Title: Increasing Food System Efficiency within Amsterdam East: A Call for ProActive Government Policy
Student name: Luana Carretto
Email: [email protected]
Major: Social Sciences
Name supervisor: Dr. C. Zonneveld
Name reader: T. Stuart, MA
Name tutor: Dr. E. Cohen de Lara
Capstone Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Bachelor of Arts
Date: 16-12-2015
Word count: 11,241
ii
Abstract
In order to ensure future food security finding an effective way of reducing the
amount of food waste is becoming a priority. The Netherlands has been
appointing officials at a municipal level charged with the task of food waste
reduction. This study used the Food Waste Material Hierarchy as a guide to
investigate food waste within Amsterdam East and formulate the measures
needed to enhance Food System Efficiency by achieving the highest ratio of
output to input. A three-stage quantitative study has been conducted in which
food waste within the respective municipality has been estimated and
categorized at Food Service, Retail, and Consumer level. Existing food waste data
of the retailers approached was used, where present; in all other cases food waste
was measured during July 2015. The second research stage entailed interviewing
the businesses and letting the consumers fill in an online questionnaire. Both
were aimed at determining the respondents’ consciousness, knowledge, skills and
habits related to food waste. Differences in mean food waste production between
groups of actors were tested with an independent sample t-test. Stage three
quantified the absorption possibilities of the existing community projects within
the municipal boundaries. The total amount of food waste was estimated at 3.9
million kilograms a year. Several behaviours contributing to the reduction of food
waste were identified at business level. None of the respondents applied them all,
which indicates there is room for improvement in all studied businesses.
Currently the benefits of surplus outweigh the costs of waste due to the notion
that the negative environmental impact is considered an externality. Arguably, an
active government is needed to create legislation which internalizes the costs of
waste and thereby stimulates efficiency. Among consumers a discrepancy was
found between their perceived contribution to waste and their actual one. A case
has been made for awareness campaigns with inclusion of practical tips targeted
at waste avoidance within the household. It has been argued that these
campaigns need to be accompanied by government-created incentives to enforce
actual behaviour change. Lastly, it was determined that the current waste
absorption capacities within Amsterdam East are marginal, but might have a big
potential to create consumer awareness. Nevertheless, it is advisable for
governments to invest in an enhancement of the absorption capacity of the
district, both in order to reduce the negative impact on the environment and help
those that are currently living in poverty.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 2
Food Supply Chain Efficiency & the Food Waste Material Hierarchy ...................... 2
Quantification & Impact ............................................................................................................. 4
Historical Development of Wasteful Behaviour ............................................................... 6
Reasons for Waste ........................................................................................................................ 7
The Government’s Role .............................................................................................................. 9
3.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Research Phase 1 ................................................................................................................ 11
Food service ............................................................................................................................ 12
Retail .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Consumers ............................................................................................................................... 14
Data Preparation & Analysis............................................................................................. 14
3.2 Research Phase 2 ................................................................................................................ 15
Data Preparation & Analysis............................................................................................. 16
3.3 Research Phase 3 ................................................................................................................ 16
4.0 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Food Service ......................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Retail ....................................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Consumers ............................................................................................................................ 20
4.4 Absorption Possibilities ................................................................................................... 25
iv
5.0 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 25
5.1 Food Waste at Food Service and Retail Level & its Possible Reduction ........ 26
5.2 Food Waste at Consumer Level & its Possible Reduction .................................. 28
5.3 Optimisation & Recycling ................................................................................................ 31
6.0 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 33
Dedication ......................................................................................................................................... 35
References ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A: Flyer Calling on Consumer Participation (NL) .......................................... 40
Appendix B: Letter explaining Participation to Consumers (NL) ................................ 41
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Businesses .............................................................. 43
Appendix D: Questionnaire Food Waste for Households ............................................... 44
Appendix E: Absorption Possibilities in Amsterdam East .............................................. 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Food waste categories. ................................................................................................ 12
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of standardized average avoidable food waste
production. ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Table 3. Reasons for food product disposal by households. .......................................... 22
Table 4. Current measures taken by consumers for food waste reduction. ............ 22
Table 5. Types of food waste reduction measures consumers are willing to apply.
............................................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 6. Type of food waste reduction tips desired by consumers and the desired
channels through which to receive them. ............................................................................. 24
Table 7. Estimate of food waste produced by parties and their responsibility for
reduction on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).......................................................... 24
Table 8. Quantity of food waste absorption possibilities within Amsterdam East
divided into destinations. ............................................................................................................ 25
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Food Waste Material Hierarchy(“Food Waste Material Hierarchy,” n.d.).4
Figure 2. Map Amsterdam East Municipal Boundaries (CBS, 2014). ......................... 11
Figure 3. Composition of Food Service Food Waste. ........................................................ 18
Figure 4. Composition of Retail Food Waste. ....................................................................... 19
Figure 5. Composition of Household Food Waste. ............................................................. 21
Figure 6. Examples of fresh food products wasted by consumers. ............................. 29
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Flyer Calling on Consumer Participation (NL) .......................................... 40
Appendix B: Letter explaining Participation to Consumers (NL) ................................ 41
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Businesses .............................................................. 43
Appendix D: Questionnaire Food Waste for Households................................................ 44
Appendix E: Absorption Possibilities in Amsterdam East .............................................. 53
vi
Acknowledgements
I am eternally grateful for Benjamin Weijand’s help and commitment while
spending our summer dissecting trash bags in our communal garden. I would like
to thank Dr. Cor Zonneveld for his amazingly constructive feedback and
meticulous insertion of commas where I so regularly failed to use them. I would
also like to express my gratitude to Tristram Stuart for taking the time to read
this work and unofficially offering his guidance and support. I would like to thank
Giuliana Orizzonte for her help with the data input, Dr. Michael McAssey for
lifting me out of the moments of statistical distress and Thijs Etty for his advice
on the ins and outs of our bureaucratic justice system. I am also grateful for the
participation of all respondents and the information I got through the social
project managers of Amsterdam East, Eline Kanters, from the municipal office
and Rogier van der Groep, and Peter van Hinte, from the Amsterdam Office for
Research, Information and Statistics. I want to thank Sophia, for listening to my
frustrations, doubts and concerns while managing to keep the mood light with
sarcasm when ploughing through the insanity of all night study sessions together.
My research would not have been possible without the financial support of
Michael van Drunen from the Amsterdam University College Science Department,
to whom I am very grateful. Moreover, I sincerely thank all Taste Before You
Waste volunteers for sharing my passion for the reduction of food waste within
our municipality and Daan van Alkemade for making the documentary that
opened my eyes. I thank Johhny Blue and Estas Tonne for their amazing
soundtracks that got me through the writing process and I am eternally grateful
to my parents and my stepmom, Lucila, for teaching me how to appreciate food
and most importantly, life. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank
Dennis, my husband who is always there in times of happiness and… desperation.
Who with his eternal patience and love gives me the strength to be: just me.
vii
Increasing Food System Efficiency
within Amsterdam East: A Call for
Pro-Active Government Policy
1.0 Introduction
Researchers and policy makers all over the world are seriously concerned about
the prospect of having to feed 9 billion people by 2050 (Parfitt, Barthel, &
Macnaughton, 2010), while there are already 805 million people going hungry
every day (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2014, p. 4). Experts told the Second Committee of
the UN (2009) that in order to meet future demand the world food production
has to double. Some researchers believe that Malthus’ (1798) prediction, that
there would be a day in which our agricultural production would not be able to
keep up with our rapidly increasing population, might be coming true, as
environmental degradation and climate change seem to be a major threat to food
security (Dani, 2015; GO Science, 2011; WEF, 2015). Yet, considering the fact that
at least one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted
all along the Food Supply Chain (FSC) (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson,
Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011, p. v), others indicate that “we have a greater buffer
against famine than Malthus or his contemporaries ever imagined would be
possible” (Stuart, 2009, p. 181). Logically many agree that the path towards food
security does not merely lie in increasing our agricultural production; it is equally
important to organize our Food System in such a way that what is already
produced is actually used for human consumption (Gustavsson et al., 2011;
Herszenhorn et al., 2014; Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013; Parfitt et al.,
2010). This is important for more than just social reasons, as the waste of food is
also tied to unsustainable resource management due to the fact that not only the
food itself but also all the resources that go into the production, processing,
refrigeration and transportation of the food are being wasted.
The United Nations made it one of its Sustainable Development Goals to reduce
global food waste by 50% by 2030 (United Nations General Assembly, 2014).
Similarly, many states have been setting their own targets. The Netherlands, for
example, stated in 2009 that the amount of food waste within the country had to
be reduced by 20% by 2015 (Bos-Brouwers, Soethoudt, Vollebregt, & Burgh,
2013, p. 8). Apart from funding research and setting up Kliekipedia, a national
anti-food waste campaign, the Dutch Government has been appointing officials on
a municipal level specifically in charge of food waste reduction. In order for these
officials to reduce food waste effectively it is important for them to know the
scale, the causes and the possible alternative destinations for this food initially
classified as waste within their respective municipality. Yet most research
available has been conducted on global or national scale (Didde, Westra,
Timmermans, & Mheen-Sluijer, 2014; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, 2013; Westhoven, 2013) and the proposed policy
measures are thus often beyond the scope of municipal governance. It is with this
