EPA/600/R-19/095 | September 20191
www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmenta
Agency
Food Waste Reduction in Military Kitchens
A Tracking Technology Demonstration at
Fort Jackson
-------
EPA/600/R-19/095 | September 2019 |
www.epa.gov/research
Food Waste Reduction in Military Kitchens
A Tracking Technology Demonstration at Fort
Jackson
This project was conceived, designed, and produced by:
Steve Rock
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Systems Division
Water Resources Recovery Branch
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Alex Lan
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
ii
-------
Notice/Disclaimer Statement
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Note that approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any
warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any
specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or
subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, and approved for publication.
-------
Abstract
A food waste tracking system was installed in the kitchens at two of Fort Jackson's dining
facilities (DFACs). The systems were built by Leanpath, leased by EPA for the project, and
modified for use on an Army installation. Staff at the DFACs were trained in the use of the
balance and recording systems. The staff and management together decided where in each
kitchen was the most convenient location to place the system.
Our preliminary examination revealed the system at each DFAC worked very well—the system
did not increase staff workload or add additional time to the task of food preparation or clean
up—and resulted in a substantial reduction of food waste. Fort Jackson decided not to
purchase the system at the end of the project due to inflexibility of existing kitchen contracts.
Based on some of the observations in the pilot study, suggestions for initial consideration
include conducting a long-term study at these and other DFACs to capture trends and site
variation, and to explore techniques to reduce over-production of food—the primary cause of
food waste in this study.
iv
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building science-based knowledge necessary to manage our
environmental resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or
reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), within the Office of Research
and Development (ORD), is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and
management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods
and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites, sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air
pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private
sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
v
-------
Table of Contents
Background 1
Pilot Results 5
Conclusions / Recommendations 14
References 16
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Sample of Leanpath Dashboard 2
Figure 2 Leanpath System Installed in AIT DFAC 3
Figure 3 Leanpath System in DSA DFAC 4
Figure 4 Sample Leanpath Summary Splash Screen 5
Figure 5 Overall Waste Disposed for the Pilot Period at Both DFACs 5
Figure 6 MSW Tonnage for Fort Jackson 6
Figure 7 Top Foods Wasted by Weight from Both DFACs 6
Figure 8 Top Foods Wasted by Relative Value from Both DFACs 7
Figure 9 Disposition of Food Waste from Both DFACs 7
Figure 10 Top Loss Reasons by Weight for Both DFACs 8
Figure 11 AIT DFAC Waste Trend by Weight 9
Figure 12 AIT DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Weight 10
Figure 13 AIT DFACs Top Food Wasted by Relative Cost 10
Figure 14 AIT DFACs Top Loss Reasons for Whole Beef 11
Figure 15 AIT DFACs Top Dispositions by Weight 11
Figure 16 AIT DFACs Top Loss Reasons by Weight 11
Figure 17 DSA DFAC Waste Trend by Weight 12
Figure 18 DSA DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Weight 13
Figure 19 DSA DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Relative Cost 13
Figure 20 DSA DFACs Top Dispositions by Weight 14
Figure 21 DSA DFACs Top Loss Reasons by Weight 14
vi
-------
Acknowledgments
The project was a collaboration of EPA ORD staff, Bill Michaud and Matt McMurtry from CSRA,
and Leanpath's Todd Pendexter and Rhianna Derenick-Hannigan. The project would not have
happened without the help and access provided by Tamaria Warren and the Fort Jackson team,
including kitchen staff, administrators, and the environmental crew. Thanks to all.
vii
-------
Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to prevent and reduce wasted food (and
other organic material) that would otherwise be lost as a resource into landfills1. Food loss and
waste in the United States account for a large amount of the overall food supply available to
retailers and consumers and has far-reaching impacts on food security, resource conservation,
and climate change2'3,4,5. In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40
percent of the food supply3,4. This figure, based on estimates from USDA's Economic Research
Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to
approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 20105. Food loss and waste
is the single largest component of disposed U.S. municipal solid waste6, and accounts for a
significant portion of U.S. methane emissions, which is an important greenhouse gas4. This
large volume of wasted food is a main contributor to the total U.S. methane emissions that
come from landfills4, which are the third largest source of methane in the United States7. The
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), through its vision for Net Zero Waste, seeks to reduce,
reuse, and recover waste streams in order to create a culture that recognizes the value of
sustainability; measured not just in terms of financial benefits, but benefits to maintaining
mission capability, quality of life, relationships with local communities, and the preservation of
options for the Army's future8.
