Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Appendix D Interventions to Reduce Food Waste at the Consumer Level: Examples from the Literature T his appendix presents examples of selected studies that the commit- tee reviewed to assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce food waste at the consumer level. To provide context for the exam- ples, which are presented in boxes D-1 through D-13, the text from Chapter 4 that summarizes each intervention type is repeated here. At the end of the examples, Table D-1 summarizes all of the intervention studies, grouped by one of two tier levels and setting. Tier 1 studies met four criteria: an inter- vention was implemented; wasted food was measured; causal effect can be attributed; statistical analysis was adequate; tier 2 studies failed to meet at least one of the four criteria. The settings in the studies were universities, schools, restaurants, retail establishments, and households. The studies in this appendix are organized by type of intervention, paralleling the structure in Chapter 4. Interventions were selected for de- scription in the boxes based on their ability to inform understanding of the intervention type or to provide ideas for future research and interventions. Most studies include more than one intervention type, and in a few cases the committee opted to discuss a study twice, highlighting different aspects of it in separate examples. Table D-1 provides a comprehensive overview of the studies meeting our inclusion criteria, though not all of them are covered in the boxes; the table also includes a handful of modeling studies. Although they are based on assumptions and less on empirical data, modeling studies are useful in that they explore not only the effect of interventions on wasted food, but 195
196 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE also effects on other variables of interest. Therefore, they can be particu- larly well designed to explore potential systems-level effects. Description of the literature search process can be found in Appendix B. The summary and conclusions from the committeeâs review is presented in Chapter 4, which also presents the criteria that the committee used to assess the quality of the studies and to group by tier levels. APPEALS Appeal interventions encourage consumers to change their behavior to achieve a social benefit. Explicit appeals, which request action directly, are distinct from implicit appeals, which do not make a request. Implicit appeals may be based on a presumption that the facts will tap into existing attitudes or values, or may serve as prompts to action by raising awareness. Explicit appeals build on those mechanisms, and also activate the human tendency to respond to requests, particularly when they align with values, when the requestor is valued, or when something is owed to the requestor (reciprocity). Twenty-five of the 64 studies reviewed by the committee included appeal interventions, including 13 which used explicit appeals (Box D-1), 3 which used implicit appeals (Box D-2), and 9 that used both and other intervention types (Box D-3). The largest number of interven- tions presented signage or other messaging in food service venues, often in universities. Other interventions provided messages directly to study par- ticipants, or engaged participants in creating messages; one pair of studies involved delivering messages to the general public. One tier 1 study (Ellison et al., 2019; United States) found a null effect for the appeal component, and one found an overall null intervention ef- fect (Liz Martins et al., 2016; Portugal), but it was not possible to isolate the appeal component. All but three of the tier 2 studies found statisti- cally significant impacts, with the magnitude of effect varying. A few tier 2 studies involved comparing appeal interventions with other types, such as providing information (Collart and Interis, 2018, United States), and feedback (Whitehair et al., 2013, United States) with results favorable to appeal interventions. In at least a quarter of the studies it was not possible to disentangle the results of the appeal intervention from those of other interventions included in the study. Few studies looked at maintenance of impact across time.
APPENDIX D 197 BOX D-1 Explicit Appeals No tier 1 study relied solely on explicit appeals, but they were a frequent ingredient in studies using multiple communication approaches jointly, including in Ellison et al. (2019; United States), a tier 1 study in which posters at dining hall entrances and in serving areas urged students to reduce plate waste in the one of the universityâs all-you-care-to-eat buffets. Although this study involves an intervention that includes information about the social implications of wasted food that might be expected to engender feelings of guilt or shame and therefore a reduction in food waste, no effect size was reported. A question remains about whether other elements of the intervention, including information that wasted food is used to create energy, could induce licensing* by patrons, countering any feel- ings of guilt and resulting in no significant food waste reduction. Whitehair et al. (2013, tier 2, United States) compared a direct appeal to avoid wasting food with one that was supplemented with feedback (e.g., waste statistics tailored to the campus). These appeals were communicated via posters near ordering points and eating areas in a university cafeteria featuring an all- you-care-to-eat buffet. They found that the appeal alone was associated with a 15 percent reduction in waste and that the feedback intervention did not increase the effect. Another set of explicit appeals requested diners to reduce portions or take less food. Such interventions need to provide sufficient motivation to overcome any negative feelings triggered by a sense of scarcity, and accordingly, many of the studied interventions supplemented the calls for action with other motivational strategies. Two tier 2 interventions had contrasting effects. Kuo and Shih (2016) presented information in a Taiwanese campus restaurant encouraging diners to avoid overeating and avoid wasting food, which resulted in only a 1 percent reduction in plate waste. In contrast, in a Portugal university canteen, using a similar strategy, Pinto et al. (2018) observed a significant 15 percent reduction in their waste consumption index. Kallbekken and Saelen (2013, tier 1, Norway) went further, testing an intervention explicitly designed to override the potential scarcity associations of portion reduction by posting a sign encouraging patrons to take multiple trips to a buffet rather than taking a large amount at once. They found a 20 percent reduction in waste compared to control locations, suggesting the potential benefit of such an approach. While most appeals targeted pre-identified values, Graham-Rowe et al. (2019, tier 2, United Kingdom) tapped into the values subjects identified as most important to them personally. The authors asked subjects to identify these values (âself-affirmationâ treatment), and to both identify these values and indicate how they had previously demonstrated them (âintegrated self-affirmationâ interven- tion). They also provided subjects with information about the negative effects of wasting food and tips for waste reduction. This self-affirmation intervention was associated with a significant reduction in self-reported discards, potentially driven by reminding consumers of themselves as ethical actors, though the integrated self-affirmation intervention yielded no significant reduction.
198 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-1 Continued Another explicit appeal type involved mobilizing guilt and shame. Jagau and Vyrastekova (2017, The Netherlands, tier 2) used prospect theory to design an intervention in which waste would be associated with guilt and shame, and thus a sense of loss. Specifically, they compared a poster asking patrons to take smaller portions at the buffet if less hungry in order to reduce waste (a call to ac- tion intervention) against a poster with a red sad face linked to a picture of wasted food. While the impact was small, they found that about twice as many consumers accepted smaller portions during the intervention period, despite paying the same price. They did not assess whether these smaller portions affected waste levels. *A licensing effect occurs when a prior normatively desirable behavior boosts peopleâs self- concepts, thus reducing negative self-attributions associated with subsequent behaviors that may not align with norms (Khan and Dhar, 2006). BOX D-2 Implicit Appeals Multiple implicit appeals used presentation of facts regarding negative im- pacts of wasted food to advance motivation to avoid waste. For example, when Qi and Roe (2017, tier 1, United States) provided diners with information about the social impacts of wasted food prior to ordering their meals (e.g., environmental damages and reductions in food security), diners wasted 77 percent less food in their subsequent meals compared with diners who received information about financial literacy. Longer term impacts were not assessed. One potential unin- tentional effect of one of the elements of this intervention was noted in the form of licensing (see footnote in Box D-1). Although after receiving information about the social implications of wasted food the amount of waste declined significantly, the waste reduction was significantly less (only 28 percent) for those patrons who also received information that wasted food would be composted. This suggests that in this context the introduction of composting services may evoke licensing on the part of patrons, creating justification for discarding food. Other interventions skip the negative frame and simply seek to motivate change based on awareness of waste or quantities wasted; these are based on a presumption that consumers implicitly dislike waste and will want to reduce it when they know about it. For example, Stockli et al. (2018, tier 2, Switzerland) invoked preexisting consumer attitudes toward waste by presenting table placards in a pizza parlor highlighting the quantity of waste in restaurants. The cards asked patrons to request boxes for leftovers, resulting in more than a doubling of box requests compared to the control condition (55 percent vs. 25 percent). There was no measurement of how much of the pizza was then wasted at home.
APPENDIX D 199 BOX D-3 Appeals (and Other Approaches) to Motivate Purchase of Suboptimal Products Five tier 2 studies in the committeeâs review tested approaches to convinc- ing consumers to purchase products that might not otherwise be sold, such as so-called âugly fruits and vegetablesâ or items close to expiration dates. These interventions mobilize consumers to prevent waste earlier in the food chain, rather than reducing waste at the consumption level. Consumer barriers to such purchases include perceptions of quality and questions regarding likelihood of consuming them at home before spoilage. The reviewed studies commonly com- bined explicit and implicit appeals with other intervention approaches in order to address these barriers, including financial interventions, information, and nudges, such as conveying credence values (e.g., authenticity) to the foods. The findings were mixed. Results within studies varied by food type and demographics. Two studies found that altruistic messages framed around sus- tainability or food waste were more effective in increasing purchasing than those framed around price (and, in one case, taste) (Aschemann-Witzell et al., 2018, Uruguay; Rohm et al., 2017, Norway), while one of them found that altruistic messages were equally as effective as communicating about price and organic production (Aschemann-Witzell, 2018, Denmark). A third study, Collart and Interis (2018, United States), found that providing information about the waste of food and its environmental implications increased consumer willingness to pay for food past its âbest beforeâ date, while clarification of the label meaning alone did not. The last study in this group (van Giesen and de Hooge, 2019) found that while the sustainability frame was effective, even more impactful among Dutch and Italian consumers was framing suboptimal appearance as a sign of âauthenticityâ (e.g., a sign stating, âDirectly from the tree: apples with natural shapes!â). ENGAGEMENT Engagement interventions change psychological processes by engaging the consumer in, for example, setting goals, establishing implementation intentions, making a commitment, or increasing mindfulness toward the target behavior. Some examples of interventions are in Box D-4. Twelve studies (six in tier 1) feature such interventions, which are often multifac- eted, operating through multiple drivers. Thus, the results of this type of intervention may be manifested in a variety of ways. These interventions have a mixed record in delivering significant reductions in food waste, which makes it difficult to provide a summary evaluation. For example, engagement interventions delivered in the home included diverse mecha- nisms: systematic engaging individuals to reconsider household food rou- tines (Devaney and Davies 2017, tier 2, Ireland); providing tools to support changes in meal planning or preparation (Romani et al., 2018, tier 1, Italy);
200 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE and using gamification to accelerate and deepen learning about wasted food (Soma et al., 2020, tier 1, Canada). Several food service interventions were also comprehensive, involving both food service personnel and patrons (Strotmann et al., 2017, tier 2, Germany) or both food service personnel and student customers (Prescott et al., 2019, tier 1, United States). The results of these studies suggest that interventions aimed at repro- gramming base processes that drive food waste hold promise, but the lack of consistent reductions implies that formulating the multiple elements common to this approach may be difficult. Furthermore, the complex and multifaceted nature of these interventions impedes assessment of which individual strategy or subset of strategies drives efficacy. SOCIAL COMPARISON Social comparison interventions operate on principles of social influ- ence. Some examples of interventions are in Box D-5. Twelve studies, all tier 2, included such interventions. The interventions studied were diverse, fo- cusing on social desirability, public commitment, social media communica- tions, communication of social norms, food sharing, and such situations as workshops in which a peer group might influence behavior. The authors of only three of these studies provide quantitative results that make it possible to distinguish the effects of the social comparison intervention from those of other interventions in the study. Two of these three focused on restaurant leftovers. Stockli and colleagues (2018, Switzerland) and Hamerman and colleagues (2018, United States) found that messages designed to invoke social norms (i.e., saying a majority of patrons request to take food home) were not more effective than informative messages. Hamerman and col- leagues (2018) found that study participants were significantly more likely to request to take home leftovers when they envisioned dining with friends versus dining with someone they wanted to impress. Five of the studies used qualitative or mixed methods approaches, with all but one suggesting that social comparison was beneficial in preventing waste. Findings from Lazell (2016, United Kingdom) echo those from Hamerman et al. (2018 United States) suggesting that the effectiveness of social comparison interventions can depend on participantsâ views about what behavior is normative, and about the social groups with which they are comparing themselves. Overall, the evidence regarding social comparison interventions is in- conclusive, and the research suggests a need for nuanced intervention development and careful selection of social groups for comparison and messaging.
