Proportional Waste

Wasted Food reader Gloria recently wondered how the trend of gigantic portions will be reversed (here’s a fun quiz she’s forwarded to illustrate the problem). Value has become one of the areas in which they compete. From heavy Thickburgers to $12.99 three course meals, quantity is in vogue.

Hopefully, this will change. But how? Given obesity levels, it would make sense to simply reduce the amount of food and the price. But I doubt restaurants would do anything that diminishes revenue. I can imagine they’d be happy to serve less food for the same price. And if the cost of food dramatically increased (and it’s now quite cheap, as I’ll discuss in the next post), it wouldn’t work from a business standpoint for them to slop huge portions on our plate.

I can imagine a consensus building that these “family-sized” or “value” entrees are both in poor taste and harmful to individuals. Then if one restaurant started offering something like “sensible-sized” meals and they caught on, you’d see all their competitors follow suit. A “less is more” attitude caught on in the 80s as ‘gourmet’ became a buzzword. Could it happen again? Stranger things have happened. Remember organic food was a loony, lefty idea five years ago and is now carried by everyone, including Wal-Mart.

That’s my guess on how businesses might reduce portions, and hence, waste. What about universities? I’ve been researching college food waste and recently toured Tufts University’s composting operations. Given the array of all-you-can-eat, self-serve cafeterias, undergrads are certainly ‘getting their waste on.’ Many schools mitigate this food loss by composting, but it’s still a major source of waste. This costs colleges twice–in paying for food and waste removal. Of course, at about $44,000 per year, Tufts likely passes along those expenses to students.

To get kids to pay attention to waste, Tufts measured waste one lunch in the Fall of 2005. They calculated about 3.5 ounces of waste per student. Harvard had slightly higher results of between 3 to 5 ounces per student per meal. Rob Gogan, Harvard’s manager of recycling and waste, said that the school runs an awareness campaign to let students know that each student wastes close to a pound of food each day. “We try to shame the students into not wasting food,” Gogan said. “We remind them that Jesus said ‘go out and gather what remains so that none shall be wasted.'” 

Since the shame campaign hasn’t really slowed waste, Gogan and others at Harvard think area may be more convincing than Jesus: “We’re looking at reducing the size of plates so that students can’t fit as much on them,” Gogan said. 

They may be onto something. And if it’s implemented, maybe we’ll see the idea spread to restaurant entrees.

February 14, 2007 | Posted in Restaurant, School | Comments closed

Mindless Wasting II

I just finished reading Cornell food psychologist Brian Wansink’s Mindless Eating. While the interesting book examines how Americans unwittingly eat more than we think we do, it provides plenty of fodder for wasted food discussion.

For instance, Wansink examines portion size at restaurants. American obesity can be partly blamed on gigantic servings that are now normal at restaurants, and waste often accompanies overeating. Wansink’s experiments show that cultural clues more than hunger determine the amount we eat. Usually, we decide what portion of a dish is socially acceptable to consume. If a diner determines that, say, eating three-fourths of the plate is appropriate, they’re likely to do so no matter how big the plate. And as Wansink points out, today’s dinner plates dwarf those from earlier eras.

Combine that with the fact that more than half of restaurant patrons don’t take home leftovers and you have increased waste. For example, if the an entree from, say, the 1980s had 1000 calories and a diner ate three-fourths, 250 calories were wasted if they didn’t take home leftovers. Now imagine the same scenario with a sensible-sounding entree like Chili’s Cajun Chicken Pasta, which has 1500 calories exactly, and you’d have 375 calories wasted.

If you consider the real monster of the menu, the 2020-calorie Fajita Steak Quesadilla with guacamole, you’re looking at 505 calories squandered.

One of Wansink’s solutions for mindless eating–serving less–works for waste, too. As Wansink writes:

In most of our studies, people can eat 20 percent less without noticing it. If they eat 30 percent less, they realize it, but 20 percent is still under the radar screen.

That means professional and household chefs can cut waste by dishing out 20 percent less than you think people may want. Few will notice the difference and it means less plate waste. This would work especially well at home, where we control portions and can easily take more if we’re still hungry. I know I wouldn’t have noticed the difference had I been served 20 percent less peas when I was a kid. Had I noticed, I sure wouldn’t have minded!  

