Exploratory Research On Estimation Of Consumer-Level Food .

Exploratory Research on Estimation of Consumer-Level Food Loss Conversion Factors fruits and vegetables; cereals; combination dishes; and meat, fish, and poultry.The authors did not provide estimates of the percentage oflosses relative to purchases for these categories.A recent study of food losses in food service settings in Swedenfound that approximately 20% of food is lost, and more thanhalf of the loss occurs because of plate loss (Engstrom andCarlsson-Kanyama 2004). The study was based on visualexamination and recording of estimated percentage of wasteand semistructured interviews in two restaurants and twoschools. The study found that losses are typically higher, in the24% to 35% range, for food served in school cafeterias.However, the study excluded waste resulting from beverageconsumption. Preparation losses, which included removal ofinedible portions, was estimated to be 3% to 8% of the fooddelivered. Storage losses were minimal (maximum of 1%).Leftovers accounted for a maximum of 6% of losses. Plate lossaccounted for 9% to 11%, with losses being higher forpotatoes, rice, and pasta. The plate loss was extremely low formeat and fish.Similar to the Engstrom and Carlsson-Kanyama (2004) study, astudy of calorie losses from food served to students under theNational School Lunch program in the United States estimatedthat 12% of calories served are lost due to plate loss (Buzbyand Guthrie 2002). The foods with the highest amount of wastewere salad, vegetables, fruits, and bread. The authors notedthat estimates of plate loss in smaller studies ranged from 10%to 37% because of local variation in plate loss and differencesin methods used. The study with the highest estimated foodlosses found that more than half of salad, vegetables, potatoes,and bread were discarded as plate loss (Reger et al. 1996).A recent study of plate loss in schools was conducted byphotographing lunches after students selected their food andafter they ate it (Marlette, Templeton, and Panemangalore2005). Plate loss varied depending on whether studentspurchased competitive food items such as salty or sweet snacksor whether they did not purchase such items. For students whodid not purchase competitive food items, plate loss averaged2-4

Section 2 — Published Literature on Food Loss36% for fruits, 14% for grain products, 16% for meats, and18% for mixed dishes. Losses increased substantially forstudents who purchased competitive food items.2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING CONSUMER-LEVELFOOD LOSSAcross the published literature, the types of factors thatincrease the amount of food loss include the following: seasonality—more waste occurs in summer months(Gallo 1980) age of children—younger children waste more than olderchildren in school cafeterias and at home (Gallo 1980;Buzby and Guthrie 2002) gender—females waste more than males (Gallo 1980;Buzby and Guthrie 2002) income—higher-income individuals waste more thanlower-income individuals (Engstrom and CarlssonKanyama 2004; Buzby and Guthrie 2002; and vanGuarde and Woodburn 1987) setting—more waste is associated with hospitals andmilitary mess halls than with school and companycafeterias (Engstrom and Carlsson-Kanyama 2004) size of household—larger households waste more thansmaller households because of a greater number ofchildren in the household (van Guarde and Woodburn1987).The implication of these findings when estimating food loss forindividual food categories is that some thought should be givento which types of individuals typically consume the food and inwhich types of settings the food is consumed. However, basedon the published literature, only general inferences can bedrawn based on these factors.2.5 REFERENCESAdams, M.A., R. L. Pelletier, M.M. Zive, and J.F. Sallis. 2005.“Salad Bars and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption inElementary Schools: A Plate Waste Study.” Journal ofthe American Dietetic Association 105(11):1789-92.Buzby, J.C. and J.F. Guthrie. Plate Waste in School NutritionPrograms. March 2002. Final Report to Congress. ERS EFAN-02-009. Washington, DC: USDA.2-5