APPENDIX D 201 BOX D-4 Engagement Liz Martins et al. (2016, tier 1, Portugal) engaged students in one elementary school and teachers at a matched elementary school. For the students, the inter- vention included engagement in menu planning and creating posters, in addition to an informational educational intervention and rewards (stickers) for students who did not waste food on a designated day. For teachers, the engagement oc- curred through a discussion session on causes and encouragement to model behavior, in addition to building motivation through social comparison (providing the schoolâs waste statistics) and providing informational flyers to the teachers. The interventions overall had mixed results, with reductions in discards ranging from 0 to 40 percent, and with some reaching statistical significance. While it is not possible to disentangle the effects of engagement from the other approaches included, the study does suggest an approach meriting further research and highlights the importance of partnering with schools to introduce interventions. Prescott et al. (2019, tier 1, United States), used social interactions and shared values to promote waste reduction as part of a community-based research approach that engaged multiple partners, including the participating school dis- trict. Specifically, the multifaceted intervention included sixth-grade curriculum that leveraged student interactions through group projects and voting on student- developed project posters designed to nurture shared values, including the reduc- tion of wasted food. The intervention, which also included personalized and group feedback (students estimating their own waste during school lunches and their classroomsâ aggregate waste), led to a significant reduction in salad bar waste compared with the control group. Soma et al. (2020, tier 1, Canada) implemented a multiarm randomized con- trol trial in which each arm takes a different approach to providing information to respondents about the importance of reducing waste and how to reduce wasted food. One arm featured a relatively passive provision of information, including a booklet on enrollment, refrigerator magnets prompting participants to follow the waste-minimizing storage advice printed on the magnet, and regular informational emails to participants. Participants in another arm received all this information and were also invited to participate in a sequence of community-based workshops on reducing wasted food. A third arm, involving gamification, featured all the informa- tion from the first arm but engaged participants in learning the information with online quizzes where correct responses were rewarded with points and prizes. Waste audits revealed a marginally significant improvement among households in the gamification arm compared with a control group after the intervention, but no significant differences among the other two arms. Analyses found that few partici- pants attended the community workshops and that participants in the gamification arm who engaged in the online quizzes reduced waste the most.
202 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-5 Social Comparisons Stockli et al. (2018, tier 2, Switzerland) designed a controlled study at a pizza parlor to explore the circumstances that would encourage customers to request a leftover bag. This study found that messages designed to invoke social norms (i.e., saying a majority of patrons request a leftover bag) did not increase the requests for leftover bags over informative appeal messages. (Note, this study is also described in the Appeals section, above). In Hamerman et al. (2018, tier 2, United States), customers were asked to envision dining in a restaurant with others and consider taking leftover food home. This study found that participants were significantly more likely to request to take home leftovers when envisioning dining with friends versus dining with someone they wanted to impress. Schmidt (2016, tier 2, Germany) leveraged goal setting with a public commit- ment. In this study, participants were randomly assigned to food waste prevention behaviors based on self-reported actions or assigned to a control group. The treatment group was asked to set goals and commit publicly to performing the assigned actions. All participants self-reported adherence about 4 weeks later: the experimental group reported a significant improvement in target behaviors versus the control group. However, attrition was high; only 43 of 108 experimental participants took the follow-up test Several other tier 2 studies explored technology-enabled tools that linked small groups of people in order to reduce wasted food. Comber and Thieme (2013, United Kingdom) deployed web-linked cameras in study participantsâ waste bins (bin cams), which provided feedback to the participant and to linked groups of individuals on the amount of waste generated. The technology operates on behavioral drivers, including enhanced feedback about waste and group norms and accountability concerning waste. The authors concluded that the technology provided social pressure that induced participant shame when food was wasted, which could yield an effective internal motivation for change. Sintov et al. (2017, tier 2, United States) found no change in self-reported food waste reduction be- haviors among households randomly assigned to part of an in-home composting intervention undertaken in cooperation with the local sanitary district, where they also received weekly messages about the level of food waste separation in their community. These results suggest that promotion of food composting does not necessarily result in greater waste of food. FEEDBACK Feedback interventions shape targeted behaviors by providing informa- tion that reinforces or corrects those behaviors. Some examples of interven- tions are in Box D-6. Seven of the studies reviewed (three tier 1) featured feedback interventions, largely as part of multifaceted interventions imple- mented in food service settings. Thus, it was difficult to identify the inde- pendent impact of the feedback strategies. A common strategy was to offer cafeteria patrons feedback concerning the average waste created by other
APPENDIX D 203 BOX D-6 Feedback The feedback interventions we reviewed all combined this approach with other strategies, and thus it was not possible to identify the distinct effects from the feedback. Feedback interventions are featured in the textboxes as part of other intervention types (see e.g., Comber and Thieme, 2013 under social comparisons; Ellison et al., 2019 under appeals; Liz-Martins et al., 2016 under engagement; Prescott et al., 2019 under engagement; Whitehair et al., 2013 under appeals). patrons, although studies using such strategies as part of a multifaceted intervention revealed little success. Personalized feedback, often generated for elementary and middle school students in cafeteria settings as part of a multifaceted intervention, showed some statistically significant effects (e.g., Liz Martins et al., 2016, tier 1, Portugal; Prescott et al., 2019, tier 1, United States). Feedback delivered among different food service worker stations within a large hospital facility showed promise as part of a multifaceted intervention that significantly reduced waste (Strotmann et al., 2017, tier 2, Germany). And a qualitative assessment of the use of home cameras to track waste suggests that such approaches could stimulate waste reduction by invoking feelings of shame (Comber and Thieme, 2013, tier 2, United States). Overall, feedback interventions have a mixed record, with weaker effects when feedback is not individualized. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Interventions providing financial incentives alter the monetary con- sequences of behaviors that can influence the amount of food consumers waste. One tier 1 study in South Korea found that financial penalties that increase with amount of wasted food generated at the household level are more effective at reducing the amount of wasted food than financial penalties tied to community level waste amounts (Lee and Jung, 2017). It has been well documented that overall household waste disposal (food plus nonfood waste) declines when households are forced to pay more for additional amounts of waste (Bel and Gradus, 2016). Nine studies (all tier 2) featured financial interventions. Some examples are in Box D-7. Most involved comparing the effects of retail price reductions with those of other approaches used to encourage consumers to purchase suboptimal (ugly or expired) food that might otherwise be wasted. These studies yielded statisti- cally significant evidence that price reductions can increase purchase inten- tions. However, alternative motivational approaches, such as highlighting
204 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-7 Financial Incentives Discard Penalties Two tier 2 studies assessed impacts of assigning financial penalties for dis- carding food in buffet restaurants, and they showed differing results. In the United States, Chen and Jai (2018) used an online survey featuring a hypothetical buffet setting to compare the impact of messages in which consumers were threatened with a penalty for leaving excess food with altruistic messages themed around environment. They found that neither message influenced behavioral intentions, though the environmentally focused message was associated with greater positive attitudes toward preventing waste. By contrast, Kuo and Shih (2016), using table tent messages stating that a fine would be imposed on patrons who discarded too much food, induced a sizable reduction in waste in a university canteen in Taiwan, though a message simply encouraging less waste had little effect. Retail Marketing Schemes Retail marketing schemes, such as âbuy one, get one free,â nudge consum- ers toward excess purchasing, due to the desire to get a good deal. LeBorgne et al. (2018, tier 2, France) sought to understand consumer responses to alternate promotion schemes that spread out the benefit so that perishable food (cheese, bread) might be less likely to be wasted. In this online survey of French consum- ers, consumers perceived that discounts giving multiple units of a perishable good (e.g., buy two, get one for free), would lead them to waste more than otherwise. An alternative discount approach in which they could get the additional items a week later avoided the consumer concerns about increased waste. In open- ended responses, most participants were skeptical about retailersâ and their own follow-through on the âfree next weekâ scheme. Promotions perceived to increase waste were significantly less attractive to participants. Future studies could include components to provide reassurance and to compensate for the delay in benefit. A similar finding comes from another survey where participants were asked about purchasing preferences at a hypothetical retailer (Petit et al., 2019, tier 2, United States). The study found that package size affected the anticipated food waste for perishable products among consumers, which was found to mediate purchasing intentions. The study also found that priming individuals with information about the consequences of food waste reduced their preferences for bonus packs.
APPENDIX D 205 the environmental consequences of food waste, often yielded changes simi- lar to those seen in purchase intentions or enhanced the effectiveness of price discounts. Two studies focused on quantity (e.g., large pack or multipack) (Le Borgne et al., 2018, tier 2, France; Petit et al., 2019, tier 2, United States). These studies showed that giving consumers information about how such deals can translate to greater waste had less effect on purchase intentions relative to simply lowering unit costs for certain foods. Two studies in food service settings showed mixed results when comparing the efficacy of imposing fines for excessive plate waste with that of emphasizing environ- mental benefits to reduce plate waste (Chen and Jai, 2018, tier 2, United States; Kuo and Shih, 2016, tier 2, Taiwan). Overall, financial incentives are a promising way to discourage be- haviors that are precursors to food waste and to increase motivation for overall home waste reduction. However, linking financial incentives to de- cision points specific to wasting food may prove difficult, and establishing efficacy and implementation feasibility will require considerable additional research. NUDGES Nudge interventions alter the choice architecture faced by consumers in a manner designed to encourage targeted behaviors without engaging con- scious (reflective) decision making (see Chapter 1). The committee reviewed 24 studies (four tier 1) that involved such interventions, most of which ad- dressed food service settings. The nudge interventions studied operated by means of diverse mechanisms, including shifting perceived quantity, altering appeal, or changing the default/easiest action. The interventions assessed in about 40 percent of the studies focused on shifting consumersâ perceptions of quantity through changes to portion size, package size, plate size, or tray availability (see examples in Box D-8). Most of the studies found significant reductions in waste attributable to quantity manipulations, although only two such studies were tier 1. Three studies in the United States (Kim and Morawski, 2013, tier 1; Sarjahani et al., 2009, tier 2; Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013, tier 2) focused on removal of cafeteria trays, which limits quantity by making it more difficult for patrons in buffet settings to carry multiple plates. All three of these studies (plus several non-peer-reviewed) found significant reductions in plate waste. In contrast, one recent non-peer- reviewed literature study (Cardwell et al., 2019) found no effect.
206 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-8 Nudges that Shift the amounts of food served The behavioral economics literature suggests that regardless of serving size, consumers may anchor their consumption to particular percentages of the amount served (Wansink and van Ittersum, 2013). Portion Size Three tier 2 studies of portion size are notable both because of confirmatory findings regarding the effect of portion sizes and because of further exploration of the acceptability of such interventions. Berkowitz et al. (2016, United States) examined the effects of offering reduced portion sizes in both a worksite cafeteria and an upscale restaurant. While they found relatively low frequency of selecting the reduced portion sizes (10-26 percent), plate waste was reduced by 41 per- cent per plate on average during the intervention, while food intake was reduced, and establishments saved money. Two other studies collaborated with university dining facilities to change portion sizes of French fries. Freedman and Brochado (2010, United States) engineered a sequential weekly decrease in portion size, up to a 50 percent reduction. They found a doseâresponse reduction in both waste and consumption, with waste dropping by 30 percent from the largest to smallest portion size and with 70 percent of diners not noticing a change. Vermote et al. (2018, Belgium) reduced French fries portions by 20 percent and served portions in small paper bags instead of porcelain bowls. They observed a 66 percent re- duction in plate waste and a 9 percent reduction in consumption. Most students noticed the reduction and said the new portion size was adequate; however, only a third said they were open to a permanent shift. Package Size and Promotions A related type of nudge strategy to shift consumer opportunities to address the waste of food is changing the amount of food purchased at once in retail set- tings, via package size and promotional approaches. Two studies suggest that when consumers perceived a higher likelihood that a purchased product would be wasted, they were less willing to purchase it. Petit et al. (2019, United States) assessed the impact of package size on the waste of food through three studies. The findings suggest that dislike of wasting food may create willingness to avoid larger packages and related promotional offers. The authors found, first, that with larger package sizes, consumers antici- pated greater waste of products (described as near their expiration dates), and this anticipated waste played a mediating role in intention to purchase. They fur- ther found that when consumers were asked to read information about food waste, the effect was increased, leading to reduced interest in buying a larger package, even at half price. Lastly, their work suggests that estimation of food quantity is improved when food is partitioned into portions. This finding suggests that con-
APPENDIX D 207 sumers fearing they may waste excess food might be less likely to purchase a multipack than a large package with the same amount of food in itâdespite the fact that packaging the items separately might extend shelf life and prevent waste. Further research is needed to add depth to understanding of ways to shift mental imagery in packaging for waste reduction. Plate Size Plate size studies are premised on the idea that the size of a plate both com- municates a social norm and affects perceptions of food quantity; this environmen- tal cue would thus shift the opportunity to reduce waste. For example, Kallbekken and Saelen (2013, tier 1) collaborated with a hotel chain to experimentally reduce plate size in seven Norwegian hotel breakfast buffets and compared the amount of waste to buffets in 38 control hotels. This difference-in-difference study found about a 20 percent reduction in plate waste based on plate size reductions. Sup- porting evidence for the effect of plate size on wasted food comes from tier 2 studies, including Wansink and van Ittersum (2013, United States) who reported several linked studies exploring different aspects of the relationship between plate size and food waste. Tray Removal Two studies explored a related concept aimed at changing environmental opportunity factors, specifically, collaborating with cafeterias to remove serving trays. Tray removal studies rely on the idea that when consumers are forced to select only what they can carry, they will take less food. In a sample of 360 diners in one cafeteria, Kim and Morawski (2013, tier 1, United States) found a significant 32 percent reduction in plate waste for both lunch and dinner. Another study (Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013, tier 2, United States) yielded less dramatic findings: an 18 percent reduction in solid waste and a nonsignificant reduction in liquid waste. One non-peer-reviewed study conducted by a large food service provider (ARAMARK, 2008, United States) measured plate waste from more than 186,000 meals at 25 academic institutions during periods before and after trays were removed: the study found a 25 percent to 30 percent reduction in per-person waste on trayless days. Importantly, however, a different study (non-peer-reviewed) by another large food service provider (Cardwell et al., 2019, United States) assessed the correla- tion between plate waste and tray availability at 11 different all-you-care-to-eat food service entities in the United States and found no statistically significant cor- relation. However, unlike the other tray availability studies discussed, this study did not assess interventions, but rather identified patterns across different entities with differences in tray availability. The lack of an intervention frustrates a clear causal interpretation and could imply several possible diverse interpretations. One possible interpretation is reverse causality: for example, locations where smaller meals and less waste are generated were more willing to remove trays. Another possible interpretation is acclimation: for example, patrons at locations where trays were removed acclimated to the absence of trays and improvised methods to acquire traditionally sized meals that led to waste amounts similar to locations with trays. The latter interpretation highlights the critical need for longitudinal research.
