Food Waste : History & Effects of the Food Waste Epidemic

HISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMICOVERLOADFOOD

FOOD OVERLOAD HIST

OR

Y &

EFFE

CT

S OF T

HE

FOO

D W

AST

E E

PID

EM

IC D

ESIG

NE

D A

ND

CO

MP

ILED

BY

BIA

NC

A FR

AN

K

DESIGNED AND COMPILED BY

BIANCA FRANK

FOODOVERLOAD

HISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMIC

HISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMICOVERLOADFOOD

DESIGNED AND COMPILED BY

BIANCA FRANK

FOOD OVERLOADHISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMIC

Book design copyright 2011 by Bianca Frank

Published by Bianca Frank for course GR434,

Typography 4, instructor Lian Ng, Spring 2011

Academy of Art University, San Francisco, CA.

Bound at The Key, Oakland, California

All rights reserved.

DEDICATION This book is dedicated to those that

continue to inspire me everyday. The

designers that have come before me, and

the artists that will continue to inspire me

throughout my career.

I hope to show that in all of this our

motivation in life and in the pursuit of our

dreams is only stopped by our own inabil-

ity to see the final outcome.

To my son, to all of my friends and family

that have pushed me along and stood

beside me through this difficult journey.

Thank you for being the source of my con-

tinued inspiration.

Love Always, Bianca

DEDICATION 15

AMERICANSHAVE MORE FOOD

TO EAT THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD AND MORE DIETSTO KEEP THEM FROM

EATING IT

TABLE OF

INTRODUCTION FOOD WASTE

CHAPTER 4 WASTE REDUCTION

CHAPTER 1 WHAT IS IT?

CHAPTER 5 TIPS TO AVOID IT

CONTENTS

19

61

25

71

CHAPTER 2 WASTE & OBESITY

CHAPTER 3 CAUSES OF LOSS

CHAPTER 6 PROMOTING CHANGE

FOOD WASTE GLOSSARY

35 51

79 89

FOOD WASTE

INTRODUCTION

There is no questioning the fact that Americans live in a culture of excess. We constantly

take our dwindling natural resources for granted and create millions of tons of waste in

the process. Food is no exception. In todays society, going green has become some-

thing of a buzzword. Media outlets constantly cover businesses and individuals that have

gone green in their practices. Products are popping up everywhere with labels such

as All-Natural, Plant-based ingredients,and Organic. Even the color green is being

plastered on every marketable product or group.

HOW ARE CITIES COPING?

Some cities have issued instructions for

all city-supported organizations, such as

schools, libraries, and government institu-

tions, to clean up their acts and become

more environmentally-friendly. Many of

the cities and communities alike are fol-

lowing these precedents. America realizes

the necessity to reduce its waste and im-

pact the environment in positive ways, the

need arises to implement initiatives that

counteract the massive food waste epi-

demic. The best possible way to achieve

this is to initiate a hierarchy of food waste

recovery that integrates a combination

of strategies which productively utilizes

surplus food and reduces waste.

Among a slew of problems which draw

frequent attention lays a critical issue

that the majority of Americans overlook

on a daily basis: the increasing waste of

food. It accounts for the single-largest

component by weight in the waste stream

of the United States and has significant

environmental, economic, and cultural

ramifications (EPA). How often do people

think about what happens to the food that

is tossed in the trash unopened or left on

to plates after meals? While there are a

multitude of easy alternatives that can be

taken to reduce the amount of food waste,

there is an obvious need to implement

a program that has a radical impact on

the amount of this waste that is sent to

landfills as this problem cannot continue

at the current rate. The best solution to

the problem of excessive food waste is to

implement a specific hierarchy of waste

disposal. These programs need to be en-

forced through laws and regulations, thus

making this solution the most effective,

and feasible, and affordable.INTRODUCTION 23

A surplus of food wasnt always a problem in the

United States. Often food lines stretched for

miles. The over abundance of availability of food

in the marketplace increases the food waste

epidemic.

FOOD WASTE BY REGIONS IN THE U.S.

Where you live in the United States deter-

mines what is being done in your localized

area regarding food waste. The following

pages will explore what, if anything, is

being changed and how where you live

affects food waste.

Region 1 includes New Hampshire, Ver-

mont, Connecticut, Maine, Rode Island,

and Massachusetts

Education and outreach are primary con-

cerns of several composting programs in

Region 1. Connecticut and New Hamp-

shire provide school composting guides,

while Maine and Massachusetts sponsor

composting workshops. Food scraps, a

compost waste stream, are being studied

in pilot programs and projects in Con-

necticut, Maine, and Massachusetts.

Region 2 includes New York, New Jersey

To increase solid waste reduction, states

in Region 2 are composting. Encompass-

ing sewage sludge (biosolids) from public-

ly-owned treatment works (POTWs); food

residuals recycling from food recovery

programs; industrial organic waste from

food processing facilities; used paper

products; yard waste; or other organic

materials, New Yorks organic waste re-

cycling program recycles nearly 2 million

tons of organic waste (1998). New Jerseys

program focuses primarily on yard waste,

and has removed significant amounts of

material from the waste stream.

Region 3 includes Pennsylvania, Deleware,

West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland

Concerned with reducing waste, states in

Region 3 have made composting a prior-

ity, focusing on yard waste. The vegetative

waste management and yard waste com-

posting regulations in Virginia allow com-

posting of leaves, grass, brush and other

collected material, but not composting

of land-clearing debris. Guidelines have

been written for yard waste compost-

ing facilities and provide instructions on

recycling options.

Region 4 includes Kentucky, Tennessee,

North & South Carolina, Georgia, Missis-

sippi, Alabama and Florida

Tips from states located in this region help

municipal, home, and commercial com-

posters. Guidance includes fact sheets

on how to compost, technical assistance

publications, and rules and regulations.

Providing pollution prevention and waste

reduction information specifically for the

green industries.

Region 5 includes Minnesota, Michigan,

Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio

Yard and tree wastes are banned from

landfills in Minnesota, Indiana, and

Wisconsin. With the hopes of reducing

household waste generated in Region 5,

the states provide information primarily

for home composters. Many municipalities

and businesses in Indiana are also part of

the compost market. The Indiana Recy-

cling Grants Program encourages envi-

ronmental beneficial results through grant

opportunities, public recognition awards,

broad-based educational programs and

technical assistance.

FOOD OVERLOAD HISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMIC24

25

Region 6 includes New Mexico, Oklahoma,

Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana

To learn more about compost and how to

compost, producers and users can visit

websites from states in Region 6. Provid-

ing step-by-step directions, you can learn:

how to start composting, what materials

can be composted, if the compost needs

to be in a bin, what temperature the com-

post should be, what needs to be done to

the compost to allow the organics to de-

compose, and how compost can be used.

Texas legislation provides incentives for

composting to reduce materials landfilled

by 15 percent.

Region 7 includes Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas,

and Missouri

By diverting organic materials from land-

fills, states in Region 7 not only reduce

waste, but they expand the market for

recycled materials and improve soil condi-

tions. Missouri, Kansas and Iowa pro-

vide users with detailed instructions for

composting, mulching and grasscycling.

Each state includes pertinent information

about materials that can and cannot be

recycled through organics recycling. To

encourage the organics market develop-

ment in Iowa, the state offers a rebate to

any non-residential purchaser of compost

purchasing compost for the first time

through programs.

