You are on page 1of 22

Running head: WASTING AWAY?

LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

Wasting Away? Resource Allocation within a Local Food System: Report and Recommendations. Jaz Ammon University of Idaho

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

Abstract The food system employed on the University of Idaho campus in Moscow, Idaho was evaluated, with a focus on potential and existing inefficiencies. An attempt was made to outline some potential causes and effects of any loss of resources within this localized context. Four primary stages in the process of allocating food resources to students on campus were highlighted: production, processing, distribution and consumption. Accompanying issues associated with these stages of the food system, barriers in the form of legal restrictions were identified as preventing consumers access to some food items. Effects of misallocated inputs within this system were found in three broad categories: social, environmental and economic. Three semistructured interviews were conducted using the key- informant framework for selecting respondents. Interviewees represented Campus Dining Services and the Sustainability Center at the University of Idaho, as well as the Moscow Food Bank. Results from these interviews were viewed in light of current literature, with a recommended course of action proposed to address one aspect of the waste identified herein. This report recommends that further research be conducted to identify additional solutions to the remaining gaps in overall food system efficiency. Keywords: food waste, food system, inefficiency, hunger, environment, economics, localized food system

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

Introduction: As stated by Feeding America (2012), hunger in America exists for over 50 million people. That is 1 in 6 of the U.S. Population (Hunger in America). This fact exists in contrast with the findings of author Stuart (2012), who claims a country like America has four times the amount of food that it needs (Appendix, p. 3). According to Moore Lapp and Lapp (2002) the world produces more than enough to feed us all, while millions go without the food their bodies need to survive (Beinlich, et al., 2009, p. 73). Explaining such a discrepancy leads to the conclusion that large amounts of edible material is wasted within the conventional food system. According to Kantor and Lipton (1997), the U.S. food supply is the most varied and abundant in the world, while large quantities of wholesome, edible food are lost at every stage of the marketing system (Estimating and addressing Americas food losses, para. 1, 5). The primary points within the food system are production, processing, distribution, and consumption according to Griffin, Sobal, and Lyson (2009, p. 67). Improper allocation of resources within the process of food dissemination can be said to represent resources failing to meet the needs of hungry people affected by this system. This paper explores causes and effects of food waste and related inefficiencies within the University of Idaho [U of I] and greater Moscow, Idaho food system context; identifying these aspects provides insight necessary for increased efficiency. Food waste will be defined using terms provided by Gallo (1980) as cited in Griffin, et al. (2009), this being all food produced or purchased that is discarded by humans (p. 68). Primarily, consumer nutritional decisions and accompanying inefficiencies within the Moscow, Idaho campus of the U of I are analyzed. In the study by Griffin, et al. (2009), one U.S. community was analyzed with regard to food waste, identifying both environmental

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

perspectives and economic perspectives as grounding for the relevance of such inquiries (p. 68). Using Griffin, et al.s (2009) work as an outline, it is expected that factors contributing to food waste will be found within the four primary stages of the food system similar to the following: Production wastes occur... during storage from spoilage and pest destruction... inefficient processing methods that remove edible as well as inedible portions of food and spillage contribute to food processing wastes Distribution food waste incurs from improper food handling, packaging, and transportation... Consumer food waste occurs during food acquisition, preparation, and consumption (multiple sources, as cited in Griffin, et al., 2009, pp. 68-69; emphasis added). Sources of inefficiency and a significant contribution to food waste were found in the distribution stage of the food system by Nunes, Emond, Rauth, Dea, & Chau (2009). In this study, fruits and vegetables delivered at different stores were transported and displayed either in too cold or too warm conditions, causing them to be discarded due to premature spoiling (Nunes, et al., 2009). Food waste alone is an inadequate measurement of the full spectrum of potential inefficiencies within a food system. Other resources lost between the sowing of seed and the workings of human digestion may include: packaging (Williams, et al. 2012), irreplaceable fossil fuels, along with large quantities of fresh water (Moore Lapp & Lapp, 2002; as cited in Beinlich, et al., 2009, p. 73), nutrients from soils (McCaffree, 2012), and other valuable inputs. Thus, the current study will explore the possibility that loss of organic, edible materials is accompanied by other inefficiencies within the U of I community in Moscow, Idaho. All resources lost within the food system are expected to contribute to any effects found during