in mind that this study aims at quantifying and categorizing food waste at the
municipal level, more specifically within the municipal district of Amsterdam
East. By directly linking the problem to its potential local solutions, this study will
further formulate practical policy measures that can be taken to reduce food
waste and its impact on the environment within this municipality.
2.0 Literature Review
In an attempt to enhance the efficiency of the Food System in Amsterdam East, it
is important to first define these terms and then look in to the impact the current
state of affairs has on the environment. Similarly, it is meaningful to try
understanding the historical background of this issue, and the government’s role
in it.
Food Supply Chain Efficiency & the Food Waste Material Hierarchy
The Food Supply Chain (FSC), also called the Food System, can be described as
the series of processes, operations and entities that make sure the food produced
on a farm ends up on our fork; its main actors are the producers, processors and
distributers of our food (Dani, 2015). Both Kummu et al. (2012) and Gustavsson,
Cederberg and Sonesson (2011) write about the extent to which the FSC actually
manages at putting food on our forks in an efficient manner, although neither of
2
them explicitly defines the word efficiency in the context of the Food System.
Nevertheless taking the common usage of the word into account, I would define
Food System efficiency as the extent to which the FSC manages to accomplish the
highest ratio of output to input. All the resources that are used to, for example,
produce, process and transport our food are ‘input’ and the food itself or even the
energy stored in the food could be seen as output. The FSC efficiency is partially
determined by the amount of food waste and loss in the system. Food loss
generally happens at the production and processing stages in the FSC and “refers
to the decrease in food quantity or quality, which makes it unfit for human
consumption”; food waste is then seen as loss happening at Retail and
consumption level (Parfitt et al., 2010, p. 3066). Food that was not intended for
human consumption, such as but not restricted to peels and stumps, cheese wax
and eggshells, does not fall within the definitions of waste or loss and is therefore
not included in the quantification of it (Bos-Brouwers, Soethoudt, et al., 2013, pp.
28 – 29; Westhoven, 2013).
Considering the fact that we live on a finite planet, and that when wasting food
one is wasting more than just the product itself, it is important to take into
account what happens to the resources when a certain food product is lost or
wasted. The Dutch government, like many others, when quantifying waste in
kilograms takes the Food Waste Material Hierarchy (FWMH) into account (BosBrouwers, Soethoudt, et al., 2013). The FWMH, shown in Figure 1, “sets out steps
for dealing with [food] waste to minimise the impact on the environment”
(WRAP, 2015, para. 5). When food ends up in the higher stages of the hierarchy
(e.g., human consumption) most benefits are reaped from the produced food,
optimizing the output compared to the input, and thus increasing the efficiency of
the whole system.
3
Figure 1. Food Waste Material Hierarchy (“Food Waste Material Hierarchy,” n.d.).
Quantification & Impact
It is estimated that globally between 30 and 50% of all food produced for human
consumption is lost or wasted (Lundqvist, Fraiture, & Molden, 2008), adding up
to an astonishing 1.3 billion tons of food per year (Gustavsson et al., 2011, p. 4).
Gustavsson et al. (2011) indicate that in developing countries, most food is lost at
lower levels of the FSC (e.g. production and processing), because of the weather, a
lack of knowledge or inadequate technology. In developed countries, on the other
hand, food waste often happens at distribution level due to emphasis on the
physical and aesthetic appearance of food, as well as at the Consumer level
because food waste can be afforded. According to Voedingscentrum (2012),
Dutch consumers waste 47 kilograms of edible food per person a year, which is
38% of the total amount of food waste in the Netherlands, making them the
biggest wasters in the Dutch chain (p. 2). However, “the scale of consumer food
waste in high-income countries is probably underestimated” (GO Science, 2011,
4
p. 94), due to predicaments in measurement. The fact that in some developed
countries there is up to 200% more food available than what their population
physically needs, resulting in unnecessary waste (Stuart, 2009, p. 175), while in
other places people are starving indicates that there is a fundamental imbalance
“in the distribution of food and the resources with which to access it” (FAO, IFAD,
& WFP, 2002, pp. 9–10).
Throwing away food while people are dying due to a lack of it could be seen as
disrespectful and immoral. But more objectively, considering that in our current
economic system the price of food, like all products, is largely determined by
demand and supply, it can be said that when developed countries buy much more
food than they need, they increase the world food prices which comes at a social
cost. As Stuart (2009) states: “We live in a closed room, the Earth, on which we
can grow in any year a finite (though variable) amount of food – and currently the
rich outbid the poor for it, sometimes merely to waste it” (pp. 83–84). Besides the
anti-social aspect of food waste, there are also negative consequences to the
environment; when wasting food we are not merely wasting the product itself,
but also all the materials that were put into the product from farm to bin. The
agricultural sector “accounts for 70 percent of global freshwater withdrawals,
and more than 90 percent of consumptive use” (FAO, 2012, pp. 1–2). Moreover,
the sector is one of the major sources of water pollution mainly through fertilizer
use which leaches nitrate into the groundwater aquifers (UN Water, 2013).
Several researchers warn us for impending water scarcity (Dani, 2015; FAO,
2012; Lundqvist et al., 2008), so it might be considered unwise to spray and
irrigate crops that will not be eaten, as we are not only dependent on our water
supply for drinks, but for food as well.
GO Science (2011) states that generally our food is produced in an unsustainable
manner. The agricultural sector impacts more than just our water supply; it is
also a big contributor to soil degradation (Dani, 2015), deforestation and
declining fish stocks (Stuart, 2009). Nellemann et al. (2009, p. 29), for example,
indicate that the amount of fish discarded at sea for some species is between the
70 and 80%, mostly due to their low market value. Furthermore, food production
contributes to 30% of the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from which half of
5
them were caused by the production of food meant for the bin (GO Science, 2011,
p. 28). Besides, the wasted rotting food creates methane, one of the most potent
GHGs (Nellemann et al., 2009). In a world threatened by the possible effects of
anthropogenic climate change, pending water scarcity and many other
environmental problems, the pressure of agriculture on the Earth’s ecosystem
might be justified under the guise of necessity, but certainly not in order to
produce unnecessary waste.
Historical Development of Wasteful Behaviour
Taking the social and environmental impact into account begs the question: Why
do we waste so much good food? In his book, Stuart (2009) explains that “waste
is a product of food surplus, and surplus has been the foundation of human
success for over 10.000 years” (p. 169). Having surplus creates continuity in the
food supply, over time this has ensured population growth and technological
development. According to Stuart, both population growth and technological
development increase the power and prestige of a society compared to other
smaller, less developed ones thus “hoarding surplus food has been a useful reflex
in the past, and it probably developed as an evolutionarily advantageous instinct
millions of years ago” (Stuart, 2009, p. 75). This type of attitude can also be
explained by Hardin’s (1968) theory on the Tragedy of the Commons; the
benefits of surplus (and bound to that, waste) are reaped by the person or society
creating the surplus and causing the waste, while the negative consequences of
over-exploiting the Earth’s natural resources are carried by all. In other words, if
someone owns one kilogram of extra rice, he or she receives whatever benefits
are associated with that extra rice. However, the negative environmental impact
caused by the production of that kilogram of rice affecting the producer is smaller
than one, since it is shared with more people. According to Hardin, the reasoning
behind the decision to over-exploit our natural resources for our personal gain is
thus a very rational one, yet it is one “that brings ruin to us all” (Hardin 1968, p.
1244).
At the same time it can be argued that due to a relatively recent change in the
value and appreciation of food, waste is more commonly accepted than it used to
be. There are several factors that influence this change in the consumer’s view of
6
food; for instance, Bloom (2010) suggests that today’s generations have had a
relatively easy life compared to generations that lived during the World Wars and
the Great Depression. Everything, including food, is easily accessible nowadays,
which could diminish the appreciation of it. However, another factor that should
be taken into account is that food has become increasingly cheap over time.
Partially this is due to the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, which
resulted in more food being produced with much less effort. Moreover, “yields
have improved substantially, through the implementation of improved cultivars,
engineering and field practices” (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013, p. 9),
resulting in lower prices. Another influential factor that one should consider is
the large set of agricultural subsidies that started in the 1930s keeping food
prices artificially low (Edwards, 2009, para. 5). Research conducted by the United
States Department of Agriculture (2012) states that the portion of the disposable
personal income spent on food in the U.S. went from 23.4% in 1929 to 9.8% in
2011 (Table 7). According to Parfitt et al. (2010) consumers tend to waste more
food as they spend a smaller portion of their income on it. This is also suggested
by Gustavsson et al. (2011) when concluding that food is wasted in developed
countries simply because it can be afforded. Benson (2011) argues that there is
yet another factor which changed the value of food: before urbanisation most
people lived on farms where they produced their own food, they had a better
view of how much effort goes in to the production “and, thus, [understood] quite
a bit more about the real value of food” (para. 6). Besides, FAO (2012) explains
that urbanization leads to a longer Food Supply Chain which inherently enhances
wastage.
Reasons for Waste
Several studies look at the reasons of food waste in different levels of the FSC, in
order to determine what the drivers are and how improvements can be made.
Parfitt et al. (2010) state that single-person householders “tend to throw away
more per capita” (p. 3076). This could be explained by the big package sizes in
supermarkets, resulting in people buying more then they need and throwing it
away when it spoils. WRAP (2007) explains that with supermarket marketing
strategies such as ‘buy one, get one free’ consumers are tempted to buy more
7
than they need, resulting in more waste. Moreover, consumers seem to be
confused or unable to distinguish the different types of dates on packaged food.
While the ‘Use By’ date marks until when the food is safe for consumption, the
‘Best Before’ date indicates till what date the product is at its best quality.
Throwing away food after its ‘Best Before’ date due to a fear for health risks
associated to food safety, leads to a great quantity of unnecessary food waste
(Parfitt et al., 2010). Lastly, poor storage and bad planning seem to also enhance
wastage (WRAP, 2007).
At Retail level of the FSC there is food waste because stores in developed
countries tend to offer a great variety of products and systematically overstock,
creating the illusion of abundance and enhancing the chance that a product will
not be bought before its sell by date has past (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This is,
however, not the only way in which retailers cause food to be wasted. Several
studies show that currently farmers leave entire crops, or portions of crops, to rot
on the field, because of the high aesthetic standards of retailers. On top of that,
“30% of what is harvested from the field never actually reaches the marketplace
(...) due to trimming, quality selection and failure to conform to purely cosmetic
criteria” (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013, p.18). It seems as if retailers
fear that crooked cucumbers or funny looking carrots will not sell.
Another way in which waste at production level is caused by retailers is through
strict contracts that give supermarkets the possibility to fine farmers that did not
manage to produce the agreed amount. Farmers have to systematically
overproduce in order to meet their contracts even when something as
unpredictable as the weather has caused lower yields. What makes matters
worse is that when supermarkets fail to predict demand properly they have the
power to externalize these costs and shift the financial loss onto their suppliers,
either by ordering less or sending the unsold products back to the manufacturer
(Stuart, 2009). Von Weizsäcker (1991) states that “environmental damage will
only be reduced when [the] external costs are made internal for polluters of the
environment or the consumers of natural resources” (p. 425). In other words, as
long as retailers pass on the financial loss of over-ordering and waste down the
supply chain, they do not have any incentive to minimise it.
8
The Government’s Role