Region 8 includes Montana, North & South

Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado

States in this region are making strides to

reduce the amount of waste that could be

composted from entering landfills. Each

state provides backyard composting tips

to homeowners and others interested in

the effort. In 2003, Montana added 3,000

composting systems through the Back-

yard Gold project and diverted nearly

1000 tons of material from landfills, as

well as improving Montana soil.

Region 9 includes California, Nevada,

Arizona and Hawaii

States in this region encourage homeown-

ers, renters, commercial businesses and

institutions to reduce the amount of green

waste they produce by composting. A sur-

vey was conducted in 2000 to provide the

California Integrated Waste Management

Board with information on the number of

producers, feedstock sources, products,

and markets for compost and mulch. The

Waste Board provides regulatory oversight

and marketing assistance to compost and

mulch producers.

Region 10 includes Alaska, Washington,

Idaho and Oregon

Composting facilities in Oregon and

Washington are regulated to protect hu-

man health and the environment. Large

facilities in Oregon, and those handling

non-green feedstocks substances that

pose a present or future hazard to human

health or the environment; and substanc-

es that are high-in, and likely to support,

human pathogens must comply with more

healthful protections.

FOOD WASTE WHAT IS IT?

67

8

9

10

FOOD WASTE BY REGION

Region 1

New Hampshire, Vermont,

Connecticut, Maine, Rode Island, Massachusetes

Region 2

New York, New Jersey

Region 3

Pennsylvania, Deleware, West Virginia, Virginia,

Maryland

Region 4

Kentucky, Tennessee, North & South Carolina, Geor-

gia, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida

Region 5

Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,

Ohio

Region 6

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana

Region 7

Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri

Region 8

Montana, North & South

Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado

Region 9

California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii

Region 10

Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Oregon

Calories from the U.S. Per Capita Food Sup-

ply, Adjusted for Losses, Increased 19 Percent

between 1983 and 2000. Rounded to the nearest

hundred not calculated for years before 1970.

1

2

3

4

5

FOOD WASTE

CHAPTER 1 WHAT EXACTLY IS

The U.S. food supply is the most varied and abundant in the world. Americans spend

a smaller share of their disposable income on food than citizens of any other country

and choose from an average of 50,000 different food products on a typical outing to the

supermarket. In 1994, the food supply provided an estimated 3,800 calories per person

per day, enough to supply every American with more than one and a half times their

average daily energy needs. Given this abundance, few of the Nations resources have

traditionally been devoted to measuring or reducing food waste.

THE HISTORY OF FOOD WASTE

According to a study in 1996 by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, one of the

few actually conducted on food waste,

more than 96.4 billion pounds of the 356

billion pounds of edible food was never

eaten. This turns out to be about three

thousand pounds per second or about one

pound of food per person per day (USDA).

With 36 million Americans struggling to

eat each day, there is no excuse for these

overwhelming numbers (Census Bureau).

Food waste is currently the third largest

component of municipal solid waste

residential and commercial trashin the

United States, which accounts for about

12% of the total waste stream and falls

only behind paper products and yard trim-

mings (Figure 1). However, it is important

to note that while over half of these two

leading components are recovered for

composting, less that 3% of all food waste

was recovered last Possible Strategies for

Reduction These statistics should be a big

wake-up call for urgent attention. In lieu

of this problem, there are many solu-

tions to the dilemma of Americas serious

excessive food waste; however, four

prominent solutions should be analyzed

as movements towards a more waste-free,

environmentally-friendly community. The

first solution targets the heart of Ameri-

can consumerismthe household. This

method would attempt to make citizens

aware of the large quantity of food that is

wasted and educate each citizen on ben-

eficial ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

At its basis, this solution would consist

of year. These figures do not take into ac-

count the food waste that was industrially

generated during packaging, processing,

and transporting (EPA, Municipal 2007).

Furthermore, the remaining 97% of food

waste ends up rotting in a landfill. This

process produces methane gas which is

about twenty-one times more potent than

carbon dioxide and a large component of

greenhouse gases. In fact, globally, land-

fills are the largest human-related source

of methane emissions, and the United

States is the leading contributor with close

to 30% of all emissions (EPA). Of course,

eliminating food waste will not solve all of

the problems of world hunger or green-

house-gas pollution; however, it could be

a small step in the right direction without

a huge amount of effort or money.


Historical transformations have changed

the type and amount of food waste gener-

ated. Hunter-gatherer cultures often dis-

carded bones as their only primary food

waste. The development of agriculture

added more plant materials to the food

waste stream. Industrialized agriculture

increased organic waste by-products from

large-scale food processing. Increased

population growth and urbanization along

with multiplied and concentrated the

amount of food waste, which was increas-

ingly dumped as the cities that gener-

ated waste became located farther from

agricultural areas.

Historical shifts occurred in the concep-

tion of food waste. The term garbage

originated in the French word for entrails

and once referred exclusively to food

waste. Later the word signified all refuse,

since food waste embodies the most un-

acceptable characteristics of solid waste,

putrefaction and attraction of vermin.

Material prosperity reduces the eco-

nomic necessity for food conservation

and reuse, and conspicuous consumption

and disposal are demonstrations of social

status. Food in postindustrial societies is

inexpensive relative to total income, and

wasting food is increasingly accepted.

Technology that improves the durability

of foods, such as plastic packaging, has

reduced food waste from spoilage but

has created a new waste problem as food

packaging contributes more to the waste

stream than food itself. Regardless of

consumption and disposal practices, the

growing world population has increased

food waste.

FOOD WASTE WHAT IS IT? 31

WARONWASTEDO WITHOUT THAT SECOND HELPING, THAT EXTRA SNACK, UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED THEM. TURN TODAYS SCRAPS INTO TOMOROWS SOUPS AND SAVORUIES. OUR WASTE IS HITLERS WEAPON.

During World War II food rationing, and food

conservation awareness was at its peak. A slew

of imagery and posters were displayed all over

the world depicting citizens political responsi-

bility to their country of origin to be weary of

food waste.

THE DEFINITION OF FOOD WASTE

The definition of waste is a contended

subject, often defined on each situational

basis, so it follows that food waste is the

same;professional bodies, including inter-

national organizations, state governments

and secretariats may formally have their

very own definitions.

Food waste is any food substance, raw or

cooked, which is discarded, or intended

or required to be discarded, according

to the legal definition of waste by the EU

Commission. Since there are several defi-

nitions of waste, equally many definitions

of food waste exist; professional bodies,

including international organizations,

state governments and secretariats may

formally have their own definitions.

The United States Environmental Protec-

tion Agency defines food waste for the

United States as being: Uneaten food and

food preparation wastes from residences

and commercial establishments such as

grocery stores, restaurants, and produce

stands, institutional cafeterias and kitch-

ens, and industrial sources like employee

lunchrooms. Although it is a nation-wide

agency, states are free to define food

waste individually, according to policies,

preference and other definitions,though

many choose not to.

Overall, the definition of food waste can

vary in many ways, including, but not lim-

ited to: what food waste consists of, how

food waste is produced, and where/what

it is discarded from/generated by. The

definition can be varied and complicated

by other issues; certain groups do not

consider (or have traditionally not consid-

ered) food waste to be a waste material,

due to its applications; some definitions of

what food waste consists of are based on

other waste definitions (e.g. agricultural

waste), and which materials do not meet

their definitions.

FOOD WASTE WHAT IS IT? 35

AMERICANOBESITY

CHAPTER 2 FOOD WASTE AND

IS FOOD MARKETING KILLING US?