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

analysis. Methods: Semi-structured key informant interviews: The key informant interview approach outlined by Tremblay (1957) provided the theoretical framework for the current research. The process calls for key informants to be used primarily as a source of information on a variety of topics, such as... economic system, political structure and other specific areas of knowledge (Tremblay, 1957, p. 688). A major divergence from this well-accepted qualitative research approach represented in the current study was the inability to revisit each informant multiple times over an extended period of time. Interpreting the aforementioned process to meet the needs of this study, three respondents were selected for one individual interview regarding their specific knowledge regarding some particular aspect of the food system within the study area. Following the guidelines described by Whiting (2008), semi-structured interviews were utilized for the collection of participant responses (see appendices 1-3 for interview outlines). Whitings (2008) description allowed for the selection of good informants who possessed the following qualities: knowledgeable about the topic... able to reflect and provide detailed experiential information... and who were willing to talk (p. 36). Whiting (2008) also provided the guidelines followed herein for preparing, conducting, and transcribing the semi-structured interviews. Unlike Whitings (2008) process, the interview questions used within the current study varied from respondent to respondent as some were too specific to one informants area of expertise to be relevant in other interview contexts. Data was analyzed through a qualitative approach framed by the emergence of relevant themes by way of a subjective process of response integration. Firstly, the general manager from U of I Campus Dining Services, a subsidiary of the

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

Sodexo Corporation, was selected [interview 1]. The respondents intimate working knowledge of the process through which the university meets the nutritional needs of the student body provided useful context for the following interviews. See appendix A for the question guide employed during this first interview. One specific and 11 open-ended questions were employed, to allow the respondent to expand upon areas of expertise unhindered by the confines of more narrowly defined research instruments. The interview duration was thirty minutes, followed by a brief tour of the U of Is largest campus dining facility, Bobs place. The first respondent declined a voice recording of the interview; thus, analysis methods were altered to include hand-written notes rather than precisely transcribed interview responses in this case. Some direct quotes were repeated and manually recorded when deemed particularly significant. The second interview [interview 2] was conducted with the Sustainability Advisor from the U of I Sustainability Center. This respondent possesses a unique view regarding waste reduction efforts. The office represented by this respondent has had a strong influence in initiatives toward addressing resource inefficiencies in all areas of campus operations. In addition to the 30- minute interview, this respondent provided primary documentation in the form of a manuscript in the editorial stages which will be provided to the public on the World Wide Web when completed. The full recorded interview lasted 28 minutes, with both transcription of verbal responses and referral to the above-mentioned primary document included in analysis due to the frequency with which the respondent indicated this resource during the interview. See appendix B for a full interview outline for this interview. The third and final interview [interview 3] sought to include a voice from the wider Moscow, Idaho community. A second criterion for selecting the Director of the Moscow Food Bank (operated by St. Marys Catholic Church and volunteers) related to the social implications

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

of food waste mentioned in the background literature. This interview lasted 16 minutes, was recorded, transcribed and analyzed for relevant emergent themes in a manner consistent with the previous responses gathered. See appendix C for the questions utilized during this interview. Primary document review: Electronic resources, including web pages, recorded speeches, and publicly available U of I resources were consulted to provide a second source for verification of interview results. These primary documents were utilized as background foundational material, to inform any analysis and conclusions derived from the above methods. Results and Analysis: Analyzing the results from three interviews requires some background illustrated within each. The U of I was generally understood to be a major player in the local food system. According to the two campus authorities interviewed, Sodexo serves between 5,000 and 6,000 meals per day (interview 2) with up to 2,250 served in the largest dining facility alone (interview 1). In a community as small as Moscow, student dining choices represent the largest collective dining decision made in the community on a day-to-day basis (interview 1). In contrast with 350 and 450 people utilizing the Moscow Food Bank per month, the significance of decisions made at the U of I cannot be overstated (interview 3). Stemming partially from prior assumptions regarding this community dynamic, potential contributors to food waste are approached within the University of Idaho context specifically. A. Perceived causal factors: Interview responses provided unique perspectives on the specific food system analyzed herein. Framing apparent causal factors within the four part food system framework put forth by Griffin, Sobal, and Lyson (2009), potential inefficiencies within the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food were expected to contribute to waste. The significance of