During the two World Wars there was a great scarcity of food in the U.S. and
Europe, in response, several campaigns were launched. The U.S. government, for
example, urged their citizens to adjust their peace-time routines through the use
of an extensive publicity effort which included putting up posters all over the
country conveying messages as 'Serve just enough', 'Save what will keep' and 'Eat
what will spoil' (Cooper, 1917). It could be suggested that by doing this an
environment was created in which food waste was not accepted, therefore
altering the consumer's valuation of food. In addition to the posters, the
legislators during the First World War considered passing a bill limiting the
amount of food distributed to restaurants, hotels and others in order to
incentivize efficiency and reduce the amount of food waste (“Wasting of food
penalized in bill,” 1918). Similarly the British government introduced rationing
measures during both World Wars and in August 1940, a legislation was passed
that made food waste illegal (Simkin, n.d., para. 12). Some might consider these
laws too strict, but desperate times called for desperate measures. It could be
argued that when humans live in an environment where they feel the pressure of
scarcity, the value of food is automatically heightened. In fact, the effect of
scarcity is still visible today, since several studies “suggest that young people
waste more than older people” (Parfitt et al., 2010, p. 3077). But history also
suggests that strict government policies are sometimes needed to make sure that
behaviour is changed. Neither global warming, nor future scarcity of resources
nor predictions of hunger seem to be pressing enough to change society’s
wasteful behaviour. Awareness initiatives are important to make the problem
more vivid, but according to Garnett (2008) these alone, “will not achieve what is
needed in the time available” (p. 3). Government policies, on the other hand, have
the power to enforce certain behaviour, which is why it can be argued that the
help of legislation is needed to reduce food waste in developed countries.
There are many different policies that governments can implement to reduce
food waste. Possibly a good starting point would be by implementing stricter
rules on the Retail level of the Food Supply Chain. On the one hand because
“retailers have a particularly important role to play in driving supply chain
9
environmental sustainability owing to their strategic position and market power”
(Styles, Schoenberger, & Galvez-Martos, 2012, p. 135), but also because policies
that internalize the currently external environmental cost of food waste at Retail
level will most likely stimulate efficiency. Moreover, GO Science (2011) states
that consumer preferences can be influenced by businesses as they have a lot of
political and societal power. Though it might seem paradoxical, it can be argued
that based on the assumption that people buy what is made available,
implementing policies on a Retail level could change behaviour on a Consumer
level. If governments, for example, pass a bill making it obligatory for all retailers
to sell wonky vegetables next to the perfect looking ones, it can be argued that
consumers will start to buy them, as this is what is made available. These new
policies would directly impact what is made available for all consumers,
it could thus be suggested that the whole of society is reached all at once, which
might have a great impact on its behaviour. Moreover, it could be argued that by
intervening in this way, the government is demonstrating how important it is not
to waste food. This could be considered as setting the right example, and
therefore coercing society to value food more.
3.0 Methods
Food waste has a negative impact on both our social and natural environment.
But similar to many environmental problems, the benefits of surplus are enjoyed
by the individual while the burdens of the resulting waste are carried by all.
Government, as the representatives of the people, might need to take a pro-active
stance and implement policies that incentivise more frugal behaviour. A
quantitative study has been conducted in order to investigate what measures are
needed to effectively increase the efficiency of the Food System in Amsterdam
East. The Food Waste Material Hierarchy (Figure 1) has been used as a tool to
guide this process. Currently most of Amsterdam’s waste is incinerated with
energy recovery at the Amsterdam Waste Energy Plant (AEB Amsterdam, n.d.);
the enhancement of the Amsterdam East Food System lies in moving this waste
up the FWMH. To look into the possibilities of doing this, the study has been
divided into three phases. The first determined the amount and type of food
waste in kilograms in the different stages of the Food Supply Chain located in the
10
municipal district of Amsterdam East (Figure 2). The scope of this study is thus
only related to Food Service, Retail and Consumers, as these are the only stages of
the FSC which are represented within this municipality. According to Stuart
(2009), great quantities of food are wasted at the begin stages of the FSC, namely
on farms, in slaughterhouses, at sea, and overseas in the import supply chains. A
lot of the food waste is thus outside the remit of this study. The second phase
investigated the causes of food waste and formulates potential means for
reduction. The third and last phase of the study is characterized by a
quantification of the absorption possibilities conform the FWMH within the
municipal boundaries.
Figure 2. Map Amsterdam East Municipal Boundaries (CBS, 2014).
3.1 Research Phase 1
This phase consist of a quantification and mapping of the problem. Food waste
was measured at the Food Service, Retail, and Consumer stages of the Food
Supply Chain. According to Bos-Brouwers, Soethoudt, Vollebregt and Burgh
11
(2013) the appropriate measurement method is dependent on the respective
level in the FSC. A combination of methods is thus needed to quantify food waste
over the whole chain. The study consists of a variety of measurement methods as
explained below.
Food service
Businesses within the Food Service industry were asked to dispose of all organic
waste in a separate bin during the month of July 2015. The sample of five was
obtained through convenience sample. This sampling method is not ideal; all
standard statistical analyses are based on the assumption that sampling is done
randomly. However, all 30 businesses approached during an initial attempt at
randomized sampling denied the participation request, which might be due to the
fact that food waste data is generally considered commercially sensitive
information (Stuart, 2009, p. 27).
The businesses that agreed to
participate in the study were
Table 1. Food waste categories.
Unavoidable food waste
Avoidable food waste
discard the organic waste in
Peels and stumps
Meat & Fish products
the same manner they would
Cheese wax
Rice & Pasta
always do, meaning that if they
Eggshells
Cheese
would discard a particular
Coffee grounds
Vegetables
Tea remains
Fruit
Meat & Fish remains
Bread, Pastries & Cookies
informed
that
product
in
they
its
could
original
packaging they could continue
doing
so
measurement
made
the
during
the
period.
This
waste
(inedible)
Remaining
Sweets & Snacks
Other Avoidable
disposal
easier and quicker for the businesses increasing their willingness to participate in
the study. Liquids such as milk, oil and sauces were excluded from this study; the
participating businesses were thus asked to discard them separately as disposing
of them together with the dry organic material would have made the
categorization and weighing more complicated and unpleasant.
The organic waste was picked up daily and divided into the categories shown in
Table 1, which were adapted from Westhoven (2013). After the categories were
12
assigned the waste was weighed separately and the data was put into SPSS. Note
that all undefinable food products were classified as Remaining within the
unavoidable food waste. This might have negatively affected the amount of
estimated food waste. However this effect was expected to be minimal, as food
that was edible but did not clearly fall within one of the specific categories (like
butter or eggs) was weighed under the Other Avoidable food waste category,
minimizing the amount of food classified as Remaining.
Retail
At Retail level it was also decided to use a convenience sample after a failed
attempted at randomized sampling. Seven businesses subscribed at the Chamber
of Commerce as food retailers in Amsterdam East agreed to collaborate in the
quantification and categorization of food waste within their business. The
availability and quality of food waste data is determined by the type of
administration a retailer conducts, which in turn depends on the size and type of
the business. The approached retailers were thus given several options for the
manner in which they could collaborate with this study. Those shop-owners
working with barcodes and an electronic information system were asked to
provide their scan data, since according to Bos-Brouwer et al. (2013) these shopowners generally have food waste data relatively easily accessible, as they scan
all food before disposal. When scan data was not available the retailers were
asked to provide their procurement and sales data; in that case food waste would
be derived by comparing the amount of food sold with the amount of food
purchased. If the retailer approached did not have any of the requested data
available, but did want to collaborate, he or she was asked to list all food wasted
during the month of July 2015. When this was considered to be too timeconsuming, all food waste was collected and weighed in the same way it was for
the Food Service sector. On top of this, an extensive web research was conducted
to investigate publically available food waste estimates, as some retailers include
this type of data in their Corporate Social Responsibility Reports. However, these
reports, if available at all, generally are only published by big supermarket chains
and give an average of the amount of food wasted per m² of retail space without
specifying the type of food waste.
13
Consumers
At Consumer level snowball sampling was used. Consumers living in the
municipal district of Amsterdam East were asked to participate via a flyer (as
shown in Appendix A) distributed through email and Facebook. Friends and other
respondents were furthermore encouraged to share the flyer so that more people
could be reached. After a consumer expressed interest in the study, a letter
explaining how to participate (as shown in Appendix B) was send to the
respondent. A total of 20 households agreed to participation.
In order to keep the influence of this study on the wasting behaviour of the
households to a minimum, the consumers were merely told that the aim of the
study is to quantify and categorize organic waste; any reference to food waste
was left out of the conversation. This slight omission, which has been approved
by the AUC Ethics Committee, was targeted at reducing response bias and was
not expected to cause any harm to the subjects.
The organic waste at Consumer level was collected three times a week,
categorized using Table 1, and weighed in exactly the same manner as the waste
from the Food Service industry. However before the weight of a specific category
was inserted to SPSS, it was divided by the amount of days it corresponded to.
Moreover, it has to be noted that also the consumers were asked to not dispose of
any liquids together with their organic waste.
Data Preparation & Analysis
Only the consumers for whom data could be collected during at least 70% of the
measurement period were included in the analysis. For the businesses the
threshold was set at 50% as the amount of waste they produced on a day to day
basis varied less. The missing values in between two known values were then
estimated through the use of interpolation. If, on the other hand, values at the
start or end of the measuring period were missing, they were estimated using
extrapolation with a linear trend.
When plotting the average amount of waste produced by households against the
household size, a rough proportionality was detected, which led to the decision to
divide the amount of waste produced by the amount of people in the household.
14
This standardization in which the average amount of waste per person was
calculated, allows a meaningful comparison between consumers. At Food Service
and Retail level standardization was conducted by dividing the average amount
of waste by the surface of business space.
Finally, the data gathered from all retailers, food services and households alike
was used to determine an average of food waste in kilograms per year for the
respective sectors of the Food System. The average amount of avoidable food
waste within a sector was then multiplied by the total amount of parties in the
respective sector according to a list provided by the Amsterdam Office for
Research, Information and Statistics (OIS Amsterdam). This resulted in a
tentative estimate of the total amount of food wasted on a yearly basis within the
municipality of Amsterdam East.
3.2 Research Phase 2
After the quantitative data had been collected the business owners were asked
mostly open-ended questions (see for example Appendix C) in a semi-structured
20 minute interview, while the households were asked to fill in an online
questionnaire created with Qualtrix Survey Software. Both the interviews and the
questionnaires aim to determine the participants’ consciousness, knowledge,
skills and habits related to food waste. The questionnaire (as shown in Appendix
D) consisted of two sections: the first contained eight questions related to the
demographics of the household whilst the second part contained 28 questions
related to food waste adapted from Temminghoff and Damen’s (2013) research.
Several validation and consistency checks (such as routing, response capabilities
and randomization) were included into the programmed questionnaire. Filling
out the survey took the respondents a maximum of 15 minutes and could be done
