After blogging about food waste and deliberating with students about food waste on college campuses, the next step is writing an issue brief about the problem as well. Due to personal experiences as an employee at a fast food chain, convincing policymakers that restaurants are wasting an excessive amount of food and proposing ways to limit food waste at this level of food distribution are the overarching goals of the issue brief. Research clearly shows that restaurants are collectively not avoiding food waste to an extent that will successfully reverse the negative implications of the issue, which leads to several questions that should be addressed before tackling an issue brief. How much food do restaurants waste? Why are restaurants avoiding ways to decrease the amount of wasted food? What can restaurants do to limit food waste?

According to FoodPrint, restaurants waste approximately “22 to 33 billion pounds of food each year.” As a result, food waste in restaurants is far from negligible. In addition, the statistic reveals that restaurants are significantly contributing to all of the food wasted in the United States, which is roughly 40% of the food supply on an annual basis. Therefore, addressing food waste in restaurants is extremely important because it will lead to other benefits besides less waste, such as less production of greenhouse gas emissions, less squandering of precious resources, and more support for those struggling with food insecurity.

Restaurants are major generators of wasted food, so devising ways to reduce food waste at this level of food distribution is extremely important. Donating leftover food from restaurants to local food banks is an instinctive way to limit the waste produced by restaurants, and most individuals support the idea. The proposal is naturally a win-win situation; however, the goal is difficult to accomplish for the majority of restaurants. In 1996, Congress addressed the difficulty of donating food to organizations by enacting the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act. The purpose of the act is to ensure that donors, including restaurants, do not face any legal consequences for donating leftover food that may lead to unintentional foodborne illnesses. To elaborate, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act did not enact new liabilities for food donors; instead, the act changed the type of claims that can be settled against donors. Unless the donors intentionally harm the well-being of others through the act of donating food, no claims “arising out of the nature, age, packaging, or condition of the donated food” can be settled. On another note, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act also suggests that donated food should be “wholesome food” or “an apparently fit grocery product,” the act of donating should be charitable, and food banks should disperse the food to individuals struggling with food insecurity. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act properly enhances the ability to donate food from restaurants, leading to mitigated food waste; however, many other hurdles exist that prevent restaurants from donating leftover food.

The main reason as to why most restaurants refrain from donating leftover food is unawareness of the laws that protect acts of food donation. If you ask a restaurant owner about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, chances are the restaurant owner will have no idea what you are talking about. Most restaurant owners do not understand that the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act protects those that charitably donate food, which is an unfortunate issue because the lack of awareness is cultivating a missed opportunity, an opportunity to mitigate food waste. Educating restaurant owners about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act is a simple way to simultaneously increase food donations and decrease food waste, but the lack of awareness is not the only barrier preventing restaurants from donating food. Despite the approval of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, each state has created different laws concerning food donations, which complicates the entire process of donating food. To complicate the process of donating food even further, most food banks have also implemented strict rules about food donations that are all different from on another. As a result of the confusion engendered by the state laws and the rules established by food banks in regard to donating leftover food, most restaurants prefer to avoid food donations altogether. Simplifying the process of donating food or helping restaurants understand the legal aspect of donating food will also simultaneously increase food donations and decrease food waste. The National Restaurant Association has also voiced this thought and suggests that educating restaurants about proper food management is the ‘”key to safe donation.”‘ Most of the laws enacted by the states or the rules implemented by the food banks focus on the storage of the food and the handling of the food. If food is not stored or handled properly, then food banks will not accept donated food. Therefore, educating more restaurants on proper food storage and handling will transform food that is always wasted, into food that is always eaten because donations will become a feasible option for those restaurants.

Donating food is a great way to decrease the amount of food that restaurants throw away on a nightly basis; however, there are other ways to decrease food waste in restaurants. According to FoodPrint, consumers leave 17% of their meals uneaten on average, which is contributing to the accrual of wasted food in restaurants. To diminish the amount of food that consumers leave uneaten, restaurants can find ways to encourage consumers to abide by the cliché phrase, “take only what you can eat.” Did you know that restaurants have typically been serving portion sizes that are “two to eight times larger” than the standard serving sizes approved by the Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture? Crazy! Not only can restaurants encourage consumers to “take only what you can eat,” but the restaurants can also decrease portion sizes. Both modes of action will effectively limit food waste, and will even promote healthier lifestyles.

Food waste is an issue, and restaurants are one of the biggest contributors to the problem. Restaurant owners should be more aware of food waste and should find ways to resolve the problem, which will be the focus of my next project. I am eager to create my issue brief and to help people become more aware of food waste!

As an employee at a fast-food restaurant, I have not only discarded bulging trash bags of wasted food, but I have also emptied garbage cans overflowing with wasted plastic, such as cups, silverware, and straws. Without a doubt, food waste is a major concern, but plastic waste is also rapidly spiraling out of control. Reduce, reuse, recycle, are the three R’s that have impelled our society to decrease plastic waste; however, recycling is not enough to save our planet. Only 9% of plastic waste has been recycled, which means that the other 79% has “accumulated in landfills, dumps, or the natural environment.”