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

each food system facet above was confirmed within the interviews. Notably, an additional factor contributing to the disposal of edible products also became apparent through interview analysis: rules and regulations governing food waste. These contributing factors are individually addressed below; the following results are quoted and paraphrased from specific interviews, with the source provided at the culmination of each paragraph. 1. Production: The U of I has a demonstrated need for a food service provider. The Sodexo Corporation has been contracted to meet this need, and thus the purchasing decisions of this entity determine the resources made available to the student body. Campus Dining Services is most definitely a part of food production, as the food provided at dining facilities is purchased by Sodexo from contracted producers. Sodexo strives to ensure that discarded food is eliminated, especially as the cost of food continues to increase (interview 1). The U of I has begun an initiative entitled Sustainable Considerations in the UI Food Service Contract, through which Campus Dining Services (Sodexo) has signed a food purchasing contract which stipulates the acceptable sources of food served on campus. One such requirement is that Sodexo purchase 71% of food provided at the University of Idaho from regionally produced sources and 12.5% from local producers. Local sources were said to decrease the carbon footprint created by the student body due to reduced fuel consumed during shipping and storage of items as compared to those sourced far afield. While specific percentages of food must be provided from close proximity to the site of consumption, little oversight exists within the university food system to ensure compliance with such guidelines. Following the food purchasing contract represents an opportunity to eliminate waste in the production of food served within the campus food system (interview 2). 2. Processing: The processing of food was identified as a significant contributor to waste

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

on the U of I campus. Steps have been taken to prepare recipes and cook specified proportions of food from scratch rather than providing instant meals for students. A device called a Tracker manufactured by LeanPath, Incorporated has been installed in the largest dining facility at the U of I. This device monitors the weight, type, and cost of all pre-consumer food products discarded by the kitchen staff, including any food item that has not been served to a patron of the facility. Additionally, this device requires the input of a reason (for example, overcooked, undercooked, leftovers) for the waste. This process allows campus dining services to record the contributions to waste created during processing and address specific causes based on their overall impact (interview 1). Processing of food was also mentioned within a broader context. If the raw materials (for instance steaks or spaghetti) for meals are prepared nearby where they are served, fewer resources must be allocated. Packaging, preserving, and storing food as it moves from processing facility to dining outlet require tremendous amounts of energy, water, and other materials. Therefore, implementing factories and decentralized systems for processing of grain and flour and bread and noodles and meat products and whatever else it is that Idaho and the Northwest produces heavily could increase the efficiency of the community food system as a whole (interview 2). 3. Distribution: The supply chain for food served on campus includes 5,400 pounds of produce per week which are provided primarily from the state of Florida, with the vast majority of all meat products being shipped from Kansas. In general business operations, Sodexo as a corporation purchases these items in large quantities and then distributes them out to individual dining facilities using established food hubs chosen for lowest economic cost. As part of strengthening food systems is to bring processing closer to home when it is economically