Exploratory Research on Estimation of Consumer-Level Food Loss Conversion FactorsEngstrom, R. and A. Carlsson-Kanyama. 2004. “Food Losses inFood Service Institutions Examples from Sweden.” FoodPolicy 29:203-13.Gallo, A.E. 1980. “Consumer Food Waste in the U.S.” ConsumerResearch Fall:13-16.Kantor, L.S. 1998. A Dietary Assessment of the U.S. FoodSupply: Comparing Per Capita Food Consumption withthe Food Guide Pyramid Serving Recommendations. ERSUSDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 772.Washington, DC: USDA.Kantor, L.S., K. Lipton, A. Manchester, and V. Oliveira. 1997.“Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses.”Food Review January-April:2-12.Marlette, M., S.B. Templeton, and M. Panemangalore. 2005.“Food Type, Food Preparation, and Competitive FoodPurchases Impact School Lunch Plate Waste by SixthGrade Students.” Journal of the American DieteticAssociation 105(11):1779-82.Reger, C., C.E. O’Neil, T.A. Nicklas, L. Myers, and G.S.Berenson. 1996. “Plate Waste of School Lunches Servedto Children in a Low-Socioeconomic Elementary Schoolin South Louisiana.” School Food Service ResearchReview 20(suppl):13-19.Van Garde, S.J. and M.J. Woodburn. 1987 “Food DiscardPractices of Householders.” Journal of the AmericanDietetic Association 87(3):322-29.2-6

Results ofRestaurantInterviews3Food consumed away from home accounts for nearly half oftotal food purchase expenditures. Less information is knownabout away-from-home food loss compared to at-home foodloss. To inform the development of food loss conversion factorsthat account for away-from-home food consumption, weconducted interviews with 14 kitchen managers to understandfood loss at restaurants. In this section, we describe theprocedures and materials used to conduct the interviews,summarize our findings, and indicate the implications of thefindings.3.1 PROCESS USED FOR CONDUCTINGINTERVIEWS WITH RESTAURANTMANAGERSWe describe below the procedures and materials used toconduct the interviews with restaurant managers. We recruitedparticipants and conducted the interviews in the winter andspring of 2007.3.1.1Development of Interview MaterialsRTI developed a project description sheet and a discussionguide for conducting the interviews (see Appendix A). Theproject description sheet provided potential participants with anintroduction to the project and helped individuals we initiallycontacted determine, if necessary, the appropriate respondentsfrom their establishments. The description explained thepurpose of the project, listed the general topics of interest,explained how RTI would use the information obtained,reiterated that all responses would be kept confidential, and3-1

Exploratory Research on Estimation of Consumer-Level Food Loss Conversion Factorsprovided full contact information for an RTI project memberand the ERS technical lead.The discussion guide was used to conduct interviews and recordresponses during the interviews. It included questions on thetypes of food loss that occur at their restaurants (e.g., cookinglosses, plate waste, spoilage, other types of food loss) and theamount of loss of certain food types (e.g., meat, bread, dairy).The discussion guide was general to allow for open-endedresponses from those we interviewed.3.1.2Recruitment of Study ParticipantsRTI used a variety of recruiting methods to recruit kitchenmanagers of restaurants to participate in the study, including calls to individuals at the headquarters of chainrestaurants from an online database, the ChainRestaurant Operators Database, 1 which includesrestaurant chains in quick service, family dining, andfine dining; calls to individuals at the local level of chain restaurantsin quick service, family dining, and fine dining from a listobtained through Dun & Bradstreet; calls to restaurants in Wake County, NC from a list ofrestaurants provided by the North Carolina Restaurantand Lodging Association; calls or in-person visits to personal contacts whomanage cafeterias; in-person visits to a variety of local restaurants in WakeCounty and Durham County, NC; and in-person contacts at the National RestaurantAssociation Restaurant Hotel-Motel Show in Chicago, ILon May 20–21, 2007.Recruiting restaurant managers to participate in interviews wasdifficult because they tend to have extremely busy workschedules, and they saw little benefit to themselves forparticipating in the study. 2 Also, staff members at the corporatelevel of chain restaurant were not willing to allow their staff toparticipate in interviews. This reluctance was either because123-2Information on the Chain Restaurant Operators Database is availableat http://www.csgis.com/csgisfrontend/catalog.do?code RSTG RESTAURANT.In the future, we would recommend use of a cash incentive toincrease the willingness of restaurant managers to participate ininterviews.