To this end, application of technologies that aid in determining the exact sources of food
wasteeg-'9, such as the Leanpath system, can potentially reduce pre-consumer food losses.
Leanpath10 is a patented technology that focuses on food waste prevention by using "smart
meters" that weigh, record, and categorize the final disposition of food waste (garbage,
compost, donation, etc.). These data are then transmitted to Leanpath via a wireless internet
or cellular connection. Leanpath then analyzes and formats those data to be presented on a
client-specific website (Figure 1).
The client uses these real-time data to determine the types of foods most wasted and the
causes of the food waste. The client can use these data to make decisions on menu planning,
cooking timing, and other ways to reduce food waste.
Several commercial operations have been using Leanpath successfully for several years10. For
example, IKEA has implemented the Leanpath solution in approximately 20% of their kitchens
which has translated to 176,000 saved meals11. This and similar technologies are a viable
option to reduce the volume of surplus food prepared in dining facilities. Tracking technologies
can also potentially provide data towards source reduction—a preferred step in EPA's Food
Recovery Hierarchy12.
The application of this technology, in the context of DoD operations, is potentially more difficult
than some commercial kitchens due to unique institutional and social/behavioral factors. Thus,
this technology's potential for use across Army installations seeking waste reduction goals is
limited until these factors are better understood. This project seeks that understanding and to
share that knowledge with DoD.
1
-------
LeanPath Online Food Waste Analytics
Select Data Range
(las! Week
(2/1/2017
(6/30/2017
Select Site/Location
US Army Fort Jackson
[' Refresh ]
S Value
D Weigh!
O Transactions
(Week *)
View Currency As
l"SD *)
— | [ Overall Results Waste Reduction & Savings Build Custom Reports J f
erview Detail Trends Results Participation Transactions Locations
Select Stage or Processing
Locations Sites Reports
Total Waste for Period
VALUE: $44,190.50
WEIGHT:
TRANSACTIONS:
31,848.09 lb
3.499
Waste by Day of Week (Value)
Top Loss Reasons (Value)
¦
B Overproduction 540,794
Calorie Restriction SI,079
¦Trim Waste $968
¦ Expired $643
¦ Field $535
¦ Spoiled $96
¦ Overcooked $49
Handling $16
—lMisorder$13
Top Waste Foods (Value)
2000 4000 6000
Value (USD)
Waste Trend (Value)
3.500
^ ## #£ <1 ## J1#J"I##'£s
Figure 1 Sample of Leanpath Dashboard
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has a partnership with U.S. Army for
Installations, Energy and Environment (IE&E) around Net Zero for energy and water usage, and
for waste reduction1. The objective of this project was to provide a proof-of-concept evaluation
and demonstration of a food waste prevention technology that can potentially be used to
achieve zero-waste-related goals. Demonstrations were in two dining facilities (DFAC) at Fort
Jackson, South Carolina. The evaluation took place February June 2017. EPA, with their
contractor CSRA, acted as an impartial third party to support and monitor the use of the
technology in the military setting through the pilot project at Fort Jackson. This support
included: developing the pilot planning process; leasing the equipment; attending kick-off
meetings and installation of the system at Fort Jackson; providing limited technical and
programmatic support to Fort Jackson staff; monitoring system usage; interviewing Fort
Jackson environmental staff, DFAC staff and management; and developing this report.
