1999 Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board
Institutional On-Site Food Waste
Composting Survey
Final report
By the University of Minnesota
December 1, 1999 - January 31, 2000
T. R. Halbach, C. Rosen, H. Flashinski, and B.
Keogh
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate
Waste Utilization Unit
612-625-3135
Table of Contents
Executive SummaryThe purpose of the Study was to gather baseline information about institutional food waste reduction and on-site composting in the six county Twin Cities metro area. It identified barriers to on-site composting and has resulted in five recommendations for developing new institutional food waste reduction programs.
This study was conducted by telephone between December 1, 1999 and January 31, 2000. A total of 275 institutions were telephoned with 99 agreeing to participate in the survey. The survey included 25 questions.
The survey resulted in key findings related to, number of meals served in 1999, number of institutions interested in on-site composting, alternative methods of reducing food waste, written policies related to food waste, understanding of food waste reduction barriers, and the number of institutions interested in receiving more information about food waste reduction.
Some of the results include:
School districts provided the greatest number of meals in 1999.
53 of 99 institutions said they would not be interested in composting, 10 said yes; 29 said they did not know.
None were currently using on-site composting.86 of 92 said they used portion control.
22 said they donated food to others such as food shelves.
Half had a written policy relating to food waste management.
66 didn't know where their food waste goes.
Barriers to reducing food waste include training issues, staff time, costs, and lack of space.
Our Recommendations include:
Different types of institutions have different needs. The general categories used in this study appear to be a good starting point from which to develop new food waste reduction efforts. Schools are different from Hospitals, etc.
A multi-pronged approach to food waste reduction is more likely to be successful than any single program. On-site composting alone is not likely to current goals.
On-site composting is most practical for those institutions that have both the space and staff interest in food waste composting. Work with those who are interested first.
"Up-front" reduction efforts including better menu planning, storage, presentation, portion control, etc. are the most accepted methods of food waste reduction and should be further developed.
Cost saving are a very important to the institutions and will need to be present in order to affect significant change.
Developing effective educational programs for food service managers would be a logical first step in reducing food wastes. Bringing kitchen staff and waste management staff together from a single institution or institutional type may improve food waste reduction efforts. If you want to reduce as much food waste as possible you may want to work with the school districts first, followed by correctional facilities, and then nursing homes.
The Problem and Past Studies
The SWMCB has set a goal of reducing 75,000 tons of food waste per year from the
MSW stream within the next four years. Given the resources available, a baseline survey
of opinions from institutional managers of food services was determined to provide the
most useful information. The Board authorized the Chair to execute an agreement with
the University of Minnesota to conduct a survey that would collect information on
institutional food waste and on-site composting. The agreement was for $11,113. The
University of Minnesota / SWMCB Agreement was fully executed on December 16,
1999.
Reducing food wastes and finding beneficial uses for this material are important waste management issues in the United States today. In 1997 about 27 percent of America's food was thrown out. This amounted to, on average, more than 300 pounds of food per person per year ending up in landfills. The annual cost of this food waste disposal was estimated at around $31 billion. (Economic Research Service, USDA, Estimating and Addressing America's Food Losses, 1997)
The most extensive study of landfills to date (Rathje, William L., National Geographic, Vol. 179, No. 5, May 1991, p. 116-134) showed that 9% of residential garbage by weight was edible food, and another 11% was inedible food by-products including fruit and vegetable peels, pits, skins, and bones.
Other studies conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the University of Minnesota Extension Service, and the University of Arizona Garbage Project found that food wastes made up 7 - 27 percent (by weight) of the total municipal waste stream.
While food waste at 14 % is the second largest component in this country's municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, it currently is the least likely material to be recovered, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997 Update). Thus, there is a great deal that could be done to dramatically increase the amount of excess food that is recovered and recycled
In March of 2000, R. W. Beck, Inc. reported the results of a MSW composition study for the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. This most recent study found Food waste to make up 12.4 % of the MSW composition for the statewide results (table 1-9) and 11.0 % for the Metro region (table 1-3). This study found that "Residential" loads averaged 11.5% food waste (table 4-4) and "ICI" loads averaged 10.8 % in the metro area (table 4-5). The R. W. Beck study did not specifically break out the types of institutions defined in this telephone survey.
Finding ways to reduce and reuse food wastes is not a new idea. Many technologies and alternative uses for food waste have been studied over the years. All these efforts have focused on reducing the amount of food waste going to landfills, while finding valuable and socially beneficial uses for the material.
