Michael Hsu
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
30881 RPO WAY
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8808
April 27, 2011
Dean Robert M. Goodman
Executive Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
88 Lipman Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525
Dear Dean Goodman,
I greatly appreciate your attendance at my oral presentation on April 14th. To this letter,
I’ve attached a more in-depth analysis of issues covered in the food waste presentation, as well
as a plan to further improve dining hall efficiency. I am sending this proposal to you because I
am well aware of your dedication to maximizing the quality of and access to a superior
education. As a student currently attending Rutgers University, these are goals that I would
certainly like to see Rutgers working toward. By reducing the amount of waste at Rutgers
University’s dining halls, the University can devote more money and resources toward your
goals, while simultaneously minimizing meal plan prices and helping to solve the national food
waste problem.
Reducing the overall amount of food wasted reduces the amount of agriculture required
to produce the nation’s food supply. As you surely know, intensive agriculture can have many
far-reaching consequences with regards to the United States’ resources. The largest source of
food waste comes from consumer plate waste and large foodservice industries – such as that of
Rutgers University (Kantor, 1997). Currently, Rutgers University’s dining halls average over one
ton of waste every day (EPA, 2009). My proposal will help to address that waste by first raising
student awareness of the problems, then implementing a trial system at Busch Dining Hall to
minimize the amount of plate waste by reducing the amount of food students take in one trip to
the lines. This plan is supported by B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theory of reinforcement, along with
the success of other universities’ attempts at resolving similar problems.
Since you are a member of President McCormick’s council, you are in an ideal position
to implement these changes in the dining system, and to help increase the overall quality of
educational services here at Rutgers. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by
phone at (347) 879-5472, or by e-mail at mshsu@eden.rutgers.edu. Thank you for your time, and
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Michael Hsu
Minimizing Food Waste at Rutgers University
Submitted by:
Michael Hsu
Submitted to:
Robert M. Goodman
Executive Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
88 Lipman Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525
Prepared for:
Elisheba Haqq-Stevens
Scientific and Technical Writing (01:355:302:22)
April 27, 2011
Abstract
In the United States, about 40% of the national food supply is wasted. Wasted food that ends up
in landfills can decompose to form methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times as effective as
carbon dioxide in affecting global warming. Increased food consumption due to food waste also
leads to increased agricultural land use for the production of wasted food. Coupled with poor
agricultural practices, this leads to increased farm runoff. Farm runoff can cause the
eutrophication of water bodies, causing an overall degradation of the water supply. 40% of the
nation’s freshwater supply is used for irrigation in agriculture, meaning that about 16% of overall
freshwater consumption is wasted in the production of discarded food. This occurs in a time
when 36 out of 50 states are expecting water shortages by 2013 even in non-drought conditions,
and most regions have already experienced shortages within the past five years. Food waste can
occur throughout the food production process, but a study found the largest portion of food waste
to be from foodservice and consumer plate waste. Rutgers dining is the third-largest student
dining operation in the United States, but does not have any policies active in reducing student
plate waste.
This proposal uses the reinforcement theory of behavior first proposed by B.F. Skinner as a
method to control voluntary decision-making, and bases its plan on successful solutions from
three other universities seeking to curb their food waste problems. The University of Notre Dame
used food drives to raise student awareness of the problem. The University of Maine adopted a
tray-free dining policy. Ohio University experimented with sample stations at the dining halls.
Following these examples, the proposal states that Rutgers University should adopt a similar
awareness campaign, with additional campaigning through dining hall fliers and sections in the
Daily Targum. The next two phases of the plan suggest the installation of sample stations and
smaller trays at Busch Dining Hall. Busch Dining Hall is currently the most used dining hall by
students, having undergone several renovations to accommodate for growing diner numbers, and
analysis of the impacts of the plan on dining hall food waste can determine whether or not it
should be further applied to other Rutgers campuses.
