to prevent the wasting of food · 9/29/2020 · the latest from oregon’s work to prevent the...

Research, Campaigns and More – the latest from Oregon’s Work

to Prevent the Wasting of Food

September 29, 2020

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/sites/westcoastclimateforum/files/related_documents/9.30.2020%20Food%20webinar%20flyer.pdf

West Coast Climate and

Materials Management Forum

The West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum is a collaboration of

state, local, and tribal governments

Develop ways to institutionalize sustainable materials management practices.

Develop tools to help jurisdictions reduce the GHGs associated with materials

Check out the Forum’s Resources

• Original Report Connecting Materials/Climate

• Research Summaries

• Turn-key Materials Management Presentation

• Climate Action Toolkit

• Food: Too Good to Waste Toolkit

• Climate-Friendly Purchasing Toolkit

www.westcoastclimateforum.com

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/sites/westcoastclimateforum/files/related_documents/Reducing_GHGs_through_Recycling_and_Composting_0.pdf

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/resources

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/materials

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/toolkit/homepage

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/food

https://westcoastclimateforum.com/cfpt

West Coast Climate Forum

Webinar Series Disclaimer

This webinar is being provided as part of the West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum Webinar Series. The Forum is a collaboration of state, local, and tribal governments. We invite guest speakers to share their views on climate change topics to get participants thinking and talking about new strategies for achieving our environmental goals. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Please note the opinions, ideas, or data presented by speakers in this series do not represent West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum members policy or constitute endorsement by the forum.

www.westcoastclimateforum.com

Today’s Speakers & Moderator

Elaine Blatt

Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality

Peter Canepa



Moderator: Shannon Davis



Elaine Blatt - Peter Canepa | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Research, Campaigns and More:the latest from Oregon’s Work to Prevent the

Wasting of Food

West Coast Climate Forum

September 30, 2020


Oregon’s Approach - A future where Oregonians:

7

Conserve resources

Protect the environment

Live well


materials matter

1-Oct-20 8

Three major shifts:

1. From end of life → full life cycle

2. From reducing impacts of solid

waste→ reducing all

environmental impacts (air, water,

resources, etc.)

3. From a primary focus on

regulatory tools → a broader suite

of tools


lifecycle focus

1-Oct-20 9

domestic transportation

material end of life management home and business use retail distribution

material extraction and processing manufacturing international transportation

production

useend of life

From a solid waste perspective to a Materials Management perspective


why food?

1-Oct-20 10

0.54

-0.18-0.06

-3.66-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Landfill CompostAnaerobicDigestion

SourceReduction

MTC

o2

E (M

etri

c to

n o

f C

O2

eq

uiv

alen

t)

Data are from EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM)

Relative GHG ImpactsFood Waste Management Activities


policy context

1-Oct-20 11

Reduce Generation

Reduce Disposal

wasted food hierarchy


Preventing Wasted Food in Oregon: Messaging Research Findings and an Update on Program

Highlights


What I’ll cover today

1. Governor’s Executive Order on Reducing GHG Emissions

2. Current Work

• Messaging to households

• Commercial food service engagement

• COVID response

13


How we’ll get there:

• Prioritize Prevention

• Maximize Prevention Reductions Using Known Approaches

• Scope New Prevention Efforts

• Expand Recovery

New Strategic Planning process to begin later this year

Governors Executive Order 20-04

14

Directive: Reduce food waste through prevention and recovery by 50% by 2030


Messaging research and consumer campaign

15

• Messaging research

✓ Objective to ID messages most likely to motivate Oregonians to reduce wasted food

✓ Combo of qualitative and quantitative research -- just wrapped up state-wide survey

• State-wide campaign

✓ Based on research

✓ Materials also available for use by local governments

✓ To be deployed early 2021


Research overview

16

• Qualitative research – completed pre-COVID

✓ Social media baselining

✓ Online ethnographic diaries

✓ Focus groups

• Quantitative research – delayed and completed 8/2020

✓ Online survey of 700 Oregon residents

✓ Offered in Spanish and English


Early results: social media baselining


Early results: online ethnographic diaries

18

• Stop telling people what a big problem food waste is

✓ Reinforces perception that it’s ubiquitous and unavoidable

✓ Undermines message that your actions matter

• No more guilt-tripping

✓ Waste seen as moral failing

✓ People find ways to let themselves off the hook

• Some believe food waste isn’t a problem because it degrades


Early results: focus groups

19

environmental message, not so much

positive response to humor and people in supply chain


Quantitative research: food waste is important

20

Do you think reducing how much food you waste is…?How important is it to you personally to reduce food waste?