One of the pioneering studies of food waste was conducted in 1941 by Horace Schwerin and Phalen Golden for the United States Army. A common complaint about Army life, at the time, was the poor quality of the food. In order to address these complaints, Schwerin and Golden conducted a study. The study included the use of observer recorders, questions of the mess staff, and measurements of food and food waste.
After 2.4 million meals were "observed" they wrote their "classic" food waste study. These pioneering methods are still used today as a case study in university waste management courses.
Schwerin and Golden found that 20 % of all the food served by the Army was thrown away. Some of the reasons for this included: preparing more food than was needed; serving too large of portions; serving food that the troops had not eaten before or did not like such as kale, spinach, okra, brussel sprouts, and kohlrabi; and poor food handling.
The study showed that soldiers ate more if they did not have to wait in line to find a table after they had their food. They ate more when the hot food was hot and the cold food was cold. The study also showed that the more time soldiers were allowed for eating, the less food was wasted. When soldiers were permitted to come and go from the mess hall on their own initiative rather than by command, food waste went down.
The foods with the lowest amount of waste included cakes, cookies, canned fruit, and ice cream. In fact, they found that the soldiers could eat all the ice cream they were served, regardless of the amount. The U. S. Army adopted many of the study's recommendations and the result was a savings of 2.4 million pounds of food waste each day, or about 438,000 tons per year. Good menu planning, portion control to meet individual preferences, adequate time to eat without rushing, and serving foods that people enjoy are principles from this study that we can apply to food waste reduction today.
A Description of This Current Study
In May 1999, the University of Minnesota, Department of Soil, Water, and Climate,
Waste Utilization Unit, responded to a request for proposals (RFP) from the Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) to research the potential for institutional on-site composting as a means to reduce food waste going to landfills and energy recovery
facilities. With institutions like schools, hospitals, correctional facilities, shelters and
nursing homes serving more meals than ever, the SWMCB identified the need to develop
additional baseline data on institutional food wastes for the six county Twin Cities
metropolitan area.
The lack of accurate measurement and data on solid waste in Minnesota has plagued planning efforts for more than a dozen years. The Minnesota Recycling Digest, (August, 1988, Vol.1, No.1) reported the need for "disseminating research findings and current information" on waste management. This study seeks to provide additional accurate information on institutional on-site food waste composting.
The main focus of this study involved interviewing selected institutional food waste generators to determine what they were currently doing with food wastes, and to determine how the SWMCB could best assist them in reducing their food waste production. The outcomes of this study will be used to determine the potential for expanded on-site food waste composting.
According to this agreement the Project would include:
A Project Team consisting of Carl Rosen, Judy Hunter, Cathi Lyman-Onkka, Marcus Zbinden, Monte Hilleman, Mark Rust and Thomas Halbach was established.
The Project Team decided to use a telephone survey as their main information-gathering tool. Later Heidi Flashinski and Bryan Keogh, graduate students who made the telephone calls, were added to the Project Team.
In addition, Dick Krueger, Program Evaluation Leader, University of Minnesota Extension and Sandford Weisburg, the Director of Statistics Consulting Services in the Department of Applied Statistics, at the University of Minnesota were consulted on survey design and results. The excellent staff work and cooperation resulted in obtaining a great deal of information that will be of value in developing future SWMCB programs.
This study used telephone surveys as the main method of collecting and analyzing opinions about institutional food waste in the six county Twin Cities metropolitan area. Given budget and time limitations, it was determined that a telephone survey of 100 institutions would be an adequate sample size for data collection.
Using existing mailing lists from the SWMCB, Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Education, and telephone book listings, twenty four (24) hospitals; nine (9) correctional facilities; thirty three (33) colleges; thirty six (36) missions/shelters; one hundred twenty nine (129) nursing homes and fifty two (52) public school districts were selected as the potential population of institutions (283) to be surveyed. Of the 283 institutions, 275 were actually called in order to obtain a total of 100 completed surveys. Ninety-nine different institutions have been included in the final summary. This was a participation rate of 36%, an excellent result for a telephone survey.
The survey was conducted with the "most knowledgeable person" about food waste in each identified institution. Each institution that was called was given the option of choosing to participate or not participate in the survey. Those who chose not to participate were not included in the survey results.
Due to this procedure the telephone survey was NOT random. The institutions that elected to participate in the telephone survey wanted to be in the study and may be different from those institutions that choose not to participate.
We generated a set of random numbers for each of the six types of institutions for which we had mailing lists. These randomized lists were split between the two callers. The callers were instructed to call a minimum number of contacts from each of the six types of institutions which were: hospitals (15); correctional facilities (9); colleges (18); missions/shelters (12); nursing homes (20); and public school districts (26).