i
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-5
Consequences of Food Waste on a National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Sources of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Food Waste at Rutgers University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
The Theory of Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The University of Notre Dame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6
The University of Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Ohio University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7-8
Plan for Rutgers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-9
Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
Installation of Sample Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Resizing Dining Trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Installation of Sample Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Resizing Dining Trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-14
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16
Appendix A: Idealized diagram of current dining hall tray capacity . . . . . . . . . . .15
Appendix B: Idealized diagram of proposed dining hall tray capacity . . . . . . . . . 16
ii
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of food waste by sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Figure 2: Overview of Rutgers University’s monetary expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3: Reduction of food waste after sample implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
iii
Introduction
Consequences of Food Waste on a National Level
Currently, as much as forty percent of the nation’s entire yearly food supply is not consumed, but
discarded to end up in landfills around the country. Food that ends up in landfills eventually
decomposes and produces methane, a gas that is 25 times as effective as carbon dioxide at
trapping heat in the atmosphere. This methane can result in the acceleration of global warming, a
problem which is already of great concern to many scientists. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2010) considers anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change to be “a
serious challenge – one that could require new approaches and ways of thinking” (p. 2). Global
warming can result in problems such as stronger storm systems and sea level rise, which can lead
directly to the flooding of coastal communities. Ocean warming has been shown to result in
problems such coral bleaching, damage to coral reefs that can prevent future generations from
enjoying these beautiful aquatic ecosystems. Methane, however, is not the only gas that arises as
a result of food waste. While it is the primary greenhouse gas of concern that arises directly from
waste, the production and transportation of food also burns about 300 million barrels of oil a
year, further adding to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide presently in the atmosphere (Hall,
2009).
Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil used to produce food is only one of many problems tied
to an increase in agricultural land use, an increase which is required to accommodate for the
large amounts of waste that occur. As a result of food waste, the nation is producing about 60%
more food than is actually needed to sustain the nation. The resulting increase in agriculture can
result in various strains on the nation’s natural resources, such as local watershed quality and the
nation’s overall freshwater supply.
One of the major problems with current agricultural practices, and which is amplified by
increased agricultural demand, is the presence of nutrient runoff from farms. Farm runoff,
especially phosphorous-based compounds, effectively causes nutrient pollution in a body of
water, a problem known as eutrophication. The increased quantity of nutrients present may be
good for plants and other photosynthetic organisms initially, but the rapid proliferation of these
organisms can eventually result in unusually low oxygen levels in a water body. The lowered
oxygen levels can cause a die-off of environmentally sensitive fish and other animals which
depend on that particular source of water, resulting in the loss of biodiversity, overall
degradation of the water supply, and damage that can last for centuries (The Associated Press,
2011). According to the EPA (2005), farm runoff is the leading source of impairments to rivers
and lakes. These negative effects are not restricted to only affecting the natural environment.
Communities may depend on water bodies for recreational use, and eutrophication of those
locations can have adverse effects on the ability of humans to enjoy the natural scenery. Certain
algal species produce toxins, and can have undesirable effects on people seeking to use the area.
As an additional stress to the nation’s water supply, irrigation used for agriculture is the single
largest sector of freshwater use in the United States (Hutson, 2004). It is simply unacceptable
that nearly half of the water used in agriculture is lost in the production of wasted food, in a time
when the United States is facing an ever-growing population and demand for water. At least 36
states are anticipating some degree of water shortages by 2013, even under non-drought
conditions, and in the last five years, nearly every region of the country has experienced water
1
shortages (EPA, 2008). It is, therefore, imperative that water be saved where it is possible, and
reducing the amount of food that the nation wastes can help to provide this support.