One of the biggest contributors to obesity

and environmental degradation in the past

35 years has been the increasing sophisti-

cation of all facets of marketing to create

an environment where highly processed

and energy dense food is easily available

to those living in developed countries. Al-

though it is typically argued that lifestyles

have become more sedentary over this

time, it is pretty clear that consumers have

been encouraged to eat more through

highly sophisticated marketing activities,

including supply chain management (e.g.,

easy access to convenience and pro-

cessed food), pricing (e.g., reduced costs,

better value and longer perishability of

processed foods), as well as integrated

advertising campaigns, to purchase and

consume foods that provide a high fat,

high sugar, and high salt hit.

While these foods give an instant reward,

overconsumption has a cost to both the

environment, and to individual health.

The National Institute of Diabetes and

Digestive and Kidney Diseases in the

US and published in the peer-reviewed

journal PLoS One that a push effect of

marketing has contributed significantly to

obesity and environmental degradation do

not come as a surprise. However, the fact

that they have been able to calculate the

actual dimensions of the effect of food

waste and energy dense food consumed

by Americans provides compelling evi-

dence of the extent of this effect.

Ultimately, what this means is that politi-

cians and commentators need to do more

than blame consumers, telling them to

eat less and exercise more and start

to recognize that not all consumption

is good for the economy. While we have

increased our energy intake over the past

thirty years by more than 1000 calories,

other research suggests that physical

activity has not significantly declined over

that period. So, we are eating nearly 25

per cent more food over the past three

decades, but have not really changed our

activity levels (either way) over that time.

Indeed, marketers themselves need to

recognize that their activities have an

effect far beyond simply selling products.

When consumers make choices in their lo-

cal supermarket, it is the highly processed

and packaged foods that have a powerful

push effect. For example, although a 625

gram block of cheese (promoted as the

same price as 500 grams) is presented as

good value, the consumer will buy (and

consume) 125 grams more cheese than

they had planned, regardless of the dis-

count for buying in bulk, simply because it

was part of the deal.

This effect of consuming what we are

given create a consumption rebound ef-

fect, where consumers will increase their

consumption based on the availability

of the resource, and partly by our need

to consume the portion size that we are

given at time of consumption.


POLITICIANSAND COMMENTATORS NEED TO DO MORE THAN BLAME CONSUMERS TELLING THEM TO EAT LESS AND EXERCISE MORE AND START TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOT ALL CONSUMPTION IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

THEPUSHEFFECT IF ONE IS GOOD MORE IS BETTER

THEPUSHEFFECT IF ONE IS GOOD MORE IS BETTER

The push effect is similar to the wealth effect,

where we adapt our lifestyle to suit our income,

rather than simply saving more as we earn more.

In the study of psychologyis also referred to as

the endowment effect and the prospect theory.

THE PUSH EFFECT HYPOTHESIS

One of the biggest contributors to obesity

and environmental degradation in the past

35 years has been the increasing sophisti-

cation of all facets of marketing to create

an environment where highly processed

and energy dense food is easily available

to those living in developed countries. Al-

though it is typically argued that lifestyles

have become more sedentary over this

time, it is pretty clear that consumers have

been encouraged to eat more through

highly sophisticated marketing activities,

including supply chain management (e.g.,

easy access to convenience and pro-

cessed food), pricing (e.g., reduced costs,

better value and longer perishability of

processed foods), as well as integrated

advertising campaigns, to purchase and

consume foods that provide a high fat,

high sugar, and high salt hit.

While these foods give an instant reward,

overconsumption has a cost to both the

entire environment, and to each indi-

viduals overall health. New findings by

Kevin Hall and all of his colleagues at the

National Institute of Diabetes and Diges-

tive and Kidney Diseases in the US and

published in the peer-reviewed journal

PLoS One that push effect of marketing

has contributed significantly to obesity

and environmental degradation does not

come as a surprise.

However, the fact that they have been

able to calculate the actual dimensions of

the effect of food waste and energy dense

food consumed by Americans provides

compelling evidence of the extent of this

effect, and easily translates to any Ameri-

can lifestyles.

Ultimately, what this means is that politi-

cians and commentators need to do more

than blame consumers, telling them to

eat less and exercise more and start

to recognise that not all consumption is

good for the economy. While we have

increased our energy intake over the past

thirty years by more than 1000 kilojoules

according to Hall, other research suggests

that physical activity has not significantly

declined over that period. So, we are eat-

ing nearly 25 per cent more food over

the past three decades, but have not really

changed our activity levels (either way)

over that time.

Indeed, marketers themselves need to

recognize that their activities have an

effect far beyond simply selling prod-

ucts. When consumers make choices in

many of their local supermarket, it is the

highly processed and packaged foods

that have a powerful push effect. For

example, although a 625 gram block of

cheese (promoted as the same price as

500 grams) is presented as good value,

the consumer will buy (and consume)

125 grams more cheese than they had

planned, regardless of the discount for

buying in bulk, simply because it was part

of the deal. This effect of consuming what

we are given might be partly explained

by the Jevons Paradox, or consumption

rebound effects, where consumers will

increase their consumption based on the

availability of the resource, and partly by

our need to consume the portion size that

we are given.

Similarly, consumers who are asked

whether they want fries with that, to up-

size, or choose a Value Meal instead of a

single burger, are being manipulated by a

psychological effect called the endow-

ment effect and explained by prospect

theory where they feel the pain of loss

more than the satisfaction of gain (it hurts

more to lose something than gain some-

thing) that ultimately leads them to

consume more than they actually need.

The push effect in this context is similar

to the wealth effect, where we adapt our

lifestyle to suit our income, rather than

simply saving more as we earn more.

Ultimately, access to highly processed,

energy dense food has meant that we

have increased our purchasing and eat-

ing behaviour (and our belts outward) to

catch up with its availability, rather than

continuing to consume as we always have.

The effect is devastating to both the envi-

ronment and to our health.

FOOD WASTE AND AMERICAN OBESITY 43

FOOD INCREASED

The calculated progressive increase of food

waste suggests that the US obesity epidemic has

been the result of a push effect of increased

food availability and marketing with Americans

being unable to match their food intake with

the increased supply of cheap, readily available

food, the authors wrote. Thus, addressing the

oversupply of food energy in the US may help

curb the obesity epidemic as well as decrease

food waste, which has profound environmental

consequences.

WASTE EPIDEMIC

A WASTEFUL EPIDEMIC

Americans waste about 1,400 calories

worth of food per person per day - or

40 percet of total their total food supply

with implications for climate change

and obesity. The researchers, from the

National Institute of Diabetes and Diges-

tive Kideny Diseases in Maryland, found

that food waste has increased 50% since

1974, reaching about 150 trillion calories

per year in 2003. This takes into account

wastage right along the food supply chain,

including waste from farms, manufactur-

ers , retailers and consumers.

For the food industry, reducing waste

could provide the dual benefits of lower

costs and imporoved environmental sus-

tainability as consumers are increasingly

taking ethical and environmental issues

into account at the checkout.

In addition, the authors argue that the

increase in food waste indicates an

excessive quantity of cheap food, which

could help to explain why the prevalence

of obesity has increased so rapidly from

15% in 1980 to 34.3%, with another 32.7%

overweight, according to the U.S. Depart-

ment of Health and Human Services.

INCREASED CALORIE INTAKE

Recent spikes in food prices have led to

increasing concern about global food

shortages and the apparent need to

increase agricultural production. Surpris-

ingly little discussion has been devoted

to the issue of food waste. Quantifying

food waste at a national level is difficult

because traditional methods rely on struc-

tured interviews, measurement of plate

waste, direct examination of garbage, and

application of inferential methods using

waste factors measured in sample popula-

tions and applied across the food system.