After all of the contacts on the minimum lists had been given an opportunity to participate in the survey, the callers were allowed to use an "alternate list" of random contacts and continue until they had completed a total of 50 survey forms each. This technique was done to insure that all types of institutions would have an opportunity to participate in this survey.
As a result of this process, the following number of surveys for each category were completed: hospitals (13); correctional facilities (6); colleges (19); missions/shelters (9); nursing homes (30); and public school districts (23); for a total of 100 surveys. After reviewing the surveys, it was determined that one institution had been surveyed by both callers, so a total of 99 different institutions were included in this study.
The survey contained a total of 38 questions-thirteen (13) informational questions and twenty-five (25) opinion questions. This was probably eight to ten questions too many, as several people interviewed said the survey was too long.
Two students, Heidi Flashinski and Bryan Keogh were hired to make the phone calls and complete the 100 surveys. They received two training sessions of approximately three hours each on the goals and methods of the project (see Appendix A). Both callers had previous professional experience in telephone survey work. The phone surveys were conducted from December 13, 1999 to January 31, 2000. For further information about the survey content, see Appendices A, B, C and D. These appendices contain the actual scripts, disclosure forms, and questions that were used in this study.
Survey responses were entered into a Paradox 9.0 relational database. The numeric values were transferred into Quattro Pro 9.0 files where all sums, counts, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Narrative reports were prepared in WordPerfect 9.0. Data were summarized for all 99 institutions that participated in the survey. It was also summarized by the six sub-categories including: colleges; correctional facilities; hospitals; nursing homes; public school districts; and shelters/missions.
General Data about the Institutions:
As mentioned earlier, the total number of institutions surveyed in each of six categories
was: hospitals (13); correctional facilities (6); colleges (19); missions/shelters (9);
nursing homes (30); and public school districts (23); for a total of 100 forms. After
reviewing the surveys, it was determined that one institution had been surveyed by both
callers, so a total of 99 different institutions were included in this study.
Of the 99 institutions surveyed, 92 of them served meals. On average, these 92 institutions served 2,710 meals per day for an average of 299 days per year. Institutions did range widely, however, in the number of meals served each day. The lowest number being eight, and the highest number being 45,000. These institutions averaged 50,565 meals served in 1999, with the minimum being 730 and the maximum being 4,600,000.
These results indicate that each of these categories of institutions are different in terms of their descriptive statistics. This suggests that in developing food waste reduction programs that you may need to customize them to meet the needs of each type of institution rater than try to use a one-size-fits-all approach. School districts clearly provided the largest number of meals in 1999. If you want to reduce as much food waste as possible you may work with school districts first , followed by correctional facilities, and then nursing homes. This assumes that the number of meals served is strongly related to the amount of food waste generated.
These institutions had from one to 90 dumpsters with seven being average. The average dumpster size was 12 cubic yards. The 92 institutions disposed of, on average, 18,983 cubic yards per month of solid waste. It was estimated that this waste contained from 7% - 20% food waste by weight. The institutions surveyed spent on average $2,541 per institution on food waste management in 1999. There was a wide range of costs, however, from $1 to $30,000. Many institutions indicated that they did not know how much money they spent on food waste disposal.
Eighty-four of the 92 institutions surveyed had garbage disposals, but the percentage of food waste being disposed of in a garbage disposal varied widely. Almost one-third of the institutions disposed of less than 7% of their food waste using a garbage disposal. Approximately 22% of the institutions disposed of over 50% of their food waste using a garbage disposal. Only 22 of the 92 institutions used trash compactors.
Thirty-four of the 92 institutions estimated their total trash to be over 50% paper waste, such as paper towels, napkins, contaminated cardboard, etc. Thirty-one of the 92 institutions estimated their total trash to be less than 20% paper waste.
72 institutions believed that food waste management was an important issue in their institution, however, 56 of those institutions surveyed did not see food waste management as a growing issue.
Approximately half of the institutions surveyed had a written policy relating to food waste management. Sixty-six institutions did not know where their dumpsters were taken for disposal. Of those who knew, 14 went to landfills and 11 went to energy recovery facilities.
When asked about the greatest barriers to reducing food waste in their institutions, 14 identified knowledge or training issues, nine identified staff time issues, six identified cost issues, 12 did not know, and 47 listed other reasons.
When asked if they would be interested in on-site composting of food waste, 53 institutions said no with only 10 saying yes. Of the ten saying yes, one was a college, one was a correctional facility, two were hospitals, two were nursing homes and four were school districts. Twenty-nine institutions did not know.
