DHN 522/524 Plate Waste Study – Kelci McHugh

Summary Report

Research Methodology

A. How to Conduct a Plate Waste Study

The Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published an article by Byker
Shanks et al. discussing a systematic review of food waste in the National School Lunch
Program. The article reviewed several food waste methodologies including in-person visual
estimation, digital photography, direct weighing and a combination of in-person visual
estimation, digital photography, and/or direct weighing. Each of these methods are ways to
measure uneaten foods left on trays in order to assess menu performance and food
acceptability.

Before conducting the in-person visual method, it was explained that the
researchers first had to observe and understand serving sizes and portions of each food
item under review. This creates a better understanding before giving the tray an assigned
percentage for amount of meal consumed. The assigned percentage has been seen in a few
different types of increment rankings. Increments included less or more than half
wasted, quarters, a 6-point scale or a percent estimation.

The second methodology discussed was digital photography. Researches began the
studies by taking a baseline photo of the food for serving sizes to determine a point of
reference. Or, the researchers took before and after pictures of each tray. After
photographing each tray or food item of interest, a percentage was assigned based off
increment rankings. In these circumstances, increments usually ranked as a percent
estimate, increments of 10, increments of 25 or categorized into quarters.

Finally, when direct weight of food was analyzed, several steps were generalized as
the most widely used process for conducting a weight based plate waste study. These steps
included determining the food items of interest, weighing random samples of the food to
calculate an average weight, collecting and weighing food waste from student trays,
calculating percent, grams or ounces consumed by subtracting the food waste collected in
Step 4 from the average weight determined in Step 3 and then multiplying by 100 [1].

B. Background

At Owensboro Health Regional Hospital, hundreds of meals are served per day.
When discussing with the patient services manager, the non-select breakfast order was
chosen as the meal order most in need of analyzation of food waste. The non-select
breakfast is assigned to patients who were admitted to the hospital late in the evening who
do not already have a personalized breakfast order placed. This is to ensure the patient has
a meal available for quality assurance and to better aid in the healing process. The items on
the non-select breakfast tray are ½ cup of scrambled eggs, ½ cup of breakfast potatoes
(hashbrowns), ½ cup of fresh fruit, 1 box of total cereal and a 2%, 8 ounce milk carton to go
with the cereal. Given the hospital’s daily routine, the plate waste study was conducted in
the dish room, where collected patient trays are sent to be broken down and re-washed for
the next meal period. Because of time and space limitations, it was decided that the in-
person visual method would work best in this environment. Each tray analyzed was
assigned a percentage of meal consumed based off increments of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and
100%.

Results

C. Observe and Record Food Waste

Table 1: Census, Fed Count and Non-Select Tray Counts.

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
Census 263 254 207 227 244 238
Fed 219 211 174 191 213 197
Trays 14 12 14 7 14 8

The plate waste study took place over a six-day period by the same researcher. On
day one of the study, the hospital had a census of 263 patients. 219 of which were being fed
that day and lead to a total of 14 non-select breakfast trays seen and counted. On day two of
the plate waste study, the hospital had a census of 254 patients. 211 of which were being
fed. A total of 12 non-select trays were counted. On day three of the study, the hospital’s
census dropped to 207 patients. 174 of these patients were being fed and still a total of 14
non-select breakfast trays were analyzed. Day four of the study the census increased up to
227 patients and 191 of these patients were being fed. Only 7 non-select breakfast trays
were analyzed on the carts. Day five, the census kept increasing to 244 patients, where 213
of those patients were fed, leading to a total of 14 non-select breakfast trays. The final day,
day six, census was 238 patients with 197 being fed at breakfast. On this date, only 8 non-
select trays were on the carts.

Table 2, as seen below, presents the amount of trays analyzed each day throughout
the six days and their respective percentage increments.
Table 2. Percentage Results of a Seven-Day Plate Waste Study on the Non-Select
Breakfast Items.
Percentage Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Total:
0% 2 2 3 1 0 1 9
25% 2 2 2 4 5 1 16
50% 4 3 3 0 4 2 16
75% 5 5 5 2 4 2 23
100% 1 0 1 0 1 2 5
Total: 14 12 14 7 14 8 69

D. Describe Discarded Food

As the carts for each floor of the hospital were dropped off at the dish room filled
with dirty patient trays, each tray was analyzed and picked out if the non-select breakfast
was ordered. This was determined by specific items listed on patient tickets. If the ticket
was missing, then all five of the items had to be located on the tray. For estimation
purposes, milk and cereal were considered one item together. Each of the four items were
visualized in comparison to their original serving sizes. This is when a percentage value
was assigned to each of these trays. The one trend that was noticed was when 50% of trays
were consumed, it was usually either the eggs and potatoes consumed together or the fruit
and cereal. After trays were analyzed by the researcher, the hospital’s dish room employees
discarded all left over food items into the same waste bin as all the other hospital trays.

Discussion

E. Approximate Food Waste

Table 3. Average Percent of Consumption vs. Waste of Food on the Non-Select

Breakfast Trays.
Day Day Day Day Day Day Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 Average:
Percent Consumed 51.7 47.9 48.2 35.7 51.8 59.4 49.6
Percent Wasted 48.3 52.1 51.8 64.3 48.2 40.6 50.4

Within a six-day time period, a total average of 49.6% of the non-select breakfast
trays were being consumed. Average percentages varied depending on days. Day one had
an average of 51.7% of the non-select trays consumed. Day two had an average of 47.9%.
Day three saw an average of 48.2%. Day four was 35.7% non-select trays consumed. Day
five percentage increased back up to 51.8%. The final day, day six, had an average
percentage of 59.4% of the non-select breakfast trays consumed. This led to half the days of
the study having more food wasted than consumed.