in the comfort of their own home.
Two weeks after the questionnaire was sent out, a reminder was sent to those
households that had not yet filled it in. This was done a total of three times, after
which any household not having responded was excluded from the analysis. The
businesses that did not respond to the interview request, on the other hand, were
15
not excluded from the analysis, as the information needed for standardization of
their waste production could be retrieved through public municipal records.
Data Preparation & Analysis
To facilitate the analysis of the interviews conducted at business level, a basic
coding was done, by first recognizing several recurring themes and then
incorporating the interview notes into a table. The questionnaire send to
households were easily analysed with Excel, by calculating the percentage of
respondent that gave a certain answer.
Both the interviews and questionnaires together with an analysis of the
quantitative data helped make a link between food waste in Amsterdam East and
the behavioural patterns of the actors in order to find possible ways of reducing
the amount of waste within the municipality.
Lastly, two independent sample t-tests were conducted aimed at determining
whether there is a significant difference between certain groups of actors. The
first t-test compared the retailers with and without a public Corporate Social
Responsibility Report; the second was conducted to see whether a difference
could be found between the average food waste production of a consumer in a
single-person household versus that of one living in a multi-person household.
3.3 Research Phase 3
After estimating the quantity and reasons for food waste in Amsterdam East it is
important to also map and quantify the food waste absorption possibilities within
the municipal district. This has been done while taking the Food Waste Material
Hierarchy (Figure 1) in to account. The possibilities for optimization of the
unwanted food were quantified by creating a list of all charities, food banks and
food redistribution projects and organizations within the Amsterdam East
district and asking them to make an estimate of the amount of food in kilograms
they could relocate to humans on a weekly basis. Similarly all petting zoos were
contacted to quantify the amount of food that could be used as animal feed. The
possibilities for recycling, on the other hand, were quantified by contacting all the
community gardens in Amsterdam East and asking them to estimate the amount
of food waste they could receive on a weekly basis in order to turn it into
16
compost. All projects were approached via email or phone a maximum of three
times. If it was not possible to reach them within the threshold the projects were
noted as ‘no response’. The inventory of projects (Appendix E) was obtained by
asking the municipally appointed social project managers to provide a list of all
the projects known by them, which was then complemented by an extensive
internet search.
4.0 Results
4.1 Food Service
A sample of six businesses within the Food Service participated in this study. Five
of the respondents were interviewed about their approach to food waste after the
measurements had been conducted.
The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show that within this sector of the food chain
there is an average of 17 grams per m² business surface per day. The amount of
food waste ranges between 8 and 31 grams per m² per day. Peter van Hinte, a
senior researcher at the OIS Amsterdam, estimates that the surface area of
businesses in Amsterdam East who’s primary activity was Food Service on
January 1, 2015 is 80,195 m² (personal communication, December 3, 2015). Thus
the estimated amount of food waste within the Food Service industry in
Amsterdam East is 17 ∗ 365 ∗ 80,195 = 497,610 kilograms per year. The ratio of
food within each category as defined in Table 1 is shown in Figure 3. From the
food wasted 48% is Rice & Pasta, 25% Vegetables, 11% Bread, Pastries & Cookies
and 10% is Meat & Fish.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of standardized average avoidable food waste production.
Variable
N
M
SD
Range
Average Retail Food Waste in grams p.m² per day
8
76
38
5 – 122
Average Food Service Food Waste in grams p.m² per day
6
17
9
8 – 31
Average Consumer Food Waste in grams p.p. per day
12
52
50
4 – 175
17
An analysis of the coded interviews with business owners in the Food Service
shows that all of them decide what amount of food to buy and prepare based on
trends derived from previous sales. The two respondents that also provide the
possibility of ordering food include these orders in their estimation. When
determining what portions to serve their clients three out of five respondents
preferred
to
serve
a
generous portion rather
than risking serving to
little.
One
consciously
smaller
of
them
served
portion
for
a
a
smaller price, while the
other let his clients decide
on the size of the take-
Figure 3. Composition of Food Service Food Waste.
away container. Specific
food waste reduction measures mentioned were storing prepared food in
portions in the freezer and if necessary toughing it last minute (3/5), designing
the menu in such a way that ingredients could be used in multiple dished, in
order to reduce the variety of stocked food and the chance of wasting it (2/5),
and designing a menu of the day with products that would otherwise spoil (1/5).
All the respondents mentioned throwing away food when it had gone bad or
when the taste was not up to their quality standards, but only one of them gave
the lower quality food to his employees or donated it to charity. Two of the
respondents donated food to charity on rare occasions, but would be willing to do
this more regularly. The respondents that did not
donate, were also not
interested in doing so in the future as they believed not to have a large enough
quantity of surplus food for it to be worthwhile (2/5).
4.2 Retail
Six retailers consciously participated in this study, meaning they provided scan
data, measured the waste themselves or rendered it available for measurement.
Five of these retailers were interviewed about their approach to food waste. The
sample of retailers participating in the measurements was supplemented with
18
public food waste data which was only available for two out of the twelve
supermarket chains in Amsterdam East, resulting in a total sample size of eight.
The descriptive statistics in
Table 2 show that stores
selling food products waste
76 grams of food per m² per
day on average. The amount
of
food
waste
ranges
between 5 and 122 grams
of food per m² per day.
Figure 4. Composition of Retail Food Waste.
Peter van Hinte, says that
on January 1, 2015 the surface of stores selling food products in Amsterdam East
was 34,239 m² (personal communication, November 25, 2015). The estimated
amount of food waste at Retail level within this municipality is thus equal to
76 ∗ 365 ∗ 34,239 = 949,789 kilograms per year. Figure 4 illustrates the ratios in
which the food within the various categories is thrown away. Apparently Bread,
Pastries & Cookies form 45% of the waste, Fruit 24%, Vegetables 22%, and Meat &
Fish 6%, while 2% falls within the Other Avoidable food waste category and 1%
into Sweets & Snacks. It has to be noted that this composition sketch of food waste
has been calculated on the basis of the data available for those businesses that
provided scan data or let their waste be collected; unfortunately the publically
available reports do not include this information.
Both the supermarkets that include estimations of food waste within their
Corporate Responsibility Reports, namely Ahold and Jumbo Groep Holding also
have a public campaign against food waste (AHOLD, 2015; Jumbo Groep Holding,
2014). An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare average food
waste per m² of store space per day for these retailers and those that do not have
campaigns against food waste. No significant difference was found between the
average food waste produced of campaigning retailers (M=87 SD=3) and not
campaigning ones (M=73, SD=44); t (6) =-.44, p = 0.674. These results suggest
that the campaigns held by Ahold and Jumbo Groep Holding are not noticeably
reducing the amount of food waste they produce compared to other retailers.
19
Following the interviews with the food retailers there are some trends that can be
identified. All of the interviewees replenish their stock depending on their sales.
The majority does this on a daily basis (3/5). Fluctuating sales were often said to
cause increased food waste because they make the estimation of what should be
stocked up more difficult, therefore increasing the chances of making a mistake
and ordering to much of a certain product (4/5). None of the retailers believed to
need external help in order to reduce food waste in their business, as most of
them said to already be doing everything they possibly could (4/5). The food
waste reduction measures implemented at the participating stores varied. All of
them donate to charity or give the unsellable food to their staff, but most still
have more unsellable food left over that they would be willing to donate to
charities (4/5). Another method for food waste reduction that was mentioned is
the processing of blemished fruits and vegetables (2/5) or even selling products
at reduced price after the ‘Best Before’ date had passed (1/5). The reasons given
for not putting products on discount were the avoidance of fruit flies (2/5) or, of
a more aesthetic nature, aimed at keeping a neat and clean appearance in the
shop (2/5). Lastly, one of the business owners said to currently critically analyse
the range of products he offers in order to decrease diversity and its associated
waste; another mentioned wanting to apply this method in the near future for the
same reason.
4.3 Consumers
The removal of those consumers that handed in their food waste less than 70% of
the time and those that did not respond to the questionnaire resulted in a sample
of twelve respondents. An exploration of the data showed that there were no
significant outliers in the dataset.
Table 2 shows that on average households produce 52 grams of avoidable food
waste per person per day. The range of produced waste is between 4 and 175
grams. The confidence interval ranges from 20 to 84 grams per person a day; on a
yearly basis this is between 7 and 31 kilograms, which is well below the national
average of 47 kilograms a year (Voedingscentrum, 2012). On the first of January
2015, Amsterdam East counted 128,690 consumers (OIS Amsterdam, 2015), thus
20
it can be estimated that 52 ∗ 365 ∗ 128,690 = 2,442.536 kilograms of avoidable
food waste per year are produced at Consumer level within this district.
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the average food waste
per person in a single-person household to that of someone living in a multiperson household. No significant difference was found between the average food
waste produced by someone living alone (M=56 SD=60) and those who do not
(M=48, SD=43); t (10) =.24, p = 0.817.
Figure 5 illustrates what the
average waste is composed
of. Vegetables seem to make
up for almost half of the
avoidable food waste, while
19% of the waste consists
of
Bread,
Pastries
and
Cookies. The questionnaire
that was send out to the
Figure 5. Composition of Household Food Waste.
households after the measurement period had passed teaches us that most
households mainly dispose of bread, fruit, vegetables and milk-products because
they spoiled or got mouldy (Table 3). A second most common reason for bread
disposal is the fact that it got dry, while only 9% of households waste bread
because they do not like the crust. For fruit and vegetables 17% of households
indicated their main reason to waste them was the passing of their expiry date.
When asking the respondents whether they felt they could contribute to the
reduction of food waste all but one answered positively. Moreover, ten out of
twelve consumers already took measures specifically focused at avoiding or
reducing food waste within their household. The measures taken are set out in
Table 4. Note that the percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents
were allowed to give multiple measures. When investigating the table it becomes
clear that 58.3% of the respondents indicate to buy only those products they
need. Eating left-overs was only mentioned by one of the respondents, while
storing food in the freezer to avoid waste was mentioned by a quarter of the
respondents. Lastly, while eight out of twelve households knew the difference
21
between the ‘Best Before’ and ‘Use By’ date, only two respondents mentioned
smelling or tasting a product after its ‘Best Before’ date had passed as a measure
of reducing waste within their household.
Table 3. Reasons for food product disposal by households.
Reason for disposal
Product was spoiled / mouldy
I did not like and thus did not eat the product /
Fruit &
Bread, Pastries
Milk
Vegetables
& Cookies
(-products)
67%
64%
70%
-
9%
10%
-
27%
scraps / caps
The bread was dry
The expiry date had passed
-
17%
-
10%
8%
-
10%
8%
-
I did not have the time to eat or drink the
product
It was the remainder of the product that I
-
would no longer use
Table 4. Current measures taken by consumers for food waste reduction.
Measures
Number of people
Percentage of
reporting
sample
None
2
17
Keep food in the freezer
3
25
Only buy what I need
7
58
Eat leftovers/scraps during the next meal
4
33
Smell, taste and see whether the product is still good
2
17
after the Best Before date has expired
When the respondents were asked to indicate one or more waste reduction
measures they were willing to apply in their own household, 83.3% said they are
22
willing to adjust their buying habits, while 66.7% do not mind using a shopping
list or choosing what to eat based on what would spoil first (Table 5). Only half of
the respondents are willing to smell or taste products after the ‘Best Before’ date
has expired, before deciding to waste them.
Table 5. Types of food waste reduction measures consumers are willing to apply.