Sources of Waste
In order to begin tackling the issue of food waste, it is important to know where the main sources
of food waste lie. Throughout the production and delivery of food, there are many opportunities
for waste. Even before the food is harvested and processed, inclement weather can cause losses
at the production level. Pest infestations and crop diseases can devastate a harvest, especially
when the field in question is fairly uniform, allowing diseases to spread quickly. Severe weather,
such as heavy rain or hail, may cause damage to crops in the field, and lack of precipitation can
also cause losses. Some food may also be lost during harvesting. In the modern age, many fields
are now machine-harvested. Although mechanizing the harvest process certainly saves time and
money, machines are not quite as discerning about the crops being harvested as humans might
be. Sometimes, not all edible portions of a crop are harvested, and sometimes, crops that would
not make it through inspection do get harvested. Pests getting into the food supply remain a
problem during storage, much like they were during production, and mold and other
microorganisms can damage stores of food. Even without the many pests that may damage food
supplies, there is a general deterioration of food quality over time. Food that does not meet the
safety standards of the EPA gets tossed out as an acceptable loss (waste) of food. At the retail
level, perfectly edible food is still often discarded due to suboptimal appearance, often bypassing
charitable organizations to be delivered directly to landfills. Still more safe food is discarded,
once the food’s “sell by” or expiration date has passed, though food often remains safe within a
few weeks afterward. From a business perspective, this shows consumers that the business is
dedicated to providing quality products. However, from a waste management perspective, this
produces even more unnecessary waste. The discarded food often does not find its way to the
needy, but is ultimately thrown into landfills (Kantor, 1997).
2
The United States Food Supply
Retail Food
Loss
2%
Figure 1:
Percentage of food
waste by sector
(Kantor 1997).
Foodservice
and
Consumer
Food Loss
25%
Not Included
73%
Despite the myriad of opportunities where food can be wasted, however, a study performed by
the United States Department of Agriculture showed that the single largest source of food waste
came from consumers and food services (Figure 1). Much of this comes from food services
preparing more food than necessary, and from plate waste – food that is taken, but not consumed.
That is where adopting a policy of minimizing food waste at Rutgers University can help.
Food Waste at Rutgers University
Rutgers University currently runs the third largest student dining operation in the country,
serving over 3.3 million meals each year (About us, 2011). This puts the University at a unique
position to make a major difference in the area of food waste; by demonstrating the ability to
reduce food waste on such large-scale dining operations, it can set a leading example for many
other universities to follow. Unfortunately, as of right now, Rutgers does not have any programs
specifically directed toward reducing student plate waste at the dining halls.
3
Figure 2: Overview of Rutgers
University’s monetary expenditures
(Rutgers, 2010)
Of its 2 billion dollar annual budget, the university spends close to 14% of it on auxiliary
enterprises, including dining services (Figure 2). By cutting back on the amount of food wasted
by students – that is, the amount of food taken from the dining hall, but not consumed and
returned as plate waste – the university can devote more money toward the education of its
students. Currently, Rutgers University wastes an average of 1.125 tons of food (measured in dry
weight, after pulping) per day. This waste can come from the aforementioned plate waste, as well
as the discarding of excess prepared food after a meal period. On occasion, members of the
dining hall staff will make one last effort to distribute leftover baked goods to students, but
normally, these efforts will only cut back on a few slices of cake wasted per dining hall. Some
efforts have been made toward recycling existing food scraps, and the remnants are reused as
food scraps for local pig farmers (Department of Environmental Protection, 2009). However, this
ultimately still comes at a cost to the University, at about $30 per ton of waste; the money used
to purchase the food and the energy invested in cooking and preparing food for student dining is
lost as well.
The cost that food waste bears on the University will eventually trickle down to become a burden
on students. Currently, Rutgers University requires all students living on campus to have a
minimum meal plan. As a result, the cost of a meal plan can have a direct effect on the cost of
staying at the University. Not only will that result in complaints from current students and their
parents, but higher costs for on-campus students may also result in deterring students who may
otherwise be interested in attending Rutgers University. By reducing the amount of food wasted
at the dining halls, the cost of meal plans can be kept to a minimum, which, in turn, will help to
minimize housing costs.
While many universities have already taken steps toward raising student awareness regarding the
problem of food waste, Rutgers University has shown little to no initiative in this regard, save for
the minor acknowledgement of the problem by Dining Services. The general lack of information
on the subject results in a lack of student awareness that there is a problem to be corrected. One
4
poll found that out of every ten people, nine simply were not aware of just how much food they
wasted (The Telegraph, 2008). This suggests that one of the biggest causes of food waste on the
local level is simply the lack of awareness of the problem. Students cannot be more considerate
of the amount of food they are wasting if they do not realize that there is a problem in the first
place. Educating students on the dangers of food waste has been one of the approaches toward
reducing food waste at university dining halls.