Informational Needs and Interests
Institutions expressed interest in obtaining information on the following topics (in order
of preference): food minimization, food reuse programs, and food waste composting. If
these institutions were to contact someone for information on food waste reduction, they
would contact the following organizations (in order of preference): "Other" as listed in
Appendix F, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Minnesota Department of
Health, the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Office of
Environmental Assistance, County solid waste office, and the food inspector.
For the specific tallies for each survey question, see Appendix D.
Comparison of Institutional Categories:
This survey shows that the different types of institutions studied varied greatly in the
amounts of food waste generated. Some institutions provided very few meals, and thus
produced very little food waste. Other institutions provided a large number of meals, thus
producing a large amount of food waste.
Public school districts, for example, served many more meals than any of the other five institutional types. The public school districts accounted for 66% of all meals served, even though they served meals for a significantly fewer number of days per year. If efforts to reduce food waste were to be directed at only one type of organization, public school districts would appear to be the first audience to target, since they serve the largest number of meals.
This study also showed that most kitchen staff do not manage the disposal of food wastes for their institutions. However, in most cases, our phone interviewers were directed to kitchen or food service staff when they asked to speak to the most knowledgeable person about food waste. Only in a few cases were the phone interviewers directed to the waste management staff person for the institution.
For some questions, a majority of people surveyed said they did not know the answer. When a large percentage of people do not know the answer to a question, it may have been a poorly worded question or it may be a question they never thought about before. Sometimes a high percentage of "I don't knows" is an indicator that this issue plays a low level of importance in a respondent's professional work.
Questions # 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 had a high percentage of specific responses. Kitchen staff did know how many meals they served and how many days per year they served meals. They may also have accurate data on costs per meal, calories per meal, etc.
The very high percentage of "I don't know" responses to questions # 5, 6, 7, 8 and 17 clearly indicates that most kitchen staff have limited knowledge about the specifics of food waste at their institutions. Only 22% even attempted to give the size of the dumpsters that their institution uses. Most of the people surveyed did not know where their solid waste ended up.
Question # 10 and 14 may have been confusing. Did the question mean the "kitchen" dumpster only or all of the dumpsters an institution has? The amount of food waste in the kitchen dumpster would likely be a higher percentage of food waste than if all the dumpsters at an institution would be considered together. Paper waste from plates, napkins, cups, and cardboard would also likely be higher in a "dining hall" dumpster than in an "average" dumpster. Given the possible confusion of these questions, additional studies should be carried out to actually measure the number of dumpsters and their contents.
Looking at these data collectively, however, it is clear that an effective program to reduce food waste will likely require working with both kitchen staff and waste management staff cooperatively.
Use of Food Waste Management Technologies
Based on the responses to questions 15 and 17, none of the surveyed institutions were
managing their food waste with on-site composting technology. Only 10 out of 92 or
10.9% indicated having an interest in actually conducting on-site composting of food
waste (question 19).
The study revealed that 35% of the institutions expressed interest in receiving additional information about on-site composting. We can conclude that on-site composting is not currently a popular method of managing institutional food waste and that the likelihood of getting more than 10 % of the institutions to actually adopt on-site food waste composting systems within the next four years is small. However, the one correctional facility who was interested in on-site composting was very interested! They felt that on-site composting could help in improving inmate security by reducing the number of times per week the gate was opened. Other sites might have other reasons for wanting to compost on-site. Educational programs could be directed to those institutions who already have an interest in on-site composting.
With no institutions currently composting food waste on-site, the lack of knowledge about rules, operating parameters, costs, customer and public approval, and acceptance by superiors are the greatest barriers to on-site composting. Fact sheets, demonstrations, cost accounting, conferences, tours, and subsidy programs, are all possible tools to address these barriers.
We would recommend working with the institutions that said they wanted more information about on-site composting and develop a specific program to meet their needs. If on-site composting can be shown to be superior to current food waste management technologies, then and only then, are these institutions likely to adopt the practice.
Barriers to Reducing Food Waste
This survey identified the biggest barriers to reducing food waste to be:
This would suggest that providing new information and developing effective educational programs for food service managers would be a logical first step in reducing food wastes.
Institutions, both public and private, are sensitive to money and how money is allocated within their budget. The cost of buying food, storing food, preparing food, and serving food accounts for much more of the total food service budget than does the disposal of food wastes. Food waste disposal costs are a very small percentage of the budget of the food service operation. Often the cost of providing meals is managed within a budget that is separate from the food waste disposal budget.