Measure
Number of people
Percentage of
reporting
sample
Use a shopping list
8
67
First check pantry, refrigerator and freezer
7
58
Only buy what I need
10
83
Put my refrigerator at 4 °C
5
42
Checking the refrigerator first to see what needs to be
8
67
7
58
6
50
Storing food in sealable containers or sealed packaging
7
58
Eat leftovers within two days
7
58
Directly freezing bread and thawing what I need
7
58
Writing down the date and content before I freeze food
5
42
Give away products that will not be eaten on time
6
50
eaten quickly and use it for a meal
Weigh the correct amounts of pasta, rice and potatoes
per person
Smell, taste and see whether the product is still good
after the Best Before date has expired
Table 6 shows that eight out of twelve respondents said they would like to get
more information on how to reduce food waste. Seven of them want tips on how
to better store food and prevent spoilage. Three would like tips on how to buy
smarter while only one would like cooking tips to avoid unnecessary waste. Most
respondents indicated that they would prefer getting this type of information on
a website instead of an application, a leaflet, an information pointer, a reference
object, SMS or email.
23
Table 6. Type of food waste reduction tips desired by consumers and the
desired channels through which to receive them.
Type of tip
Number of
Percentage
people reporting
of sample
Tips to buy smarter
3
38
Tips to cook smarter
1
13
Tips for better prevention/storage
7
88
Number of
Percentage
people reporting
of sample
Brochure or leaflet
2
25
Compact information pointer
1
13
Reference object
1
13
Application for Smartphones
1
13
Website
7
88
Email / SMS
2
25
Channel
In the questionnaire, respondents
Table 7. Estimate of food waste produced by
were also asked to indicate how
parties and their responsibility for reduction on
responsible certain sectors were
for the production of food waste.
a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).
Party
Quantity of food produced
Interestingly the results portrayed
in Table 7 show that from all
Farmers
3.8
sectors in de Food System, the
Industry
3.9
Food
Supermarkets
4.1
Food Service
4.3
Other consumers
3.6
Myself
2.3
Service
is
believed
to
produce most waste on average.
The respondents themselves, on
the other hand, produce the least,
also when compared to other
consumers.
24
4.4 Absorption Possibilities
An inventory of all community projects in Amsterdam East and their respective
absorption possibility can be found in Appendix E; Table 8 summarizes the data.
In total 19,666 kilograms of food waste could be absorbed by the currently
running projects in Amsterdam East on a yearly basis. Taking all the determined
food waste within this municipality together this is a reduction of
19,666
∗
(949,789+497,610+2,442,536)
100% = 0.51%. It is estimated that 66% of the
absorbed food could be redistributed among humans, 9% among animals, while
25% could be composted.
Table 8. Quantity of food waste absorption possibilities within
Amsterdam East divided into destinations.
Destination of absorbed food
Absorption in
Absorption in
kg per year
percentages
Human consumption
12,906
66
Animal Consumption
1,820
9
Composting
4,940
25
waste
Total
19,666
5.0 Discussion
This study aims to investigate the possibilities of efficiency enhancement of the
Food Supply Chain within the Municipal District of Amsterdam East. It has been
estimated that the total amount of avoidable food waste within this district, at
Food Service, Retail and Consumer level, is close to 3.9 million kilograms per
year. Most of this waste ends up at the lower levels of the Food Waste Material
Hierarchy, being incinerated with energy recovery. The enhancement of Food
System efficiency within Amsterdam East can be attained by moving food waste
up into the reduction, optimization and recycling stages of the FWMH, thus
achieving a higher ratio of output to input.
25
5.1 Food Waste at Food Service and Retail Level & its Possible
Reduction
All respondents working within the Retail sector indicated they are doing
everything within their power to reduce food waste; most attribute waste to
external factors beyond their control, such as fluctuating sales. Indeed it is highly
unlikely that either retailers or business owners within the Food Service industry
will ever be able to predict exactly the amount of products or dishes they will sell
over a specific amount of time.
However, the respondents in both sectors
mentioned a variety of waste prevention measures, but none of them were
implementing all of these; arguably this indicates that there is room for food
waste reduction in all studied businesses.
The sample size of respondents at Retail and Food Service level was too small to
conduct a meaningful statistical analysis to show a correlation between the waste
prevention measures taken by the respondents and their respective food waste
production. Nevertheless, combining the quantification data with the interview
results and literature in the field allows some suggestions as to how to lower food
waste at these levels of the FSC. Retailers, which on average waste bread, fruit
and vegetables the most, could start by seriously considering processing these
foods into new products such as fruit salads, soups or breadcrumbs. At Food
Service level, on the other hand, where the results show there is more waste of
cooked food and three out of five business owners consciously serve too much,
the business owners might need to adjust their serving size. WRAP (2013) made
a similar suggestion after concluding that one third of the waste produced in the
British hospitality sector comes from the customer’s plates. Moreover, it can be
argued that both at Retail and Food Service level the business owners need to
consider the variety of products they offer; several experts in the field suggest
that the more variety, the more one needs to stock up and the higher the chance
of wasting it (Kuik, 2015; Stuart, 2009; WRAP, 2013). Yet, only two out of five
respondents in the Food Service take waste reduction into account when
planning the menu, while only one of them regularly analyses the variety of
products he offers in order to reduce waste.
26
So, why are businesses not implementing all of the possible waste reduction
measures? It seems that the explanation is simple: the benefits of wasting
outweigh the costs. Stuart (2009) says “the size of profit margins and the low cost
of food waste disposal influences the amount of waste retailers create as an
‘affordable’ by-product of their marketing policies”(p. 17). This seems to be
confirmed by the results of this study, as several retailers said not to offer
blemished vegetables or products close or passed their ‘Best Before’ date for a
lower prize, in order to keep their store looking nice and neat. In the Food Service
not all business owners were prepared to donate their food because they did not
consider it to be worthwhile, again indicating a cost-benefit analysis in favour of
wasting. Overall it can be said that Von Weizsäcker (1991) was right in stating
that as long as the costs of environmental degradation are not internalized any
cost benefit analysis will always rule in favour of neglect. The Government,
supposedly representing all of us, should thus introduce incentives that flip the
outcome of the cost-benefit analysis, such that benefits for the individual do not
bring ruin to us all. This could be done by offering tax reductions to those that
donate food, increasing the price of organic waste or outright banning food waste
and fining those shops that still do.
Another way of increasing the costs of wastefulness according to Stuart (2009) is
legally obliging stores to publically report on their waste production. In this
manner, those who are wasteful can be named and shamed, blemishing their
image, which would decrease the relative benefits associated with wasting food.
However, a second reason for him to suggest obligatory reporting is that
systematic measurements are needed across industry to identify best practices
and heighten the utility of published figures. The use of this can be illustrated by
the results of the comparison in food waste production between the campaigning
retailers and the ones that do not, as the lack in noticeable difference could
precisely be explained by the lack of consistent cross-industry reporting. Since
currently reporting is voluntary, the campaigning retailers may have only started
doing so when they had something worthwhile to publish; their initial waste
might have been much higher. Secondly, the campaigning retailers might have
used different methods to measure their waste compared to how it has been done
27
in this study. Obligatory reporting would make comparability between
businesses possible and arguably more meaningful.
5.2 Food Waste at Consumer Level & its Possible Reduction
The results of this study suggest that consumers’ average food waste is
significantly lower than the national average, which could be explained by some
of the limitations this study had. Firstly, the sample was obtained by snowball
sampling, which lowers the chance that this specific group of respondents is
representative for the whole population, lowering the generalizability of the
study. Besides, snowball sampling resulted in a group of respondents that were
either directly or indirectly acquainted to me, increasing the probability of them
knowing about my anti-food waste advocacy, possibly increasing responder bias
and decreasing the amount of food waste produced or handed in. Lastly, it has to
be noted that the low food waste average at Consumer level could partially be
attributed to the design of this study, which did not include the waste consumers
produced outside of their house.
Similarly, the results also seem to differ from previous research, as there was no
significant difference found in food waste production between people in singleperson households and those in multi-person ones. However, this might be due to
the small sample size which causes a low predictive power (.055). On the other
hand, it might also be related to the fact that none of the respondents indicated
wasting food due to too big package sizes, which according to Parfitt et al. (2010)
is one of the biggest causes for higher ratio of food waste in single-person
households. According to Fedorova and Bicknese (2010), residents of Amsterdam
East on average make more use of ethnic shops than people in other parts of
Amsterdam. This might go a long way in explaining the divergence in one-person
household wastefulness, as ethnic shops tend to offer unpackaged fruit and
vegetables more often than not, allowing the consumer to buy the amount that he
or she needs. Further research with a bigger sample size could determine
whether this reasoning is correct.
Remarkably, more than half of consumers claim to buy only what they need. But,
considering the fact that they all produce unnecessary waste, it is possible that
28
the consumers are not fully aware of the extent of their own waste production.
The results seem to point in that direction, as on average consumers state that
they collectively contribute less to food waste compared to other sectors in the
FSC, while both the results and research shows that they are actually the biggest
contributors (Voedingscentrum, 2012). Similarly, most consumers also believe to
produce less waste than other consumers. The difference between perceived
waste and reality might be explained by the fact that at Consumer level, food is
wasted in small quantities at a time, and thus may seem insignificant when it is
being wasted. Campaigns that make consumers aware of the extent of their own
waste and the collective impact it has could thus be an important means to
decrease food waste. This seems to be supported by Bos-Brouwers, Scheer,
Nijenhuis, Kleijn, & Westhoff (2013), who conclude that the combination of
keeping a waste diary confronting consumers with their own wastefulness, and
receiving food-waste reduction tips, results in a 20% waste reduction over a
period of 3 weeks (p. 5).
Figure 6. Examples of fresh food products wasted by consumers.
Since in the questionnaire consumers said to mainly waste fresh products, like
bread, vegetables, and milk-products because they spoiled or got mouldy, it might
be wise to focus the provided food waste reduction tips on how to better prevent
waste and store smarter. This is also in line with the consumer needs specific to
this District, as 88% of them indicated to want more information on this topic.
However, there have been several occasions during the measurement period in
which food that was still good for human consumption was thrown away (Figure
29
6). This might indicate that consumers need to learn how to determine when food
is really spoiled or mouldy, and thus potentially risky to consume. Nonetheless,
further research is needed to systematically measure the ratio of food that is
wasted while still unspoiled and determine whether a lack of knowledge on food
safety plays a significant role in that respect.
When asked how they would like to receive information related to food waste
reduction, the majority of the respondents said a website, which makes me
wonder about the familiarity and impact of Klikiepedia; all this information can
already be found on this website which was specifically designed to create
consciousness and reduce food waste at Consumer level. Further research would
be necessary to shed light on the merits of these doubts.
On the other hand, the results of this study also suggest that consciousness or
knowledge does not necessarily lead to less wasteful behaviour. Eight out of
twelve consumers knew the difference between the ‘Best Before’ and ‘Sell By’
dates, but only two actually made use of this knowledge and trusted their senses
instead of the ‘Best Before’ date to determine whether a product was good to eat.
Moreover, only half of them were willing to start applying this method as a
measure to reduce waste. Arguably, Hardin’s Theory on The Tragedy of the
Commons can be used as a tool to explain the discrepancy between consciousness