The 3 R’s of recycling have exposed our world to the issue of plastic waste, but most people do not realize the severity of plastic waste. According to National Geographic, the amount of annual plastic waste “will reach 22 million tons and possibly as much as 58 million tons” in the next 10 years. The statistic also includes the impact of reducing, reusing, and recycling. Without the 3 R’s of recycling, the amount of annual plastic waste would have reached 99 million tons in the next 10 years, according to National Geographic. Recycling is fortunately able to reduce plastic waste, but it is not able to control plastic waste. On top of the amount of plastic that is discarded each year, did you know that about “8.8 million tons flow into the oceans annually” as well? The plastic leakage into the oceans is detrimental for several reasons, and may lead to serious human health problems in the future.

According to the United Nations Environment Program, plastic is designed to be durable and to resist degradation, a type of substance that momentarily benefits humans while wreaking havoc on the planet. Plastic is nature’s adversary because the substance is not degradable; instead, the material only breaks down into smaller pieces, never completely vanishing. Consequently, the tiny particles of plastic are ingested by living organisms, including domestic and wild animals. In the future, microscopic particles of plastic will appear on our dinner plates as a result of what we consume, leading to lethal diseases. To be clear, human diseases due to plastic particles in our food have not arisen; however, uncontrolled plastic waste will undoubtedly bring us closer to this threat. Plastic can lead to diseases because microscopic plastic can pass through the pores of our skin and the blood-brain barrier in our bodies. Tiny plastics are negatively charged, so once the particles trespass the blood-brain barrier, our positively charged brains will attract the negatively charged particles. Not only will pieces of plastic cross the blood-brain barrier, but they will also expose our bodies to fatal diseases because the microscopic plastics can effortlessly transfer pathogens. The threats that plastic waste pose to the world are deeply concerning and, without proper mitigation, the threats will become a reality in the future. Fortunately, ways to reduce plastic waste have been devised, but each one leads to unique pros and cons that require thoughtful consideration.

One project funded by the National Science Foundation through the University of Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) has reached the conclusion that modifying the materials of products, upscaling waste collection and recycling, and improving the packaging of products will decrease the amount of annual plastic waste. Limiting plastic waste is the greatest advantage of this multi-layered idea; however, the plan has several drawbacks that can lead to other issues. First, increasing waste collection and recycling would require the addition of recycling facilities that simply do not exist. The process of building more recycling facilities is also expensive and time consuming. Next, replacing plastic materials with other substances, such as glass, is not as simple as it sounds. According to the American Chemistry Council, “alternatives to plastics can significantly increase our environmental footprint.” For example, replacing plastic bottles with glass bottles would equal 22 large coal-fired power plants. On top of substituting plastic products and packaging with other materials, the SESYNC also proposed decreasing the production of virgin plastic, or new plastic, by using more recycled plastic. SESYNC claims that the approach will efficiently diminish the accrual of new plastic in the environment, but the American Chemistry Council and other groups disagree. The American Chemistry Council advocates that producing virgin plastic with recycled plastic is counterproductive, especially since oil is extremely cheap. Plastic is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource that has become an accessible and cheap commodity for all plastic companies. On the other hand, recycled plastic is more expensive and not easily accessible. Replacing oil with recycled products would essentially undermine “the economics of the recycling market,” says the American Chemistry Council. Despite the disadvantages of the SESYNC plan, someone has devised a way to counteract the proposal’s cons and to engender better outcomes, including a decrease in plastic waste.

In an interview on a TED Talk, Andrew Forrest revealed a plan that will not only encourage companies to replace oil with recycled plastics, but will also decrease the overall amount of plastic waste in the environment (I strongly recommend watching the TED Talk). Forrest’s idea is to raise the price of the components of virgin plastic that are synthesized from oil. The increase in price will be miniscule, but enough to enhance the value of plastic all across the globe. As a result, companies will have an excess of revenue that can be used to replace oil with recycled plastics. In addition, the excess of revenue can also be invested in other projects that are working hard to decrease plastic waste. Plus, the enhanced value of plastic across the globe would give people in Third World countries employment opportunities, such as jobs that require people to collect recycled plastic and to exchange that plastic with companies for financial gain. This idea clearly has advantages, but initiating the plan will be difficult because most plastic companies have to agree with increasing the price of constituents that contribute to the production of plastic in the same time frame. Nonetheless, Forrest’s idea is an approach worth considering.

To conclude, plastic waste is a major concern that will only become more severe over time. Plastic waste not only pollutes our environment and harms wildlife, but the toxicity of plastic also threatens the future of human lives. The different approaches on reducing plastic waste presented by the National Science Foundation, Maryland’s Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, the American Chemistry Council, and Andrew Forrest, have initiated discussions about plastic waste. But, reaching a final solution that will efficiently balance both the advantages and disadvantages of changing plastic production and limiting plastic waste depends on all of us. Our future depends on all of us.