208 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE Another 40 percent of studies involved altering the appeal of food with the intent of decreasing waste by encouraging increased consumption. Sev- eral tier 2 studies enhanced appeal directly by improving meal quality or better matching meal components to patron preferences. Box D-9 provides examples of those studies, the majority of which showed a significant reduc- tion in waste for these interventions. BOX D-9 Nudges that Shift Food Quality Several interventions, all tier 2, altered food environments and provisioning with the aim of making food higher quality or more appealing. Their purpose was commonly to change quality (e.g., nutrition or taste) rather than reduce waste; however, because they used plate waste as an indicator of amount consumed, they can shed light on how such âfood qualityâ interventions might alter discarding. In institutional settings, such as Kâ12 schools and hospitals, food quality is often criticized, choices are often few, and consumers often do not directly experience the cost of their food. In the only nonschool study in this group, Kuperberg et al. (2008, Canada) performed a pilot study in collaboration with a pediatric hospital aimed at better aligning food options with patient preferences. They found that improving food quality and selection and reducing lag time from order to delivery were associated with an approximate halving of waste. Satisfaction, nutritional intake, and costs also improved, though staffing changes would be needed for full implementation, which would increase program costs. Cohen et al. (2012, United States) collaborated with local schools to evalu- ate the effects of chef-provided training for school cafeteria staff to increase lunch healthfulness and palatability. In this study, post-intervention plate waste in two participating middle schools was compared against plate waste in matched con- trols, finding a significant difference in the percent wasted for carbohydrate-based side dishes, but no significant percentage difference in the plate waste of entrÃ©es. Students in intervention schools did eat more healthfully, increasing consumption of vegetables and acceptance of whole grains. Because intervention participants were not randomly selected and because no pre-intervention data were collected, the committee has less confidence in assigning the observed differences as a causal outcome of the intervention. Two studies explored effects of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Cohen et al. (2014, United States) worked in four urban elementary and middle schools in a lower-income district. The study found a 17.7 percent reduction in amount of entrÃ©e wasted and 39.4 percent reduction in amount of vegetable wasted, with no significant change in fruit consumption. The study had a large sample size, but, as might be expected with a national policy, only pre- and post- intervention assessment without a control group was possible. The authors did
APPENDIX D 209 not explore any theory regarding why waste decreased, making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding implications for future interventions. The second study (Schwartz et al., 2015, United States) focused on a single cohort of students from 5th to 7th grade in 12 randomly selected middle schools in an urban, low-income district. The authors found the same pattern of reduced percentages of vegetables and entrÃ©es wasted over time. Due to study design, the possibilities that changed consumption was due to aging, social desirability, or biased participation in later years could not be excluded. Other studies, including two tier 1 studies (Ilyuk, 2018, United States; Williamson et al., 2016, United States) involved nudges to increase appeal less directly, including by altering the quality of the material of the plate used; providing priming messages to subtly enhance the self-esteem of cus- tomers considering the purchase of suboptimal foods; making purchasing require more effort to enhance the consumerâs psychological ownership of food; and providing cafeteria meals after recess, when student appetite would be greater. Box D-10 provides examples of four of these studies, all of which found significant effects. BOX D-10 Nudges that Indirectly Alter Appeals Altered Plate Material Qualities Williamson et al. (2016, tier 1, United States) explored how serving food on disposable or permanent plates might affect waste. This research tested and found significant support for the idea that subjects subconsciously associated a foodâs level of disposability with that of the plate material (automatic categoriza- tion). The theory was supported in both laboratory and field settings, for snack and meal foods, and with both professionals and high school students. In future research, the costs vs. benefits of less-disposable-seeming serving plates needs to be considered, including the environmental, social, and logistical (dishwashing), and financial costs and their intersection with materials with varying levels of com- postability. There is also a need for deeper understanding of how serving plates might affect perceived satiety and for approaches to shaping nudge manipulations to meet both consumption and waste goals. Self-Esteem Linkage In another indirect nudge intervention aimed at shifting appeal, Grewal et al. (2019, tier 2, Sweden) explored a novel and potentially promising behavioral
210 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-10 Continued intervention linking produce aesthetics and self-perception. They first performed experiments that convincingly supported their theory that confronting so-called âugly produceâ calls up subconscious negative self-perceptions; thinking of buy- ing or eating it may cause us to link its suboptimality to oneself. They explored the potential of interventions that alter this dynamic through message intended to improve self-perception for those who purchase the produce. Through collabora- tion with a Swedish grocery retailer, they posted an in-store messages stating either âYou are Fantastic! Pick Ugly Produce!â or âPick Ugly Produce!â: the first message was associated with a 93 percent increase in selection of unattractive apples and a 22 percent increase in willingness to pay over the second message. The research ruled out multiple alternative explanations, and it used retail and online samples. Further study of self-perception interventions seems warranted, including longer term follow-up. The committee notes that it is unfortunately easy to imagine such a simple manipulation becoming overused, which could lead to cynicism and reduced impact. Increased Effort to Obtain Food Ilyuk (2018, tier 1, United States) explored the idea that increased mental and physical effort invested in obtaining food could lead to a stronger sense of ownership and thus to reduced likelihood of waste. The author used scenario- based laboratory studies comparing onsite and online grocery shopping for the same items. She found that investing greater practical or psychological effort in obtaining a product led to a greater sense of psychological ownership of the prod- uct, which in turn was connected to reduced waste. It would be useful to further elaborate the types of tasks that shape the sense of ownership of food, the level and type of inconvenience needed to reduce waste, and how consumers might offset induced inconvenience (e.g., change to more convenient shopping modes). The costs and benefits of such inconvenience could then be considered to create optimized approaches. Recess before Lunch Bergman et al. (2004, tier 2, United States) examined whether scheduling recess before lunch could reduce waste and improve nutrient consumption, on the theory that when lunch happens first, children are eager to socialize and get outside and so may eat less and waste more. The research examined differences between schools with differences in practice and followed several similar studies starting in 1977. Focusing on grades 3-5 in two schools with a high percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch, this study found 32 percent less wasted food in the school with lunch served after recess, in addition to improved consumption of multiple nutrients. As the study did not assess an intervention, it is not possible to know whether the difference reflects the order of meal and recess or other differences between the schools in the study.
APPENDIX D 211 The remaining studies (all tier 2) involved forcing changes to consum- ersâ default behaviors (see examples in Box D-11). Two studies focused on date labels, with one altering descriptive phrases (e.g., changing âsell byâ to âuse byâ) to stimulate different processing of date information (no effect) and the other removing dates to force different evaluation approaches for product freshness (significant reduction). One study (Manzocco et al. (2017, tier 2, Italy) considered how lower- ing ambient refrigerator temperatures might help consumers discard less produce and elicited consumer-intended discard of salad packages that were maintained under different refrigeration conditions (see also below for modeling studies that highlight the potential benefits of improving re- frigeration technology). Extending the time period at which food remains at peak quality is among the most promising approaches to preventing waste at all levels of the food supply chain, and such approaches have particular utility for helping consumers navigate scheduling shifts that prevent using purchased food when planned. Although considerable technological design effort exists in that space, such as packaging, including modeling studies assessing potential impacts, they are seldom tested in interventions that BOX D-11 Nudges that Change Food Date Labels Food expiration date labels (such as âbest beforeâ) are frequently miscon- strued as providing information about food safety, although this is true only for a small number of foods (labeled with âuse byâ under the voluntary food industry standard). Much attention has focused on the language used on labels, including the role of misunderstanding in promoting unnecessary discards. Wilson et al. (2017, tier 2, United States) found null effects of changing the date label phrase on intended discard of a variety of foods evaluated by laboratory respondents. Roe et al. (2018, tier 2, United States) explored the possibility of removing date labels altogether, finding that intended discard of milk lacking a date label by study participants declined by 28 percent. A second line of research explored the potential to reduce discards by extending the window of time on the label. Yu and Jaenicke (2020) find a 10 percent reduction in milk purchases following the change in New York City milk date labeling regulations that resulted in printed package dates expanding from 9 days post pasteurization to about 15 days. Subsequent modeling suggested a commensurate 10 percent reduction in household waste of fluid milk. WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) (2013, United Kingdom) developed a model calibrated from its unpublished work to explore how extension of the shelf- life date on milk would affect milk discards. Their model predicts that milk discard would decrease from about 8 percent to less than 1 percent if shelf-life dates were extended from 7 to 13 days.
212 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE specifically assess the impact on consumer discards; and thus other studies did not qualify for this review. Policies that ban organic waste from landfills can also change default behaviors (Sandson and Broad Leib, 2019) although none of the studies reviewed examined such interventions. Overall, the empirical support of nudge interventions focused on shift- ing food quantity and appeal is the stronger than that for any of the other intervention types with statistically significant effect sizes being documented in multiple studies of this intervention type. However, the evidence is mixed, dominated by tier 2 studies, and limited in context (studies of nudges were primarily short-run evaluations carried out in buffet settings). Further, the potential for these interventions to be feasible needs to be considered in light of effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as how the closing of food service venues during the pandemic will affect other practices related to food. INFORMATION One of the most common and seemingly intuitive approaches to ad- dressing food waste is providing participants with concrete advice aimed at helping them reduce their waste: a tool for action, such as knowledge or skills regarding how to reduce waste. This category is distinct from ap- peal and feedback interventions, which also provide forms of information; information interventions entail providing only âhow-toâ information. Intervention designs of this type are often rooted in the theory of planned behavior (see Chapter 1). The committeesâ literature search identified 22 studies that included information interventions, three of which are tier 1 studies (see examples in Box D-12). The interventions studied were fairly evenly divided between household and food service settings. In most cases, the guidance provided included multiple how-to tips targeting different strategies for reducing food waste or preserving food longer. The information and tools provided were often designed to be proximate to the point of decision making (e.g., refrigerator magnets and food containers for storage decisions, spreadsheets for use when planning meals). Advice was provided in a variety of modali- ties, from pamphlets and information packets to films, signage, and social media. In most cases, the information interventions paired advice with other interventions, such as calls to action, tracking, or communication of social norms. Thus in many of the studies (8 of the 22, including 2 of the 3 tier 1 studies (Liz Martins et al., 2016; Portugal; van der Werf et al., 2019, Canada), it was not possible to distinguish the effects of the information component itself. The third tier 1 study (Soma et al., 2020, Canada) showed
APPENDIX D 213 a small effect for the information component when the intervention encour- aged participants to engage actively with the information through quizzes with rewards, while passive participation or modes that required more coordination to achieve engagement (attending group workshops) failed to produce significant waste reduction. Six of the tier 2 studies found significant positive effects that could be attributed directly to the information provision. One involved tailoring the information provided based on pretest results, a procedure that significantly improved outcomes (Schmidt, 2016, Germany). Two studies found null effects of the information provision (Ahmed et al., 2018, United States; Jagau and Vvrastekova, 2017, The Netherlands). In some cases, the effects measured reflected intermediate outcomes, such as knowledge. Qualitative studies generally found positive effects for providing information through such means as intensive small group sessions. The committee also reviewed two studies (tier 2) where a U.K. retailer implemented multiple informa- tional and social approaches using communication techniques, with positive effects on food waste (Young et al., 2017, 2018). Several other reports of large-scale information interventions that had not been peer reviewed also suggested potential positive impacts for information interventions. In summary, while some studies suggest significant effects may be achieved with simple informational interventions alone, other studies sug- gest null effects, and long-term impacts must be assessed. Additionally, as the public grows more knowledgeable about wasted food, the impact of informational approaches may be reduced. BOX D-12 Information Interventions One tier 1 study in Italy found striking impacts from a simple and low-cost intervention. Romani et al. (2018) simply asked participants to read an article com- municating the importance of meal planning and then provided advice and a plan- ning tool for doing so. The result was a significant 24 percent reduction 1 week following the intervention, with reduced waste mediated by planning behaviors. Longer term effects were not assessed. Kowalewska and Kollajtis-Dolowy (2018, tier 2) collaborated with Polish schools to implement an educational intervention with middle school students and their households. They reported that showing students four brief educational videos about food waste and its prevention, plus providing a leaflet to parents, led to a knowledge effect nearly twice that seen in households receiving only the leaflet. Some knowledge improvements persisted at 3 months follow-up. However, wasted food levels were not measured in this study.