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

10

feasible, the infrastructure utilized to bring food from producer to consumer presents an opportunity for reduction of resource waste (interview 2). 4. Consumption: The vast majority of food waste produced on the U of I campus is post-consumer, the waste generated after food has been served. As food waste is not on consumers minds, Campus Dining Services focuses on raising customer awareness. When attempting to reduce such post-consumer waste, an effort was made to inform students that trays encourage excessive waste generation. Students were warned that trays would be removed only from Bobs place on the U of I campus, as the other dining facilities operated by Sodexo charge students either by item or weight. When a consumer utilizes an all you care to eat establishment, unique challenges arise regarding the quantity of edible material discarded. It was stated that having no limit (financial or otherwise) to the amount of food one can consume encourages additional consumption. The trays previously used in this facility were 4.5 square feet in area, which made it easier to try one entree from each station, a salad, a fast food item, and a dessert- all in one trip. While no such calculations were made at the U of I, another institution of comparable size saw waste reduction from 960 pounds to 160 pounds overnight from eliminating trays alone. The U of I facility noted that garbage receptacles were emptied only one time per meal when they were emptied three to 4 times throughout a meal with trays still in use. Another benefit of the trayless system was the elimination of 56,000 gallons of water, along with the associated energy and chemicals previously required for cleaning cafeteria trays at Bobs place (interview 1). Based upon the estimate that campus dining services produced 100 tons of waste per year, another sustainable consideration binding Sodexos operations at the U of I calls for a 90% reduction in waste. Materials sent to a landfill by Latah sanitation (which serves both

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

11

Moscow and the U of I) represent a substantial environmental footprint through transportation to a landfill 200 miles away in Oregon. Since 2008, efforts have been made to capture some of this waste through the Food and Farm Composting program. Over the past four years approximately 37 tons of pre and post-consumer food waste has been composted annually from Campus Dining Services. This waste is land applied as a soil amendment reducing the need for fertilizer, or otherwise utilized locally. This re-purposing of food waste has met 41% of the prescribed reduction in waste by Campus Dining Services, leaving 59% improvement to be made in this area (interview 2). 5. Rules and regulations: Aside from the inefficiency within the various stages of the established food system, legal restrictions can influence the manner in which uneaten food is disposed of. One potential source of donations to the Moscow Food Bank was ruled out because there was no healthy way or safe way to pass it on. Since we dont have a food handlers license, because we dont handle food in that way, food from restaurants or something, you know the leftovers is not provided to the hungry here in Moscow. While there have been times when different ones of them [restaurants] have attempted, to make donations, it is believed that theres no real safe way to package that type of donation. With these different salmonella outbreaks and things like that it is deemed too risky for the Moscow Food Bank to provide prepared meals to their patrons (interview 3). When Campus Dining Services attempts to provide prepared food to the hungry, as they do once per week in the local community of Troy, they must have a waiver signed by the recipient to avoid repercussions for health complications. Good Samaritan Laws cover charitable donations made by food service establishments, but the risk of litigation remains for anyone liable in the event of a health complication (interview 1).

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

12

In the case of post-consumer waste, when composting began at the U of I there was a State of Idaho Health Department statement made, acknowledging the program. It was accepted that the program was adherent to all outlined by the regulations. While this process didnt create a major obstacle for the re-purposing of wastes, it would be impossible to approve a program which redistributed such waste to new consumers (interview 2). B. Identified effects: Three unique perspectives emerged from the interviews with regard to the effects of food waste and other inefficiencies within the food system. A social outcome of poverty and hunger was addressed, particularly in interviews 2 and 3 which lay outside of expectations based upon literature sources. Additionally, an environmental impact of wasted resources was voiced within interviews 1 and 2. Finally, the influence of waste within the food system on economics was highlighted within all three interviews conducted. Results are categorized below in a manner consistent with the results reported for perceived causal factors. 1. Social themes: The Moscow Food Bank was represented within a task force assembled by the Mayor of Moscow which included the different agencies concerned with housing, healthcare, nutrition, and other key aspects of human welfare. Members of these organizations agree that it is necessary to identify what kinds of things can be done to address pertinent social issues in the area. Patronage of the Moscow Food Bank has increased during the past 5 years, and factors other than population growth are thought to influence this trend. As fuel prices increase, patronage of this charitable outlet rises noticeably. There are seven distributors of free food resources within Latah County, with the Moscow Food Bank being the oldest (being in operation over 30 years). Aside from food service leftovers, it is not believed that any potential sources of food donations are escaping the attention of local charitable organizations. The