So, what will you do about plastic waste?

On August 23, 2020, I accepted my first job offer at a fast-food restaurant, which was exciting because it was my first time working a part-time job. As of today, I absolutely love my position for a variety of reasons. My coworkers are caring and supportive, the work is fast-paced, and my tasks are never monotonous; however, there is one dispiriting aspect of the fast-food chain that saddens my heart after every shift: the overwhelming food waste. The fast-food restaurant expects the night shift employees to waste any food that was not sold by the end of the day or any food items with short shelf lives. In addition, nobody is permitted to take any food that will surely be wasted. Unfortunately, the fast-food restaurant has no control over the decisions made in corporate offices, but all the food waste that takes place in that single fast-food restaurant is a real concern and deserves to be recognized. Imagine all the other fast-food chains, restaurants, factories, and so on that are expected to abide by similar expectations as well. Due to my experiences and concerns, I desire to inform others of the ravening food waste epidemic in our country and discuss the various courses of action that some people have proposed to mitigate an issue that has had the most voracious appetite all along.

Have you ever considered the amount of food that our country wastes every year? Or have you considered the amount of food that you waste every year? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States wasted roughly 40% of the food supply in the year 2010, which corresponds to 133 billion pounds of food and 161 billion dollars thrown in the garbage. Take a moment to read that statistic again. The FDA depends on the year 2010 for data concerning food waste because the year is considered a baseline and a good indicator of our country’s future. At this moment our future appears to be an overwhelming concern because all this time billions of pounds of wasted food has been enlarging landfills, depleting resources, and squandering labor. On top of that, millions of people suffering from hunger and poverty could have been fed all this time too. Without a doubt, food waste is a serious issue in our country, but the source of food waste has to be understood before solutions can be tackled.

The FDA has investigated the reasons for extensive food waste in the United States and has identified factors at the farm, retail, and consumer stages that all contribute to the issue. Farms all across the country handle problems with “drying, milling, and transporting” food, which can lead to vast amounts of waste. In addition, farmers have to combat “insects, rodents, birds, mold, and bacteria” while trying to prepare food items for grocery stores, which can inevitably lead to waste as well. Once the food arrives at grocery stores, not all of it is properly stored and any “ugly” food is quickly discarded, leading to even more food waste. “Ugly” food is basically any food with blemishes that are not considered appealing to consumers; however, all of that “ugly” food is completely fresh, edible, and natural. Speaking of consumers, that is the final stage of food waste identified by the FDA. Consumers contribute to food waste by buying excessive amounts of food, not storing food properly, and choosing to throw away leftovers or extra food. Due to all the factors that lead to food waste in our country, federal, state, and local governments, organizations, and people have proposed several ways to mitigate the issue, but very few ideas are being pursued due to differing views.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the FDA launched an initiative to reduce 50% of food waste by 2030. To achieve the overarching goal of the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative, the organizations plan to gain the support of the government, communities, and households through forms of outreach, such as education, research, voluntary programs, and policy discussions. The purpose of the outreach is to increase food recovery participation across the nation, a plan that the EPA has officially outlined as the Food Recovery Hierarchy. If the USDA, EPA, and FDA successfully increase food recovery participation, food waste will potentially decrease by 50% in the next decade. When examining the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative and the Food Recovery Hierarchy, the organizations clearly focus on reducing the quantities of food accepted at one instant and distributing leftovers to other people, animals, or resources that will benefit from the food. As of today, several states are supporting the Food Recovery Hierarchy by providing incentives and tax breaks to businesses that donate extra food to food banks or shelters. Overall, the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative and its burgeoning support appears to be leading to a solution for the food waste epidemic thriving in our country, but not all people support the formal agreement as a result of contrasting perspectives.

One counterargument to the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative focuses on the incentives and tax breaks awarded to businesses that donate extra food. Other people disagree with the idea of incentives and tax breaks because the free money is only contributing to more food waste. People who disagree with incentives and tax breaks understand that supporting those who donate food is a positive effort, but all the free money that businesses receive for good deeds is spent on more food products that end up wasted too. Therefore, this group of people suggests reducing those incentives and tax breaks or awarding proactive businesses in a different way to ultimately decrease food waste in the long run.

Based on all the statistics, implemented goals, and discussions, food waste is a serious issue; however, not enough people are concerned, not enough people are supporting food recovery ideas, not enough people are taking part in the food waste discussions, and not enough people are collaborating to reach mutual solutions, which can all lead to fruitful change. On that note, my goals are to help people become more aware of the food waste issue in our country and to encourage people to collaborate on this issue together. I hope that you can pass along the message to the next person you are able to because there are many more solutions to find in order to encourage food recovery at all stages of food waste and, if those solutions are never found, our future will be thrown away too.