These types of "enterprise" organizations do not lend themselves to a single source of information or program, to reduce food waste. If cost savings in food waste disposal can be returned to the kitchen budget, people who work with or manage this budget are more likely to look for innovations that lower food waste disposal costs.
Institutions indicated that methods to reduce food waste "up front" were more useful than cost saving methods that occur after the food waste has been generated. Food service managers are interested in more efficient operations, lower costs per meal, food safety, complying with all governmental requirements, and satisfying customers all before trying to reduce food waste.
This information should be used to develop food waste reduction programs that focus on "traditional" food service topics including: better meal planning, purchasing, portion control, and food serving that can also be used to reduce food wastes. Costs saved are the greatest interest to food service managers!
Estimate of Food Waste Generation
It is often helpful to estimate the magnitude of an issue in broad general parameters. The
SWMCB service area included 2.2 million people in 1999. If this population has the
same average food waste production as the national average of 300 pounds per person per
year, then it is estimated that the total food waste generated in the SWMCB service area
in 1999 was 660,000,000 pounds or 330,000 tons.
Assuming food waste is 27% of the total amount of food prepared, the total amount of food prepared in 1999 was 330,000 tons divided by 27% or 1,222,222 tons. This is equivalent to 2,444,444,000 pounds of food prepared. If we divide this number by the average number of meals per year, which is 1,095 (2,444,444,000 / 1095 = 2,232,369), and then divide this result by the 1999 population (2,232,369 / 2,200,000 = 1.015), we can estimate that the average meal in 1999 weighed 1.015 lbs.
If we take the 33,000,067 meals served by the 35% of the institutions identified in this survey (33,000,067/.35 = 94,285,906), and assume that they are in fact representative of all food serving institutions in the service area, the total number of meals served by institutions in 1999 would be 94,285,906 meals. With an average weight of 1.015 lbs. per meal times 94,285,906 meals equals 95,700,195 total pounds of food served by institutions in 1999.
If the total pounds of food served by institutions (95,700,195) is divided by the total pounds of all food in the service area (2,444,444,000) we arrive at an estimate that institutions prepared approximately 4% (95,700,195 / 2,444,444,000 = 0.04) of all the meals consumed in the SWMCB service area in 1999.
If these estimates are correct, the SWMCB's goal of reducing food waste that goes to incinerators and landfills by 75,000 tons in the next four years will require a 22.7% change in food waste reduction or management from the 1999 practices (75,000 / 330,000 = 0.227). Better measurements, more accurate data, more realistic assumptions, can and should be used in this type of analysis.
The above very rough estimate shows that it would be very difficult to achieve this level of change in food waste management by targeting institutions alone. If all institutional food waste was reduced to zero, a great deal of additional work with non-institutional groups would still be required to meet this goal.
With a growing population, an aging population, the current very robust economy, and a starting point marked by lack of firm quantitative measurement of the baseline, it will take exceptionally well planned actions to achieve this outcome.
In 1999, the SWMCB contracted with R.W. Beck to conduct a municipal solid waste composition study for the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area. It would be interesting to compare this 1999-2000 study with the earlier published studies in regard to industrial food waste amounts and percentages, this is beyond the score of this report.
Historical trends can be very valuable in developing and implementing MSW plans.
Although beyond the scope of this study, it would be interesting to compare these studies with the Food Consumption for 1994-96 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It would be especially interesting to compare the type and amount of food eaten at home compared to the amount and type of food eaten away from home.
In Summary
This survey was a summary of the perceptions expressed by professional institutional
food management staff. It was not a direct measurement of actual food waste amounts. It
can provide insights into what people believe to be true and how they would like to see
issues addressed. But it may not give totally accurate information about what is actually
taking place in food waste management.
It is unlikely that a single answer or technology (for example, on-site composting) will significantly reduce institutional food waste by itself. A more rational approach would be to try to reduce food wastes using a wide range of approaches that address the needs of both institutional food service staff and waste management professionals.
Techniques that reduce the generation of food wastes will most likely be superior to techniques that manage wastes after they have been generated. Up-to-date information on better meal planning, purchasing, portion control, and food serving may be the most effective means of reducing food wastes. Along with this, accurate information on "food-for-people" programs, "food-for-livestock" programs, centralized food waste composting programs, vermiculture, and on-site composting should also be provided. These efforts need to acknowledge that "costs saved" are the bottom line!
This study did not answer all of the questions pertaining to reducing institutional food waste. It did, however, provide information that will be useful in developing future food waste reduction programs.
