1998, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape: Berne, Switzerland. environmental series no. 250/I) to estimate the energy consumed in preparing packaging materials.

Only those packaging materials in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream that could be specifically attributable to food packaging were included in this estimate: glass packaging, steel food cans, aluminum beer and soft drink cans, milk cartons and folding cartons, plastic soft drink & milk bottles. Other pieces such as corrugated boxes and plastic wraps which have packaging uses both in food and in other products were not included because the MSW characterization does not differentiate use of these materials. The following table contains the data used to generate the packaging energy value.

Food retail and commercial food service - 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC; Table 1. Total Energy Consumption by Major Fuel, 1995; ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/commercial/ce95tb1.pdf.

Food sales and food service values from Table 1 were used, multiplying by pre-combustion factors.

Household energy use - Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC; DOE/EIA-0321(93), October, 1995; ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/pdf/consumption/032193.pdf.

While 1997 data is available from DOE for household energy consumption, it does not sub-categorize the data as far as the 1993 document. Included here is electricity consumption for refrigerators, freezers, electric range/stoves, microwave ovens, and electric dishwashers, from Table 3.1 (pg. 10) of the above document.

Natural gas use in appliances is not broken down into types of appliances in the Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Estimates from Michcon (natural gas distributor) suggest that cooking consumes about 57% of appliance natural gas. This fraction was then applied to the total appliance natural gas consumption reported in the 1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (A Look at Residential Energy Consumption in 1997. 1999, Energy Information Agency, U.S. Dept. of Energy: Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0632 (97).)

Energy consumed in the heating of water that is used for cooking and food related cleaning was estimated as follows: The Energy Outlet, an energy conservation resource center, characterizes a typical household hot water demand (http://energyoutlet.com/res/waterheat/waterheater.html). They report that 12% of hot water goes to the tub, 37% to the shower, 26% to clothes washer, 14% to dishwashers, and 11% to sinks. Based on these estimates, we speculated that about 25% of water heating energy could be allocated to food preparation (sinks plus dishwasher). This factor was then applied to both the electric and natural gas consumption for water heating (Table CE4-1c in A Look at Residential Energy Consumption in 1997. 1999, Energy Information Agency, U.S. Dept. of Energy: Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0632 (97).)

Food energy available for consumption - Chapter XIII: Consumption and Family Living, in "Agricultural Statistics 1999", ed. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr99/acro99.htm.

Food available for consumption per capita per day in 1994 was multiplied by the U.S. population in 1994 and by 365 days per year.

In order to account for energy consumed in acquiring and supplying a particular fuel type, pre-combustion factors from Franklin Associates (Franklin Associates Ltd., Energy Requirements and Environmental Emissions for Fuels Consumption. 1992: Prairie Village, KS, Table A-5) were used.

The Center for Sustainable Systems
430 East University, Dana Building
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115
Phone: 734-764-1412
Fax: 734-647-5841
e-mail: css.info@umich.edu
http://www.umich.edu/~css

© Copyright 2000 by the Regents of the University of Michigan