Section 3 — Results of Restaurant Interviewsthese staff members did not want to burden their employees orbecause they were concerned about revealing competitiveinformation. Some restaurant managers may consider food lossto be a sensitive topic because it affects profits, and there issome amount of cultural aversion to wasting food. We hadsubstantially more success recruiting participants throughin-person visits than by telephone because it was easier tobuild trust and a personal interest in the study.Once potential participants were identified, RTI provided theproject description sheet. After participants reviewed theinformation and agreed to participate, RTI scheduled ateleconference call or an in-person meeting. At the beginning ofeach interview, RTI reviewed the project description with eachrespondent and reiterated that all responses would beaggregated and that no identifying information would beprovided in the report. We used the discussion guide tofacilitate the discussions and record notes. The length of eachdiscussion ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hour.3.1.3AnalysisThe interviewers took extensive notes during each discussion,and a RTI team member summarized the responsesimmediately after each interview. The detailed summaries ofeach interview were systematically analyzed to identifycommon themes and any exceptions to these themes.3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF INTERVIEWSWITH RESTAURANT MANAGERSThis section summarizes the findings of the interviews RTIconducted with kitchen managers to learn about food lossamong selected food categories at the restaurant level. Ininterpreting the results of the interviews, it is important to keepin mind that restaurants seek to minimize food loss throughcareful timing of food deliveries, monitoring inventories,establishing loss standards, and training employees. Becauserestaurants are in business to earn profits, it seemed that someinterviewees sought to downplay the amount of food loss theyexperience. 33Some restaurants also reduce food loss by donating leftovers ofunserved food to homeless shelters and other community serviceorganization for altruistic reasons. One kitchen manager weinterviewed said that 5% of prepared food is donated daily.3-3

Exploratory Research on Estimation of Consumer-Level Food Loss Conversion FactorsOverall, we completed 14 interviews with kitchen managersfrom two quick service restaurants, seven family diningrestaurants, two fine dining restaurants, and three cafeterias.The kitchen managers worked for six national chainrestaurants, one regional chain restaurant, four independentlyoperated restaurants, one hospital cafeteria, one assisted-livingcafeteria, and one work-site cafeteria. Six restaurants were inRaleigh, NC, two restaurants were in Philadelphia, PA, and onerestaurant each in Atlanta, GA; Minneapolis, MN; and Detroit,MI. The kitchen managers of the hospital cafeteria and theassisted-living cafeteria are located in Canton, OH, and thekitchen manager of a work-site cafeteria is located in Durham,NC.3.2.1Meat, Poultry, and FishThe findings of the interviews for the meat, poultry, and fishproduct categories indicate restaurants and foodserviceestablishments receive frequent deliveries of these productsand that little is lost through cooking losses, none is lostthrough spoilage, and some is lost through plate loss. Asummary of the findings is as follows:3-4 Many establishments receive meat, poultry, and fishtwice per week, and a few establishments receive meat,poultry, and fish everyday, except Sundays. A fewestablishments receive meat and poultry at most twiceper week and fish at least three times per week. Oneestablishment receives meat, poultry, and fish once perweek. Most establishments do not lose meat, poultry, or fishduring food preparation. The majority of kitchenmanagers receive meat, poultry, and fish that are precut, so there is no preparation work or waste. Of the fewkitchen managers who receive meat, poultry, and fishwhole, many kitchen managers use the trimmings tomake stocks, but a few kitchen managers estimate theylose 5% to 10% of chicken, and depending on the fatcontent, 3% to 5% of red meat during food preparation. No kitchen managers said they lose meat, poultry, orfish during storage (because of spoilage or otherreasons). A few establishments throw away approximately 2% to5% of red meat that has been overcooked according tothe customer. However, one kitchen manager in NorthCarolina mentioned that hamburgers are rarely