F. Cost of Waste

The researched discussed with the ordering specialist prices related to bulk sizes for
each of the food items. Liquid eggs in 4 ounce servings equals about 75 cents. Breakfast
potatoes in ½ cup serving equals about 20 cents. The fruit cup, which includes two small
chunks of cantaloupe, two small chunks of honeydew and about three grapes, costs about
15 cents each. Total cereal is about 50 cents per box along with milk costing about 30 cents
per carton. All of these five items on the tray, aside from other condiments or silverware,
total up to $1.90 per tray. If an average of 49.6% of trays are being consumed, then about
50.4% are being wasted. This leads to $0.96 wasted per tray. This totals to an average of
about $66.24 wasted each week.

G. Summary

Given the time and resource constraints, a visual based plate waste study was
conducted on the non-select breakfast trays for patients who were newly admitted to the
hospital overnight. By looking at the trays, a percentage value was given to best reflect the
amount of food consumed. The percentages included 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. The
plate waste study took place over a six-day period, where a total of 69 trays were analyzed.
Of these 69 trays, a total average of 49.6% was consumed of the non-select breakfast items.
This left 50.4% of the food on these trays wasted, leading to a loss of about $0.96 per tray
and about $66.24 per week.

Although 75% of the trays had the most tallies seen by Table 2, Table 3 shows the
averages per day supporting the evidence that there is more food waste than food
consumed. This evidence is enough to support the consideration of changing the non-select
breakfast items to help improve food consumed by patients.

H. Limitations

A few limitations were determined as the study was being conducted. First, given
time, space and equipment restrictions, a weight analysis was not possible in this setting,
leading to a less accurate cost analysis. The use of in-person visualization instead of actual
weight in estimating percentages of trays consumed can lead to an imperfect cost analysis
due to variability and estimation. The hospital was more interested in if the meal was being
consistently consumed to determine if the non-select breakfast should be substituted. So, a
perfectly precise cost analysis was not warranted for the needs of the foodservice
management.

Second, sizes of bulk food items were estimated by the ordering specialist working
the day price information was collected. The total weight of the liquid eggs was verbally
stated at 10 pound bags and the breakfast potatoes were verbally stated at 3 pound bags.
This may have also led to a less accurate food cost analysis if this information was not
correct or portion sizes were not accurately measured.

Third, non-select breakfast is supposed to be ordered for all patients who are new
admissions. However, the call center occasionally selects other meal options tailored to
certain patient populations, for meals they have received feedback stating is a culturally
well enjoyed meal. For example, patients on the pediatric floor or the psychiatric unit
tended to have one of the specials ordered instead of the non-select because it is more
widely accepted. This leads to less non-select tray orders, lowering the total count per day
during the plate waste study. This can lead to an inaccurate reflection of meal tolerance
because of the low non-select population pool.

Finally, of the non-select breakfast trays analyzed. Some trays were missing their
order tickets, which were the most accurate means of determining that the specific food
items were all ordered together. When the tickets were missing, the researcher had to
guess if that tray was most likely a non-select tray based on the food waste left.
Additionally, if the ticket was available but food items were removed from the tray, those
items were not used in determining what percent the tray was consumed. This could have
affected the total counts of non-select trays any of the given six days.

I. Environmental Impact

All of the food and food packaging discarded from each of these trays, leads to an
impact on the environment. According to Caldeira and Serenella, by assessing current
practices and use of food waste, the decision to make changes to decrease these wastes not
only effect the hospital’s region, but ultimately makes impacts on a global scale [2]. To
further explain, Claudio et al. stated that of the climate impacts effected by food waste, 60%
of that is stemmed from household and food service wasting. Environmental impacts are
expressed in terms of climate change and biodiversity impacts due to water and land use
[3]. Food waste and food packaging can and do end up in water sources, polluting natural
water sources. When food is placed in a landfill, not only does it take extended periods of
time for food and products to decompose, but limits the land for other uses. This could
include forests, gardens or farm lands which may decrease the influences on climate
change. Reducing food waste should be a priority to better the environment for future use
and life.

After completing the study, there are two suggestions that can help the hospital
reduce food waste. First, instead of automatically ordering a non-select meal for newly
admitted patients, wait until the patient or nurse call in a personalized order. This may help
improve consumption since the hospital will be sending food that the patients are more
likely to eat due to food preferences. Second, instead of discarding all tray items into the
same waste bin, separate the waste from the recyclables. Some of these recyclable items
may include lids to cereal bowls, milk cartons and cereal boxes. Recycling these items
would lead to less waste in landfills, which ultimately impacts climate.

J. References

1. Byker Shanks, Banna, & Serrano. (2017). Food Waste in the National School Lunch
Program 1978-2015: A Systematic Review. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, 117(11), 1792-1807.
2. Caldeira, C., Sara, C., & Serenella, S. (2017). Food waste accounting methodologies,
challenges and opportunities. (EUR (Luxembourg. Online), 28988). Luxembourg:
Publications Office.
3. Beretta, C., Stucki, M., & Hellweg, S. (2017). Environmental Impacts and Hotspots of
Food Losses: Value Chain Analysis of Swiss Food Consumption. Environmental
Science & Technology, 51(19), 11165-11173.