Literature Review
The Theory of Reinforcement
The concept of reducing food waste is not new, and many universities have already made efforts
toward tackling the problem. There have been many different approaches, one of the most
common being simply educating students regarding the problem, but between them, there is one
thing in common. Each plan has been geared toward encouraging a particular action –
encouraging more conservative dining hall choices in order to reduce food waste. The goal of
increasing the likelihood of a particular behavior falls under the domain of reinforcement theory.
Reinforcement is a behavioral theory which states that the likelihood of a particular behavior can
be increased by providing a “response” to that behavior. A response can be the addition of a
favorable stimulus, called positive reinforcement, or the removal of an unfavorable stimulus,
termed negative reinforcement. The theory was first proposed by B.F. Skinner through his work
with what he termed an operant conditioning chamber. In an operant conditioning chamber (now
colloquially known as a Skinner Box), the main feature of interest is a lever or bar of some sort,
which will trigger some sort of response when pressed. In positive reinforcement, the lever will
release a food pellet upon being pressed. When a hungry rat is placed within the chamber, its
lever presses become more frequent as it discovers that pressing the lever will produce a food
pellet reward – the response, which leads to positive reinforcement of the lever-pressing
behavior. In negative reinforcement, there is one additional feature in the box: the presence of an
electrified floor grid, which causes discomfort for the rat. Pressing the lever will remove the
stimulus, considered an aversive or unwanted stimulus. This quickly reinforces the behavior of
pressing the lever more frequently in order to avoid the electric current. Similar blind studies
have shown that human behavior is also much affected by conditioned reinforcement (Leslie
1999). For humans, money is a fairly generalized conditioned reinforcer, but, in application to
the subject of food waste, the idea that an individual is doing something meaningful may be one
as well. If someone is aware that he or she is doing something perceived to be “good”, then it
will result in a general positive feeling that acts as a reinforcer on its own, promoting the
repetition of that action.
The University of Notre Dame
The University of Notre Dame took advantage of the idea that knowledge and pride in doing
something meaningful could be a reinforcer, and held food drives to raise student awareness of
the problems associated with food waste. Much like Rutgers University, the University of Notre
Dame (ND) wastes a little over a ton of food each day. In order to help reduce all of this waste,
the university held food drives to educate students about the issues surrounding food waste.
These food drives presented the idea that doing something as simple as being more thoughtful in
regards to how much food a student took could help to solve an issue with problems that stretch
across many different fields. ND also chose to adopt a more conventional approach with
reinforcement: rewarding students for turning in clean plates. During waste-free Wednesdays,
5
students who presented a clean plate with no wasted leftovers during dinner would be entered
into a raffle to win 100 “Flex Points” (Doyle, 2010). The system of flex points is reminiscent of
Rutgers’ own RU Express policy. The points can be traded for food and beverage items offered
in campus restaurants, express units, and convenience stores (University of Notre Dame, 2011).
Waste-free Wednesdays provided two different versions of positive reinforcement. The first type
comes from the awareness that the University spread amongst its students, as previously
described. The second type is provided for by the subsequent raffle. Students who minimize their
food waste receive a positive stimulus in the form of a chance to win Flex Points, and an
opportunity to dine at local restaurants for free. By providing the appropriate background
information, as well as an incentive for students to take the steps toward reducing food waste, the
university greatly encourages its diners to adopt less wasteful eating habits. However, waste-free
Wednesdays pose additional costs, in the additional manpower required to check plate
cleanliness on Wednesdays, as well as the raffle reward. In addition, if there are many students
eating dinner at the dining hall simultaneously, this can lead to congestion at the exit as students
ensure their personal information is entered correctly for the raffle. An additional staff member
would have to be on duty during waste-free Wednesdays in order to ensure orderly dining hall
flow. Congestion can ultimately end up discouraging some busy students from participating in
the program. Given the large size of Rutgers University’s Dining Services, such a large-scale
reward system would be difficult to implement efficiently. However, the idea of raising
awareness through food drives is something that Rutgers should have the ability to adopt, which
will be discussed later in this proposal.