In contrast, national agricultural produc-

tion, utilization, and net external trade

are tracked and codified in detailed food

balance sheets published by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations. The food balance sheets provide

a comprehensive assessment of the main

national food supply, including alcohol

and beverages, adjusted for any change

of food stocks over the reference period.

Since 1974, there has been a big and

progressive increase in the per capita US

food supply. Over the same period, there

has also been an increase of body weight

as manifested by the US obesity epidemic.

We sought to estimate the energy content

of food waste by comparing the US food

supply data with the calculated food con-

sumed by the US population.

Energy from ingested food supports basal

metabolism and physical activities, both

of which are functions of body weight.

Surplus ingested energy is stored in the

body and is reflected by a change of body

weight. Because the average body weight

of the US population has been increasing

over the past 30 years, it is not immediate-

ly clear how much of the increased food

supply was ingested by the population.

Quantifying the food intake underlying an

observed change of body weight requires

knowing the energy cost of tissue deposi-

tion and the increased cost of physical

activity and metabolic rate with weight

gain. Here, we develop and validate a

mathematical model of human energy ex-

penditure that includes all of these factors

and used the model to calculate the aver-

age increase of food intake underlying the

observed increase of average adult body

weight in the US since 1974 as measured

by the US National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey (NHANES) .


1,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

TOTAL FOOD SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION

FOOD SUPPLY ADJUSTED FOR SPOILAGE, COOKING

LOSSES, PLATE WASTE AND OTHER LOSSES.

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000+

YEAR

CA

LOR

IES

Calories from the U.S. Food Supply, Adjusted

for Losses, Increased 19 Percent between 1983

and 2000. Rounded to the nearest hundred not

calculated for years before 1970.

150,000,000,000,00020

15

10

5

0

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN

PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS

PREVALENCE OF OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE

AMONG CHILDREN & ADULTS, BY YEAR.

1963-70 1971-74 1976-80 1988-94 1999-02

PE

RC

EN

T

150,000,000,000,000TOTALCALORIES WASTED

INCREASEDFOOD AVAILABILITY AND MARKETING

CREATESAMERICANSTHAT CAN NO LONGER

MANAGE PORTION CONTROL

Cutting portion sizes in half can contribute

significantly to your reduction of not only food

waste but also in increased calorie intake due to

large portion sizes.

FOODLOSS

CHAPTER 3 PRIMARY CAUSES OF

In countries who operate either commercial or industrial agriculture, food waste can

occur at most stages of the extensive food industry and in significant amounts. In

subsistence agriculture, the amounts of food waste are unknown but are likely to be in-

significant by comparison, due to the limited stages at which waste can occur, and given

that food is grown for projected need as opposed to a global marketplace demand.

Nevertheless, on-farm losses in storage in developing countries, can be high although

the exact amount is unknown.

FOOD WASTE IN FARMING

Food waste begins at farms. With lettuce,

for example, the average harvest rate has

been estimated at 85% to 90%. The rest

of the lettuceheads that dont look or

feel perfect on quick inspectionare left

in the field. One cucumber grower said

that at least half of the cucumbers on his

farms arent harvested,mostly because

they are too curved (making them hard to

pack) or have white spots or small cracks.

Farm losses are generally higher for hand-

picked fruit and perishable vegetables

than for machine-harvested commod-

ity crops like corn and wheat; about 9%

of commodity crops planted in the U.S.

arent harvested.

LOST IN TRANSIT

The average item in the produce section

of your supermarket travels some 1,500

miles before arriving at its destination,

either a wholesaler or a supermarkets re-

gional distribution center. These journeys

by truck, train, plane and ship bring more

opportunities for lost food, as items decay

or get damaged en route. In-transit losses

reach 10% to 15% for some crops, with

tomatoes, leafy greens and grapes among

the most fragile.

FOOD WASTE IN PROCESSING

U.S. supermarkets throw away an estimat-

ed 30 million pounds of food every day

damaged goods, expired products, dented

boxes and the like. According to a recent

study by the USDA, in 2006 supermarkets

tossed out, on average, 8% of their fresh

fruit, 8% of their fresh vegetables, 5% of

their fresh meat and poultry and 9% of

their fresh seafood. (Among the most

frequently discarded items were mus-

tard greens, at 61%, papaya, at 51%, and

veal, at 28%.) Some of the unwanted food

gets composted or donated, but most of

it ends up in landfills. Researchers also

estimate that American households waste

15% to 25% of the food that they buy, but

the actual figure may be higher.

Food waste continues in the postharvest

stage, but the amounts of loss involved

are relatively unknown and difficult to

estimate. Regardless, the variety of fac-

tors that contribute to food waste, both

biological/environmental and socio-eco-

nomical, would limit the usefulness and

reliability of general figures. In storage,

considerable quantitative losses can be

attributed to pests and microorganisms.

FOOD WASTE AT THE RETAIL LEVEL

Packaging protects food from damage

during its transportation from farms and

factories via warehouses to retailing, as

well as preserving its freshness upon ar-

rival. Although it avoids considerable food

waste, packaging can compromise efforts

to reduce food waste in other ways, such

as by contaminating waste that could be

used for animal feedstocks.

Retail stores can throw away large quanti-

ties of food. Usually this consists of items

that have reached their sell-by date or

use-by date Most, if not all, of this food is

edible at the time of disposal but stores

often go to great lengths to ensure that

poor or homeless people are unable to

access it. On the other hand some stores

work with charitable organizations to

distribute food they can no longer display

on their shelves. Retailers also contribute

to waste as a result of their contractual

arrangements with suppliers. Failure to

supply agreed quantities renders farmers

or processors liable to have their contracts

cancelled. As a consequence they plan

to produce more than actually required

in order to meet the contract, in order to

have a margin of error. Most of the surplus

production is thrown away.

Commercial kitchens (in hospitals, schools

and restaurants) throw away between 4%

and 10% of the food that they purchase,

for reasons like overproduction, spoil-

age, expiration, trimmings, burned items,

catering leftovers and contamination. Up

to 10% of the items at fast-food restau-

rants are discarded because theyve sat

too long after being prepared. The losses

continue on the plate. A researcher from

the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab

found that diners leave an average of 17%

of their meals uneaten, because of factors

like large serving sizes or unwanted side

dishes. And roughly 55% of major leftovers

arent taken home.

PRIMARY CAUSES OF FOOD LOSS 55

FOOD SCRAPS

REASONS FOR HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE

Consumer research identifies a large number of

reasons for households wasting food.

second-largest component of the national waste

stream, making up 19% of what we put into

landfills. (Americans compost only about 2.5%

of the food that they discard.) Food in landfill

creates methane, a source of greenhouse gas.

In addition, 2% of all U.S. energy consumption

goes into producing food that is ultimately JUST

thrown out.

PART OF FOOD NOT EATEN

PLATE SCRAPS

BOUGHT SOMETHING THEY ALREADY HAD

2%

FAMILY DIDNT LIKE

6%

LEFT OUT TOO LONG & CHILDREN REFUSED

14%

FOOD OVERCOOKED & DIDNT LIKE

18%

LEFTOVERS WHEN COOKING

31%

LOOKED OFF

35%

SMELLED OFF

46%

PAST USE BY DATE

48%

52% 55%

NOT ALL WASTE IS PREVENTABLE

Of course, not all food that is lost is suit-

able for consumption. Some losseslike

the condemnation nature of such losses

is much debated. Diseased animals at

the slaughtering house, or the discard of

moldy fruit from the produce shelf at the

supermarketare necessary to ensure

the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S.

food supply. Such foods are not recover-

able for human use.