The DFACs
Following several stakeholder meetings, participants agreed the pilot would take place at the
Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and Drill Sergeant Academy (DSA) DFACs February June
2017. Dr. Tameria Warren, Senior Project Manager in the Department of Public Works
Environmental Division and Ms. Anne Morrell, Fort Jackson Installation Food Program Manager,
worked closely with management staff at both DFACs to get the necessary buy-in for the pilot
demonstration to take place in these DFACs. This was especially important given that the
DFACs are managed by outside contractors under a government contract. Their current
2
-------
contract did riot have a clause to conduct pilots of new technologies, so Dr. Warren's and Ms.
Morrell's efforts were essential in obtaining the permission and support of the DFAC
management.
Leanpath delivered and installed the equipment as part of the kick-off meeting on 1 February
2017. In addition, they provided DFAC management and staff with training on use and
maintenance of equipment, online and telephone technical support throughout the pilot
demonstration, and multiple coaching calls to answer questions, review transactions, and guide
changes for food waste reduction.
Both DFACs serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner in a self-serve cafeteria style and must be able to
provide the same meal options for all soldiers, from first to last soldier. Menus are dictated by
the Army and the DFACs have little to no options to deviate from the directive. Given the
nature of training that takes place, DFACs prepare meals for the expected number of soldiers
on post and in training, but often entire training cadres miss meals due to training activities, in
addition, the nutrition and health of each soldier is monitored throughout the training process
and they may be put on calorie restriction (the individual's choices and quantities are limited).
DFACs have limited ability to plan for either the no-shows or the number of soldiers on calorie
restriction. Based on interviews with DFAC management and staff during the kick-off meeting,
both DFAC's staff believed they were wasting more food than they should, but they did not
have any data outside of quantity of food purchased and number of soldiers served.
AIT DFAC was the larger of the two pilot sites. The AIT program trains over 8,000 soldiers per
year. Customers for this DFAC are soldiers in the AIT program and other local base personnel.
They serve approximately 1,000 meals a service (i.e., breakfast). During a given meal, the staff
and management are constantly working to keep the line fresh and clean. They are preparing
and cooking throughout most of the meal. At the outset of the pilot, they believed that they
would have limited time to address any "new" changes to their food preparation processes, but
they were willing to give the Leanpath system a try. There are two main food preparation and
cooking areas in the kitchen, but there is only
one waste disposal station. The goal was to
install the Leanpath system directly adjacent
to the waste disposal station to facilitate ease
of measurement prior to disposal. Because
there was no available power outlet at the
disposal station, the system was placed
around the corner (Figure 2). Placement of
Leanpath system was not ideal, and Fort
Jackson's environmental staff and DFAC
management tried to remedy the situation by
requesting installation of an outlet, but outlet
installation was not accomplished in time for
the pilot.
3
-------
DSA DFAC is a smaller DFAC. The DSA trains 2,200
non-commissioned officers (NCOs) per year and often
has up to 500 NCOs in training at any time. They can
serve up-to 500 meals in a service. The Leanpath
system was placed very close to their waste disposal
station (Figure 3). Their meal preparation procedure
is to prepare and cook all the meals expected for a
given service before it starts and during a service only
prepare and cook items that run out unexpectedly
during the meal One challenge the DSA DFAC has
that AIT does not is that the NCOs are permitted to
eat off base or at a DFAC of their choosing, so the number of diners for any given meal can
fluctuate greatly and is much harder to predict.