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

13

existence of Backyard Harvest ensures that less conventional food sources are captured, as people can donate food, when they have things from their garden that they dont know what to do with, or they have an apple tree or any other unused food (interview 3). Additionally, with regard to local poverty and hunger, farmers struggle to make a living, and so the purchasing preferences of large consumers such as the U of I will affect them. Local purchasing guarantees allow farmers to have a more reliable income, which will alleviate poverty (interview 2). 2. Environmental themes: There is more to be considered with regard to waste than merely the bottom line in a business sense. Encouraging sustainability awareness among students can have far-reaching impacts, as eating is such an integral part of daily life. The habits formed in college often lead to lifelong behavior patterns, so encouraging and providing opportunities for environmentally minded eating practices in a campus dining setting can affect society as a whole. Eating in college should be viewed as an extension of the educational process, so innovations and sustainable initiatives must be promoted so students are aware of the impacts of their choices. Wastes such as packaging, water, and food materials all place a burden on the local community, as the citys public services are charged with disposal of campus garbage and other effluents (interview 1). A primary goal of campus food efficiency efforts should be to reduce the perimeter of where our food comes from a carbon footprint standpoint. A beautiful cradle to cradle system is the goal of sustainability efforts, in which all outputs from any activity are repurposed as inputs for another facet of the system (interview 2). 3. Economic themes: Economics are seen as particularly challenging with regard to increasing food system efficiency. Because the U of I is part of a really complex system and

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

14

web which is highly centralized and has been marked by a decline in infrastructure over the years causing processing to occur further and further afield. It was stated that part of strengthening food systems is to bring processing closer to home- when it is economically feasible. Efforts to be more sustainable within the campus food system can have economic benefits. Based upon the cost of $272 per ton for waste disposal fees charged by Latah Sanitation, composting efforts have saved the U of I approximately 7500 annually in avoided disposal costs (interview 2). These sentiments were made more urgent when viewed in the context of local poverty. When asked about determining factors for need, the response was given that with food banks it is pretty much income, as patrons either dont have it any more, or it has been reduced. Since so many of the jobs that folks have here are minimum wage type jobs or jobs that dont have benefits or maybe very minimal benefits economics affect what peoples needs are. Additionally, it was noted that theres not a lot of industry around here, so a lot of the jobs arent really high paying or stable (interview 3). Another perspective was provided regarding campus dining services particularly. When avoidable losses have been eliminated, it becomes possible for Sodexo to purchase a wider variety of ingredients, and then to better meet the needs of students within their price guidelines. As students pay for meals at the beginning of a semester, fluctuations in food price due to other economic forces can affect the ability of this corporation to provide the necessary service they have been contracted for. The amount that consumers are served determines what must be purchased, so even wasted food contributes to future budget needs (interview 1). Discussion: Findings from this study can inform decisions made to address both causes and effects of

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

15

food system inefficiencies in communities driven by large institutional players such as a major university. While the number of respondents does not represent a statistically significant sample of the community of interest, the professional working knowledge possessed by each key informant brought to light important aspects of the local food system. The facets of the food service industry represent important sources of food waste, yet it must also be recognized that they do not represent the complete portrait of waste across the food system (Griffen, et al. 2009, p. 68). Therefore, the present study must be viewed as only a partial assessment of the local food system within the Moscow, Idaho. Limitations regarding time, respondent willingness to participate, resources for physical measurement of outputs, and many other constraints contained the scope of this research to the perusal of primary documentation and a number of brief interviews. It must then be understood that the implications of any findings presented herein should be substantiated through further study. The earth is a finite system, wherein all inputs have limitations, and no good or service can be produced without the utilization of resources. If the full utility of all inputs necessary for the provision of foodstuffs is not maximized, the system is not fulfilling its intended function in the most effective manner. Dedicating freshwater, productive farmland, petrochemicals, fiber, metals, and other materials to the feeding of university students draws from the same pool of production factors needed to nourish the areas poorest individuals. Streamlining such a system, addressing the known causes of such gaps in overall efficiency, leaves more resources for the people with the most need. Much progress is currently being made toward limiting the waste escaping during each stage of the food system on the U of I campus. Given the amount of human hours, material and economic resources needed to transform raw materials into appetizing products, consumption