Likewise, plate scraps are appropriately

discarded at eating establishments out of

health considerations. In addition, not all

food that is lost is economically recover-

able. Food recovery efforts are often lim-

ited by financial and logistical constraints

that make it difficult to match recovered

food with potential recipients.

Nevertheless, large quantities of whole-

some, edible food, are lost at every stage

of the marketing system. Examples of such

losses include meats, bread, and other

foods prepared by a restaurant or caterer

but never served and the discard of blem-

ished or over-ripe produce, which may be

unmarketable for cosmetic reasons, but

are otherwise nutritious and safe.

Even a modest increase in the recovery

of such wholesome foods could reduce

hunger by supplementing existing food-

assistance efforts; provide tax savings to

farmers, supermarkets, and foodservice

establishments that donate food; and

lessen the environmental impacts of waste

disposal. Understanding where and how

much food is lost is an important step in

reducing waste and increasing the ef-

ficiencyof food recovery efforts.

USDAs Economic Research Service

(ERS) recently undertook a review of

the current data on foodwaste and built

on this knowledge to generate new

estimates of food loss by food retail-

ers (supermarkets,convenience stores,

and other retail outlets), and consumers

and foodservice establishments (stor-

age, preparation, and plate waste in some

households and foodservice places.

According to the new ERS estimates,

about 96 billion pounds of food, or 27

percent of the 356 billion pounds of the

edible food available for human consump-

tion in the United States, were lost to hu-

man use at these three marketing stages

in 1995. Fresh fruits and vegetables,

fluid milk, grain products, and sweeten-

ers (mostly sugar and high fructose corn

syrup) accounted some of these losses.

ERS does not know the share of these

losses that are recoverable. However, we

can get an idea of the significance of loss

by calculating the potential benefit of

recovery. On average, each American con-

sumes about 3 pounds of food each day.

If even 5 percent of the 96 billion pounds

were recovered, that quantity would

represent the equivalent of a days food

for each of 4 million people. Recovery

rates of 10 percent and 25 percent would

provide enough food for the equivalent of

8 million and 20 million people.


The loss estimates presented here are

tentative and are intended to serve as

a starting point for additional research.

Many of the studies on which these

estimates are based on dates from the

mid1970s or before.

Dramatic changes have occurred in the

food marketing system since then, includ-

ing innovations in food processing tech-

nology and unprecedented growth in the

foodservice sector. While we made crude

adjustments for these changes in our

analysis, additional researchespecially

updated data on foodservice, processing,

and household food lossesis needed

to add precision to these estimates and to

provide a more complete picture of food

loss across the entire marketing system.

Research into the food industry of the

U.S., whose food supply is the most

diverse and abundant of any country in

the world, found food waste occurring at

the beginning of food production. From

planting, crops can be subjected to pest

infestations and severe weather, which

cause losses before harvest. Since natural

forces (e.g. temperature and precipita-

tion) remain the primary drivers of crop

growth, losses from these can be experi-

enced by all forms of agriculture.

96BILLION POUNDS OF EDIBLE FOOD ARE CONSIDEREDRECOVERABLE

PRIMARY CAUSES OF FOOD LOSS 59

NOT ALL FOOD WASTE IS AVOIDABLE

Of course, not all food that is lost is suitable for

consumption. Some losseslike the condem-

nation nature of such losses is much debated.

Diseased animals at the slaughtering house, or

the discard of moldy fruit from the produce shelf

at the supermarket are necessary to ensure the

safety of the U.S. food supply.

WASTE REDUCTION

CHAPTER 4 MAIN STRATEGIES OF

Specific criteria must be established in order to decide which possible alternative offers

the most successful solution. First, the solution must be effective. It must be easy to im-

plement and receive action by the largest amount of the population as a small response

would not give the desired results. Secondly, the solution must be feasible. It must have

the capacity to be initiated through regulations and laws, and still maintain reasonable

requirements. There are currently no incentives or regulatory laws that require residen-

tial or commercial disposal of food scraps in an efficient manner. This would be neces-

sary to ensure cooperation from the entire community. And lastly, the solution must be

affordable and, essentially, profitable. As the economy is constantly fluctuating, it would

be ideal if the solution could provide some type of payback into the system itself. The

best solution will go far beyond simply reducing the amount of food waste.

CONSUMER FOOD WASTE REDUCTION

The first solution targets the heart of

American consumerismthe household.

This method would attempt to make citi-

zens aware of the large quantity of food

that is wasted and educate each citizen

on beneficial ways to reduce, reuse, and

recycle. At its basis, this solution would

consist of properly storing food, not

buying bulk, better preparing meals, or

creating personal compost bins. Ideally,

the aim is for each citizen to consider all

the possibilities of what can be done with

food before tossing it in the trashcan or

using excess water and energy to grind it

through the disposal.

Whilst clearly a lot can be done to reduce

household food waste, it is important

to note that food waste coming from

food preparation in the home is often an

inevitable part of home cooking. Whilst

households might reduce their inedible

food waste (peelings etc) by purchasing

readily prepared meals, this would have an

impact up-stream by increasing produc-

tion of peelings etc in the supply chain.

There are a number of reasons for the

high percentage going to landfill: domes-

tic composting food waste is complicated

by the safety issues around meat based

foods, and recycling is not an option. So

households tend to see disposal in black

bins as being the default for many types

of food waste.

The environmental impact of food waste

disposed of in landfill is large. As food de-

cays it can produce methane (a significant

greenhouse gas). In addition the energy

used in production, processing, trans-

portation etc of most foods is significant

this is now often thought of in carbon

equivalent terms.

Though it may be the cheapest to execute,

the majority of consumers simply dont

realize how much food they actually

waste. This solution is considerably cheap

and affordable as it relies on the con-

scious consumer to make smarter choices;

however, it is not exactly feasible to enact

a law that instructs citizens not to buy

bulk groceries, cook too much food, or

require households to compost their

own waste. Even though the campaigns,

such as Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, which

surround this solution have reaped some

successful results, the need arises for food

waste reduction to take a bigger turn.

Although reducing food waste through

awareness is affordable, attacking this

growing problem solely at the consumer

level is clearly not the most effective or

only reasonable solution.

It was typical during the years of the depression

for families to have a food study chart in each

home showing what a typical portion size should

be. Here a mother measures her slice of bread to

verify the correct amount.

FOOD RECOVERY AND GLEANING

The second proposed solution is food

recovery and gleaning which also fails to

completely meet the specified criteria for

success. Again, this method entails the

collection of wholesome food for the dis-

tribution to the poor and hungry. This is

achieved through four main efforts. Field

gleaning is collection from fields that have

already been mechanically harvested or

where it is not economically profitable to

harvest. Perishable food rescue is recover-

ing food from wholesale or retail sources

such as groceries stores. Food rescue is

the recovery of prepared foods from the

food industry such as cafeterias or res-

taurants. Nonperishable food collection is

the recovery of food with long-shelf lives

such as canned goods (USDA, EPA).

While this solution is cost effective, it is

not fully effective or feasible. According

to the USDA, donations to food recovery

organizations were down by an astonish-

ing 9% last year and 20% of the requests

for emergency food assistance in the U.S.

were not met.