February 13, 2007 | Posted in Household, Restaurant | Comments closed

Mindless Wasting

I’ve been reading Mindless Eating, Brian Wansink’s fascinating book examining how and why many of our food decisions are subconscious ones. Wansink, director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, studies the psychology of eating. I’d recommend perusing his past experiments at FoodPsychology.org. While his work focuses on getting people to eat less–a strategy I admire but don’t really practice–mine centers on wasting less. Nonetheless, our interests intersect.

To examine how a restaurant’s atmosphere affects eating habits, Wansink and his crew upscaled one section at a Hardee’s. He split participants between the regular fast-food atmosphere and this new room with white tablecloths, candles and smooth jazz. Those in the renovated room, who were told that Hardee’s was trying a new idea, had their food delivered to them. Not only did those in the fancier dining room stay an average of 11 minutes longer, they ordered more food from the servers who refilled drinks and asked if they wanted anything else. According to Wansink:

Although diners in the renovated room often ordered dessert, they compensated by eating less of their sandwiches and French fries, and drinking less of their beverages.

Another experiment linked mood to food waste. Wansink and two colleagues tracked popcorn eating at two movies. They found that filmgoers buckets averaged 29 percent less popcorn after a gloomy, “intellectual” film (Solaris) compared to a happy one (My Big Fat Greek Wedding). It’s the old ice cream sundae theory–we eat more when we’re bummed. But apparently we waste more at movies when we’re happy. Of course, the size of those buckets is another story (and one that Wansink discusses in the book).

Wansink also examined buying in bulk, which he found leads to the inevitable throwing out of what he calls “cabinet castaways.” This sentence rings true:

The great bargain of buying five pounds for $5 does not end up being so great if you eventually throw two pounds away. 

I’ve spoken with Wansink, who is as friendly as he is knowledgeable on all things food. He told me about his studies on leftovers and a few others that weren’t in the book. But for those, you’ll have to check for the next post. In the meantime, think about your food decisions–don’t be a mindless eater.

February 7, 2007 | Posted in Household, Restaurant | Comments closed

Corn in Our Sides

It’s time to discuss using food for fuel. Let’s talk ethanol.

In recent speeches, President Bush lauded ethanol as the way forward. This is certainly a big step for our President, albeit a false one. For starters, ethanol isn’t that green. First, one must factor in the pesticide and petro-chemical fertilizer runoff that’s a biproduct of growing corn. Second, ethanol’s relative inefficiency means that it emits more pollutants per unit of energy than gasoline. 

What’s more, ethanol use is a bit silly. As Michael Pollan wrote in his interesting book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, it takes about a quarter to a third of a gallon of oil to produce a bushel (56 lbs) of corn. While Researchers at the University of Minnesota found that corn-based ethanol produced 25 percent more energy than what was used to create it, it is much less efficient than biodiesel fuel made from soybeans, which creates 93 percent more energy output than the input.

Those findings are downright optimistic compared to Cornell’s David Pimentel, who calculated that there was a net energy loss from producing ethanol. I’m no scientist and I’d imagine the truth lies closer to the U. Minnesota figures, but it’s interesting to peek into this debate. By the way, Pimentel wrote that for ethanol to meet our fuel needs, we’d have to grown corn on 97 percent of the U.S. I’d like to see that on Google Earth!

It seems that the ethanol solution, while it sounds appealing, isn’t for us. Sugar cane ethanol is more efficient and that product isn’t abundant in the U.S. Now if cellulosic ethanol, the stuff made from plant stalks, grass and possibly manure, becomes more of a reality, then we can talk. It seems that if harnessed, this mix of grasses could be the most efficient plant-based fuel.

There isn’t enough corn to justify solely investing in corn-based ethanol. The USDA estimates that 19 percent of the 2007 corn crop will become ethanol, an increase from 14 percent in the last year. The Energy Department has a goal of 30 percent by 2030. But even if we converted all of our corn into ethanol, it would replace just 12 percent of gasoline use. We can spare some corn, considering the mountains of the crop we currently produce. But do we want to?