The University of Maine
Despite the presence of such education and positive reinforcement, students may still be lax in
watching what they take from the dining halls. While reinforcement is meant to promote the
frequency of a particular behavior, a particular response may not be a universal reinforcer. The
property of a stimulus being a reinforcer is not inherent in the stimulus itself, but rather, depends
upon the state of the organism and its environment at the time the stimulus is provided (Leslie
1999). Students may feel that they are unlikely to win random dining hall raffles, or find
themselves simply unable to finish all of the food they take. For those students, intrinsic
motivation alone is not enough to ensure an effort to reduce food waste. In order to encourage
such students to be more selective in the foods that they choose to take, several dining halls have
chosen to adopt a more dramatic change in their food service policies – removing trays. This sets
up a situation of negative reinforcement, where the desired behavior removes the unwanted
stimulus of having difficulty bringing food back to the table. In a study at the University of
Maine at Farmington, Aramark, trayless dining was found to have reduced food waste by as
much as 25 to 30 percent (Davis, 2008). The study also found that, in addition to the primary
goals of reducing food waste, trayless dining also saved the university close to 300,000 gallons
of water and $57,000 worth of resources, which would otherwise have gone into cleaning the
dining hall trays. In tray-free dining, the desired behavior is to have students take less food back
to the table at once, so they do not over-anticipate the amount of food they will actually eat.
When students do carry back less food, which is the desired behavior, a negative stimulus – in
this case, difficulty in retrieving food – is removed, thus reinforcing the desired action. Since this
is done on a continuous basis, each time a student brings back smaller portions will further
reinforce the action. A downside of this policy is that it can cause unintended difficulties for
students, such as the inability to comfortably carry back utensils, plates, and drinks to their seats
6
without making several extra trips. However, despite such inconveniences, a poll at the College
of William and Mary – another institution of higher education adopting a similar trayless policy
– showed that students had an overall positive response to the idea, despite the additional
challenges they would face in getting their food (Davis, 2008). When made aware of the resource
savings that would come about as a result of trayless dining, seventy-five percent of the students
were willing to adopt the trayless policy. Another practical downside is the higher tendency of
messy tables, and the potential requirement of another worker to maintain cleanliness of the
dining halls. Students will not wish to dine at dirty tables. Normally, with trays, any accidentally
spills would be caught in the tray, and carried off along with it to leave a clean table. However,
without trays, any spills will be on the tables directly, and will remain there until cleaned off.
This is worsened by the possibility that, due to the plate limitation, students will be more likely
to pile more food onto their trays, increasing the likelihood of food spillage. Thus, while the
waste reduction and resource savings are definitely clear benefits of adopting a tray-free policy,
there are still some major drawbacks with having no trays at all. This leads to the conclusion that
limiting the amount of food students bring back will reduce food waste, but something must be
done to maintain dining hall cleanliness.
Ohio University
Some students, however, may object to such a kind of limiting policy on the grounds of food
taste. While Rutgers does not have particularly distasteful food, there is certainly a large variety.
This large variety is very likely to have something that appeals to every student; however, in the
same vein, the large variety is likely to have at least something that is unappetizing to various
students. This leads to an unfortunate problem where students will simply take a portion of
several assorted things on the menu, some of which they will invariably find not to their liking
and end up discarding. The portion sizes served on the food lines are large enough for a full
meal, and so amounts to a significant amount of loss when students decide that the food they
took does not quite suit their tastes. One idea, then, is to provide a system that provides positive
reinforcement where careful consideration of food intake provides a positive stimulus of
convenience, as opposed to one with negative reinforcement of removing inconvenience. Ohio
University has adopted one such plan, by providing sample size portions for their students (Ohio
University, n.d.). In a pilot study done by the university, giving students samples of the foods on
display resulted in a noticeable decline in the amount of waste produced per student (Figure 3).
Average food waste per
student (oz/person)
5.8
5.6
5.4
Figure 3: Reduction in
food waste after sample
implementation (Ohio
University).
