Rooting Out Food Waste: The 5 Second-Rule Extension
By Justin Lindemann, NCSU Master of International Studies student
Globally, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted each year, which is about one third of all food produced for human consumption. Economically, that totals to about a $2.6 trillion annual loss, that could feed the 815 million (1 in 9) people that suffer from chronic hunger, 4x over. An overwhelming majority of those experiencing chronic hunger come from economically developing nations. Their source of loss comes primarily from the lack of preservation technology and post-harvest processing tools, while more industrialized nations find majority losses in wasted food at the retail and consumer side. The amount of food lost in production and distribution totals about two-thirds of global food loss, with new technology in the economically developing world having the potential to save one-fourth of food loss. Coincidently, if ¼ of lost or wasted food were saved, it could spell the end of global hunger.
On a national scale, the US experiences 40 percent of its food getting tossed as food waste every year, amounting to around $162 billion dollars of waste—almost 60 million meals. Compare that to the 49.1 million food insecure people (1 in 7) that could benefit from those thrown meals, and you start to see the massive disconnect we have with food, not just internationally but nationally as well.
Food waste is also a state level issue. According to a 2012 report by the NC Department of Environmental Quality (then named the Department of Environment and Natural Resources), an average of 1.1 million tonnes of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) food waste is tossed annually. The report also indicates that in Durham and Wake County, about 31,500 and 107,100 tons of MSW food waste is tossed respectively. That means that food waste isn’t just a global or a national issue, it is also a personal, local, and state issue.
Fortunately, with the current pandemic people have been throwing out less food in their homes. But, while consumers are throwing out less, producers, like farmers, have resorted to destroying and throwing out some of their produce. As temporary mitigation, the federal government is buying most of the extra food and shipping it to food pantries, and individual restaurants are even buying ingredients and selling them to customers themselves. Still, the issue of food waste has—for the time being—become one more of overproduction than overconsumption, so these strategies leave us at the same place we were before the pandemic, due to the lack of flexibility in the current linear economy.
The continued prevalence of this issue has of course had a profound impact on our environment as well. For example, the food that we waste simultaneously wastes the water used to grow and sustain it. Wasted produced also means wasted water. Meat production is one of the largest water stressors, as the total amount needed to produce just one pound of beef is about 1,800 gallons of water.
Speaking of meat production, the amount of land used for food production is also affected by our wasteful consumption, as 1.4 billion hectares of land (28% of the world’s agriculture area) is used annually for the production of food waste. All of this land that was once home to countless species of flora and fauna is now displaced.
The majority of this waste is concentrated in landfills, producing one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the waste sector, primarily from methane.
The silver lining in all of this mess is the capability to challenge the problem with various policies, all in an attempt to circularize the current life-cycle of food products. Attributing policies to local areas in the Triangle could prove impactful. This can include the use of municipal composting programs, exemplified in Fort Collins, CO. They use a curbside pick-up method, and impose a 3-bin system that takes into account compostable items. As a result, the city has built adequate recycling areas and trash enclosures for all new housing construction, to provide space for the additional waste. Increased composting reduces the amount of food waste in landfills, and brings added nutrients to the soil.
Another policy that shows potential in effect is the use of a zero waste businesses rebate, which Austin, TX currently uses. Austin's businesses can earn rebates up to $1,800 to expand zero waste efforts, like reuse, recycling, and composting programs. As previously mentioned, expanded compost methods can have a large impact on any area, especially the size of a city like Austin. The rebate can even be used for reusable service ware and compostable paper products, and other needed composting equipment. Thus, the policy has the potential to reduce food waste, as well as other sources of trash.
Localities can also take a different route, and instead of mainly enhancing composting, they can redirect surplus food from food businesses to assist organizations that serve those that need it. Seattle, WA’s Public Utilities Food Recovery Program has operated with that very premise since 2006. And has provided nearly $400,000 in total grant money to 19 hunger relief organizations, diverting about 23,000 tons of surplus food over 10 years, yielding $1.2 million in savings due to reduced disposal costs. Offering a grant like this, with its aim at source reduction and recovery, can push more organizations to focus on both aspects.
An example of an organization that could benefit from such a policy, and have made it their mission to reduce food waste and hunger, is the Inter-Faith Food Shuttle. They have several important programs helping low-income communities and others, who are dealing with chronic hunger, while recovering food annually—recently as much as 6 million pounds. Their food shuttles operate in 7 counties, including Wake, Durham, Chatham, and Johnston, and the organization operates teaching gardens in Raleigh and Durham.
So, food waste isn’t just a minor blip in our relationship with the environment, nor is it a small character in the climate crisis. This issue intertwines itself with social issues like hunger, as well as resource issues like water scarcity, and it deserves our attention. The policies needed to address this problem at every level of society need to affect change in a way that moves our relationship with food into one of knowledgeable consumption/production—aware of the damage that can and is being done. The effectiveness of the solution is dependent on the collective action of government, industry, and individuals, as our food habits and linear thinking need to change.