and behaviour. In the environmental field, consciously deciding to neglect the
environment is often more beneficial for the individual than not doing so. It could
be said that there is a lack of incentive, to act upon the knowledge that wasting
food is detrimental to the environment, as the benefits of buying too much of it, or
not tasting before wasting a product are received by the individual, while the
negative effects are shared with everybody. In the Second World War, rationing
measures like food coupons seemed to be effective in reducing food waste as this
way consumers would truly only be able to buy what they needed and thus
wasting it would affect them more than it would others. This measure might be a
bit extreme in the present day, but other type of incentives like increasing the
taxes on organic waste or reducing them when one wastes less, might also work.
30
5.3 Optimisation & Recycling
In a study aimed at enhancing Food System efficiency by looking into the
possibilities to move produced food waste up the FWMH, the estimation that only
0.51% of currently produced food waste can be absorbed by the existing
community projects in Amsterdam East could be seen as very disappointing. But,
since the first step in the FWMH is ‘reduction’ and there are arguably many ways
of reducing the amount of food waste produced within this municipality, it could
be stated that if this is done successfully the ratio of absorption would be
significantly higher. Besides, the estimated absorption capacity needs to be
nuanced as the approached community projects were asked to only estimate the
amount of extra food they could absorb with their current capacity in terms of,
for example, distribution facilities, manpower and beneficiaries. The limitation of
this request is that it oversimplifies the effect a steady stream of free food can
have on a project. For those projects that currently purchase food for their
activities, replacing this food for free food would open up resources that could
then be redirected into other parts of the project, possibly enhancing the capacity
for food waste absorption. Moreover, it has to be noted that the local Foodbank
branch, which is the biggest re-distributor of food within Amsterdam East, was
left out of the equation, as the contact person of the Foodbank could not estimate
the extra amount of food they could absorb, due to the great quantity of variables
that had to be taken into account.
The fact that many business owners indicated they would be willing to donate
their surplus food while there are projects ready to receive it, explicitly indicates
that there is a link missing between the two types of actors. This link might
merely be a lack of communication, as one of the restaurant owners said “it
would be great to have an overview of all the community projects that could use
surplus food, so I can better reduce food waste within my business”. Yet,
considering the fact that many of the approached community projects informed
about the proposed logistics enabling absorption and Stuart’s notion (2009) that
the limiting factor of food redistribution is lack of funds, indicates that the
missing link is very likely also tied to the costs of transportation between the
actors. The government thus needs to invest in solving the practical issues of
31
transportation by either investing in community projects so they have the
resources to arrange it themselves or by incentivising businesses to finance the
transportation by making the costs of wasting good food higher than those of
donating it.
The value of solving the logistical problem between actors in the Food System
arguably lies beyond the mere treatment of the symptoms of food surplus; it lies
in the idea that these symptoms could positively contribute to the creation of
consumer awareness. Lyndhurst (2014), states that “community projects are an
effective way of helping people to live more sustainably” (p. 5), as they provide
the opportunity for face-to-face contact in which personalized information
exchange is possible and mutual support is enhanced. Moreover, the regular
contact often present within these types of projects is beneficiary to behaviour
change, which is not something that happens from one moment to the next.
Lastly, she indicates that there is usually more trust among people that already
have links to each other. Similarly, it could be argued that stimulating community
projects, which are not specifically focussed on the reduction of food waste, to
use surplus food might be a good way of reaching a broader public and start
moulding a society in which food waste is unacceptable.
Though the above considerations might put the absorption capacity of
Amsterdam East into a different perspective, even the most optimistic person
would be quick in realizing that if one is to significantly enhance the efficiency of
the Food System, the existing community projects are probably not enough.
Arguably, the municipality needs to invest in the expansion of food waste
optimization possibilities. Bienja Jensen, Food Recruiter for the distribution
centre of Foodbank North-Holland, indicated that there are currently 131
households receiving food packages within Amsterdam East (personal
communication, November 11, 2015). But the most recent available estimate of
the scale of poverty in this municipality indicates that there were approximately
10,500 households living under the poverty line in 2012 (Laure Michon, personal
communication, October 29, 2015). Investing in food waste optimization does not
only have environmental benefits, it has social ones as well. But, as Stuart (2009)
suggests there will always be some quantity of inevitable food waste.
32
Optimization is thus not the only step in the FWMH that needs expansion;
recycling does so too. The municipality could start by reconsidering the failed
1997 attempt at implementing separate organic waste collection (“Inzamelen van
groen afval in straatcontainers mislukt,” 1997). Whereas further research could
be done in order to investigate what the best ways are to incentivise households
to use the green bins adequately.
6.0 Conclusion
Currently those phases of the Food Production Chain situated in Amsterdam East
produce an estimated 3.9 million kilograms of food waste a year. With
predictions of a rising world population, diminishing resources and global
warming it might be wise to manage the Earth’s resources more sustainably.
Unnecessarily wasting food lowers the efficiency of our Food System and is
arguably neither environmentally nor socially acceptable. The steps laid out in
the Food Waste Material Hierarchy, namely prevention, optimization, and
recycling could be used as a tool to enhance Food System efficiency and reduce
the adverse effects of food waste on the environment.
Several measures of food waste prevention have been identified. Within the
Retail and Food Service sector the variety of food products and dishes could be
reconsidered, as more variety usually leads to more waste. Moreover, within the
Food Service, portion sizes tend to be on the large side; it is advisable to have
them reflect average consumption instead. Products close to or passed the ‘Best
Before’ date could be offered at reduced prices while vegetables with a blemish
could be processed into new products. As it is, cost-benefit analyses tend to rule
in favour of environmental exploitation; to incentivise sustainable behaviour the
costs of wasting need to be made internal. Pro-active government policies are
thus called upon. Examples might include, increasing the price of organic waste
disposal or offering tax reductions when food is donated, as well as banning
waste altogether. Moreover, it has been argued that the reporting of food waste
should be made obligatory, to facilitate the identification of best practices and
best practitioners.
33
At Consumer level, there seems to be a lack of consciousness concerning the
effect individual consumer waste has on a collective scale. Awareness campaigns
accompanied by information on how to reduce waste seem to be necessary.
Unfortunately, similar to the respondents in the Retail and Food Service, there
seems to be a lack of incentive to avoid unnecessary food waste even when the
knowledge on how to go about it is present. Increasing the cost of waste or
rewarding decreases in wastefulness could inspire the desired behaviour. The
existing community projects’ absorption capacities, though marginal at treating
the symptoms of waste, might be great contributors to creating consumer
awareness and guiding behavioural change. Lastly, considering the gap between
the capacity of local community projects and the amount of people living in
poverty within this municipality, it has been argued that investing in the
enhancement of absorption possibilities is not only environmentally beneficial,
but socially desirable.
34
Dedication
For all those fellow human beings who are hungry because we continue to fail
them so miserably.
35
References
AEB Amsterdam. (n.d.). Technologie. Afval Energie Bedrijf Amsterdam. Retrieved
December 7, 2015, from http://www.aebamsterdam.nl/overaeb/technologie/
AHOLD. (2015). Responsible Retailing Report 2014. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4367246
3&site=ehost-live
Benson, J. (2011). Daily amount of food waste in America enough to fill a football
stadium. Natural News. Retrieved October 13, 2015, from
http://www.naturalnews.com/033885_food_waste_America.html
Bloom, J. (2010). American Wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its
food (and what we can do about it). Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Bos-Brouwers, H., Scheer, F.-P., Nijenhuis, M., Kleijn, F., & Westhoff, M. (2013).
FoodBattle: Reductie milieudruk voedselverspilling op het snijvlk van
supermarkt & consument.
Bos-Brouwers, H., Soethoudt, H., Vollebregt, M., & Burgh, M. van der. (2013).
Monitor voedselverspilling – Update Monitor voedselverspilling 2009-2013 &
Mogelijkheden tot (zelf)monitoring van voedselverspilling door de keten heen.
Wageningen.
CBS. (2014). Wijk- en Buurt Kaart. Amsterdam: Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/dossiers/nederland-regionaal/publicaties/geografischedata/archief/2015/wijk-en-buurtkaart-2014-art.htm
Cooper, F. G. (1917). U.S. Food Administration. U.S. Food Administration.
Retrieved from http://www.goodpotato.com/beans_are_bullets/chapter2/ch2gallery7.html
Dani, S. (2015). Food Supply Chain Management and Logistics: From Farm to Fork.
London: Kogan Page.
Didde, R., Westra, E. H., Timmermans, A. J. ., & Mheen-Sluijer, J. van der. (2014).
Zuinig zijn op de oogst. WageningenWorld, 3, 20 – 25. Retrieved from
http://edepot.wur.nl/317187
Edwards, C. (2009). Agricultural Subsidies. Downsizing the Federal Government.
Retrieved from
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
FAO. (2012). Coping with water scarcity: An action framework for agriculture and
food security. Rome. doi:http://www.fao.
org/docrep/016/i3015e/i3015e.pdf
FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014:
Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf
36
Fedorova, T., & Bicknese, L. (2010). Winkelen in Amsterdam 2009-2010.
Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2010_winkelen.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2012). The State if Food Insequrity in The
World 2012. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/infographics/pdf/FAOinfographic-SOFI-2012-en.pdf
Food Waste Material Hierarchy. (n.d.). WRAP. Retrieved from
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/image/Food waste hierarchy
(updated).png
Garnett, T. (2008). Cooking up a storm: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our
changing climate. Food Climate Research Network. Retrieved from
http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrnPublications/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf
GO Science. (2011). Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming: Final Project
Report. London. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.036
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Otterdijk, R. van, & Meybeck, A. (2011).
Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
Herszenhorn, E., Quested, T., Easteal, S., Prowse, G., Lomax, J., & Bucatariu, C.
(2014). Prevention and reduction of food and drink waste in businesses and
households: Guidance for goverments, local authorities, businesses and other
organisations, Version 1.0.
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. (2013). Global Food Waste Not, Want Not.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
Inzamelen van groen afval in straatcontainers mislukt. (1997, August 19). De
Volkskrant. Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief/inzamelen-van-groen-afval-instraatcontainers-mislukt~a513644/
Jumbo Groep Holding. (2014). Jumbo’s duurzame boodschap:
Duurzaamheidsbeleid en resultaten 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.jumborapportage.com/FbContent.ashx/pub_1001/Downloads/
Jumbo MVO rapportage 2014.pdf
Kuik, A. (2015). Dit is de Nacht: Thomas Luttikhold en Luana Carretto over
Voedselverspilling. The Netherlands: NPO Radio 1. Retrieved from
http://www.radio1.nl/item/290929-Thomas-Luttikhold-en-Luana-Carrettoover-Voedselverspilling.html
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost
Food, Wasted Resources: Global Food Supply Chain Losses and their Impacts
on Freshwater, Cropland, and Fertiliser Use. Science of the Total
Environment, 438, 477–489. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092
Lundqvist, J., Fraiture, C. De, & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to
37
Fork - Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI. Retrieved from
https://center.sustainability.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/from_
field_to_fork_0.pdf
Lyndhurst, B. (2014). Running your own community food waste reduction group.
Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Guide - food
waste reduction group.pdf
Malthus, T. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population (7th ed.). London:
Reeves and Turner.
Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A. G., &
Kaltenborn, B. P. (2009). The Environmental Food Crisis - The Environment’s
Role in Averting Future Food Crisis: A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. UNEP.
Birkeland Trykkeri AS. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5448.2011.00774.x
OIS Amsterdam. (2015). Kerncijfers voor Amsterdam en de stadsdelen, 1 januari
2015. Amsterdam: Bureau voor Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek.
Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/stadsdelen
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply
chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. B, 365,
3065–3081. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0126
Samuel, H. (2015). France passes “pioneering” food waste bill to ban
supermarkets from binning unused food. The Telegraph. Retrieved
December 12, 2015, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12044568/F
rance-passes-pioneering-food-waste-bill-to-ban-supermarkets-frombinning-unused-food.html
Simkin, J. (n.d.). Rationing. Spartacus Educational. Retrieved October 31, 2015,
from http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWrationing.htm
Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. London: Penguin
Books.
Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., & Galvez-Martos, J. L. (2012). Environmental
improvement of product supply chains: Proposed best practice techniques,
quantitative indicators and benchmarks of excellence for retailers. Journal of
Environmental Management, 110, 135–150.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.021
Temminghoff, M., & Damen, N. (2013). Voedselverspilling 1-meting.
UN. (2009). Food Production Must Double By 2050 To Meet Demand From
World’s Growing Population, Innovative Strategies Needed To Combat
Hunger, Experts Tell Second Committee. Second Committee Panel Discussion.
United Nations Sixty-fourth General Assembly. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaef3242.doc.htm
UN Water. (2013). Water Quality. United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/unwater_new/docs/water
38
_quality.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2014). Open Working Group proposal for
Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1579SDGs
Proposal.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture. (2012). Food expenditures by families
and individuals as a share of disposable personal income. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foodexpenditures.aspx#.UYvjHbVTDzw
Voedingscentrum. (2012). Voedselverspilling door consumenten: Factsheet.
Retrieved from
http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Docum
ents/Professionals/Overig/VC_FSheet Voedselverspilling_v3.pdf
von Weizsäcker, E. U. (1991). Sustainability: A Task for the North. Journal of
International Affairs, 44(2), 421–432.
Wasting of food penalized in bill. (1918, January 16). New York Times. New York.
Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archivefree/pdf?_r=1&res=9C02E6D8133FE433A25755C1A9679C946996D6CF
WEF. (2015). Insight Report: Global Risks 2015, 10th Edition. Geneva. Retrieved
from
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15.pdf
Westhoven, M. (2013). Bepaling voedselverliezen in huishoudelijk afval in
Nederland - Vervolgmeting 2013. Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/voeding/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2014/01/13/bepaling-voedselverliezen-inhuishoudelijk-afval-in-nederland-vervolgmeting-2013.html
WRAP. (2007). Understanding Food Waste (Vol. March). doi:10.1016/S00223182(69)80104-4
WRAP. (2013). Overview of Waste in the UK Hospitality and Food Service Sector: An
overview of waste in the UK hospitality and food service sector. Retrieved from
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Overview of Waste in the UK
Hospitality and Food Service Sector FINAL.pdf
WRAP. (2015). Why take action: legal/policy case. Retrieved September 22, 2015,
from http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/why-take-action-legalpolicy-case
39
Appendix A: Flyer Calling on Consumer Participation (NL)
40
Appendix B: Letter explaining Participation to Consumers (NL)
41
42
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Businesses
1.
What is the name of your company?
2.
How would you describe your business?
3.
What makes it different from other businesses?
4.
What is the surface area of the store in m²? / How many seats does the restaurant have?
5.
Is July a representative month in terms of revenue / waste produced?
6.
How long do you do this work?
7.
How old are you?
8.
What did you study?
9.
What level of education do you have?
10. What is your ethnicity?
11. How do you decide what needs to be bought?
12. How do you decide what is thrown away?
13. Do you feel that you can contribute to the reduction of food waste?
14. Do you try to avoid food waste in your business?
15. What do you specifically do?
16. Why do you do that?
17. How do you decide what to put on the menu / offer in the store?
18. Do you take food waste reduction into account when doing this?
19. And when determining the portions on the plate / package size?
20. What do you need to be able to better reduce food waste within your business? (i.e. tips,
information, change in legislation)
21. What do you do with food that you cannot sell?
22. Would you be prepared to donate your surplus food to a charity?
23. Under what conditions?
24. What percentage of edible food do you think is discarded in the NL in total?
25. Why is this? / What is the main cause?
26. How many kilos of edible food do you estimate that a person in the Netherlands on
average throws away at home?
27. Where in the food chain is the largest part of the waste located according to you?
28. Who has the responsibility to solve the food waste problem?
43
Appendix D: Questionnaire Food Waste for Households
Red = Information about the flow of the questions (not visible to respondents).
Questions in blue = Related to demographics
Q1. What is your address?
Q2. What is your gender? (Randomized + Single answer possible)
o
Female
o
Male
Q3. What is your age? (Single answer possible)
o
Under 20 years
o
20 to 29 years
o
30 to 39 years
o
40 to 49 years
o
50 to 59 years
o
60 or more years
Q4. What is the size of your household? (Single answer possible)
o
1 person
o
2 persons
o
3 persons
o
4 persons
o
5 or more persons
Q5. What is the number of children living at home (up to 18 years) (Single answer possible)
o
None
o
1 child
o
2 children
o
3 children
o
4 or more children
Q6. What level of education do you have? (Single answer possible)
o
High (HBO or WO)
o
Middle (HAVO, VWO or MBO 2-4)
o
Low (LBO, MBO and VMBO 1)
Q7. What is your ethnicity? (Single answer possible)
44
o
Native
o
Western immigrant
o
Non-Western immigrant
Q8. When adding it up, what is the monthly net income of your entire household? (Single
answer possible)
o
No income
o
Under 1000 Euro
o
1000 to 2000 Euro
o
2000 to 3000 Euro
o
3000 to 4000 Euro
o
4000 to 5000 Euro
o
5000 Euro or more
o
I do not know / I do not want to say
<Page break>
During the month of July we have collected organic waste at your household in order to determine
what this waste is made up of and what the quantities are. In this questionnaire you will be asked
questions about food waste specifically. With food waste we mean the wastage of food or drinks that
could have been consumed. For example, leftover milk that you do not drink but discard or an apple
that you discard because it got mouldy. Things like seeds, peels and bones are not considered edible
and hence neither as food waste.
<Page break>
Q9. What do you usually do with a product (e.g. milk) of which the expiration date has
passed? (Randomized + Single answer possible)
o
I immediately throw the product away
o
I use the product to a certain number of days after its expiry date
o
I smell the product and look at it to see if it is still good before I decide what to do with it
o
I never pay attention to the date and just eat the product
Q10. Do you know the difference between the ‘Best Before’ and ‘Use By’ date? (Randomized
+ Single answer possible)
o
Yes
o
No
If ‘No’ is selected, then skip to Q12.
<Page break>
45
Q11. Please explain below what you think the difference is between the ‘Best Before’ and
‘Use By’ date.
If correct
If noted what the abbreviation stands for without explaining its meaning
if wrong
Q12. How often do you go shopping with a shopping list? (Single answer possible)
Never
o
o
o
o
Always
o
Q13. If you cook macaroni for 4 people, how do you determine the amount you need?
(Randomized + Single answer possible)
o
I weigh the number of grams
o
I use a cup to determine the quantity per person
o
I use a measuring cup
o
I put the whole pack into the pan
o
I go by feeling to determine the necessary amount
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
Q14. How much rice would you typically cook per female and male in a meal with
vegetables and meat (-replacement)? (Single answer possible per row)
50 grams
75 grams
100 grams
125 grams
150 grams
175 grams
200 grams
(0.5 cup)
(0.75 cup)
(1 cup)
(1.25 cup)
(1.5 cup)
(1.75 cup )
(2 cups)
Female
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Male
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q15. Do you sometimes check the temperature of your refrigerator? (Randomized + Single
answer possible)
o
Yes
o
No
Q16. Do you know at what temperature the refrigerator should be? (Randomized + Single
answer possible)
o
Yes
o
No
If ‘No’ is selected, then skip to Q18.
<Page break>
Q17. How many degrees (°C) should the refrigerator be in your opinion?
46
≤ 4°C is correct
> 4°C is incorrect
<Page break>
Q18. If you dispose of bread, where do you usually throw it away? (Randomized + Multiple
answers possible)
o
In the bin / bag, with residual waste
o
In the green bin / with the organic waste
o
On the compost heap
o
Outside in a trash bin
o
I give it to the pet(s)
o
I give it to the animals outside (birds, deer, etc.)
o
I never throw bread away
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
If answered ‘I never throw bread away’, then skip to Q21.
<Page break>
Q19. What is the amount you usually dispose of on a weekly basis? (Single answer possible)
o
At most a few bites
o
At most half a slice / bun
o
At most a whole slice / bun
o
At most a few slices / buns
o
At most half a loaf
o
A whole loaf or more
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
Q20. What is the usual reason that you dispose of bread? (Randomized + Single answer
possible)
o
There is too much of the product in a package
o
The scabs / caps that I did not like and therefore did not eat
o
The bread was dry
o
The product was spoiled / mouldy
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
<Page break>
47
Q21. If you dispose of milk (products) (e.g. (Butter) milk, (drinking) yogurt, custard,
cottage cheese), where do you usually throw the product away? (Randomized + Multiple
answers possible)
o
In the bin / bag, with residual waste
o
In the green bin / with the organic waste
o
On the compost heap
o
In the sink
o
In the toilet
o
Outside in a trash bin
o
I give it to the pet(s)
o
I give it to the animals outside (birds, deer, etc.)
o
I never throw milk(products) away
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
If answered ‘I never throw milk (-products) away’, then skip to Q24.
<Page break>
Q22. What is the amount you usually dispose of on a weekly basis? (Single answer possible)
o
At most a few bites / sips
o
At most half a cup / plate / glass
o
At most a glass
o
At most half a pack (+/- 500 mL)
o
At most a whole pack / whole bottle (+/- 1 L)
o
More than one pack / whole bottle
o
Other, namely ...
Q23. What is the usual reason you dispose of milk (products)? (Randomized + Single
answer possible)
o
I bought to much of the product
o
There is too much of the product in a package
o
I poured to much of the product
o
The product was spoiled / mouldy
o
The expiry date had passed
o
I did not like the product and therefore did not eat it
o
It was the remainder of the product that I would no longer use
o
I did not have the time to eat or drink the product
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
<Page break>
48
Q24. If you discard vegetables or potatoes, where do you usually throw the product away?
(Randomized + Multiple answers possible)
o
In the bin / bag, with residual waste
o
In the green bin / with the organic waste
o
On the compost heap
o
Outside in a trash bin
o
I give it to the pet(s)
o
I give it to the animals outside (birds, deer, etc.)
o
I never throw fruit, vegetables or potatoes away
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
If answered ‘I never throw fruit, vegetables or potatoes away’, then skip to Q27.
<Page break>
Q25. What is the amount you usually dispose of on a weekly basis? (Single answer possible)
o
At most a few bites
o
At most a half piece (e.g. half an apple, half a zucchini)
o
At most a part (e.g. a whole apple or zucchini)
o
At most, half a kilo (about three apples or a bag of green beans)
o
At most a kilo (about six apples or a honeydew melon)
o
More than a kilo
o
Other, namely ...
Q26. What is the usual reason you dispose of fruit, vegetables or potatoes? (Randomized +
Single answer possible)
o
I bought to much of the product
o
There is too much of the product in a package
o
I cooked/prepared to much of the product
o
The product was spoiled / mouldy
o
The expiry date had passed
o
I did not prepare it right
o
I did not like the product and therefore did not eat it
o
It was the remainder of the product that I would no longer use
o
I did not have the time to eat or drink the product
o
Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
<Page break>
Q27. I feel that I can contribute to reducing food waste (Single answer possible)
49
I totally
o
o
o
o
disagree
o
I totally
agree
Q28. Do you already do something in particular to avoid food waste? (Randomized + Single
answer possible)
o
No, I do not
o
Yes, namely ...
Q29. Which of the following possibilities to waste less food would you be willing to apply in
practice? (Randomized + Multiple answers possible)