This solution cannot be completely effec-

tive as it lacks the ability to receive action

by a large majority of the population even

though it is extremely easy to utilize. In

Birmingham, Magic City Harvest is a non-

profit organization that collects prepared

and perishable food. While it has had

major impact in the greater Birmingham

area, this organization constantly sends

out flyers and letters begging for dona-

tions (The Harvester). Also, this method

does not take into account all kinds of

food waste such as the scraps that arent

suitable for consumption. This solu-

tion also fails to be completely feasible

as it is not practical for our government

to enact laws that require citizens or

companies to donate left-over or surplus

food. Many regulations must be put into

place concerning what can be deemed as

edible,and a system must be developed

that closely monitors this process (EPA).

This solution is, however, affordable as it

would not cost the consumer to take this

action. Eliminating hunger is certainly

a moral issue and for those who lack a

compassion for this cause, the problem

arises of motivating the population to

take the desired action, thus, failing once

again to be fully effective. Food recovery

and gleaning have the potential to be a

successful solution; however, as the only

method that is exploited, it lacks the abil-

ity to be fully effective and feasible.


GLEANINGIS THE ACT OF COLLECTING LEFT OVER CROPS FROM FARMERS FIELDS AFTER A COMMERCIAL HARVEST

FOOD RECYCLING

The third proposed solution is food recy-

cling or, basically, large-scale composting.

This solution is effective as well as feasible

but fails to be completely affordable. This

is easy to implement as consumers would

simply have designated bins to place ex-

cess food waste which would be picked up

just as normal trash. The job market could

be expanded for garbage disposal com-

panies. Production facilities would need

to be built that would turn the waste into

renewable energy. This would be a costly

process to initiate; buying garbage bins,

urging consumers to purchase bio-de-

gradable bags, educating the community

on how to properly dispose of their waste,

and building production plants. However,

this solution would be profitable. Entire

communities could be powered by their

own food waste. These facilities could

compost food waste to sell which would

be a safe, organic fertilizer that is free of

pathogens (EPA, Wie).

FOOD RECOVERY AND HIERARCHY

The final and best solution to reducing

he amount of food waste is the implemen-

tation of the food waste recovery hierar-

chy. The food waste hierarchy is effective

in that it includes all levels of food waste,

from the consumer to the manufacturer.

This can indirectly lower the purchasing

costs as consumers would buy only what

is needed. Disposal fees would decrease

as food banks offer free pick-ups for

donations, and composting fees are often

less than landfill fees. Sewage and elec-

tricity are decreased (Citizens Guide). The

hierarchy is feasible as certain regulations

can be implemented concerning disposal

methods and industrial procedures. Tax

deductions can be givento food organiza-

tions. The solution is also affordable and

contains the potential for revenue. Just as

the previous solutions, it does not incur

cost to take these actions, besides indus-

trially composting food for electricity and

heat. Utilizing the costly solution at the

end of the chain, this provides the largest

potential for food waste to be diverted in

more affordable manners. However, this

compost can be sold from the farmers and

back to consumers or other businesses,

thus, further harnessing the profitability

(Putting Surplus,Wie). The food recovery

hierarchy prioritizes methods of reduc-

tion in order to divert the largest possible

amount of food away from landfills in

every of the most effective, feasible, and

cost effective way.


STRATEGIES OF WASTE REDUCTION 69

356BILLION POUNDS OF EDIBLE FOOD AVAILABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS LOST SIMPLY BY HUMAN WASTEFULNESS

Advances in refrigiration, preparation, on both the

consumer and manufacturer if regulated could

help to drastically alter the food waste epidemic.

THE FOOD WASTE HIERARCHYINCLUDES ALL LEVELS OF FOOD WASTE CONSUMERTO MANUFACTURER.

WASTE

CHAPTER 5 TIPS FOR AVOIDING

In addition to the economic and ethical ramifications, our widespread squandering has

far-reaching environmental impact. Since each person creates roughly a half-pound of

food waste per day, we can play a significant role in reducing it. We have compiled this

chapter to ensure that you have some available ideas at your discretion to implement in

your household today.

FOOD

MARKING CHANGES THAT MATTER

Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do

without is a favorite adage in both frugal

and green circles, and it is something I

strive to live by. One of the best ways to

use it up is to think differently about our

food and ways to avoid wasting it. Lloyd

wrote a great post a while back about the

statistics for how much food we waste in

the U.S., and the numbers are, frankly, ap-

palling. On average, we waste 14% of our

food purchases per year, and the average

American family throws out over $600 of

fruit per year. Most of the food we waste

is due to spoilage; were buying too much

and using too little of it.

Weve all had it happen: half the loaf of

bread goes stale because no one wants

to eat sandwiches today, and the grapes

we bought as healthy snacks for the kids

lunches languish in the crisper. With a

little creativity, and an eye toward van-

quishing waste in our lives, we can make

use of more of our food before it goes to

waste. Here are a few ideas for you.

Of course, some food waste is unavoid-

able, especially if you have picky eaters in

your family. Sometimes you just cant get

a child to eat something you thought he

or she would enjoy. But many other forms

of food waste can be handled better.

Start off with how you handle your gro-

cery shopping. Think not only about how

much youre buying, but how soon it will

go bad. Being realistic about what you and

your family will consume in a reasonable

period will cut back on what you waste.

Food storage can make a big difference.

Some fruits can stay out for weeks and not

have a problem. Others go bad in days,

even in the refrigerator. The same goes for

all vegetables.

Meats, of course, need refrigeration, but

they can also freeze quite nicely. If you

separate your meat out into the quantities

you will need for cooking later, you can

buy meat in bulk, and freeze only the ad-

ditional excess.

Those sell by and use by dates can make

a big difference in how much food goes

bad in your home. If youre going to use

it up right away, you dont have too much

to worry about close expiration dates, but

if you know it will take a while for you to

use the entire package, watch that date

closely and get the best one possible.

You should also learn to save and use your

leftovers better. If you have a lot of left-

overs, they may freeze well. Then again,

they could be tomorrows lunch.

You can also think about how much you

eat. Eaten food isnt wasted, as such, but

it can go straight to your waist when you

dont want it to. Think about how much

youre eating. If you realize youre eating

too much, try cutting back.

Remember that much of your food waste

does not need to go into the trash. Much

of it can be composted instead. Citrus and

onions dont go in the compost so well,

especially if you use worms, but other

food remnants will do quite well. Then

you have great fertilizer for your yard and

the garden.


Eating a small quantity of food was once forced

upon Americans by the government. The im-

age depicts a typical weekly ration of food for

one person. Compare this to what you eat on a

weekly basis and see the drastic changes that

have occurred.


MANAGING FOOD WASTE HIERARCHY

The following graph summarises consumer

research results into consumers suggestions for

managing household food waste.

Whilst clearly a lot can be done to reduce house-

hold food waste, it is important to note that food

waste coming from food preparation in the home

is often an inevitable part of home cooking.

Whilst households might reduce their inedible

food waste (peelings etc) by purchasing readily

prepared meals, this would have an impact up-

stream by increasing production of peelings etc

in the supply chain.

REDUCE IT RE-USE IT+ BETTER PLANNING + IMPROVED STORAGE + INVENTIVE RECIPES + DONATIONS

SHOP SMARTLY

Plan a weeks worth of dinners and make a

detailed shopping list to prevent overbuy-

ing. Leave a few nights free for leftovers

or changing plans. Stick to your list and be

honest with yourselfdont buy produce

that often goes unused. (Click here for

Audubons handy label guide, an indispen-

sible source of info to help you decipher

the environmental claims plastered on

food products lining grocery store aisles.