Each DFAC has three food waste streams: 1) preparation waste from preparing and cooking
food, 2) plate waste from diners, and 3) food from the serving line that was not taken by the
diners (i.e., unserved). The Leanpath process is installed in the kitchen and can only record the
preparation waste and food that is returned to the kitchen unserved. For the food waste
generated during preparation or food from the line that was not served, the kitchen staff places
the waste on the Leanpath scale; users enter identity of the food (e.g., beef, vegetables,
pancakes, etc.); why it is being disposed of (e.g., trim waste, expired, spoiled, etc.); and how it is
being disposed (e.g., garbage, food donation, etc.). The system takes a picture of the waste for
QA/QC and sends all these data to Leanpath, via a cellular connection, where it is tabulated and
analyzed. The system registers the entry and provides a summary on screen so the user can see
and verify what is being recorded. The Leanpath system also can provide real-time information
regarding how the kitchen is operating/performing to help connect the user to the kitchen's
overall waste minimization goals. Leanpath has found that this these features allow for real-
time conversations and heightened focus that can lead to buy-in with kitchen staff. Instant
feedback encourages engagement (Figure 4). Another way to encourage use and buy-in is
having the user entered into an instant win drawing with each waste entry; and many
commercial kitchens provide small rewards to the winners (e.g., longer breaks, small cash
rewards, etc.). For this pilot, the instant win feature was enabled, but both DFAC management
and staff knew that there were no prizes.
DFAC management and staff expressed interest and curiosity about the Leanpath system. For
example, they questioned the granularity of the waste selection, and wondered why some
vegetables were selectable (e.g., potatoes) whereas other had to be grouped into a general
vegetables selection. Leanpath explained that the system selections were set up in such a way
to improve efficiency of entering transactions so they could be completed in only a few
seconds. If there were detailed choices, a user would have to page through an enormous
number of pages to find the specific waste, hence greatly increasing transaction time. Higher
transaction time is a negative because it tends to be a disincentive to use the system and
potentially lowers the efficiency of the kitchen. The average transaction time was twelve
Figure 3 Leanpath System in DSA DFAC
4
-------
seconds. Waste data are presented to authorized stakeholders via an online custom dashboard
(Figure 4).
FOOD WASTE ALERT
from LeanPath
FOOD: Produce
WEIGHT: 52.7 lb
COST: $66.40
REASON: Pan Waste-Overproduced
LOCATION:
OPERATOR:
DAY/TIME: Jan 27, 2015 3:00 PM
Figure 4 Sample Leanpath Summary Screen
Pilot Results
Overall Fort Jackson Results
To determine if the Leanpath system resulted in reduction of waste generation, a baseline was
established. Leanpath normally recommends using the first full month of use as the baseline,
but for this pilot the first month (February) was used by the DFAC staff to become acquainted
with the system and develop the procedures and processes necessary to use the system in their
day-to-day operations. Therefore, the month of March, the second month of system operation,
was selected as the baseline
for evaluating the impact of
the system on food waste at
the two DFACs. There was a
clear trend in reduction of
food waste, showing a
decrease of 3,554 pounds
from March to June (Figure
5). This decrease was
captured during 3,499 total
transactions in the Leanpath
system and included 31,848
pounds of food waste. The
total reduction from
baseline represents an 11%
decrease during the period.
Fort Jackson had a 2014 food waste audit conducted by the Army Institute of Public Health. It
showed that food waste was approximately 40% of the Fort's municipal solid waste (MSW)
stream. Dr. Warren was able to provide the total MSW for the Fort for February-June 2017
(Figure 6), but this approach may not be a good barometer of the food waste minimization. It is
5
IMAGE:
Waste Trend (Weight)
9000
8000
7000
.21 4000 I
mil
N /\ N N N
o" o p cT cT
nv Of 0*
Ctf O" ^ O"
'Q' N? N? S?
o o o
Figure 5 Overall Waste Disposed for the Pilot Period at both DFAC's
-------
MSW Tonnage for Fort Jackson
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 May 17
Figure 6 MSW Tonnage for Fort Jackson
assumed that the composition of the
MSW stream is the same as the 2014
study, but without a detailed audit of
the waste stream it is difficult to say
with any certainty if there was
reduction in waste for the two
DFACs. Also, some of the food waste
recorded by the Leanpath system
may have been disposed of through
in-sink grinders, so the waste would
never enter the Fort's MSW stream.
Figure 6 shows a relatively stable
MSW stream at Fort Jackson was
relatively flat across the months.