Below is an overview of the information provided to the phone interviewers during their three hour training.
Some General Notes and Survey Tips
Most people will be very helpful, especially if you ask them for their help. Some people
will not be nice to you on the phone. People are busy and this survey will take time and
thought away from their normal job. You may be calling just when they learned that the
power went off in the kitchen and there will be "no hot lunch today!" and they have 400
hungry people expecting to be fed.
We will be polite to everyone we speak with during the survey both in words and in tone of voice. We need their cooperation for the survey to be successful. We need to project a positive and professional image of the University of Minnesota, the Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and ourselves as individuals.
The correct response for you is always "Thank You"! If people are nice and help you complete the survey quickly, thank them. If they can't talk right now, thank them. If they are loud, mean, nasty, name calling, vile, obscene, and obnoxious: the correct answer is "Thank You." We will always be professional on the phone and that includes a positive, calm, and consistent voice regardless of the people we are talking with, or what they say.
If someone is verbally abusive to you be sure to write down the specifics: name, date, time, institution, phone, and exactly what was said to you that was abusive. Be sure to turn this report into me, by the next business day, for me to take appropriate follow up action. You should share your frustrations with me so that I can improve our study methods and procedures, and so that you don't have to "take your work frustrations home with you."
If you have questions you can always call me at my office number (612-625-3135) or my home number (651-426-2769). If I am not there leave a message and I will call you back as soon as I can.
A "don't know" response is always valid and should be recorded regardless if such a response is offered on the survey. If you have the feeling that the person just doesn't have the knowledge to accurately answer the question you should ask: "Is there someone else in your organization that might be better at answering this question(s)?" Then take their name and phone number and call them separately.
Have each person that you survey answer as many questions on the survey as they can. It is OK to have more than one person from one institution complete the survey form. Fill in each answer clearly and legibly. Have fun. Tom Halbach, December 13, 1999
Appendix B: Introductory Script
This script was used by the phone interviewers when introducing themselves to the survey respondents.
Hello, my name is ________, I am calling today to conduct a survey on institutional food waste for the University of Minnesota.
I would like to speak with the person in your organization who is the most knowledgeable about food waste.
Who is that person, and what is his or her phone number?
(This might be the business manager, kitchen supervisor, head cook, administrator, janitor, waste manager, recycling coordinator, etc. If they do not know who that person would be, who would they suggest that we talk to, in order locate the best person to survey about food waste?)
(Once your are speaking with the correct person.)
Hello, my name is ________, I am calling today to conduct a survey on institutional food waste for the University of Minnesota.
Is now a good time to ask you some questions about how food waste is managed at your institution?
When would be a better time to talk with you about food waste management? The survey has 25 questions and takes about 16 - 20 minutes to complete.
(If now is a good time in the survey to go to the "consent form").
Institutional Food Waste Minimization
& On-site Composting Survey
Verbal Consent Form
You are invited to be in a research study of food waste management in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. You were selected as a possible participant because your institution was identified as potentially generating and managing food waste. We ask that you listen carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in this study.
This study is being conducted by: Thomas R. Halbach in the Department of Soil Water and Climate at the University of Minnesota for the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to:
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, we will be asking you to answer 25 questions in a
telephone survey to the best of your ability. The questions usually take about 16 - 20
minutes to answer. In some cases a follow-up phone call may be required to fully answer
all of the questions. All calls will be completed before January 31, 2000. Approximately
100 institutions that may generate food waste will be included in this study. The results
will be summarized and given to the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:
The study has no known physical or psychological risks to the individuals or institutions
who participate in the study.
The benefits to participation are more accurate information on food waste management being made available to the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board on which to make public decisions.
Compensation:
No monetary compensation will be given to the participants in this study.
Confidentiality:
All information and records of this study are the property of the Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board. Within the limits of the Minnesota State Law, and
the policies of the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board every effort will be
made to summarize data in broad generalized categories. The research records may also
be used for educational purposes.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:
Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations
with the University of Minnesota or with the Solid Waste Management Coordinating
Board. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without
affecting those relationships.
Contacts and Questions:
The researcher conducting this study is Thomas R. Halbach. You may ask any questions
you have now.
If you have questions later, you may contact Professor Halbach at: (612) 625-3135.
Statement of Consent:
Have you listened to the preceding statements? Yes________ No_________
Were your questions answered to your satisfaction? Yes________ No_________
Do you consent to participate in the study? Yes________ No_________
Date: ________________
Name of investigator completing this form: __________________________________________
Thank you. 12/13/99
Answers to the three questions MUST all be "yes" to be included in the phone survey.