AVOID PORTION DISTORTION

Dont dish out too much. Its easy to take

seconds, but we dont often save whats

left on the plate. And beware todays

massive plates make a reasonable amount

look tiny. If youre out to eat, know that

youll likely get more food than you need

or want. If leftovers leave you cold, halve

your recipes and order differently at the

restaurants you go to.

LOVE YOUR LEFTOVERS

Eat your leftovers. Its easy to keep the re-

mains of your dinner, but thats no help if

you dont eat them. Theyre ideal lunches,

and theyll save you time and money.

EXPIRATION EXASPERATION

Trust your senses before you rely on the

package date. Sell-by dates are aimed at

retailers and leave about a week to enjoy

an item at home. And best-by is less strin-

gent than use-by.

TIPS FOR AVOIDING FOOD WASTE 77

RECYCLE+ COMPOSTING + SEGREGATED FOOD WASTE

DONT DISH OUTTOO MUCH TODAYS MASSIVE SERVINGS MAKE YESTERDAYS PORTIONS LOOK TINY.

CHANGESTARTI NG TODAY

CHAPTER 6 PROMOTING THE

Successful food recovery programs can provide many benefits to society which can

offset a portion of these costs. Among other things, food recovery programs can help to

reduce hunger; provide tax savings to farmers, food manufacturers, retailers, foodser-

vice operators, and others that donate food; conserve landfill space; and lessen the

costs and environmental impact of solid waste disposal. And in all this is a benefit to all

of us that live in this country.

FOOD RECOVERY EFFORTS REACH

ACROSS MARKETING SYSTEMS

A Citizens Guide to Food RecoveryUSDA

has recently published A Citizens Guide

to Food Recovery, a resource guide on

food recovery programs for businesses,

community-based organizations, private

citizens, and local governments. The

Guide is designed to support food recov-

ery by showing communities, individuals,

and businesses how to support existing

food recovery efforts or to begin new

programs in their communities.

In addition to creating the Citizens Guide

USDA has taken a wide variety of steps to

promote citizen service related to all food

recovery and gleaning:

Food Recovery Roundtables

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has

convened round tables around the coun-

try to bring together interested nonprofit

groups, corporate leaders, social service

agencies, and Government officials for a

collaborative action on food recovery.

AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning

In the Summer of 1996, as one part of its

AmeriCorps program, USDA sponsored a

special AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning

program that implemented 22 food recov-

ery projects in 20 States. The program was

based on the so-called volunteer genera-

tor model, in which a handful of com-

pensated Ameri-Corps members recruit

volunteers to help implement large-scale

tasks. The 88 AmeriCorps members in the

summer program recruited over 1,600

volunteers who helped pick, sort, deliver,

and prepare recovered foods.

USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse

USDA has contracted with World Hunger

Year, a national nonprofit organization,

to develop the USDA National Hunger

Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse es-

tablished a communications network and

comprehensive database identifying all

known organizations providing hunger-

and poverty-related services, particularly

organizations supporting food recovery

efforts.

Food Safety Training for FoodRecovery

USDAs Cooperative State Research, Edu-

cation and Extension Service (CSREES),

in conjunction with the Cooperative

Extension System, is helping local hunger

groups recover food safely. Nationwide

outreach programs like Purdue Uni-

versitys Safe Food for the Hungry and

S.T.R.E.T.C.H. (Safety, Training, Resources,

and Education to Combat Hunger) teach

food-assistance workers how to transport,

store, and prepare food safely. They also

show groups dedicated to feeding the

hungry how to create nutritious meals

from the most commonly donated food-

stuffs and bulk supplies. USDAs Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is

working with the Chef and Child Foun-

dation, the philanthropic arm of the

American Culinary Federation, to expand

food-safety training for people serving

food to the needy at nonprofit feeding

program sites, including soup kitchens

and shelters.

One of the biggest and most significant changes

can be made easily by be more aware of your

purchases at the marketplace.


National Collaboration of Youth (NCY)

An umbrella group for such youth orga-

nizations as the Boy and Girl Scouts, Big

Brothers/ Big Sisters, YMCA of America,

and the Boys and Girls Clubs. The agree-

ment specifies how the over 40 million

members of NCY organizations will be

encouraged to volunteer to recover food.

Federal Cafeterias and Farmers Markets

In conjunction with USDA efforts, the

Washington cafeterias of the Department

of Justice, the Department of Energy, and

the Office of Personnel Management are

donating excess food to the DC Central

Kitchen in Washington, DC. The DC Cen-

tral Kitchen plans and distributes 3,000

meals per day, 7 days a week, to 95 charity

outlets across the Washington metropoli-

tan area. The Kitchen is in part staffed by

homeless workers 48 per year who also

receive 3 months of on-the-job training in

food preparation and management from

professional chefs who volunteer some of

operating skills.

USDA is also helping school districts in

both the Washington, DC, and Wichita,

KS, areas to involve students in commu-

nity service activities related to fighting

hunger and recovering food.

Public Service Announcements

USDA worked with the Fox Television

Network to air a plot-related public ser-

vice announcements

National Summit on Food Recovery

USDA, the Congressional Hunger Center,

and the nonprofit groups Second Harvest

and FoodChain will co-sponsor a National

Summit on Food Recovery, which will be

modeled on President Clintons Sum-

mit on Americas Future. The Summit will

bring together leaders from State, county,

and city governments, Indian tribes,

nonprofit organizations, religious groups,

large corporations, and small businesses.

All attendees will be asked to make specif-

ic commitments to increase food recovery

prior to the event.

FoodChain

FoodChain is the Nations largest net-

work of prepared and perishable food

rescue programs. It opened its doors in

the year of 1992 with a staff of only one

person. Today, 116 member programs

and 22 associate programs participate in

FoodChain, distributing nearly 100 mil-

lion pounds of food to some 7,000 social

service agencies each year.


Foodservice

Hundreds of nationwide and regional res-

taurant chains of various sizes, along with

individual foodservice outlets, are chan-

neling unsold food to local food recovery

programs.

Second Harvest

The largest domestic hunger relief orga-

nization, rescued 811.3 million pounds

of food in 1995 from going to waste by

soliciting donations of food and grocery

products from the Nations food industry.

Society of Saint Andrew (SoSA)

The SoSA Gleaning Network has recovered

more than 200 million pounds of fresh

fruits and vegetables since its founding in

1979, and distributed them to food pan-

tries and soup kitchens across the U.S.

Unsaleable Food Products

The food industry has developed a Joint

Industry Task Force on Unsaleables to

develop new strategies and incentives to

improve the condition of dented, bruised,

or otherwise damaged food products for

food banks. These unsaleables are chan-

neled through Product Reclamation Cen-

ters, which help retailers recover the food

for organizations that assist the needy.

These education programs that help

consumers change their food discard be-

havior may also be effective in preventing

food loss. For instance, educational pro-

grams that help meal planners determine

appropriate portion sizes and distinguish

between spoiled and safe food can help

consumers reduce plate waste and better

utilize leftovers. Improved meal planning

and purchasing skillsincluding informa-

tion that helps consumers understand

the meaning of manufacturers expiration

codes,and use-by and sell-by dates can

reduce the discard of food items.

Over the long run, the reduction and

recovery of uneaten food in the United

States is a complex undertaking requir-

ing the involvement of public and private

institutions, as well as consumers. Efforts

to reduce or prevent food loss must be

balanced against the cost of conserving

and recovering food.