214 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-12 Continued An additional and more labor-intensive tier 1 informational intervention was carried out by van der Werf et al. (2019) in Canada at the household level. They presented a 2-week benefits-framed (saving money) multicomponent intervention aimed at building waste prevention literacy, rooted in the theory of planned behav- ior. Components included a mailed packet containing visual reminders (magnets) to post on refrigerators or freezers, a link to a website with details, five emails reinforcing campaign messages over 2 weeks, and a container to extend food shelf life. The intervention was associated with a 30 percent reduction in avoidable food wasteâmeasured directly through waste collection. It was not possible to segment the separate roles of the different intervention components. It is possible that these strong effects from information studies will attenuate as public knowl- edge grows. Furthermore, as noted in the main text, other information studies have found null or weaker effects, and research on long-term effects is needed. National Campaigns Large-scale campaigns commonly focus on distributing materials and tools that can then be used by a variety of actors to inform consumers and organiza- tions about wasted food and provide positive, easy-to-implement behavior solu- tions. For example, the âLove Food, Hate Wasteâ campaign, developed in the United Kingdom by WRAP, launched in 2007, includes an extensive suite of tools, including communication kits (i.e., social media assets, posters, leaflet, blogs, videos) that can be adapted by influencers, industry, and organizations related to promoting the value of food, the cost of food waste, and the positive behaviors to reduce wasted food. The campaign has engaged actors and has published les- sons learned related to how to develop, conduct outreach activities, monitor, and research a successful campaign to reduce wasted food. In the United States, theÂ Natural Resources Defense CouncilÂ (NRDC) and theÂ Ad CouncilÂ launched a national campaign in 2016,Â âSave the Food,âÂ âwith a multimodal approach (i.e., video, print, and digital messaging). While primarily based in information and appeal elements, the campaign also includes nudges, social comparisons, and other elements. Ongoing consumer surveys revealed that awareness about the campaign and about wasted food was higher after the campaign as was the percentage of people reporting reducing the amount of wasted food in the last 6 months. It is important to note that large informational campaigns have only minimally been evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature, although their effectiveness has been reported in non-peer-reviewed assessments. One example is the 2012-2013 West London âLove Food Hate Wasteâ campaign, which estimated for 2007-2012, a 14 percent food waste reduction and a 1-to-8 return on investment.* However, those results were challenging to untangle from the concurrent economic reces- sion. The success of such campaigns depends on many factors, including the ability to engage influential actors, the characteristics of the tools themselves, and the availability of human and financial resources for the campaign to be active and adapted to changes.
APPENDIX D 215 Young et al. (2017, 2018, both tier 2, United Kingdom) presented a rare peer-reviewed study of a large informational campaign implemented at scale. The multicomponent project, implemented via intensive collaboration with a U.K. food retailer, combined multiple informational and social influence approaches reaching users of store social media and other communications, as well as on-site customers. Informational aspects of the intervention included a feature article in the storeâs magazine with expert tips, an e-newsletter feature on using leftovers, tips shared by social media users, and information about correct food storage. Across the study period, both exposed individuals and controls reported reduced discards, and no differential change was detected. While measurement and secu- lar changes may have been a factor, it is also possible that the indirectness of con- tact, or the many factors competing for participant attention, also reduced impact. *See: https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/West%20London%20LFHW%20Impact%20 case%20study_0.pdf. MODELING STUDIES While high-quality empirical evaluations are critical for providing ro- bust recommendations concerning the effectiveness of interventions to re- duce wasted food at the consumer level, studies that develop, calibrate, and simulate models of consumer behavior (modeling studies) can also provide important insights concerning the potential effectiveness of individual in- terventions or suites of interventions. Given the burden of implementa- tion and tracking, most intervention studies focus on a single stage in the consumer process (e.g., purchase, home meal preparation, consumption, discard) rather than systems-level interventions. Modeling studies can pro- vide insights into systems-level spillovers that might occur in response to interventions, including predictions concerning behavioral and organiza- tional responses that occur at other points in the food supply chain and the associated costs and benefits. Modeling studies generally rely on empirical work for calibration, and hence the insights generated are circumscribed by the validity of those empirical efforts. Still, they are often critical in order to connect narrow and potentially fragmented empirical efforts into a systems vision that permits broader assessment and evaluation of interventions. Box D-13 describes the modeling studies the committee reviewed: unless otherwise mentioned, these studies did not feature primary data collection.
216 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE BOX D-13 Modeling Studies Belavina et al. (2017) simulated the revenue and environmental implications of two online grocery delivery business models: the subscription model, in which patrons pay an annual fee for unlimited grocery deliveries, and a per-order model, in which patrons pay a fee for each grocery delivery. Their simulations, which were calibrated for a variety of business and delivery requirement parameters, suggest that the subscription model will lead to less wasted food, as patrons will order more frequently and avoid stockpiling that often leads to waste, and that the accompanying environmental benefits from reduced food waste are greater than the additional environmental burdens triggered from additional vehicle trips. Duret et al. (2019) simulated multiple interventions in the cooked ham supply chain that promote reduced food spoilage, including changes to home refrigera- tor temperature settings and insulation levels, to identify trade-offs between the amount of ham wasted, consumer exposure to elevated pathogen levels, and energy use. Their simulation suggests that reducing home refrigerator thermostat settings from 6Â° C to 4Â° C could reduce ham waste by about one-half and reduce exposure to high doses of foodborne pathogens by 68 percent while increasing energy use by only 9 percent. As noted above, a related effort by Manzocco et al. (2017) collected original data on consumer food discard intentions, which was used to simulate the consumer waste reduction potential from reductions in home refrigerator temperatures for iceberg lettuce. Van Holsteijn and Kemna (2018) simulated the potential extension of food shelf life that would be possible from redesigning home refrigerators to feature multiple compartments with different ambient temperatures. They showed that av- erage shelf life for a bundle of foods commonly found in homes could be extended by a factor of two to three from such a redesign that was then appropriately used by consumers in their homes. Two studies used life-cycle assessment approaches to assess the tradeoff between reductions in wasted food due to delivered meal-kit options against other possible sources of environmental damage (e.g., increased packaging waste and transportation). Heard et al. (2019) found that for most of the meals considered, the meal-kit option provided less life-cycle impact per meal than meals prepared at home by consumers sourcing ingredients through in-person grocery purchases. Gee et al. (2019) assessed this same trade-off through a broader lens: considering a weekly rather than per-meal basis and considering upstream transportation required by meal-kit fulfillment centers. They found the waste reduction from meal kits did not offset the additional environmental impact from the additional packaging in their base scenarios. However, they suggested that if meal kits can induce fewer trips to the grocery store per week or rely on lower-impact packaging, then meal kits could yield fewer life-cycle damages than home-produced meals made with ingredients from traditional grocery store shopping. Life-cycle assessment is also evoked by WikstrÃ¶m et al. (2016) in their comparison of packaging alternatives for minced meat, where they calibrate trade-offs between the tendency for different packaging materials to reduce food waste and to be recycled.
APPENDIX D 217 Hamilton and Richards (2019) deduced qualitative results from a stylized model of home meal production and food utilization, finding that commonly held beliefs (e.g., lower food prices lead to more wasted food, reductions in the cost of food utilization lead to less wasted food) need not hold and may have alternative relationships under certain consumer demand conditions (e.g., food demand is highly sensitive to prices). WRAP (2013, non-peer-reviewed) constructed a discrete event simulation model focused on home milk waste, calibrated with previous empirical evidence collected by WRAP. This model replicates several findings from independent empirical studies (e.g., reductions in wasted milk as household size increases) and generates insights that are plausible but not independently validated from empirical studies (reductions in wasted milk for extensions in milk shelf life and in- creased refrigerator monitoring). Kandemir et al. (2019) extended these modeling efforts to include additional elements of the consumer experience (e.g., shopping module), additional food items (e.g., hard cheeses and yogurt), and additional interventions (e.g., introduction of smaller multipack products). Manzocco et al. (2017) conducted a similar modeling effort, where the authors leverage their original consumer data collection; they concluded that reducing home storage temperatures of lettuce from 12 degrees Celsius to 8 or 4 degrees could yield a 13 percentage point reduction in home lettuce waste. Somkun (2017) develops a model that links in-home behavioral responses to package size to in-store inventory management to provide a rare look at the relationship between in-home and in-store waste generation. To be tractable, the model requires several strong assumptions (e.g., there is a single product with a one-day shelf life), but such assumptions permit an analyst to track how product size alters wasted food that occurs both in homes and at retailers, that is, how a particular package size could increase waste at home but decrease waste at the store (or vice versa). Perhaps the broadest modeling study in this literature is offered by Chitnis et al. (2014), a study exploring system-wide rebound effects of food waste reduction efforts alongside other proenvironmental behaviors that households might under- take. The authors assessed the implications for greenhouse gas emissions from food waste reduction efforts by estimating from secondary data how the cost sav- ings generated from food waste reduction efforts would be spent by households. They then compared the projected reductions in emissions from reduced food waste to the change in emissions created by the projected expenditure pattern facilitated by the household food budget savings. They concluded that savings in the food budget are very likely to be spent on items that provide little reduction (a large rebound) to a householdâs total contribution to greenhouse gas emission creation, particularly among the lowest-income households. Similar findings were observed in WRAPâs econometric study (non-peer-reviewed) aimed at under- standing impacts of their campaign (WRAP, 2013). Together, these two studies raise a concerning counterpoint to the intervention literature and potentially sug- gest a need for an even wider lens in constructing intervention approaches in order to prevent such rebound effects.