Quantitative research: it’s inevitable

21


Quantitative research: many are persuadable

22


Quantitative research: wasting money motivates

23

Agree or disagree that this is an important reason to avoid throwing away food


Quantitative research: money reaches cynics

24

Personal Attitudes


Quantitative research creative

25


Quantitative research creative: ad performance

26


Quantitative research creative: ad performance

27

After viewing the ad: How well do each of the following words describe the ad you just saw? Showing % who say this word describes the ad well (NET 4-5 out of 5) among target group

Bad Apple successfully sticks with viewers on

every positive attribute—even though it’s cheesy,

it’s informative, inspiring, and memorable. Farmer keeps up on emotional

resonance, but it’s not nearly as

memorable.

Magnet doesn’t stand

out in any specific way,

and one third say it’s

boring.


Next steps: the really cool stuff

28

• Develop messaging architecture✓ Primary, secondary, tertiary

messages✓ How they work and why

• Develop and implement campaign✓ Creative ✓ Campaign brief/strategy


Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association

29


West Coast Voluntary Agreement to Reduce Wasted Food

30

• Regional goal of 50% reduction by 2030

• Based on successful effort in UK and includes CA, OR, WA, and BC and large west coast cities

• Engaging with grocers and brand manufacturers to reduce wasted food

• Recruited several grocery chains

• Moving into implementation now and into next year


COVID-19 response: messaging pivot

31

“Beautiful Support from the Community”Hot Mama’s Wings

“We have to Keep Going”Tortilleria y TiendaDe Leon

“Everyone is pitching in”Ashland Food Co-op

https://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/food/Pages/food-covid19.aspx

https://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/food/Pages/food-covid19.aspx


COVID-19 response: Oregon Food Bank grant

32

• Awarded $140,000 grant to Oregon Food Bank

• Covers the costs of transporting and repackaging more than 2 million pounds of fresh produce from growers and processors in OR, WA and CA

• Equates to nearly 1.7 million meals for people experiencing food insecurity


Evaluating Environmental Trade-offs of Food Rescue


background

1-Oct-20 34


how we did this study

1-Oct-20 35


life cycle assessment

material extraction and processing manufacturing international transportation

material end of life management home and business use retail distribution

domestic transportation

production

useend of life

Life Cycle Assessment is

“the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputsand the potential environmental impacts of a product

system throughout its life cycle.”


goal and scope

1-Oct-20 37


goals and objectives

1-Oct-20 38

• Quantify the environmental impacts and trade-offs of various

edible food rescue pathways, identifying the key influencing

variables.

• Measure the relative magnitude of food rescue impacts and

avoided landfill benefits, in the broader context of the full life

cycle of food.


scope – functional unit

1000 kg of rescued food that is consumed

1-Oct-20 39


scope – food rescue scenarios studied

• Redistribution from Farm

• Gleaning from Farm

• Urban gleaning• By passenger car• By sprinter van

• Retail donation• From grocers to pantry• From grocers to food bank

• Prepared food donation• From retail• From commercial kitchen• Food rescue via app

1-Oct-20 40

9 Rescue Scenarios x 3 Waste Rates = 27 Scenarios


scope – system boundary

1-Oct-20 41

Farm supplies

Farming Processing DistributingCooking

and storingWaste

All Food Rescue Activities(transport, warehousing, refrigeration, repackaging, loss and

waste, avoided disposal)Included

Excluded


impact assessment categories and indicators

• Global Warming Potential (GWP)

• Acidification Potential (AP)

• Eutrophication Potential (EP)

• Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)

• Smog Formation Potential (SFP/POCP)

• Particulate Matter Potential (PM 2.5)

• Water Consumption

• Primary Energy Demand (PED)

42

Source: thinkstep, used with permission


results

1-Oct-20 43


key findings - LCA

• Waste and loss matter most

• Transport is important

• Landfill diversion benefits vary

• Facilities are small contributors

• Disposal of loss and waste

• The relevance of upstream food production

1-Oct-20 44


global warming potential – contribution analysis

1-Oct-20 45

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

kg C

O2

eq

.