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
Baseline Baseline Average Samples Theme
1
2
Dinner
The sample size portions enable
students to taste-test the various foods available during a meal period. As a result, when they go
7
to pick out their meal, students will not waste food sampling everything that may look somewhat
appealing, but can pick out specific items that they will be certain to enjoy. Reinforcement can
be seen here through a positive stimulus in response to using the sample stations. Students who
choose to sample foods before they go to the main line can avoid taking foods which they would
consider undesirable. In turn, being able to pick out specific foods of interest allows the students
to carry less food back to the table, providing the positive stimulus of added convenience.
Sample stations can also serve to reduce congestion at the actual food lines, where students will
not have to hover about for a few moments before finally deciding on what to get. Instead, it
encourages faster movement through the dining hall, where students can simply grab a few bitesized samples before continuing on their way. On the downside, providing sample size portions
requires additional dining hall space, which may cause some degree of crowding at dining tables.
However, Rutgers does not have small dining halls, and often has specialized tables out during
event meals for specific items. These event meals tend to have even more people than usual
dining nights, yet the amount of students in the dining halls during these events can still be
considered low enough for comfort. Having them out on regular meal periods, then, should not
impose too greatly on dining room flow. Furthermore, sample size portions can work remarkably
well with a method of reducing the amount of food taken, such as through tray-free dining. Trayfree dining reduces the amount of food that a student is able to take, while sample size portions
reduce the amount of food that a student will want to take. Thus, implementing both ideas in the
plan can provide a synergistic effect not present in either one alone.
Plan for Rutgers
Education and Outreach
Before Rutgers University implements facets of the approaches taken by the University of Maine
and Oho University, however, it should first seek to raise student awareness regarding the
problem, in a way similar to what the University of Notre Dame did. Rutgers already has an
established program for running food drives, through the Rutgers Against Hunger (RAH)
program. RAH is a well-established university-wide initiative that, among other tasks, seeks to
address issues such as food insecurity. Currently, it has close to 52,000 Rutgers students, 9,000
faculty members, and 360,000 alumni working toward making a difference. RAH regularly hosts
food drives to distribute food to charitable organizations. Keeping in mind its current status in
Rutgers University, adding a factor of education regarding food waste during their food drives
can have a great positive impact on reducing the amount of food waste produced at Rutgers
University. This plan proposes a monthly food drive at each of the main campus centers on each
Rutgers campus. Student volunteers interested in working with RAH’s campaign will be asked to
encourage food donations, as per the goals of RAH, but will also be tasked with a brief poster
presentation regarding the problems of food waste both at Rutgers University and in the nation.
The monthly presentations will help to spread and maintain awareness of the food waste
problem. However, in order to ensure that the message reaches those students who attend the
dining halls, but might not have the time to stop and pay attention to the presentations, each
month, alongside the presentation, small fliers will be distributed throughout the dining hall
tables. Currently, there is a weekly Monday newsletter concerning various types of dining
advice, provided by Dining Services in the same manner. The sheets of paper are printed and laid
out on dining tables for students to read as they eat – a good strategy, as many students may
enjoy having something to do along with their meal. This will be replicated with the food waste
fliers. In order to avoid conflict with the main newsletter, the fliers will be distributed on the first
8
Wednesday of each month, instead of on Mondays. Furthermore, an insert regarding food waste
at Rutgers, and the statistics on how successful the program is proving to be can be printed in the
Daily Targum once near the middle of the semester, after mid-terms. Providing frequent updates
on the University’s success will help students to maintain a positive outlook on the waste
reduction efforts, either by showing that waste has been declining, or further encouraging
students to be mindful of their eating habits. Between the fliers, the awareness food drives, and
the Targum inserts, a high level of student awareness regarding food waste problems should be
established, both beginning the process of reducing food waste, and setting the ground for the
next phases of the plan.