TABLE D-1â Studies on Interventions to Reduce Food Waste at the Consumer Level, by Tier and Setting 218 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Setting: University Tier 1b Ellison et al., Campaign had no significant Multifaceted with four Intervention Types Unable to unpack 2019 effect on food waste but changed elements (5 weeks): â¢ Appeals individual effects of each (United States) beliefs related to food waste â¢ food wasteâs economic, â¢ Engagement intervention element environmental, and social â¢ Feedback consequences Drivers â¢ how much food was A-Knowledge wasted last week compared C-Waste vs. other goals with a goal D-Lack of awareness/ â¢ ask each student to change monitoring behavior E-Psychological distance â¢ list positive efforts (donation, digestion of uneaten food) undertaken by dining hall
Kim and Tray removal had a significant Removal of trays from the Intervention Types Exclusion of breakfast, Morawski, 2013 effect size on food waste cafeteria (6 days) â¢ Nudges which often features less (United States) Drivers waste, and could bias effect A-Knowledge size upward; excludes patrons who did not use a tray even though one was available, which could bias effect size upward; does not measure long-run acclimation to trayless dining Qi and Roe, Both information interventions 2 x 2 (several sessions) Intervention Types Short-run assessment only; 2017 with buffet diners yield significant intervention design: â¢ Appeals limited food menu items (United States) reductions in plate waste â¢ information sheet about Drivers food waste and its impacts C-Waste vs. other goals â¢ information that the food E-Psychological distance waste from the meal would be composted rather than discarded Williamson et More food served on disposable Replacing paper with plastic Intervention Types Study at universities (3A al., 2016 (i.e., paper) plates is wasted than plates in free buffet settings in â¢ Nudges and 3B) had different (United States) when the same food is served five experimental conditions, limitations: study 3A plate on permanent (i.e., hard plastic) two laboratory and three field Drivers material was confounded plates. This effect persists when studies: A- Knowledge with food options served; instead of being served a fixed (1) classroom E-Psychological distance study 3B captured amount quantity of food, participants (2) online survey wasted but not amount select the amount and type of (3A) university dining hall taken; both featured small food (3B) university dining hall samples (n ~ 40); no study (3C) high school cafeteria featured the same limitation and all converged to similar magnitude of effect size 219 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 220 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Tier 2b Chen and Jai, Environmentally focused Information (3 months) in Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2018 messages had a greater favorable hypothetical buffet dining â¢ Appeals food not measured; other (United States) influence on consumer attitudes scenario (student and faculty â¢ Financial incentives limitations: sample limited toward food waste prevention survey) in a 2 x 2 intervention Drivers to university students and than a threat-focused message; design: A-Knowledge staff a higher level of perceived â¢ message focus (help the D-Lack of awareness/ social corporate responsibility environment vs. the threat monitoring increased intentions to reduce of a fine) E-Psychological distance food waste; â¢ source attribution (none vs. I- Psychosocial factors perceived social corporate EPA) responsibility moderated the relationship between attitudes toward food waste messaging and the intention to reduce food waste Freedman and Portion size was positively Intervention decreased the Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control Brochado, 2010 correlated with consumption portion size of French fries â¢ Nudges group (United States) per diner and plate waste; total (plate size was 88g and Drivers: amount produced in the kitchen decreased through weeks 2-5) A-Knowledge was positively correlated with F-Dietary differences plate waste
Jagau and Consumers were willing to pay Information campaign (3 Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control Vyrastekova, the same price for less food weeks) with banners, posters, â¢ Appeals group 2017 more often during the campaign and a recommendation to â¢ Information (The Netherlands) than before the campaign, but ask for a smaller portion if Drivers the approximated impact on consumers expect not to finish A-Knowledge food waste was not significant the meal portion; designed to avoid consumersâ insufficient planning problem Kuo and Shih, Overall average plate waste 3-week longitudinal design: Intervention Types Criteria not met: no 2016 was slightly reduced with the â¢ Baseline: first week, no â¢ Appeals control group; statistical (Taiwan) information intervention and intervention â¢ Financial incentives significance not assessed reduced dramatically with the â¢ Intervention 1 (week Drivers coercion intervention 2): information strategy A-Knowledge (information encouraging D-Lack of awareness/ patrons not to overeat and monitoring waste food) â¢ Intervention 2 (week 3): coercion strategy (threat of a fine if too much food was left on table) 221 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 222 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Lazell, 2016 The effects of the intervention Mixed method study with Intervention Types Criteria not met: no (United Kingdom) were null due to insufficient surveys, semistructured â¢ Social comparisons control group; wasted food usage of the intervention tool interviews, focus groups, and Drivers not measured, statistical due to situational barriers an intervention (4 months): A-Knowledge significance not assessed â¢ a social media tool on I-Psychosocial factors Twitter that interrupted the linear process of consumersâ consuming and throwing away food by allowing participants to send messages to inform others of food that would have otherwise been wasted within the study setting
Manomaivibool The proportion of clean Multifaceted design (5 days): Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control et al., 2016 containers (no food waste) rose â¢ stickers with food ordering â¢ Appeals group; other limitations: (Thailand) significantly; a bigger increase tips by food vendors â¢ Social comparisons cannot unpack individual was seen among female students â¢ information cards on â¢ Information effects of each intervention than among male students dining tables about Drivers element resource use and D-Lack of awareness/ environmental impacts in monitoring food production E-Psychological distance â¢ other materials from FAO âsave foodâ campaign, such as posters and banners with messages and images eliciting a proenvironmental norm â¢ encouragement to increase the visibility of the actions via social media to students that took a course with practical tasks to prevent food waste 223 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 224 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Pinto et al., 2018 A significant mean reduction in Multifaceted design (16 days): Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control (Portugal) the waste consumption index â¢ display of informative â¢ Appeals group; other limitations: and a significant reduction in posters in canteen â¢ Information cannot unpack individual unserved food in the kitchen reminding patrons to Drivers effects of each intervention choose smaller portions if D-Lack of awareness/ element desired and not to accept monitoring food they knew they would F-Dietary differences not eat â¢ students approaching their colleagues to inform them about social impact of food waste and how they could make a difference â¢ parallel actions encouraging separation of organic and inorganic waste in the kitchen Sarjahani et al., Removing trays in an all-you- Removal of trays from the Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2009 can-eat cafeteria setting had a cafeteria (3 days) â¢ Nudges group; other limitations: (United States) significant effect on food waste Drivers data collected was limited A-Knowledge to 3 days of the week
Thiagarajah and Removing trays in an all-you- Removal of trays from the Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control Getty, 2013 can-eat cafeteria setting had a cafeteria (2 weeks) â¢ Nudges group (United States) significant effect on solid food Drivers waste; it had a nonsignificant A-Knowledge effect on liquid waste Vermote et al., Smaller portion sizes resulted in Longitudinal design (2 weeks): Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2018 a decrease in the total intake of Baseline: usual porcelain bowl â¢ Nudges group (Belgium) French fries and the total plate of French fries served (+/-200 Drivers waste. g) A-Knowledge Intervention: replaced bowl F-Dietary differences with smaller volume paper bags (+/-159 g) Whitehair et al., The point prompt-type message Longitudinal design (6 weeks): Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2013 resulted in a reduction in food Baseline: 2 weeks, no â¢ Appeals group (United States) waste; addition of a more intervention â¢ Feedback personalized feedback-based Intervention 1: 1 week, posters Drivers message did not stimulate an and table tents displayed with A-Knowledge additional change beyond that the following text: âEat what of the prompt message you take. Donât waste food.â Intervention 2: 1 week, same posters and table tents with detailed general waste statistics (feedback-based intervention) 225 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 226 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Setting: School Tier 1b Liz Martins Two education interventions on Multifaceted design (3 months) Intervention Types Other limitations: cannot et al., 2016 soup and main dish waste in an educational intervention â¢ Appeals unpack individual effects of (Portugal) elementary school showed mixed for students and teachers: â¢ Engagement each intervention element results: significant effects were A. For children: â¢ Feedback observed in the short term for â¢ noted the social, â¢ Information students and in the medium term economic, and nutritional Drivers for teachers consequences of food waste D-Lack of awareness/ â¢ identified most wasted monitoring items E-Psychological distance â¢ helped plan menu to reduce food waste â¢ created posters on food waste â¢ gold stickers for students who did not wasted food on âNo Plate Waste Dayâ
B. For teachers: â¢ teacher discussion session on causes of food waste â¢ showed food waste statistics for the school and highlighted it was higher than average â¢ told of their role in influencing childrenâs food waste behavior â¢ encouraged to model behavior at lunch â¢ given flyer about importance of food waste and strategies to reduce it 227 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 228 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Prescott et al., Educational intervention for Mixed methods with Intervention Types Plate waste measurements 2019 6th graders with significant multifaceted design: â¢ Appeals over time not taken from (United States) reductions of fruit and vegetable â¢ five lesson plans ( ~ 2 â¢ Engagement identical menus; control plate waste 5 months post- weeks) integrated into â¢ Feedback group (7th and 8th graders) intervention; the extent of the existing curriculum that Drivers was older than treatment reduction depended on food and met 6th- grade science A-Knowledge group (6th graders); treated point in time standards, including units D-Lack of awareness/ classrooms required teacher on food waste and school monitoring to be willing to participate; cafeteria waste E-Psychosocial distance cannot unpack individual â¢ tasking students with effects of each intervention estimating their personal element lunch waste for 1 week and . then aggregate and post class-wide results â¢ created a poster about lessons from unit, selected best posters to hang in cafeteria during last month of intervention Williamson et More food served on disposable Replacing paper with plastic Intervention Types Study 3C treatment al., 2016 (i.e., paper) plates was wasted plates in free buffet settings â¢ Nudges occurred 1 month later than (United States) than when the same food was in five different experiments control measures though served on permanent (i.e., (two laboratory and three field Drivers for the same menu items, hard plastic) plates; the effect studies): A- Knowledge but cannot rule out seasonal persisted when instead of being (1) classroom E-Psychological distance trend; no study featured served a fixed quantity of food, (2) online survey the same limitation, and participants selected the amount (3A) university dining hall all converged to similar and type of food (3B) university dining hall magnitude of effect size (3C) high school cafeteria
Tier 2b Barnes and After MyPlate Food Group books Preschool classroom reading Intervention Types Limited to 2- to 5-year-olds; Warren, 2017 were read once a day for 2 weeks (2 weeks) of MyPlate Food â¢ Engagement insufficient power to detect (United States) by teachers, changes in food Group books concerning Drivers differences; consumption behaviors measured origins and benefits of certain E-Psychological distance intervention was not geared by food waste were not observed, food groups (grains, fruits, and toward reducing food waste but teachers indicated changes in vegetables) the preschoolersâ attitudes toward trying new foods Bergman et al., Plate waste was compared Intervention: change in Intervention Types Criteria not met: no 2004 between two elementary schools: practice (10 days) with recess â¢ Nudges new intervention tested; (United States) plate waste in the school where after school lunch Drivers rather, schools with recess was scheduled before lunch Control: recess before school A-Knowledge preexisting differences was significantly less than when lunch F-Dietary differences in scheduling recess and recess was scheduled after lunch lunch were compared; other limitations: no pre- and post-measurement as the scheduling of recess times had always differed between these two schools; no randomization of school to treatment Cohen et al., No overall significant difference Training of staff for 2 years Intervention Types No measurement of plate 2014 in plate waste between and introduction of a healthier â¢ Nudges waste pre-intervention (United States) intervention and control; lunch in two Boston schools Drivers significantly less plate waste A-Knowledge for side items for intervention schools 229 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 230 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Schwartz et al., Increased consumption (less Implementation (36 days) of Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2015 food waste) of entrÃ©e meals and the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free â¢ Nudges group (United States) vegetables; no significant changes Kids Act required by USDA to Drivers in consumption of milk or fruit update the nutrition standards A-Knowledge of the National School Lunch Program; new policies were implemented in the 2012-2013 school year Chan et al., 2008 There was no difference in Partially substitute white Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control (United States) consumption for the 50:50 blend whole wheat flour for refined- â¢ Nudges group; other limitations: or the refined wheat pizza crusts wheat flour in pizza crust Drivers study goal was not reducing F-Dietary differences food waste Setting: Restaurant Tier 1b Kallbekken and Each intervention resulted in Two different interventions (6 Intervention Types Other limitations: long-term Saelen, 2013 a significant reduction in food weeks) â¢ Appeals effects not assessed (Norway) waste â¢ sign encouraging multiple â¢ Nudges trips to buffet Drivers â¢ reduction of plate size A-Knowledge I-Psychosocial factors