GWP of Food Rescue by Life Cycle Stage

Transportation Facilities and Operations EoL - Food Loss EoL - Wasted Food Avoided Disposal


global warming potential

1-Oct-20 46

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

S1 - Redistributionfrom Farm

S2 - Gleaning fromFarm

S3 - GleaningUrban Car

S3 - GleaningUrban Van

S4 - Retail to PA S5 - Retail to FB S6 - Prepared foodfrom Retail

S7 - DirectDonation of

Prepared Food

S8 - Local SmallBusiness Food

Rescue App Car

kg C

O2

eq

.

Net GWP of Food Rescue

7% Waste

20% Waste


smog formation potential – contribution analysis

1-Oct-20 47

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

kg O

3 e

q.

SFP of Food Rescue by Life Cycle Stage

Transportation Facilities and Operations EoL - Food Loss EoL - Wasted Food Avoided Disposal


smog formation potential

1-Oct-20 48

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

S1 - Redistributionfrom Farm

S2 - Gleaning fromFarm

S3 - GleaningUrban Car

S3 - GleaningUrban Van

S4 - Retail to PA S5 - Retail to FB S6 - Prepared foodfrom Retail

S7 - DirectDonation of

Prepared Food

S8 - Local SmallBusiness Food

Rescue App Car

kg O

3 e

q.

Net SFP of Food Rescue


break even analysis – wasted food rates

Scenario Name PERNRT PENRT PERT EP AP GWP PM2.5 ODP SFPBlue Water

S1 - Redistribution from Farm - - - 68% 36% 9% - 2% - -

S2 - Gleaning from Farm - - - 65% 57% 40% 17% - 12% -

S3 - Gleaning Urban Car - - - 57% 48% - - - - -

S3 - Gleaning Urban Van - - - 65% 59% 43% 18% - 18% -

S4 - Retail to Partner Agency - 3% - 60% 56% 46% 24% - 24% -

S5 - Retail to Food Bank - - - 59% 48% 34% 34% - - -

S6 - Prepared food from Retail - - - 59% 55% 43% 22% - 22% -

S7 - Direct Donation of Prepared Food 21% 28% - 76% 72% 63% 39% 2% 39% -

S8 – Local Food Rescue App Car - - - - - - - - - -

1-Oct-20 49



Scenario Name PERNRT PENRT PERT EP AP GWP PM2.5 ODP SFPBlue Water










1-Oct-20 50



Scenario Name PERNRT PENRT PERT EP AP GWP PM2.5 ODP SFPBlue

Water










1-Oct-20 51


sensitivity analysis

1-Oct-20 52


sensitivity analysis - system boundary

1-Oct-20 53

Farm supplies

Farming Processing DistributingCooking

and storingWaste

All Food Rescue Activities(transport, warehousing, refrigeration, repackaging, loss and

waste, avoided disposal)Included

Excluded

All Upstream Processes (agriculture, processing, distribution) + All Food Rescue Activities

(transport, warehousing, refrigeration, repackaging, loss and waste, avoided disposal) - Cooking


sensitivity analysis - food types examined

1-Oct-20 54


GWP results – sensitivity analysis

1-Oct-20 55

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

kg C

O2

eq

.

GWP of Food Rescue by Life Cycle Stage (incl. Milk Production and Sunk Costs)

Milk Production Sunk Costs Transportation Facilities and Operations EoL - Food Loss EoL - Wasted Food Avoided Disposal


SFP results – sensitivity analysis

1-Oct-20 56

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

kg O

3 e

q.

SFP of Food Rescue by Life Cycle Stage (incl. Milk Production and Sunk Costs)

Milk Production Sunk Costs Transportation Facilities and Operations EoL - Food Loss EoL - Wasted Food Avoided Disposal


recommendations and conclusion

1-Oct-20 57


recommendations

1-Oct-20 58

1. Start with prevention

2. Rescue foods that: • have higher nutritional value and• are most likely to be consumed

3. Rescue foods using the most efficient mode of transport and from as close to recipients as possible


conclusion

1-Oct-20 59


[email protected]

[email protected]

1-Oct-20 60

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

THANK YOU!

Please fill out the survey you receive after the webinar.

For more information, visit www.westcoastclimateforum.com

to prevent the wasting of food · 9/29/2020 · the latest from oregon’s work to prevent the...

Documents