Section 3 — Results of Restaurant Interviewsconsidered overcooked because state law requires allburgers to be cooked to at least medium-well.3.2.2 If establishments have any leftover cooked meat,poultry, or fish at the end of the night, a fewestablishments will refrigerate or freeze the leftoversand use them in lunch or special menu items. Mostestablishments’ leftover meat, poultry, or fish totals asmall percentage (e.g., less than 1%) and is thrownaway at the end of each night. Plate loss for meat, poultry, and fish uneaten bycustomers is relatively rare. However, at least twokitchen managers believe their portion sizes are toolarge and estimate customers do not eat 10% to 15% ofthe meat, poultry, and fish served. The two kitchenmanagers who work for the hospital and assisted-livingcafeterias estimate customers do not eat 25% and 40%of the meat, poultry, and fish served.Dairy ProductsThe findings of the interviews for the dairy product categoryindicate restaurants and foodservice establishments receiverelatively frequent deliveries of these products (but lessfrequently than meat, poultry, and fish) and that little is lostthrough cooking losses, a small amount is lost throughspoilage, and a small amount is lost through plate loss. Asummary of the findings is as follows: Many establishments receive dairy products twice perweek, while a few establishments receive dairy productsat least three times per week. A few establishmentsreceive dairy products once per week. Many establishments experience no loss of dairyproducts during food preparation. The few kitchenmanagers who remove sour cream and/or shreddedcheese from its original container to place it in anothercontainer lose about 1 or 2 ounces in the originalcontainer. The few establishments that slice or shredtheir own cheeses lose no more than 1% of cheese,which either falls on the floor or remains on the slicer.One establishment that makes its own desserts in-houseloses 80% of egg whites because most pastry recipesuse more egg yolks. Another kitchen manager said theestablishment loses about 1% of liquid margarine, whichis mostly used to grease the grill and cooking pans, tooveruse. Most establishments experience no loss of dairyproducts during cold storage. A few establishments lose,3-5

Exploratory Research on Estimation of Consumer-Level Food Loss Conversion Factorsat most, 1% of milk and cheese in cold storage. Onekitchen manager said the establishment loses about 3%of prepackaged, individual-sized yogurts and milkcontainers during cold storage. 3.2.3Most kitchen managers believe any unused amount ofbutter, margarine, creamers, or any other dairy productplaced on customer tables is immeasurable because it isa small percentage and generally not observed by staff.Fruits and VegetablesThe findings of the interviews for the fruit and vegetableproduct categories indicate restaurants and foodserviceestablishments receive very frequent deliveries of theseproducts (similar to meat, poultry, and fish) and a smallamount is lost through cooking and preparation losses, storagelosses (spoilage), and plate loss. A summary of the findings isas follows:3-6 Some establishments receive fruits and vegetables twiceper week. A few establishments receive fruits andvegetables everyday, except Sundays. A fewestablishments receive fruits and vegetables three orfour times per week, and one establishment receivesfruits and vegetables once per week. Most establishments interviewed do not use a lot offresh fruit. Most fruits, such as lemons, limes, andoranges, are used to make cocktails. Most restaurantbars discard less than 5% of unused, prepped fruit andlose less than 2% of fruit and fruit juices in cold storage.However, the kitchen manager of the hospital cafeteriaestimates anywhere from 0% to 25% of fruit that is ondisplay, depending on season, is discarded due toappearance rather than spoilage. The kitchen managerof the assisted-living facility mentioned that residentsusually take fruits with them if the fruits are not

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EXPLORATORY RESEARCH STUDY The purpose of this study was to conduct exploratory research on consumer-level food loss to help inform the development of a complete study to develop estimates of food loss for individual food categories. The exploratory research included reviewing published literature on consumer-level food loss,