Installation of Sample Stations
Given the large size of Rutgers University’s dining service, the second and third phases of the
plan will be restricted to Busch Dining Hall, which is the most populous dining hall at Rutgers,
and has recently undergone renovation in order to accommodate for more students. Three gasheated trolleys containing prepared, bite-sized food samples will be provided at the wall across
from the utensil and tray carts. As these stations will be among the first locations that students
pass on their way to getting food, it will be easy for students to simply take a few samples and
determine what they like before moving on to the main lines. Considering the relative efficiency
of taking a sample, compared with gathering an entire meal’s worth of food, three trolleys should
be enough to minimize traffic at the sample stations. Service at Busch Dining Hall is
concentrated at several main food locations: the salad bar, the pasta cook-to-order line, the deli
line, the hot food line, and a special cooking line. Of all of these, the only station which will find
significant use of samples will be the hot food line, and Busch Dining Hall is able to run
relatively efficiently even with just the one line. Therefore, three sample stations should be more
than enough to ensure a smooth procession through the dining hall.
Resizing Dining Trays
Once sample stations have been well-established, the plan can proceed to phase three during the
second semester of the school year: adopting smaller trays. While simply switching to a tray-free
policy in the way the University of Maine did could further save the University in water usage
and energy costs, the large size of the dining hall makes this impractical. The problem with a
tray-free policy, mentioned in the paradigm section, is the greater amount of mess expected on
the tables. While this may be easier to clean in small areas, the size of the dining hall would
require significantly more manpower to ensure clear tables. By switching to smaller trays, the
limitation on the amount of food able to be carried back remains in place, but the issue of food
spillage is also minimized. Currently, as illustrated in Appendix B, the dining hall trays can hold
about two plates, a bowl, a cup, and utensils comfortably. The proposed trays, illustrated in
Appendix C, will limit this by about one plate’s worth of food.
The plan’s success can be measured by carefully weighing the amount of waste produced by
Busch Dining Hall both before and after all three stages have been implemented. Should a
significant decline in food waste be measured, a similar policy can be applied to the University’s
other dining halls – with a notable exception of Brower Commons. Unlike the other three dining
halls, Brower does not use a conveyor belt system to deliver dishes back to the kitchen to be
washed; instead, it uses a set of tower trolleys, where trays are placed before being moved into
the kitchen in large groups. Without a large overhaul of Brower’s cleanup system, the use of
9
smaller trays cannot be practically instituted in the dining hall. Sample stations are still a viable
action, but changing the established system is beyond the scope of this plan.
Budget
Education and Outreach
Each presentation will require 1 tri-fold poster board, 10 sheets of paper for poster design, and
100 fliers to be handed out. In addition, since education will be done alongside a RAH food drive
campaign, two cardboard boxes will be present to collect food donations. As the plan proposes a
monthly food drive across all four Rutgers campuses, there will be 32 individual presentations (4
campuses, and 8 months in the school year) throughout each school year. These stations will be
manned by student volunteers who are willing to work with RAH’s mission for several hours
each month throughout the school year, so personnel should not have an impact on the cost of
this phase.
Item
Tri-fold poster board
Color-printed paper
Cardboard box
(24”x12”x8”)
Total: $1,279.68
Cost
$8.49
Staples
$0.25
Rutgers University
$2.00
Amazon
Quantity
32
Subtotal
$271.68
3520
$880.00
64
$128.00
Installation of Sample Stations
For the purposes of this plan, sample stations will be restricted to Busch Dining Hall, currently
the most populous campus dining hall at Rutgers. The performance of the implementation at
Busch will be useful in determining whether or not a similar system should be instituted in other
dining halls as well. This will require three gas-heated sample stations, and one additional
personnel to monitor the trolleys to keep them stocked with samples.
Item
Gas-heated trolley
Dining services
worker
Total: $14,195.87
Cost
Quantity
$1,060.29
3
Instawares Restaurant
Supply
$10,925 /yr
1
Collegiate Times
Subtotal
$3,270.87
$10,925.00
10
Resizing Dining Trays
About 1000 14-inch by 10-inch trays will replace the trays currently in place at Busch Dining
Hall. This can be expanded for other dining halls in the future if the plan proves successful. No
additional service costs should be necessary in this phase, as it is meant to seamlessly replace the
existing tray system.
Item
10”x14” food trays
Total: $2,352.00
Cost
$23.52 /dozen
Quantity
200 (dozen)
Subtotal
$4,704.00
The overall cost of all three parts of the plan comes out to be approximately $20,197.55.