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

16

represents a pinnacle step in the food system. It could be expected that reductions in waste at the level of consumption would, in turn, eliminate loss of usable inputs during earlier stages in the system. Using this logic, waste directly created from the consumption of food should be further addressed on the U of I campus. Standing between the first consumer of a food product and the potential second consumer of the same product are both legal restrictions and societal norms which regard discarded food as unfit for consumption. Aside from humans, who possess both fragile morals and immune systems, many animals are highly adapted for utilizing post-consumer refuse. Among the primary omnivores consumed within the United States, chickens and pigs could quickly and efficiently transform rotten vegetables, moldy bread, and even spoiled meat products into fresh pork, poultry, and eggs. This study recommends that the U of I begin with laying hens, designing a system where freshly disposed-of food is fed directly to chickens. During the interview conducted at the Moscow Food Bank, approximately 15 dozen fresh eggs were packaged for donation to hungry members of the local community. Rather than relying on purchased eggs from distant sources, Campus Dining Services could provide free eggs to both their customers and the patrons of the areas food banks. The obstacle of rules and regulations would become more complex with fresh meat products such as pork and poultry, but a guaranteed source of year-round feed is herein identified. The simplicity of this proposal includes one final facet: droppings from animals are rich in concentrated nutrients, which can be applied to agricultural soils in place of the composted organic materials which are currently assigned to this use. With a look toward innovation and creative solutions, the U of I stands to eliminate many inefficiencies existing within the production, processing, distribution and consumption of at least one major food product provided on campus. This solution encompasses environmental, economic, and social effects of wasted resources. By reducing shipping costs and fuel consumption while providing an additional source

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

17

of employment within the Moscow area, this proposal could prove highly beneficial. In the words of interviewee 2, if we have regional food systems to feed ourselves it lends itself to food security and fewer people will fall into poverty because food will be more affordable. Its permanently strengthening.

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

18

References Bloom, J. (2010) American Wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Feeding America. (2012). Hunger in America. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america.aspx Griffin, M., Sobal, J., & Lyson, T. A. (2009). An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agriculture and Human Values, 26, 6781. Springer Science & Business Media: The Netherlands. DOI 10.1007/s10460-008-9178-1 Kantor, L. S., & Lipton, K. (1997). Estimating And Addressing Americas Food Losses. Foodreview, 20(1). Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. Lapp, F. M. & Lapp, A. (2003). Hopes Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet. New York, NY: Tarcher- Penguin, U.S.A. From: Beinlich, S., et al. (Eds.) (2009). Discussion Course on Menu for the Future. 73-74. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Earth Institute. Mathieson, J. (2012). New Food Systems web pages (under revision). Personal communication October 24, 2012. McCaffree, J. (2009). Reducing Foodservice Waste: Going Green Can Save Green. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2), 205-206. Elsevier, Inc.: Philadelphia. DOI:10.1016/j.jada.2008.11.038.

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

19

Nunes, M. C. N., Emond, J. P., Rauth, M., Dea, S., & Chau, K. V. (2009). Environmental conditions encountered during typical consumer retail display affect fruit and vegetable quality and waste. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 232241. Stuart, T. (2012). The Global Food Waste Scandal. TED Conferences LLC. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/tristram_stuart_the_global_food_waste_scandal.html Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Tremblay, M. (1957). The Key Informant Technique: A Nonethnographic Application. American Anthropologist, 59(4) 688-701. Whiting, L. S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nursing Standard, 22(23), 35-40. Williams, H., Wikstrm, F., Otterbring, T., Lfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044.