Based on interviews of management and staff from both DFACs at the end of the pilot period,
the overall decrease in waste is reasonable given that ail persons interviewed stated that they
believed that they were working more efficiently and producing less waste. Importantly,
management of the DSA DFAC changed their standard operating procedures based on
reviewing their data, discussed in detail below, so it makes sense that there was a decrease in
the amount of food waste produced.
Top Waste Foods (Weight)
Vegetables
Potatoes
Rice
Hot Cereal
Eggs
Beef-Ground
Pasta
¦¦
Chicken - Bone-in
Gravy
Beef-Whole
¦
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Weight (lbs)
Figure 7 Top Foods Wasted by Weight from Both DFACs
As discussed above, the food waste
stream can be characterized by
either the amount of or the value of
food wasted. Looking at the data
from both DFACs, vegetables were by
far the largest food waste item by
weight (Figure 7). When looking at
food wasted by relative dollar value,
whole beef (e.g., steaks) is the loss
leader by dollar value followed by
ground beef and vegetables (Figure
8). It is interesting to note that
turkey was not in the list of Top 10
items of food wasted by weight, but
it is listed at number four in terms of
value.
6
-------
The system provides
insight into the disposition
of the food waste. The
majority (62%) of food was
thrown away (Figure 9),
but 37% was donated to a
local area food bank
through a new program at
Fort Jackson that started
because of this pilot. By
examining the disposition
and waste data,
management was able to
identify spikes in food
waste on the same days
that food was to be
donated. It seems there is a tendency of kitchen staff to not conserve their food preparation
when they think the extra food will be donated. Management was able to stop the excess food
preparation once it was identified by showing that food donation, while valuable, was a small
part of the food wasted and that only certain foods could be donated. Less than 1% of the food
was disposed of via composting (Figure 9). This is an example of user input error as neither
DFAC had access to composting during the time of this pilot. Fort Jackson hopes to restart a
composting pilot program sometime soon.
The demonstration also provides
insight into why food is being
wasted. To better serve these
specific DFACs, Leanpath added
two additional reasons for food
waste. The first is calorie
restriction—when higher caloric
food is produced but individual
soldiers or entire units are not
allowed to have them based on
orders from Army nutritionists.
DFACs are not told how many
units or individuals will be on
calorie restriction during a given
meal so they prepare a wide range of options. The second added reason for food waste is
when a unit is scheduled to have a meal at a DFAC but does not show up due to training
requirements, such as field exercises. This is especially a problem at the AIT DFAC because
NCOs have the freedom to have meals off-site. Their management is hoping to use Leanpath
data to encourage better communication between the DFACs and the unit commanders.
Top Waste Foods (Value)
Beef-Whole
Beef-Ground
Vegetables
Turkey
Potatoes
Eggs
Chicken - Boneless
Bread
Fish
^¦1
Chicken - Bone-in
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Value (USD)
Figure 8 Top Foods Wasted by Relative Value from both DFACs
Top Dispositions (Weight)
J Trash 19,819 lb
¦ Donation: 11,771 lb
Compost 258 lb
Figure 9 Disposition of Food Waste from Both DFACs
7
-------
Overproduction was by far the primary reason (83%) for waste (Figure 10). Given that kitchen
staffs are the users who input the data into the system, they may not have good insight into
whether the waste is due to mistaken overproduction, calorie restrictions, or field exercises.
Better training of those
entering data and
communication between
management, unit
commanders,
nutritionists, and kitchen
staff would be required to
decrease this type of food
waste. Based on
interviews with DFAC
management, it is
believed that both field
exercises and calorie
restrictions are bigger
drivers of loss than these data suggest.
This pilot was very well regarded by Fort Jackson. All the stakeholders interviewed after the
pilot indicated that they believed that the Leanpath system helped them be more aware of
food waste and they wanted to continue to use the system after the pilot ended, if possible.