Tier 2b Berkowitz et al., Food waste was significantly Intervention (7 weeks): reduce Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2016 reduced in intervention compared and full size serving of food â¢ Nudges group (United States) with the baseline period; energy items at a noncommercial Drivers intake and intakes of total fat, worksite cafeteria and a A-Knowledge saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, commercial upscale restaurant F-Dietary differences fiber, calcium, potassium, and Control: only full-size entrÃ©es iron were significantly lower were offered for each entrÃ©e of when both full- and reduced- the day size entrÃ©es were served in the worksite setting and in the restaurant setting compared with when only full-size entrÃ©es were served 231 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 232 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Stockli et al., Diners who were prompted asked Intervention design (6 weeks): Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2018 for leftover bags more frequently â¢ Intervention 1: table â¢ Appeals food not measured; (Switzerland) than controls; placards: âFood waste â¢ Social comparisons other limitations: food was diners who were prompted with happens in the restaurant â¢ Information limited to pizza an informative and a normative too. A third of all foods Drivers message did not ask for leftover are thrown away. 45% of A-Knowledge bags more frequently than those waste occurs in households H-Marketing practices prompted with information only and restaurants. Please ask us to box your leftover pizza slices for takeawayâ â¢ Intervention 2. informational plus normative intervention: placards on table: âOur guests expect a reduction of food waste. A third of all foods are thrown away. 45% of the waste occurs in households and restaurants. The majority of our guests expect that the wasting of food is reduced. Therefore, many people ask us to wrap their pizza leftovers. Please ask us to box your leftover pizza slices for takeaway to avert food waste.â
Hamerman et al., Envisioning dining with others 2 x 2 intervention design: Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2018 who they wanted to impress led â¢ envision dining at a â¢ Social comparisons food not measured; (United States) to greater perceived likelihood of restaurant with a group of Drivers other limitations: taking home leftovers when the people whom they want F-Different preferences/diets questionnaire based, virtual server proactively offered to wrap to impress or with people G-Inconvenience restaurant the leftovers versus when this with whom they were H-Marketing practices did not occur; this difference did comfortable I-Psychosocial factors not hold true when participants â¢ envision the server offering imagined dining companions with to wrap the leftover to take whom they were comfortable home Wansink and Looking at the effect of Interventions: Intervention Types Subjects not randomized to van Ittersum, dinnerware size on plate waste, â¢ large vs. small plates in a â¢ Nudges plate sizes; small number of 2013 Chinese buffet diners with large Chinese buffet â¢ Information observations (N = 43) (United States) plates served more, ate more, â¢ the effect of education (a Drivers and wasted more food than those 60-minute, interactive, A-Knowledge with smaller plates; educational multimedia warning on F-Dietary differences intervention had no impact on the dangers of using large these results plates in reducing the effect of plate size) Kuperberg et al., With room service, satisfaction Room service delivery Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2008 increased, food costs decreased system in a pediatric hospital â¢ Nudges group (Canada) at breakfast and lunch, and compared with the standard Drivers reductions in waste occurred at a cold-plating tray delivery C-Waste vs. other goals all meals system where food is chosen 2 F-Dietary differences days prior and quality of the J-Built environment food is questionable 233 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 234 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Ahmed et al., Intervention led to a Multifaceted interventions Intervention Types Criteria not met: no 2018 nonsignificant reduction in total (1.5 weeks): â¢ Appeals control; other limitations: (United States) food waste with a large portion â¢ information-based â¢ Feedback unable to unpack individual of waste attributed to post- (educational messaging) â¢ Nudges effects of each intervention consumer plate waste â¢ technological solution â¢ Information element (reduced portion size and Drivers smaller serving utensils) A-Knowledge H-Marketing practices I-Psychosocial factors Lorenz-Walther Portion size reductions for target Two interventions (2 weeks): Intervention Types Criteria not met; no et al., 2019 dishes were found to relate â¢ information on posters â¢ Appeals control; other limitations: (Germany) to lower levels of plate waste â¢ the reduction of portion â¢ Nudges disentanglement of effects based on conscious perception, sizes â¢ Information of the two interventions represented in smaller portion Drivers relies on respondent survey size ratings; effects from seeing Authors also analyzed how A-Knowledge results and statistical information posters based on the display of information H-Marketing practices modeling changed personal attitudes, posters and the reduction of I-Psychosocial factors subjective norms, and perceived portion sizes effect personal, behavioral control, but depended social. and environmental on how an individual reacts to determinants in a structural the information (by only making equation model by applying an effort to finish all food or by data from online surveys and making an effort and additionally observations choosing a different dish in the canteen); opposite effects on these determinants and consequently also on plate leftovers
Strotmann et al., The average waste rate in A participatory approach Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control 2017 the residential home and in in which the employees of a â¢ Engagement group; other limitations: (Germany) the hospital cafeteria were hospital, hospital cafeteria, â¢ Feedback unable to unpack individual significantly reduced: in the and a residential home were â¢ Nudges effects of each intervention hospital, the average waste rate integrated into the process of Drivers element remained constant; however, the developing and implementing A-Knowledge average daily food provided and measures to counteract food H-Marketing practices wasted per person in the hospital waste I-Psychosocial factors declined Setting: Retail Establishment Tier 2b Grewal et al., Shoppers exposed to a positive 2 x 2 intervention design: Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2019 self-esteem ad were significantly â¢ in-store advertisements â¢ Nudges food not measured (Sweden) more likely to choose unattractive were rotated hourly Drivers (self-report only); other apples than those exposed to between two conditions H-Marketing practices limitations: only short-run the control ad: within each (positive self-esteem I-Psychosocial factors effects assessed advertising condition, shoppers condition âYou are exposed to the control ad Fantastic! Pick Ugly message chose attractive apples Produce!â vs. control âPick more often than unattractive Ugly Produce!â) during apples; in contrast, for shoppers regular store hours exposed to the positive self- â¢ Signage was displayed esteem message condition, behind two unlabeled the choice of attractive and produce bins: one unattractive apples was split containing attractive apples evenly and the other containing unattractive apples 235 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 236 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Young et al., Both the intervention and the Two interventions with Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2017 control groups self-reported messages to encourage â¢ Appeals food not measured; (United reductions in food waste; the use reductions in food waste â¢ Engagement other limitations: control Kingdom) of social media did not change from the standard âLove â¢ Social comparisons group not randomly behavior as self-reported by Food Hate Wasteâ campaign; â¢ Information assigned consumers interventions differed in the Drivers communication channel, not A- Knowledge the message: â¢ use of retailerâs Facebook pages to encourage its customers to interact, or â¢ multifaceted intervention via two communication channels, the retailerâs print and digital magazine and e-newsletter
Young et al., Both treatment and control Various interventions Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2018 groups reported reduced food throughout 2 years with â¢ Appeals food not measured (self- (United waste significantly messages to encourage â¢ Engagement report only); control group Kingdom) reductions in food waste â¢ Social comparisons not randomly assigned from the standard âLove â¢ Information Food Hate Wasteâ campaign; Drivers interventions differed in the A- Knowledge communication channel, not the message: â¢ via an article in retailerâs print and digital magazine â¢ via a larger article in retailerâs print and digital magazine â¢ via an e-newsletter â¢ via retailerâs Facebook pages to encourage its customers to interact with each other â¢ on-pack stickers designed to invoke norms with tips about how to make the most from selected perishable products â¢ in-store events, challenging customers to reduce waste 237 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 238 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations van Giesen and Sustainability and authenticity 3 x 3 x 2 intervention Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted de Hooge, 2019 positioning can motivate design in virtual retail store: â¢ Appeals food not measured; other (various consumers to purchase three signs over suboptimal Drivers limitations: sample was countries) suboptimal products, products: (1) sustainability- H-Marketing practices biased as individuals were independently of their prices; âEmbrace imperfection:Join I-Psychosocial factors already caring for the respondents exposed to the fight against food waste!â; environment; experiment authenticity positioning reported (2) authenticity- âNaturally was conducted in virtual higher quality perceptions imperfect: Apples the way they retail store than respondents exposed to actually Look!â; (3) control sustainability positioning with three prices (discount, moderate, discount, same price) and with two products (apples and carrots) Aschemann- Message on the 2 x 4 intervention design Intervention Types Criteria not met: food Witzel, 2018 sticker appealing to either a in virtual retail store: two â¢ Appeals waste not measured; other (Denmark) food waste avoidance or to product qualities (optimal â¢ Financial incentives limitations: experiment was a cost-saving motive did not product vs. suboptimal Drivers conducted in virtual retail significantly influence likelihood product) and four messages on H-Marketing practices store of choice; however, familiarity stickers: (1) priced reduced; (2) I-Psychological factors and perceived quality was fight food waste; (3) reduced important in whether suboptimal item: lower price and save food would be purchased more; and (4) fight food waste and âlower priceâsave more
Aschemann- Communicating the budget 2 x 2 intervention design in Intervention Types Criteria not met: food Witzel et al., saving did not increase choice virtual retail store (with four â¢ Appeals waste not measured; other 2018 likelihood of suboptimal product, food products): two product â¢ Financial incentives limitations: experiment was (Uruguay) but communicating the food qualities (optimal product vs. Drivers conducted in virtual retail waste avoidance increases suboptimal product) and two H-Marketing practices store choice likelihood, independent messages on stickers (Offer! I-Psychological factors of the product type; when no Super saver! or Choose this messages were displayed, there product and help to reduce were significant food category food waste). differences in choice likelihood Kawata and Willingness to pay for Surveys on willingness to pay Intervention Types Criteria not met: food Kubota, 2018 reprocessed domestic and foreign for three choices: (1) regular â¢ Appeals waste not measured; other (Japan) Kara-age was 92.8 percent and Kara-age (i.e., made from fresh Drivers limitations: experiment was 91.7 percent of the prices of raw chicken), (2) reprocessed H-Marketing practices conducted as a survey regular Kara-age, respectively, Kara-age (i.e., made from I-Psychological factors showing the feasibility of selling unsold raw chicken near its reprocessed form of the product sell-by date), and (3) no buy and reducing food waste in the supply chain 239 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 240 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Del Giudice et The effect of certification on An experimental auction to Intervention Types Criteria not met: food al., 2016 participantsâ willingness to pay measure willingness to pay for â¢ Appeals waste not measured; other (Italy) was significant; the importance of the following choices: Drivers limitations: related to the providing footprint information â¢ purchasing baguette from H-Marketing practices experiment being conducted was only observed for the retailer certified to reduce I-Psychosocial factors as an auction; population baguette from the retailer with food waste by 10, 5, or 1 was from undergraduate 1 percent food waste certified percent students who might be â¢ moderating effect of more aware than others of information about carbon environmental effects of or water footprint food waste Collart and Clarifying the meaning of date Participants were asked to Intervention Types Criteria not met: food Interis, 2018 labels was insufficient to change choose between food products â¢ Appeals waste not measured (United States) preferences for food past its best- of varying perishability level â¢ Financial incentives before date; when information at various dates before or â¢ Information about the environmental after their best-before dates. implications of food waste Interventions: Drivers was provided, participantsâ â¢ education about the B-Assessing risk willingness-to-pay for expired meaning of labels I-Psychosocial factors food increased, particularly for â¢ same education plus K-Policy expired frozen or recently expired information about the semi-perishable products environmental implications of food waste
Le Borgne et al., Consumersâ perceived probability Hypothetical product purchase Intervention Types Criteria not met: food 2018 of waste had a significant setting to assess the impact of â¢ Financial incentives waste not measured; other (France) negative effect on consumersâ multiproduct sales tactics on Drivers limitations: statistical attitude toward promotions and intended food waste G-Everyday complexity testing for intention consumersâ intention to choose H-Marketing practices to discard not clearly perishable food products (cheese communicated; effects and bread) on sale; participants unclear showed skepticism toward the âBuy Two Get One Free Laterâ offer. 241 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 242 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Petit et al., 2019 Study 1 found that package Consumer survey asking Intervention Types Criteria not met: food (United States size affects the anticipated food about hypothetical product â¢ Appeals waste not measured waste among consumers and that purchases; four different â¢ Financial incentives anticipating food waste mediated studies: â¢ Nudges purchasing intentions, but only â¢ the mediating role of Drivers observed for perishable products; anticipated food waste on F-Dietary differences Study 2 found that priming consumersâ purchasing G-Everyday complexity individuals with information intentions as a function H-Marketing practices about the consequences of food of package size (large vs. waste made them more likely to small) focus on their anticipated food â¢ the mediating role of waste and thereby reduce their anticipated food waste on preference for bonus packs; consumersâ purchasing Study 3 found that anticipated intentions as a function food waste decreased when small of package size and packages were sold partitioned, product perishability (2 x while it increases when large 2 study: package size and packages were sold partitioned perishability)
â¢ whether priming individuals with information about the consequences of food waste influenced their preference for bonus packs, 2 x 3 design: priming (food waste information vs. control) and quantity (an 8-cup package vs. a large promotion package of 8 cups plus 8 cups for free vs. a 16-cup package) â¢ whether large packs sold as individual units has an effect on anticipated food waste, 2 x 2 design: small vs. large package and par- titioned vs. nonpartitioned package 243 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 244 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Setting: Household Tier 1b Ilyuk, 2018. Waste likelihood was higher Participants were randomly Intervention Types Criteria not met: studies Study 3 when consumers purchased food assigned to one of three â¢ Nudges 1 and 2 did not measure (United States) items online than when they conditions: Drivers actual waste; study 3 purchased them in a store â¢ in-store (individual E-Psychological distance measured actual waste, selection), but report did not quantify â¢ in-store (prepackaged), reduction and relied on â¢ online produce purchase university students Romani et al., Information intervention led to a Longitudinal study with Intervention Types Reliance on household food 2018 significant effect size in reducing information intervention to â¢ Engagement waste diaries, which are (Italy) food waste illustrate how to organize â¢ Information known for underreporting, a weekly menu quickly and Drivers and sample attrition of simply and a printable Excel A-Knowledge about 10 percent between file designed to support meal baseline and post-treatment organization and preparation measurement