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

20

Appendix A: Interview 1- Director, U of I Campus Dining Services 1. What is your official position here with campus Dining Services? 2. I have identified four primary stages in the process of nutrition allocation, or the food system. These are: -Production, Processing, Distribution, and consumption Can you describe which of these stages campus dining services is primarily involved in? 3. Within the roles that Campus dining services fulfills in this system (described above), are there opportunities for reducing the amount of edible food that is discarded, or the amount of overall waste produced (for example expired products, scraps from preparation, etc.) 4. Are there currently processes in place to monitor the amount of food that is consumed by students utilizing dining services? How is this done? If so, is it possible to access this information? 5. How many students (approximately) are served by campus dining services daily? Is there a source of this type of information which I could access? 6. Similarly, are there processes in place to monitor the amount of organic waste generated through daily operations? How is this carried out? 7. Has dining services made efforts to reduce the amount of waste generated? How is this accomplished? 8. Have there been any innovations or changes in Campus Dining Services approach to managing waste within the last 5 years? 9. What entities determine how food wastes, including pre- and post-consumer edible material, is handled? (for example, is this the jurisdiction of the health department? Are there specific laws in effect?) How might I go about accessing these regulations? 10. Are there any currently established interactions between campus dining services (or Sodexo in general) and food-related charity organizations such as food banks? For example, is there potential for byproducts or unused resources from campus Dining Services operations to be donated to the hungry here in Latah County? 11. Are there any unique challenges for waste management within the operations of an all-youcare-to-eat dining facility? (For example, are there major differences in the Bobs Place operations and the Commons Food court in terms of waste generation)?

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

21

12. Finally, is there anything I havent mentioned here which you feel would be relevant to a study regarding food system inefficiency and hunger issues in the greater Moscow- University of Idaho community?

Appendix B: Interview 2- Sustainability Advisor, U of I Sustainability Center 1. I have identified four primary stages in the process of nutrition allocation, or the food system. These are: production, processing, distribution, and consumption In which of these areas do you feel the University of Idaho has the most potential to influence change? 2. In what ways is the University of Idaho Sustainability Center approaching food systems on the University of Idaho campus? 3. Is there currently potential for improved efficiency in any of the above food systems stages on the university of Idaho campus? 4. In what ways do you see the decisions made on the University of Idaho campus as affecting the larger Moscow community? 5. Particularly, do food systems processes on campus impact the local community? If so, how? 6. With regard to sustainability, have there been any efforts made to capture discarded food products for human consumption? 7. Are there any unique aspects within the University of Idaho context that make further sustainability measures specifically challenging? 8. What stands to be gained from increased efforts to promote sustainability focused initiatives within the food systems on the University of Idaho campus? 9. What types of regulations or legal restrictions determine how discarded organic material is disposed of on the University of Idaho campus? 10. Have there been any notable changes or innovations implemented with regard to food systems waste within the last 5 years? 11. Has the [University of Idaho] Sustainability Center considered the volume of food consumed on campus within the Appendix C: Interview 3- Director, Moscow Food Bank 1. What is your official position with the Moscow Food Bank?? 2. Are there any other similar efforts being made within the Moscow Community? (I.e. other

WASTING AWAY? LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM RESOURCES

22

food banks?) 3. About how many people utilize your services per month? 4. Have you noticed any trends in the number of people requesting food donations over the past 5 years (i.e. decreased or increased numbers)? If so, what might be influencing such trends? 5. What are this food banks primary sources of donations? 6. Are there any unique aspects of the Moscow Food Bank that make it different from other similar efforts? 7. Do you feel that there are any potential sources of donations that are not being fully taken advantage of within this community? 8. Have there been any efforts made by the Moscow Food Co-Op to cooperate with the University of Idaho? 9. Do you feel that decisions made by the University of Idaho have an impact on the poverty and hunger issues existing within the greater Moscow Community? 10. As food donations are just one approach to easing the burdens of poverty and hunger in this area, do you know of any other types efforts being made within the community? 11. Do you feel that there are any potential opportunities to alleviate these ongoing issues which are not currently being pursued within this community? 12. Do you feel that the waste of edible food material occurs within the Moscow Community? If so, what are the primary contributors to this issue?

You might also like