PROMOTING THE CHANGE 85

FOOD DOLLARS IN THE UNITED STATES

The average allocation of every dollar spent on

food in the US. Thet tiny amount on the left ends

up in the hands of farmers and the rest of it goes

towards marketing.

84.2 MARKETING15.8 FARM

ONE U.S. DOLLAR

THE MARKETING AND FARMING DOLLAR

The USDA Economic Research Service

recently published a report that helps

shed the light on the cost of food. Take a

look at the interesting statistic above. For

every dollar we spend on food, less than

16 cents go to farmers. The rest is spent

on marketing.

This shouldnt surprise you. Authors get

pennies for every dollar spent on their

books. The bulk goes to the bookstores

(50%) and to publishers (2540%). And

in the music industry, numbers are similar.

The working man / woman creating the

actual goods is far from the end con-

sumer. Every stop along the supply chain

needs to make a living too.

But here is the good news for all the food-

ies out there who complain about the high

cost of organic grass fed beef or fresh

produce find a local farm and buy directly

from the source. between you and the

farmer theres 84 cents to split. Thats a

bargain for both sides.


FARMERS MARKETS

The USDA Economic Research Service

recently published a report that helps

shed the light on the cost of food. Take a

look at the interesting statistic above. For

every dollar we spend on food, less than

16 cents go to farmers. The rest is spent

on marketing.

This shouldnt surprise you. Authors get

pennies for every dollar spent on their

books. The bulk goes to the bookstores

(50%) and to publishers (25%40%). And

in the music industry, numbers are similar.

The working man / woman creating the

actual goods is far from the end con-

sumer. Every stop along the supply chain

needs to make a living too.

But here is the good news for all the food-

ies out there who complain about the high

cost of organic grass fed beef or fresh

produce find a local farm and buy directly

from the source. between you and the

farmer theres 84 cents to split. Thats a

bargain for both sides.

FOOD WASTE IS THE MOST OVERLOOKED ACT, THAT WE ALL PARTAKE IN.

It has such a massive impact on so many

aspects of our lives. There are so many is-

sues that come from wasting food includ-

ing the environment, sociological issues

or simply hitting our wallets. Its some-

thing that we cant continue to ignore and

have to change our ways if we want to live

more sustainably.

FOOD WASTE

GLOSSARYA

Agricultural Waste

Poultry and livestock manure, and residual

materials in liquid or solid form generated

from the production and marketing of

poultry, livestock or fur-bearing animals;

also includes grain, vegetable, and fruit

harvest residue.

Air Pollution

The presence in the outdoor atmosphere

of one or more air pollutants or any com-

bination thereof.

B

Bacteria

Microscopic living organisms that can

aid in pollution control by metabolizing

organic matter in sewage, oil spills or

other pollutants. However, bacteria in soil,

water or air can also cause human, animal

and plant health problems.

Biodegradable

Capable of decomposing under natural

physical conditions.

C

Commercial Waste

All solid waste emanating from business

or commercial establishments.

Compost

A humus or soil-like material created from

aerobic, microbial decomposition of or-

ganic materials such as food scraps, yard

trimmings, and manure.

Composting

A process of accelerated biological

decomposition of organic material under

controlled conditions.

D

Decomposition

The breakdown of matter by bacteria and

fungi, changing the chemical makeup and

physical appearance of materials.

Digestion

The biochemical decomposition of or-

ganic matter, resulting in partial gasifica-

tion, liquefaction, and mineralization of

pollutants.

Dump

A site used to dispose of solid waste with-

out environmental controls.

GLOSSARY 91

EEnd User

Consumer of products for the purpose of

recycling. Excludes products for re-use or

combustion for energy recovery.

F

Fill

Man-made deposits of natural soils or

rock products and waste materials.

Food Chain

A sequence of organisms, each of which

uses the next, lower member of the se-

quence as a food source.

Food Processing Waste

Food residues produced during agricul-

tural and industrial operations.

Food Waste

Uneaten food and food preparation

wastes from residences and commercial

establishments such as grocery stores,

restaurants, and produce stands, institu-

tional cafeterias and kitchens, and indus-

trial sources like employee lunchrooms.

G

Garbage

Animal and vegetable waste resulting from

the handling, storage, sale, preparation,

cooking, and serving of foods.

L

Landfills

Sanitary landfills are disposal sites for

non-hazardous solid wastes spread in lay-

ers, compacted to the smallest practical

volume, and covered by material applied

at the end of each operating day.

M

Marketing

The return of recyclables to productive

use. Marketing may involve the sale of

materials, or be a transaction without pay.

In some instances, marketing may involve

payment to a user.

Markets

The businesses who accept the recyclable

materials for reuse or processing, either

for their own consumption or for resale. A

public agency may also be a market.

O

Organic

1. Referring to or derived from living

organisms. 2. In chemistry, any compound

containing carbon.

P

Plate Waste

A small scrap or leaving of food after a

meal is completed.


RRecyclable

Products that can be collected and

remanufactured into new products after

theyve been used. These products do not

necessarily contain recycled materials and

only benefit the environment if people

recycle them after use.

Recycle

Minimizing waste generation by recover-

ing and reprocessing usable products that

might otherwise become waste

Refuse

Unwanted or discarded solid, liquid, semi-

solid or contained gaseous material.

Region

Two or more municipalities which have

joined together by creating a district or

signing an interlocal agreement or signing

a mutual contract for a definite period of

time concerning solid waste management

within such municipalities.

Residual

Amount of a pollutant remaining within

the environment.

Reuse

Using a product or component of munici-

pal solid waste in its original form more

than once.

S

Salvage

The utilization of waste materials.

Scrap

Materials discarded that may be suitable

for reprocessing

Solid Waste

(see refuse)

Sustainability

Meeting the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future gen-

erations to meet their own needs.

T

Trash

Material considered worthless or offensive

that is thrown away. Generally defined as

dry waste material

W

Waste

1. Unwanted materials left over from a

manufacturing process. 2. Refuse from

places of human or animal habitation.

Waste Generation

The amount of waste generated by a given

source or category of sources.

Z

Zero Waste

A goal that is both pragmatic and vision-

ary, to guide people to emulate sustain-

able natural cycles, where all discarded

materials are resources for others to use.

93GLOSSARY

COLOPHON 2 COPIES

PRINTED ON

CANSON 70LB PAPER FOR INSIDE PAGES AND

CANSON 100LB PAPER FOR COVER.

BOOKS WERE PRINTED ON HP B8550 PRINTER

IN MAY 2011

THE TITLES OF THE BOOK WERE COMPOSED IN

MISO TYPEFACE BY ADVENT ANDREAS K

THE BODY COPY WERE COMPOSED IN

MUSEO SANS & ITALIC BY JOS BUIVENGA

FOOD OVERLOAD HISTORY & EFFECTS OF THE FOOD WASTE EPIDEMIC

If youve wondered why Americans are

fatter than the average country, you may

find the fact that we have the highest

rate of food waste out of any of the other

developed countries in the world.

This book explores the history, as well as

the whys into this epidemic.Also, included

are ideas on how you can reduce your

overall food waste and begin becoming

part of the solution and stop being part of

the problem.

FOOD OVERLOAD HIST

OR

Y &

EFFE

CT

S OF T

HE

FOO

D W

AST

E E

PID

EM

IC D

ESIG

NE

D A

ND

CO

MP

ILED

BY

BIA

NC

A FR

AN

K

Food Waste : History & Effects of the Food Waste Epidemic

Documents

Transcript of Food Waste : History & Effects of the Food Waste Epidemic