van der Werf et Intervention led to a significant Multifaceted informational Intervention Types Unable to unpack al., 2019 reduction in total food waste. intervention in the form of a â¢ Appeals individual effects of each (Canada) package designed to extend â¢ Engagement intervention element produce life with the following â¢ Information elements: (1) environmental Drivers and social impacts of wasted A-Knowledge food; (2) local averages of D-Lack of awareness/ amount and value of wasted monitoring food; (3) reduction tips, such E-Psychological distance as food planning and use of leftovers; (4) five emails sent over the course of 2 weeks to reinforce the messages Soma et al., The passive group and the Three different interventions: Intervention Types 2020 gamification group had higher â¢ A passive approach (a â¢ Appeals (Canada) self-reported awareness booklet with information â¢ Engagement of food wasting and lower food on why food waste is a â¢ Information wastage than the control group; problem, tips to reduce Drivers waste audits found marginally food waste at home, and A-Knowledge significant differences between a prompt in the form of a the gamification group and the fridge magnet with storage control group and no difference tips) between the other campaign â¢ Information campaign plus groups and the control group in a community engagement edible food wasted; frequent approach (community gamers were found to generate workshops) less edible food waste than â¢ Information campaign plus infrequent gamers a gamification approach (online quiz game with points and rewards) 245 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 246 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Lee and Jung, The Household-Based Food Household-Based Food Waste Intervention Types Natural experiment; 2017 Waste Charging System can Charging System, which uses a â¢ Financial incentives no randomization of (South Korea) reduce more food waste than the weight based payment design, Drivers households design where all residents pay the through which each household D-Lack of awareness/ same amount for the waste is electronically charged for monitoring the weight of food waste they K-Policy disposes of Control: residents pay the same price by dividing total amount of waste charge by number of households Tier 2b David et al., Two behavioral states were Multifaceted intervention (2 Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted 2019 identified: fruit and vegetable weeks) included providing a â¢ Information food not measured; no (Australia) wasters and nonwasters; shopping bag, chopping board, Drivers control group; other following the intervention, a 16 new leftover reuse recipe A-Knowledge limitations: only fruit significant percentage of people cards, invitation flyer and and vegetable waste was transitioned away from wasters a shopping list and in-store considered; unable to to nonwasters cooking demonstrations unpack individual effects of each intervention element
Devaney and Participant households Multifaceted intervention Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control Davies, 2017 reduced their overall food waste directed at changing behaviors â¢ Engagement group; other limitations: (Ireland) generation toward being more sustainable, â¢ Social comparisons unable to unpack individual through purchasing, storage, â¢ Information effects of each intervention and preparation, including Drivers element; only fruit and information (a guide to A-Knowledge vegetable waste considered; smarter food storage), tools N = 5. (compostable food waste boxes) Dyen and Sirieix, Cooking classes were efficient to Ongoing cooking classes on Intervention Types Criteria not met: no 2016 promote less food waste how to cook with products â¢ Social comparisons control group; statistical (France) from the food bank in social â¢ Information significance not assessed; center for people with social Drivers other limitations: N = 3 instability A-Knowledge 247 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 248 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Graham-Rowe et There was a higher difference in Online questionnaire Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted al., 2019 fruit and vegetable waste before where participants read â¢ Appeals food not measured; (United and after reading information information about the negative Drivers other limitations: only Kingdom) about the negative consequences consequences of household H-Marketing practices fruit and vegetable waste of household food waste for the food waste after: I-Psychosocial factors considered standard self-affirmation group â¢ standard self-affirmation than for the control group manipulation, where participants chose their most important value among those in a list â¢ an integrated self- affirmation manipulation, where the list of values included could influence success at reducing household food waste â¢ control task GutiÃ©rrez-Barba There was reduction in food Eight families attending a 32- Intervention Types Criteria not met: inadequate and Ortega- waste among families in the hour workshop on the health â¢ Social comparisons statistical reporting; Rubio, 2013 intervention group; food waste and environmental impacts â¢ Information other limitations: control (Mexico) reduction was not reported for and skills and technical Drivers group not randomly control group expertise to reducing food A-Knowledge assigned waste in six weekly sessions; I-Psychosocial factors the control group was 33 families not attending the workshop
Kowalewska and Questionnaires showed that Intervention via four short Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted KoÅÅajtis-DoÅowy, knowledge about food waste (3- to 4-minute) education â¢ Information food not measured (self- 2018 increased after the intervention; videos on food wastage and Drivers report only); inadequate (Poland) analyses of the effect of its prevention A-Knowledge statistical reporting intervention on food waste was I-Psychosocial factors not conducted Lim et al., 2017 Intervention raised awareness; Technology intervention: Intervention Types Criteria not met: waste (The behavior change was not â¢ combined a social recipe â¢ Information food was not measured Netherlands) explored nor claimed in this app where users report Drivers (self-report only); study available and wasted A-Knowledge inadequate statistical ingredients; based on these, D-Lack of awareness/ reporting recipes are created and monitoring users are sent recipes with I-Psychosocial factors smart bins that collects J-Built environment wasted ingredients â¢ social recipes app plus a bin for monitoring food waste and eco-feedback application Morone et al., The adoption of food sharing Intervention: students were Intervention Types Evident problems included 2018 practices by households did not instructed to purchase, cook, â¢ Engagement participants who dropped (Italy) automatically translate into food and consume food collectively Drivers out or cheated waste reduction A-Knowledge I-Psychosocial factors 249 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 250 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Rohm et al., Brochures and refrigerator Multifaceted intervention was Intervention Types 2017 magnets had no detectable used to motivate consumers â¢ Appeals (Denmark, effect on consumer attitudes, to purchase and accept â¢ Financial incentives Germany, self-reported behavior, and suboptimal food in stores and Drivers Norway, suboptimal food choice; more in their households: H-Marketing practices Sweden and The consumers bought a banana â¢ via a brochure I-Psychosocial factors Netherlands) when the sustainability message â¢ a refrigerator magnet was next to them than when the â¢ a website price was lowered or when a â¢ a Facebook group on self- taste message was presented reported suboptimal food choices and behaviors An in-store intervention where different messages were tested to identify the potential effects on consumer behavior Schmidt, 2016 Significant higher increase in Multifaceted interventions (4 Intervention Types Criteria not met: wasted (Germany) the self-reported performance of weeks): â¢ Social comparisons food not measured recorded food waste-preventing â¢ providing information â¢ Information (self-report only); other behaviors in the experimental (recommendations to Drivers limitations: unable to group than in the control group prevent food waste) A-Knowledge unpack individual effects of â¢ public commitment I-Psychosocial factors each intervention element â¢ goal-setting measure
Comber and The intervention had no effect Multifaceted intervention: Intervention Types Criteria not met: no control Thieme, on changes in attitude toward a two-part persuasive â¢ Social comparisons group; no measure of food 2013 (United recycling and food waste but technology, which replaced an â¢ Feedback waste, but only measure Kingdom) had an impact on participantsâ everyday waste bin with one Drivers of attitude and behavior awareness of their own and enabled to capture and share D-Lack of related to recycling and othersâ recycling behavior and images of disposed of waste on awareness-monitoring food waste this awareness prompted self- an online social network I-Psychosocial factors reflection and reevaluation of the facilities and abilities available to the participants for recycling Sintov et al., No evidence for positive spillover Individuals received curbside Intervention Types Criteria not met: food 2017 effects on energy and water organic waste bins (structural â¢ Social comparisons waste not measured, but (United States) behaviors but none of the three intervention) and procedural Drivers only measure of food food spillover behaviors were information about composting C-Waste vs. other goals waste prevention behaviors significant (food, energy, and (information intervention) D-Lack of awareness/ (planning out meals and water waste prevention), except were randomly assigned, monitoring assessing/using food at for a marginal effect for checking following the midpoint G-Everyday complexity home before shopping) food before shopping assessment, to receive weekly I-Psychosocial factors were recorded by survey descriptive norms messaging J-Built environment for 8 weeks: 75 percent of households in Costa Mesa separated all of their food scraps this week, 251 continued
TABLE D-1âContinued 252 Intervention Types and Study Findings Intervention Driversa Limitations Roe et al., 2018 Containers with date labels A âsell byâ label with a date Intervention Types Criteria not met: food (United States) resulted in increases in discard set to 18 days post-bottling â¢ Nudges waste was not measured intentions for milk that is Drivers putatively -Past Date- among B-Assessing risk commercial bottlers compared I-Psychosocial factors with containers without such K-Policy labels; multivariate analysis revealed that discard intentions are lower among participants with higher incomes and fewer household members, but revealed no other significant correlations with personal or household characteristics Wilson et al., The willingness to waste was Labels on ââBest byâ, ââFresh Intervention Types Criteria not met: food 2017 greatest in the -Use By- treatment, byâ, ââUse byâ or ââSell byâ on â¢ Nudges waste not measured (United States) the date label which may be the three products, two sizes, and Drivers least ambiguous and suggestive three expiration dates B-Assessing risk of food safety; the willingness to I-Psychosocial factors waste was the lowest for the âSell K-Policy by: treatment, which may be the most ambiguous date label about safety or quality for consumers
Manzocco et al., Increase in storage temperature A survey on salad Intervention Types Criteria not met: food 2017 did not affect salad firmness and consumption: participants â¢ Nudges waste not measured; (Italy) weight loss but increased color were asked to consider discard Drivers other limitations: effects changes, microbial growth, and of the product, which was J-Built environment unclear; estimated a consumer rejection; the survey presented to them after being rejection curve but did not showed that fresh-cut salad was held at different refrigeration provide straightforward mainly consumed within the first temperatures, without their tests of the effect of 5 days after purchasing knowledge; participants temperature on intended were also asked to report on discard rate their usual habits regarding acquisition and shelf life of lettuce in their households NOTES: EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; FAO, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture. aDrivers are defined as: A-knowledge; B-assessing risk; C-waste vs. other goals; D-lack of awareness/monitoring; E-psychological distance; F- dietary differences; G-everyday complexity; H-marketing practices; I-psychosocial factors; J-built environment; and K-policy. bTier 1 studies met four criteria: an intervention was implemented; wasted food was measured; causal effect can be attributed; and statistical analysis was adequate. Tier 2 studies failed to meet at least one of the four criteria. 253 continued
254 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE REFERENCES Ahmed, S., C.B. Shanks, M. Lewis, A. Leitch, C. Spencer, E.M. Smith, and D. Hess. 2018. Meeting the food waste challenge in higher education. International Journal of Sustain- ability in Higher Education 19(6):1075-1094. ARAMARK. 2008. The Business and Cultural Acceptance Case for Trayless Dining. Avail- able: http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/bft/sustainability/ARAMARK%20Trayless%20 Dining%20July%202008%20FINAL.pdf. Aschemann-Witzel, J. 2018. Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food under the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Quality and Preference 63(63):119-128. Aschemann-Witzel, J., A. GimÃ©nez, and G. Ares. 2018. Consumer in-store choice of subopti- mal food to avoid food waste: The role of food category, communication and perception of quality dimensions. Food Quality and Preference 68:29-39. Barnes, J.L., and C.A. Warren. 2017. Development of food group books for three- and four- year-old children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 45(3):272-284. Bel, G., and R. Gradus. 2016. Effects of unit-based pricing on household waste collection demand: A meta-regression analysis. Resource and Energy Economics 44:169-182. Belavina, E., K. Girotra, and A. Kabra. 2017. Online grocery retail: Revenue models and environmental impact. Management Science 63(6):1781-1799. Bergman, E.A., N.S. Buergel, T.F. Englund, and A. Femrite. 2004. The relationship of meal and recess schedules to plate waste in elementary schools. The Journal of Child Nutrition and Management 28(2). Berkowitz, S., L. Marquart, E. Mykerezi, D. Degeneffe, and M. Reicks. 2016. Reduced-portion entrÃ©es in a worksite and restaurant setting: Impact on food consumption and waste. Public Health Nutrition 19(16):3048-3054. Cardwell, N.T., C. Cummings, and M. Kraft. 2019. Toward Cleaner Plates: A study of plate waste in food service. Available: https://www.nrdc.org/resources/toward-cleaner- plates-study-plate-waste-food-service. Chan, H.W., T.B. Champoux, M. Reicks, Z. Vickers, and L. Marquart. 2008. White whole- wheat flour can be partially substituted for refined-wheat flour in pizza crust in school meals without affecting consumption. Journal of Child Nutrition & Management: A publication of the American School Food Service Association 32:1. Chen, H.S., and T.M.C. Jai. 2018. Waste less, enjoy more: Forming a messaging campaign and reducing food waste in restaurants. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 19(4):495-520. Chitnis, M., D. Angela, S. Steve, K.F. Steven, and J. Tim. 2014. Who rebounds most? Estimat- ing direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups. Ecological Economics 106(106):12-32. Cohen, J.F.W., L.A. Smit, E. Parker, S.B. Austin, A.L. Frazier, C.D. Economos, and E.B. Rimm. 2012. Long-term impact of a chef on school lunch consumption: Findings from a 2-year pilot study in Boston middle schools. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 112(6):927-933. Cohen, J.F., S. Richardson, E. Parker, P.J. Catalano, and E.B. Rimm. 2014. Impact of the new U.S. Department of Agriculture school meal standards on food selection, consumption, and waste. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46(4):388-394. Collart, A.J., and M.G. Interis. 2018. Consumer imperfect information in the market for ex- pired and nearly expired foods and implications for reducing food waste. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(11).