Because we do have large amounts of government-subsidized corn going to waste, using it to power your car is better than letting it rot. But pouring $5 billion into corn (Pollan’s figure) shouldn’t be government policy. How about not growing so much in the first place? Through incentives, the USDA should encourage farmers to diversify (Soybeans would seem a better energy crop). This may cause some difficulty at first, but would benefit the U.S. in the long run. Governement isn’t about taking the path of least resistance. Just ask tobacco farmers.

This may be a case where common sense prevails. Does fueling your car with corn really seem like a good idea? Food is meant to power humans, not vehicles. And sure, those vehicles could be tractors that harvest food, but why not end this loop of inefficiency and put those government subsidies into researching truly green energy sources that don’t chew up our food supply. Because from where I stand, ethanol seems like a waste.

January 31, 2007 | Posted in Farm | Comments closed

The Old College Try

As I mentioned before, I’ve been researching food diversion. This basically means diverting food scraps from landfills, where they only contribute to the harmful methane emissions.

This facet of wasted food is a bit of a tangent for me, as I’m most interested in the edible food that is squandered. But it’s interesting nonetheless. While we don’t think of food as a pollutant, it is the largest component of the waste stream and landfills are the leading U.S. methane emitters. What I recently learned is that methane, although 21 times more harmful than carbon dioxide, is responsible for about 20 percent of all global warming.

Of today’s world methane emissions, half are caused by humans. And no, I don’t mean by “passing gas” (although livestock burps and other “emissions” are a significant factor, as I learned from my time in New Zealand where the government proposed to tax farmers for their herd’s emissions).

But back to food waste. I’ve been looking at whether colleges divert food from their waste stream and if so, how they do it. The University setting makes perfect sense for composting–the form most diversion takes–they have the infrastructure, the will, the finances and a whole lot of food. When it works, it really works. 

Not far from me, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill began composting from cafeterias in 2000. They first diverted about 260 million tons of food each year, with pickups six times per week. In Fiscal 2005, they composted 468 million tons of food (see page 9 of the report). There are many universities doing similar things. In the Boston area, Boston University, Harvard, M.I.T., Northeastern, Tufts, and UMass Boston all seperate food waste for composting.

College food composting could get a boost from RecycleMania. The EPA-sponsored event, in its seventh year, pits schools against each other in a number of categories. One targeted material is “food service organics.” The competition began Sunday and runs until April 7. Curiously, the top six teams in 2006 “food service organics” were from New England.

While composting is quite useful, it is lower on the EPA food hierarchy than feeding excess food to animals. Unfortunately, composting is much more widespread than animal feeding. In my research, I  haven’t found many colleges that feed hogs. I know that Bob Shisler, a pig farmer from New Jersey, still collects food waste from Temple University in Philadelphia. He used to do the same with Villanova, but Shisler doesn’t need as much food because he’s raising fewer hogs today. I’ve heard anecdotally that the more factory farms won’t use food scraps because they want their piggies’ diet to be uniform. Food waste, while abundant, is not that.

January 30, 2007 | Posted in School | Comments closed

Mass. Improvements

New England Patriots fans like myself are pretty distraught this week. But cheer up, Massachusetts, things aren’t all bad. There’s some pretty neat stuff happening with wasted food in the state.

Most significantly, Bay State supermarkets are slashing the amount of food waste being sent to landfills. More than 60 stores are participating in the Supermarket Recycling Program, which saves supermarkets an average of $4,400 per year. Case study reports are available online for two chains: Roche Brothers and Stop & Shop.

With waste disposal in Massachusetts ranging from $80-$100 per ton, keeping organics from the dumpster is quite practical. Roche Brothers saved $60,000 between its three stores by separating and composting organic materials like food waste, paper and flowers (full disclosure–my mom is a regular at this supermarket). Each Roche outlet cut its total trash output by more than 80 percent. Stop & Shop, meanwhile, reduced trash disposal costs by 15 to 25 percent by sending dairy, bakeshop, produce and other waste to a commercial composter.