End of Form
Appendix D: Sample Survey and Response Tallies
1999 SWMCB Institutional Food Waste
and On-site Composting Survey
by the University of Minnesota
1. Name of Institution: __________________________
2. Type of Institution: __________________________
3. Contact Person, Last Name:
4. Contact Person, First Name: __________________________________________________
5. Title or position: __________________________
6. Address 1:
7. Address 2: __________________________
8. City: __________________________
9. Zip:
10. Phone number:
11. Fax:
12. E-mail address: ___________________________
13. Institution ID ___________________________
- none =8
- less than 7% =32
- 7% - 20% =27
- 21% - 50% =12
- over 50% =3
- don't know =2
- less than 7% =28
- 7% - 20% =11
- 21% - 50% =12
- over 50% =22
- don't know =20
- none = 0
- less than 7% =9
- 7% - 20% =22
- 21% - 50% =14
- over 50% =34
- don't know =14
- Portion control 86=Y 3=N
- Better meal planning 83=Y 6=N
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 22=Y 69=N
- Food for livestock feed 21=Y 72=N
- Other (explain) 14
- Don't know 4
- Landfills = 14
- Energy recovery facilities = 11
- Other = 1
- Don't know = 66
- Staff time =9
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =14
- Cost =6
- Liability issues =5
- Other (explain) =47
- don't know =12
- food waste minimization Yes__64___ No___28_____
- food reuse programs Yes__51__ No___41_____
- composting food waste Yes__32___ No___60_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 2
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =7
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =6
- County Solid Waste Office =1
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =1
- Food Inspector =1
- Other =48
Would you like to receive a copy of this study's summary report? Yes___74____ No____18___
- none =0
- less than 7% =7
- 7% - 20% =8
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =0
- don't know =1
- less than 7% =4
- 7% - 20% =3
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =3
- don't know =2
- none = 0
- less than 7% =2
- 7% - 20% =2
- 21% - 50% =4
- over 50% =7
- don't know =1
- Portion control _13___ __1___
- Better meal planning 13 __1___
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 5 __9__
- Food for livestock feed __5__ __11__
- Other (explain) 1
- don't know 0
- a. Landfills = 2
- b. Energy recovery facilities = 1
- c. Other = 0
- d. don't know = 13
- a. Staff time = 2
- b. Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =4
- c. Cost =1
- d. Liability issues =1
- e. Other (explain) = 6 see appendix for list.
- f. don't know = 2
- food waste minimization Yes__11___ No___5_____
- food reuse programs Yes__9__ No___7_____
- composting food waste Yes__6___ No___10_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 1
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) = 0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) = 0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service = 1
- Minnesota Department of Public Health = 1
- County Solid Waste Office = 0
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) = 0
- Food Inspector = 0 i. Other = 6
Results for Correctional Institutions:
- twice a week b)once a week c) once every two weeks d) other
n=5 dk=1 min=1 max=6 mean=2.6 mode=1 median=2
- none =3
- less than 7% =1
- 7% - 20% =2
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =0
- don't know =0
- less than 7% =4
- 7% - 20% =1
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =1
- don't know =0
- none = 0
- less than 7% =0
- 7% - 20% =1
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =4
- don't know =1
- Portion control _6=Y 0=N
- Better meal planning 5=Y1=N
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 0=Y 6=N
- Food for livestock feed __ 3=Y 3=N
- Other (explain) 0
- don't know 0
- Landfills = 2
- Energy recovery facilities = 1
- Other = 0
- don't know = 3
- Staff time =2
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction = 2
- Cost =1
- Liability issues =
- Other (explain) =1 see appendix for list.
- don't know =0
- food waste minimization Yes__ 4___ No___2 _____
- food reuse programs Yes__ 3__ No___3 _____
- composting food waste Yes__ 2___ No___4 _____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 0
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =0
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =0
- County Solid Waste Office =0
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =0
- Food Inspector =1 i. Other =4
- none =1
- less than 7% =6
- 7% - 20% =6
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =0
- don't know =0
- less than 7% =3
- 7% - 20% =1
- 21% - 50% = 2
- over 50% =4
- don't know =2
- none = 0
- less than 7% =2
- 7% - 20% =3
- 21% - 50% =1
- over 50% =4
- don't know =3
- Portion control _13___ __0___
- Better meal planning 13 __0___
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 3 __ 9__
- Food for livestock feed __ 6__ __7 __
- Other (explain) 4
- don't know 0
- Landfills = 3
- Energy recovery facilities = 0
- Other = 1
- don't know = 9
- Staff time =1
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =5
- Cost =0
- Liability issues =1
- Other (explain) =7 see appendix for list.