Use a shopping list

First check pantry, refrigerator and freezer

Only buy what I need

Put my refrigerator at 4 °C

Checking the refrigerator first to see what needs to be eaten quickly and use it for a meal

Weigh the correct amounts of pasta, rice and potatoes per person

Smell, taste and see whether the product is still good after the Best Before date has
expired

Storing food in sealable containers or sealed packaging

Eat leftovers within two days

Directly freezing bread and thawing what I need

Writing down the date and content before I freeze food

Give away products that will not be eaten on time
<Page break>
50
Q30. To what extent do you need information and / or tips about reducing food waste?
(Single answer possible)
o
Certainly not
o
Probably not
o
Maybe, maybe not
o
Probably
o
Certainly
Q31. What information and / or tips about reducing food waste do you need? (Randomized
+ Multiple answers possible)

Tips to buy smarter (how to resist temptation in the supermarket, better estimation of
quantities needed, better planning)

Tips to cook smarter (customized or more combinations)

Tips for better preservation/storage (managing inventory, how to sort the fridge or
explanation on the expiration date)

Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
Q32. How would you like to obtain this information? (Randomized + Multiple answers
possible)

Brochure or leaflet

Compact information pointer

Reference object (eg. Thermometer, shopping list or sticker)

Application for Smartphones

Website

Email / SMS

In existing print such as house-to-house newspapers or supermarket magazines

Other, namely ... (Fixed position)
<Page break>
Finally, there you will get four assessment questions regarding food waste in the Netherlands.
<Page break>
Q33. What percentage of edible food is totally thrown away in the Netherlands?
51
Q34. How many kilos of edible food do you estimate that a person in the Netherlands on
average throws away at home? (Single answer possible)
o
0 to 19 kilo
o
20 to 39 kilo
o
40 to 59 kilo
o
60 to 79 kilo
o
80 to 99 kilo
o
100 kilo or more
Q35. How much edible food is thrown away by the following parties per year in the
Netherlands? (Single answer possible per row)
Very
Very much
little
1
2
3
4
5
Farmers
o
o
o
o
o
Industry
o
o
o
o
o
Supermarkets
o
o
o
o
o
Food service
o
o
o
o
o
Other consumers
o
o
o
o
o
Myself
o
o
o
o
o
Q36. To what extent do you find the following parties responsible for the reduction of food
waste? (Single answer possible per row)
To a very
To a very
small extent
large extent
1
2
3
4
5
Government
o
o
o
o
o
Farmers
o
o
o
o
o
Industry
o
o
o
o
o
Supermarkets
o
o
o
o
o
Food service
o
o
o
o
o
Other consumers
o
o
o
o
o
Myself
o
o
o
o
o
<Page break>
We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.
<<END of Questionnaire>>
52
53
Appendix E: Absorption Possibilities in Amsterdam East
Organisation
Address
Website
Phone
Email
Contact
person
Absorption in kg
per week
Bienja Jense
No Estimation
Possible
No Response
Sazia Ishaq
0619139217
Achmed el Mesri
Komoe Lin
7.5 kg
Sanne v.d Leij
Wafa
50 kg Uncooked food
+ 19 kg Cooked Meals
0.5 kg vegetables
No compost
Not interested
Jo-Ann Watson
32 kg
Projects with Possibilities for Redistribution to Humans
Voedselbank
Ambonplein 59, 1094 PW
Click here
020-6384477
[email protected]
Instroomhuis (HVO
Querido)
Stichting MOI
Zeeburgerdijk 215, 1095 AC
Click here
020-4626360
[email protected]
Molukkenstraat 25, 1095 AS
Click here
06-58967285
[email protected]
Assadaaka
Buurt Buik
Zorggroep
Amsterdam Oost
Palmbangstraat 52, 1094 TK
Makassarplein 1, 1095 RP
Kramatplantsoen
263,
1095LD
Fahrenheitstraat 115, 1097 PP
Eerste Ringdijkstraat 5, 1097
BC
Click here
Click here
Click here
020-7525131
06-46686200
020-5955252
Click here
020-4623333
020-5619090
Kinder Kook Café
Tugelahuis
Buurtrestaurant
Tugelaweg 59A, 1092 VJ
Hofmyerstraat 67
Click here
Click here
06-37473694
020-6686446
020-4620305
Het Brinkhuis
Landbouwstraat 63, 1097 TM
Click here
Het
(ZGAO)
Fizeaustraat 3, 1097 SC
Click here
Streetsmart
Hoekhuis
020-4620331
06-49356346
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sanne.v.d.leij@hvoquerido.
nl
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
25 kg
7 kg
No Response
No time to estimate
absorption
De Bron (kerk)
Bajesdorp
Speellokaal Ludo
Martien
Schaaperhuis
Buurtkamer
(weekelijkse lunch)
De Binnenwaai
Buurtcoöperatie
OHG
Koningskerk
Taste Before You
Waste
Stichting
Blije
Buren
Buurtrestaurant Mi
Sabor
Hugo de Vrieslaan 2, 1097 ED
H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 20,
1096 AN
Pampuslaan 3, 1087 HP
Pedro de Medinalaan 12, 1086
XK
Click here
Click here
020-6655532
06-41397773
[email protected]
[email protected]
Click here
Click here
06-24285022
020-3140400
[email protected]
Suzanne.van.dijk@hvoquer
ido.nl
Harry.Jan.Bos@hvoquerido
.nl
Euridicewaterval899@hot
mail.com
[email protected]
buurtcooperatieohg@gmai
l.com
[email protected]
luana@tastebeforeyouwas
te.com
stichtingblijeburen@gmail.
com
Ed Pelsterpark 8, 1087
Click here
020-4952277
Ed Pelsterpark 2, 1087 EJ
C van Eesterenlaan 266, 1019
JR
Ostwaldstraat 1, 1097 KD
Carolina MacGillavrylaan 792,
1098 XC
Th.K. van Lohuizenlaan t/o 3,
1019 CD
Kramatplantsoen 101h, 1095
LB
Click here
Click here
06-26633548
Click here
Click here
020-6942888
06-19659544
Click here
06-23393437
020-6658001
Femke
Not interested
13.5 kg
Chiel Reemer
Suzanne van Dijk
No Response
Not interested
Harry-Jan Bos
Euridice
Waterval
Houlida
Meta de Vries
Luana Carretto
4.5 kg
6 kg
5 kg
No Response
50 kg
No Response
Asha
MangroelalBadew
28.25 kg
Michael Bakker
15 kg
Gitta Bessem
20 kg
Projects with Possibilities to use Food Waste as Animal Feed
Jeugdland
Kinderboerderij De
Werf
Valentijnkade 131, 1095 KH
Archimedeslaan 59, 1098 PX
Click here
Click here
020-6659885
020-6942694
[email protected]
michael.bakker@amsterda
m.nl
[email protected]
54
55
Projects with Organic Waste Recycling Possibilities
Oost Indisch Groen
Buurttuinen
Transvaal
Buurttuin Valentijn
Bajesdorp
Speeltuin
Amsteldorp
De
Weesoerzijdetuin
Wibauttuin
Moestuin
Binnenpret
Stichting De Oase
MO tuin
06-48144955
Click here
Valentijnkade
H.J.E. Wenckebachweg
1096 AN
Fizeaustraat 37, 1097 SC
20,
Click here
Click here
020-6386425
06-41397773
Click here
Wiek de Kijzer
Reza Smit
Not interested
No compost
[email protected]
[email protected]
Susan Meijerink
Femke
50 kg
25 kg
info@speeltuinamsteldorp.
nl
[email protected]
Click here
Populierenweg 22, 1091KL
Complex tussen Eerste en
Tweede Oosterparkstraat
Click here
Click here
06-17862987
Vrolikstraat 281, 1091 VC
Tugelaweg 85, 1091 VN
Click here
Click here
020-6251812
Retrieved on: Nov. 6, 2015
[email protected]
[email protected]
moestuinbinnenpret@gma
il.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Not interested
Anna Lont
No compost
P.L. Casto
Not interested
Not interested
Lenie Nissink
Maureen de Jong
No Response
20 kg
56