Shaw’s and Whole Foods are also taking part in this joint-effort between the non-profit WasteCap of Massachusetts, industry group Massachusetts Food Association and the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. It’s an important project, as supermarkets produce about 11 percent of the state’s food and organic waste (Supermarkets are the third largest source of food waste, behind manufacturers/processors and restaurants). As we discussed earlier, keeping this heavy, wet trash from the landfills helps the environment. It prevents methane emissions that landfills currently spew and leaching of harmful liquids into groundwater.

While composting is beneficial, donating edible, but not sellable food to food rescue groups is the best solution. On that front, Food for Free and other food recovery groups are doing their part. In addition, the new Boston Convention Center is diverting most of their organic waste from landfill, both donating food to non-profits and composting the rest. Food from on-site banquets and even certain expositions, like Boston Seafood Show, are either given to those less fortunate or composted.

Finally, there’s plenty of composting of food waste at local universities like B.U., Harvard, Tufts and UMass Boston. Even the Massachusetts Department of Corrections sends some food to a pig farm. I’ll be researching these locations in the upcoming days.

As we’ve seen, acting “green” saves these organizations plenty of green. It’s a real win-win. While I can’t say the same about the Patriots recent loss, take heart, Massachusetts. You certainly have some innovative uses for food waste. Besides, at least you don’t have to spend the next two weeks being reminded of the 1986 Patriots-Bears Super Bowl XX slaughter.

January 25, 2007 | Posted in Supermarket | Comments closed

The task (force) begins

This past week marked the beginning of a new venture: the first meeting of the tentatively-named North Carolina Food Waste Task Force. The group stemmed from a food waste seminar organized by some folks at the N.C. Dept of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance and the Carolina Composting Council.

We met last Tuesday at the Inter-Faith Food Shuttle‘s Raleigh headquarters and now we’re off and running. We discussed many topics, ranging from restaurant composting to the EPA food diversion hierarchy.

The task force’s stated goal is to divert food–both edible and inedible–from landfills. While I’m most interested in the former, the latter is more timely in North Carolina. While the state is in the midst of a year-long moratorium on building new landfills, the Governor’s office and the General Assembly are considering the wisdom of allowing the state to become a major trash importer. And just today, there’s a front page article in Raleigh’s The News & Observer about how biodegradable plates aid landfills.

Diversion is important because if food can’t be used, it shouldn’t end up in a landfill where its decomposition emits methane. That greenhouse gas contributes to global warming and is 27 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. Composting, if done properly, doesn’t release as much methane. Food is the largest component of the U.S. waste stream and landfills are the leading methane emitter.

Through composting and recycling, North Carolina now diverts about 6 percent of its food waste from landfills. While that doubles the national average, there’s no reason for 94 percent of the state’s food waste to be buried in a big hole.

This task force is open to anyone with a real interest in the topic. The next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 27 at 10 a.m. For more information, e-mail the friendly Brian Rosa of NC DPPEA (Brian dot Rosa at ncmail dot net). Did I mention Whole Foods donated lunch for the first meeting? And yes, the leftovers were put to good use–they were passed on to the Inter-Faith Food Shuttle, the food recovery organization that was hosting the meeting.

January 22, 2007 | Posted in General, Household, Restaurant, Supermarket | Comments closed

Weather to Waste?

If a cold spell kills a crop, is it food waste? Spurred by the California orange freeze, someone asked me that question this week. I’ve been pondering this “If a tree falls”-type puzzler ever since.

First, let me say that I’m focusing on food that is squandered due to human decisions. Nevertheless, it’s hard to ignore this sad news from a waste perspective. Unfortunately, most of the media reports do so. The articles I’ve read on the topic focus on how the freeze will affect individuals’ and companies’ bottom lines. Business trumps all.

The L.A. Times’ lead was dollar-oriented: “Orange Prices Rise as Supplies Plunge.” Meanwhile, a piece by the BBC speculated that the price of an orange will triple (from $0.50 to $1.50). And the BBC reported:

While Florida grows more oranges, these are mainly used to be turned into juice. Since California plays a small role in that market, juice prices are unlikely to see any change.

While that’s good news for an avowed O.J. drinker like me, media reports fail to ponder the larger question of wasted crops. Perhaps questions like those aren’t the domain of newspaper or broadcast journalism. But I’d imagine the issue would arise in some form. Not that I’ve seen. 