- don't know =0
- food waste minimization Yes__9___ No___4_____
- food reuse programs Yes__9__ No___4_____
- composting food waste Yes__5___ No___8_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) =0
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =0
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =1
- County Solid Waste Office =0
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =0
- Food Inspector =0 i. Other =7
Do you have any other comments for the survey? ________
n=4 4=yes 0=no Yes = 100% No = 0%
Would you like to receive a copy of this study's summary report?
n=13 11=yes 2=no Yes = 84.6% No = 15.4%
- none =2
- less than 7% =11
- 7% - 20% =8
- 21% - 50% =5
- over 50% =1
- don't know =3
- less than 7% =6
- 7% - 20% =2
- 21% - 50% =9
- over 50% =11
- don't know =2
- none = 0
- less than 7% =2
- 7% - 20% =10
- 21% - 50% =6
- over 50% =8
- don't know =4
- Portion control _30=Y 0=N
- Better meal planning 28=Y 2=N
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 3=Y 27=N
- Food for livestock feed __ 0=Y 30=N
- Other (explain) 1
- don't know 0
- Landfills = 5
- Energy recovery facilities = 1
- Other = 0
- don't know = 24
- Staff time =2
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =3
- Cost =0
- Liability issues =2
- Other (explain) =22 see appendix for list.
- don't know =1
- food waste minimization Yes__21___ No___ 9_____
- food reuse programs Yes__17__ No___13_____
- composting food waste Yes__11___ No___19_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 0
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =3
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =1
- County Solid Waste Office =0
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =0
- Food Inspector =0 i. Other =13
Do you have any other comments for the survey? ________
n=30 5=yes 25=no Yes = 16.7% No = 83.3%
Would you like to receive a copy of this study's summary report? n=30 23=yes 7=no Yes = 76.6% No = 23.3%
- none =2
- less than 7% =4
- 7% - 20% =3
- 21% - 50% =6
- over 50% =2
- don't know =5
- less than 7% =9
- 7% - 20% =4
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =3
- don't know =6
- none = 0
- less than 7% =1
- 7% - 20% =5
- 21% - 50% =3
- over 50% =9
- don't know =5
- Portion control _20=Y 1=N
- Better meal planning 20=Y 1=N
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 7=Y 16=N
- Food for livestock feed __ 7=Y 16=N
- Other (explain) 8
- don't know 0
- Landfills = 2
- Energy recovery facilities = 8
- Other = 0
- don't know = 13
- Staff time =2
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =0
- Cost =4
- Liability issues =1
- Other (explain) =12 see appendix for list.
- don't know =4
- food waste minimization Yes__16___ No___ 7_____
- food reuse programs Yes__11__ No___12_____
- composting food waste Yes__ 6___ No___17_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 1
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =2
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =2
- County Solid Waste Office =1
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =0
- Food Inspector =0 i. Other =14
Do you have any other comments for the survey? ________
n=23 9=yes 14=no Yes = 39.1% No = 60.9%
Would you like to receive a copy of this study's summary report?
n=23 20=yes 3=no Yes = 87.0% No = 13.0%
- none =0
- less than 7% =3
- 7% - 20% =0
- 21% - 50% =1
- over 50% =0
- don't know =0
- less than 7% =2
- 7% - 20% =0
- 21% - 50% =1
- over 50% =0
- don't know =0
- none = 0
- less than 7% =2
- 7% - 20% =1
- 21% - 50% =0
- over 50% =2
- don't know =0
- Portion control _4=Y 1=N
- Better meal planning 4=Y 1=N
- Donate food to people (Second Harvest; etc.) 4=Y 1=N
- Food for livestock feed __ 0=Y 5=N__
- Other (explain) 0
- don't know 0
- Landfills = 0
- Energy recovery facilities = 0
- Other = 0
- don't know = 5
- Staff time =0
- Knowledge or training in food waste reduction =0
- Cost =0
- Liability issues =1
- Other (explain) =3 see appendix for list.
- don't know =1
- food waste minimization Yes__ 3___ No___ 2_____
- food reuse programs Yes__ 2__ No___ 3_____
- composting food waste Yes__ 2___ No___ 3_____
- Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) = 0
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) =0
- Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) =0
- University of Minnesota - Extension Service =1
- Minnesota Department of Public Health =0
- County Solid Waste Office =0
- Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) =0
- Food Inspector =0 i. Other =4