Search for: All records

Food wasted in primary and secondary education institutions creates nutritional losses, financial inefficiencies, and environmental degradation. While there is some evidence of how particular interventions within schools may influence the amount of waste created, there is little recent information about typical levels of food waste generated in U.S. primary and secondary schools and how waste correlates with school and meal characteristics. We analyze data reported by more than 100 schools from 24 states as part of the World Wildlife Fund’s Food Waste Warriors project and identify how plate and beverage waste from school lunches are associated with school and meal service characteristics. We find schools that permit students to choose their own amount of milk report 76% less milk waste than those reliant upon individual milk cartons while schools that implement at least one non-curricular intervention (e.g., a table where students can share unopened food) report significantly less produce waste than other schools. We confirm several patterns observed or hypothesized in the literature, including more waste generated by younger students and during the earliest and shortest lunch periods. We document several novel associations including more plate waste at smaller schools, during winter months and in the Northeast region. We find several nuanced patterns of waste related to the prevalence of free and reduced meal service and whether all meal elements are offered versus served. While this study cannot support rigorous evaluation of intervention effectiveness, it provides insights into school and program characteristics that may pose challenges for schools interested in reducing student plate waste. 

PurposeFreezing extends the shelf life of food. Home freezing of fresh foods and the purchase of frozen foods have been advocated as approaches to reduce food waste in US households. This paper discusses how commonly US households apply these practices, quantifies frozen food waste and relates these practices to food waste. Design/methodology/approachWe add questions to the summer 2022 wave of the US Household Food Waste Tracking Survey. The novel survey data provide important baseline information and household behaviours, such as food waste, home freezing of fresh food and the purchase of frozen foods. We analyse the association among these behaviours from more than 1,000 US households. FindingsWe find that US household wastes about 26 g per person per week of food that was once frozen, which is about 6% of all household food waste. The finding indicates that a small portion of food waste in US households comes from frozen food. Vegetables and meats are the most commonly discarded frozen foods. Among the frozen items reported as discarded, about 30% were purchased as frozen rather than purchased fresh and then frozen at home by the consumer and about 30% more were reported as discarded from the refrigerator rather than directly from the freezer. The findings are important for informing strategies to reduce household food waste. Research limitations/implicationsWhile the data provide important baseline information and correlate the use of freezing with lower waste levels, more work is needed to understand if interventions encouraging frozen food purchase or home freezing would reduce household food waste. Originality/valueWe provide unique, detailed information about the quantity of frozen food waste in US households and the relationships between consumer food waste and the practices of frozen food purchasing and home freezing. 

These data were used to generate the results in the article “Household Food Waste Trending Upwards in the United States: Insights from a National Tracking Survey,” by Ran Li, Yiheng Shu, Kathryn E. Bender & Brian E. Roe, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (doi – pending). The Stata code used to generate results is available from the authors upon request. U.S. residents who participate in consumer panels managed by a commercial vendor were invited by email or text message to participate in a two-part online survey during four waves of data collection: February and March of 2021 (Feb 21 wave, 425 initiated, 361 completed), July and August of 2021 (Jul 21 wave, 606 initiated, 419 completed), December of 2021 and January of 2022 (Dec 21 wave, 760 initiated, 610 completed), and February, March and April of 2022 (Feb 22 wave, 607 initiated, 587 completed). We are not able to determine if any respondents participated in multiple waves, i.e., if any of the observations are repeat participants. All participants provided informed consent and received compensation. Inclusion criteria included age 18 years or older and performance of at least half of the household food preparation. No data was collected during major holidays, i.e., the weeks of the Fourth of July (Independence Day), Christmas, or New Years. Recruitment quotas were implemented to ensure sufficient representation by geographical region, race, and age group. Post-hoc sample weights were constructed to reflect population characteristics on age, income and household size. The protocol was approved by the local Internal Review Board. The approach begins with participants completing an initial survey that ends with an announcement that a follow-up survey will arrive in about one week, and that for the next 7 days, participants should pay close attention to the amounts of different foods their household throws away, feeds to animals or composts because the food is past date, spoiled or no longer wanted for other reasons. They are told to exclude items they would normally not eat, such as bones, pits, and shells. Approximately 7 days later they received the follow-up survey, which elicited the amount of waste in up to 24 categories of food and included other questions (see supplemental materials for core survey questions). Waste amounts in each category are reported by selecting from one of several ranges of possible amounts. The gram weight for categories with volumetric ranges (e.g., listed in cups) were derived by assigning an appropriate mass to the midpoint of the selected range consistent with the food category. For the categories with highly variable weight per volume (e.g., a cup of raw asparagus weighs about 7 times more than a cup of raw chopped arugula), we use the profile of items most consumed in the United States to determine the appropriate gram weight. For display purposes, the 24 categories are consolidated into 8 more general categories. Total weekly household food waste is calculated by summing up reported gram amounts across all categories. We divide this total by the number of household members to generate the per person weekly food waste amount.