Discussion
A small commitment to waste reduction here at Rutgers University will have positive impacts on
its overall sustainability, its monetary expenditures, and its accessibility to students. Food waste
is intricately tied with many different problems that cover a huge range of scales, from global
warming on the global level, resource use on a national level, and monetary expenditure on a
local level. By adopting a policy based on the idea of reinforcement, Rutgers University can
work with its students to reduce food waste at the dining halls. While the scope of the main
portion of the plan, the installation of sample stations and smaller trays, is currently limited to
Busch campus, evaluating waste totals at Busch Dining Hall before and after implementation can
help to confirm the success of the plan. If there is a significant reduction in waste, then Rutgers
University can apply the plan to dining halls on its remaining campuses, ultimately saving on
energy and food costs in the long term, and helping to address the national food waste issue.
11
References
About Rutgers against hunger. (2009). Informally published manuscript, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey. Retrieved from http://rah.rutgers.edu/about.shtml
About us. (2011). Informally published manuscript, Rutgers Dining Services, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey. Retrieved from http://food.rutgers.edu/about-us
Davis, A. (2008, October 25). Eliminating college dining hall trays cuts water, food waste.
Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/OnCampus/story?id=6087767&page=1
Doyle, M. (2010). Nd works to reduce food waste. Informally published manuscript, University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. Retrieved from
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/nd-works-to-reduce-food-waste-1.1745497
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. (2008). Water supply and
use in the united states (EPA-832-F-06-006). Washington, DC: Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/pubs/supply.html
Farm runoff worse than thought, study says. (2005, June 14). The Associated Press. Retrieved
from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8214501/ns/us_news-environment/
Graduate student and non-resident undergraduate meal plans. (2011). Unpublished manuscript,
Food Services, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. Retrieved from
http://food.nd.edu/meal-planscard-services/grad-student-and-non-resident-off-campusundergraduate/
Hall, K.D., Guo, J., Dore, M., & Chow, C.C. (2009). The progressive increase of food waste in
america and its environmental impact. PLoS ONE, 4(11), Retrieved from
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007940
12
Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., & Lumia, D.S. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. (2004). Estiamted use of water in the united states in
2000. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services.
Kantor, L.S., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., & Oliveira, V. United States Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (1997). Foodreview: from farm to table: the
economics of food safety; estimating and addressing america's food losses (FoodReview
No. (FR-20-1)). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Ohio University. (n.d.). Food waste audits. Retrieved from
http://www.ohio.edu/sustainability/FoodWasteAudits.htm
Rutgers expenditures. (2010). Informally published manuscript, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey. Retrieved from
http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu/pdf/expend_pie.pdf
United States Department of Environmental Protection, (2009). Feeding animals - the buisiness
solution to food scraps (EPA 530-F-09-022). Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/success/rutgers.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. (2010). Climate
change science facts (EPA 430-F-10-002). Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Climate_Change_Science_Facts.pdf
United States Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. (2005). Protecting water quality from agricultural runoff (EPA 841-F-05001). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Ag_Runoff_Fact_Sheet.pdf
13
Uk bins £8bn of food each year, study claims. (2008, January 14). The Telegraph. Retrieved
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3321664/UK-bins-8bn-of-food-eachyear-study-claims.html
14
Appendix A: Idealized diagram of current dining hall tray capacity.
Not actual size. Rectangular regions represent the full tray size (note that the actual tray has
rounded corners) and the size of the flat portion of the base, which has dimensions of 12 x 16
inches. Large plates are approximately 9 inches in overall diameter, with a base measured to the
outer top rim of about 8 inches; these plates may be pushed a little further up the sides of the tray
to accommodate for other serving ware. The cup (small circle) is 2.5 inches in diameter, while
the bowl (medium-sized circle) has an overall diameter of 6 inches, but the base is only about
half that size – approximately 3.5 inches.
15
Appendix B: Idealized diagram of proposed dining hall tray capacity
Not actual size. Dimensions of glassware are the same as in Appendix B. This diagram shows
that, despite the smaller tray size, it is still possible to hold enough food for a meal on the tray –
the only difference is the elimination of one large plate. The overall tray size is two inches
smaller on each edge: 10 x 14 inches.
16