APPENDIX D 255 Comber, R., and A. Thieme. 2013. Designing beyond habit: Opening space for improved re- cycling and food waste behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence and aversive affect. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17(6):1197-1210. David, P., S. Rundle-Thiele, and J.I. Pallant. 2019. Re(focussing) on behavioural change: An examination of the utility of hidden Markov modelling. Journal of Social Marketing 9(2):130-145. Del Giudice, T., F. La Barbera, R. Vecchio, and F. Verneau. 2016. Anti-waste labeling and consumer willingness to pay. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 28(2):149-163. Devaney, L., and A.R. Davies. 2017. Disrupting household food consumption through ex- perimental homelabs: Outcomes, connections, contexts. Journal of Consumer Culture 17(3):823-844. Duret, S., H.M. Hoang, E. Derens-Bertheau, A. Delahaye, O. Laguerre, and L. Guillier. 2019. Combining quantitative risk assessment of human health, food waste, and energy con- sumption: The next step in the development of the food cold chain? Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 39(4):906-925. Dyen, M., and L. Sirieix. 2016. How does a local initiative contribute to social inclusion and promote sustainable food practices? Focus on the example of social cooking workshops. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40(6):685-694. Ellison, B., O. Savchenko, C.J. Nikolaus, and B.R.L. Duff. 2019. Every plate counts: Evalua- tion of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall. Resources, Conserva- tion and Recycling 144:276-284. Freedman, M.R., and C. Brochado. 2010. Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste. Obesity 18(9):1864-1866. Gee, I.M., F.T. Davidson, B.L. Speetles, and M.E. Webber. 2019. Deliver me from food waste: Model framework for comparing the energy use of meal-kit delivery and groceries. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production 236:117587. Graham-Rowe, E., D.C. Jessop, and P. Sparks. 2019. Self-affirmation theory and pro-environ- mental behaviour: Promoting a reduction in household food waste. Journal of Environ- mental Psychology 62:124-132. Grewal, L., J. Hmurovic, C. Lamberton, and R.W. Reczek. 2019. The self-perception connec- tion: Why consumers devalue unattractive produce. Journal of Marketing 83(1):89-107. GutiÃ©rrez-Barba, B.E., and A. Ortega-Rubio. 2013. Household food-waste production and a proposal for its minimization in Mexico. Life Science Journal 10(3):1772-1783. Hamerman, E.J., F. Rudell, and C.M. Martins. 2018. Factors that predict taking restaurant left- overs: Strategies for reducing food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 17(1):94-104. Hamilton, S.F., and T.J. Richards. 2019. Food policy and household food waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(2):600-614. Heard, B.R., M. Bandekar, B. Vassar, and S.A. Miller. 2019. Comparison of life cycle envi- ronmental impacts from meal kits and grocery store meals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 147:189-200. Ilyuk, V. 2018. Like throwing a piece of me away: How online and in-store grocery purchase channels affect consumersâ food waste. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41:20-30. Jagau, H.L., and J. Vyrastekova. 2017. Behavioral approach to food waste: An experiment. British Food Journal 119(4):882-894. Kallbekken, S., and H. SÃ¦len. 2013. âNudgingâ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a winâwin environmental measure. Economics Letters 119(3):325-327. Kandemir, C., T. Quested, C. Reynolds, K. Fisher, and R. Devine. 2019. Household food waste simulation model: Investigation of interventions for staple food items waste. Paper read at Proceedings of 26th EurOMA Conference.
256 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE Kawata, Y., and S. Kubota. 2018. Consumersâ willingness to pay for reprocessed fried chicken: A way of reducing uneaten food. Appetite 120:571-577. Khan, U., and R. Dhar. 2006. Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 43(2):259-266. Kim, K., and S. Morawski. 2013. Quantifying the impact of going trayless in a university din- ing hall. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 7(4):482-486. Kowalewska, M.T., and A. KoÅÅajtis-DoÅowy. 2018. Food, nutrient, and energy waste among school students. British Food Journal 120(8):1807-1831. Kuo, C., and Y. Shih. 2016. Gender differences in the effects of education and coercion on reducing buffet plate waste. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 19(3):223-235. Kuperberg, K., A. Caruso, S. Dello, and D. Mager. 2008. How will a room service delivery system affect dietary intake, food costs, food waste and patient satisfaction in a paediatric hospital? A pilot study. Journal of Foodservice 19(5):255-261. Lazell, J. 2016. Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: Sharing as a means of preven- tion. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15(5):430-439. Le Borgne, G., L. Sirieix, and S. Costa. 2018. Perceived probability of food waste: Influence on consumer attitudes towards and choice of sales promotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 42:11-21. Lee, S. and K. Jung. 2017. Exploring effective incentive design to reduce food waste: A natural experiment of policy change from community based charge to RFID based weight charge. Sustainability 9:1-17. Lim, V., M. Funk, L. Marcenaro, C. Regazzoni, and M. Rauterberg. 2017. Designing for action: An evaluation of social recipes in reducing food waste. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 100:18-32. Liz Martins, M., S.S. Rodrigues, L.M. Cunha, and A. Rocha. 2016. Strategies to reduce plate waste in primary schoolsâexperimental evaluation. Public Health Nutrition 19(8):1517-1525. Lorenz-Walther, B.A., N. Langen, C. Gobel, T. Engelmann, K. Bienge, M. Speck, and P. Teits- cheid. 2019. What makes people leave less food? Testing effects of smaller portions and information in a behavioral model. Appetite 139:127-144. Manomaivibool, P., C. Chart-asa, and P. Unroj. 2016. Measuring the impacts of a save food campaign to reduce food waste on campus in Thailand. Applied Environmental Research 38:13-22. Manzocco, L., C. Lagazio, M. Alongi, M.C. Nicoli, and S. Sillani. 2017. Effect of temperature in domestic refrigerators on fresh-cut iceberg salad quality and waste. Food Research International 102(102):129-135. Morone, P., M. Andrea, I. Enrica, and F. Pasquale Marcello. 2018. Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. Journal of Cleaner Production 185(185):749-760. Petit, O., R. Lunardo, and B. Rickard. 2019. Small is beautiful: The role of anticipated food waste in consumersâ avoidance of large packages. Journal of Business ResearchÂ 113:326-336. Pinto, R.S., R. Pinto, F.F.S. Melo, S.S. Campos, and C.M. Cordovil. 2018. A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction in a university canteen. Waste Management 76:28-38. Prescott, M.P., X. Burg, J.J. Metcalfe, A.E. Lipka, C. Herritt, and L. Cunningham-Sabo. 2019. Healthy planet, healthy youth: A food systems education and promotion intervention to improve adolescent diet quality and reduce food waste. Nutrients 11(8). Qi, D., and B.E. Roe. 2017. Foodservice composting crowds out consumer food waste re- duction behavior in a dining experiment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99(5):1159-1171.
APPENDIX D 257 Roe, B.E., S.B. Aishwarya, T.S. Christopher, M.P. David, R.H. Dennis, and E.B. Kathryn. 2018. Discard intentions are lower for milk presented in containers without date labels. Food Quality and Preference 66(66):13-18. Rohm, H., M. Oostindjer, J. Aschemann-Witzel, C. Symmank, V.L. Almli, I.E. de Hooge, A. Normann, and K. Karantininis. 2017. Consumers in a sustainable food supply chain (COSUS): Understanding consumer behavior to encourage food waste reduction. Foods 6(12):27. Romani, S., S. Grappi, R.P. Bagozzi, and A.M. Barone. 2018. Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite 121:215-227. Sandson, K., and E. Broad Lieb. 2019. Bans and Beyond: Designing and Implementing Organic Waste Bans and Mandatory Organics Recycling Laws. Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic; Center for EcoTechnology. Available: https://www.chlpi.org/ wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Organic-Waste-Bans_FINAL-compressed.pdf. Sarjahani, A., E.L. Serrano, and R. Johnson. 2009. Food and non-edible, compostable waste in a university dining facility. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 4(1):95-102. Schmidt, K. 2016. Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an envi- ronmental psychological based intervention study. Resources, conservation, and recycling 111(111):53-66. Schwartz, M.B., K.E. Henderson, M. Read, N. Danna, and J.R. Ickovics. 2015. New school meal regulations increase fruit consumption and do not increase total plate waste. Child- hood Obesity 11(3):242-247. Sintov, N., S. Geislar, and L.V. White. 2017. Cognitive accessibility as a new factor in proen- vironmental spillover: Results from a field study of household food waste management. Environment and Behavior 51(1):50-80. Soma, T., B. Li, and V. Maclaren. 2020. Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer aware- ness interventions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(3):907. Somkun, P.N. 2017. Stochastic mathematical model for food waste reduction in a two-level supply chain for highly perishable products. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 6(1):165-171. Stockli, S., M. Dorn, and S. Liechti. 2018. Normative prompts reduce consumer food waste in restaurants. Waste Management 77:532-536. Strotmann, C., S. Friedrich, J. Kreyenschmidt, P. Teitscheid, and G. Ritter. 2017. Comparing food provided and wasted before and after implementing measures against food waste in three healthcare food service facilities. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(8). Thiagarajah, K., and V.M. Getty. 2013. Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 113(1):141-145. van der Werf, P., J.A. Seabrook, and J.A. Gilliland. 2019. âReduce food waste, save moneyâ: Testing a novel intervention to reduce household food waste. Environment and Behavior. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0(0):0013916519875180. van Giesen, R.I., and I.E. de Hooge. 2019. Too ugly, but I love its shape: Reducing food waste of suboptimal products with authenticity (and sustainability) positioning. Food Quality and Preference 75:249-259. van Holsteijn, F., and R. Kemna. 2018. Minimizing food waste by improving storage condi- tions in household refrigeration. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 128(128):25-31. Vermote, M., V. Versele, M. Stok, P. Mullie, E. DâHondt, B. Deforche, P. Clarys, and T. Deliens. 2018. The effect of a portion size intervention on French fries consumption, plate waste, satiety and compensatory caloric intake: An on-campus restaurant experiment. Nutrition Journal 17(1).
258 NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE Wansink, B., and K. van Ittersum. 2013. Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Applied 19(4):320-332. Whitehair, K.J., C.W. Shanklin, and L.A. Brannon. 2013. Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 113(1):63-69. WikstrÃ¶m, F., H. Williams, and G. Venkatesh. 2016. The influence of packaging attributes on recycling and food waste behaviourâan environmental comparison of two packaging alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 137:895-902. Williamson, S., L.G. Block, and P.A. Keller. 2016. Of waste and waists: The effect of plate material on food consumption and waste. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 1(1):147-160. Wilson, N.L.W., B.J. Rickard, R. Saputo, and S.-T. Ho. 2017. Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference 55:35-44. WRAP. 2013. The Milk Model: Simulating Food Waste in the Home. Available: https://www. wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Milk%20Model%20report.pdf. Young, W., S.V. Russell, C.A. Robinson, and R. Barkemeyer. 2017. Can social media be a tool for reducing consumersâ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117:195-203. Young, C.W., S.V. Russell, C.A. Robinson, and P.K. Chintakayala. 2018. Sustainable retail- ingâinfluencing consumer behaviour on food waste. Business Strategy and the Environ- ment 27(1):1-15. Yu, Y., and E.C. Jaenicke. (2020). The effect of sell-by dates on purchase volume and food waste. Food Policy. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101879.