What’s more, efforts to salvage oranges from the freeze seem to be half-hearted. The L.A. Times reported from a packing facility in Ventura County, Calif: “Only a few sorters were working on what was left of fruit picked before the cold snap hit last week.”

Adverse weather–be it droughts, hurricanes or freezing temperatures–has always caused waste. To a certain extent, it always will. But I’d love to see some reporter ask what happens to all these frost-damaged oranges and tangerines. Are they composted or sent to the landfill? Not to mention, how does this cold snap (The L.A. Times’ phrase, not mine) affect the growers.

While this freeze is a waste of money, it also squanders other resources–the labor of planting, the oil to fertilize, and, yes, the food that will never be. Let’s hope the growers compost these frozen crops. That way, this year’s oranges aren’t a total waste–they’ll help make next season bear fruit.

January 17, 2007 | Posted in Farm | Comments closed

We’re Not Alone

A friend in London just sent me this link to a column in The Observer of London on sell-by dates. It seems we’re not the only ones chucking plenty of good food, nor am I the only one badgering folks about it. It’s interesting to read about parallel food waste awareness across the pond. Plus you get to see ‘wheeze’ used in Brit slang (see the subtitle).  

While the article discusses sell-by dates, as my previous post did, I promise I read the column well after I’d written that. The columnist notes that 60 percent of UK household trash is food waste. I’m a bit skeptical of the number (she hasn’t responded to my e-mail, but hopefully will), given what I’ve seen from the good ol’ US of trash producing A. If it holds up, though, we may have to pass along our trash producing title back to The Crown. Each American does produce 4.5 pounds of trash per day!  

The EPA’s 2005 waste characterization study, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, estimates that 12 percent of the entire waste stream consists of “food scraps.” But that figure is probably low because it groups food waste generated during the preparation and processing of food products into “industrial waste.”  

In addition, they don’t break things down into residential and commercial waste. Fortunately, California does just that in their 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. It reported that food was 17.3 percent of the household waste stream. On a related note, I was surprised that apartments and condos produce more food waste than single family homes. Maybe the UK has more apartments than we do, but I’m not sure that accounts for the 300 percent difference.   

January 11, 2007 | Posted in Food Safety, International | Comments closed

A Different Food Pyramid

Before this blog delves too far into specifics, we should talk about general guidelines on what to do with existing food waste. The EPA has set a nice standard with its Food Waste Recovery Hierarchy. As seen in the snazzy pyramid graphic below, here’s how they propose handling excess food (in order of preference):

  • Source Reduction – Reduce the volume of food waste generated
  • Feed People – Donate extra food to food banks, soup kitchens and shelters
  • Feed Animals – Provide food to farmers
  • Industrial Uses – Provide fats for rendering and food discards for animal feed production
  • Composting – Convert food scraps into a nutrient rich soil amendment

    • That means the worst case scenario is sending food to the landfill or incinerating it. This is because the plastic trash bags keep food from rejoining the earth. Also, a giant trash heap creates a boatload of methane, a greenhouse gas. Food is the largest component of America’s waste stream and landfills are the nation’s largest source of methane emissions.

    I especially like the first rule for handling waste–don’t create it in the first place. Here’s where you can tell that this hierarchy was produced by the EPA and not the Department of Agriculture or any other ag industry folks, who seem to emphasize abundance.

    Reduction is an admirable goal, but it seems to be easier said than done? One key to mimizing waste is predicting demand. The restaurant industry, and particularly fast food sector, have become better at this. Their main problem is that they often don’t have the shrewd managers needed to implement that forecasting. Plus, unpredictable factors like weather and traffic affect business. And restaurants never want to run out–chains see that as one of the worst things that can happen. As a result, they must keep extra on hand.  They still waste 10 percent of their food, according to Timothy Jones, a University of Arizona anthropologist.

    Of course, the reduction rule applies to you folks at home, too. Given that we tend to waste about 25 percent of our groceries, we should probably think through our supermarket purchases a bit more. In other words, make a list and try not to be swayed into impulse buys.

     food-hierarchy.bmp

    January 9, 2007 | Posted in General, Restaurant | Comments closed