The Director of Public Works for Fort Jackson and the Environmental Division Chief were
supportive of the pilot and very interested in identifying ways to continue to use the technology
in the future. Dr. Warren stated that the pilot was mentioned in the base newspaper, The
Leader, and was highlighted during local news coverage of the Fort. Dr. Warren also presented
the pilot at the South Carolina Don't Waste Food SC Year in Review. Ms. Morrell stated that she
used these data and mentioned the pilot in her weekly updates to both her command and the
garrison commander. Because of her updates, two other facilities, West Point and Fort Bragg,
have expressed interest in getting similar systems.
Ms. Morrell stated that they provided these data to their command in hopes that they could
influence the menu selection required by the Army. The hope is if they can show that certain
types of food are wasted on a regular basis, it is possible that those items will be changed in
future menu selections/requirements. It is also possible that, based on these data, DFACs could
show a need for more flexibility in what should be prepared for the soldiers. This outcome is
somewhat unlikely given the strict nutrition regime that the Army has for its soldiers.
Dr. Warren and Ms. Morrell also stated that, if funding were available, they would keep the
existing Leanpath systems and even install new systems in the other DFACs on base. This
currently is not happened for two reasons. First, there currently is no funding in the budget to
maintain or install Leanpath systems outside of the pilot period. Dr. Warren said that the
DFACs were investigating ways to secure additional funding in the future. Second, the current
contracts that manage the DFACs do not include provisions to require the use of a Leanpath-
Top Loss Reasons (Weight)
Overproduction 26,525 lb
Trim Waste: 3700 lb
Calorie Restriction: 648 lb
Field: 481 lb
Expired: 350 lb
Spoiled: 94 lb
Overcooked: 26 lb
Handling: 14 lb
Misorder: 9lb
Figure 10 Top Loss Reasons by Weight for Both DFACs
8
-------
like system. A new contract or an amendment would be required for the contractors that
manage the DFACs to install, use, and maintain these systems. Contracts to manage the DFACs
come up for renewal periodically, and Ms. Morrell noted that they were investigating contract
language that would allow for the incorporation of a Leanpath or similar system to help track
food waste in their DFACs.
AIT DFAC Results
The AIT DFACs experience overall with the Leanpath system was positive. Their management
thought that the system helped them better understand their operations and how much food
was being cooked, wasted, and donated; and what ingredients needed to be saved or handled
differently. Their staff was a little apprehensive using the system due to a general fear of
breaking or damaging the system. This apprehension is most likely due to limited training
during the kick-off meeting and/or the fact that the system had a failure and had to have a part
replaced early in the pilot. During the interviews, Ms. Morrell and DFAC management
suggested that additional training resources, like a recorded training session, could be useful to
reinforce the proper use of the system. To address staff apprehension, only certain trained
staff members could use the system. To ensure accurate data and that all waste transactions
were being captured, it would be ideal if all kitchen staff were trained and familiar using the
system.
The AIT DFAC staff who used the system and were interviewed felt that the system was easy to
use and that thinking about food waste led them to be more efficient in the kitchen. The
system was a little time consuming due to its location in the kitchen. For the pilot, the system
was located around the corner from the normal waste station. This dislocation from the normal
waste station could have led to possible missed waste transactions, especially during the
normal rushes of service.
One issue identified by AIT DFAC was
that they have a continually changing
group of customers. One unit enters
AIT and trains for 35 days and then
leaves the base for other
assignments. This constantly
changing customer base makes
preparing food for the tastes of a
given unit very difficult. They think
that at the beginning of a unit's
rotation through AIT they have higher
food waste. By the time the unit is
rotating out, they have made small
changes to their production, staying
within the Army mandated menus, to
minimize food waste by adjusting
Waste Trend (Weight)
4500
4000
3500
„ 3000
-Q
~ 2500
g> 2000
CI
5 1500
1000
500
^ ^
-------
quantities based on their diners' likes and dislikes. AIT DFAC managers and staff thought that
perhaps the Leanpath data could help them better recognize these trends sooner.
Over the course of the pilot, the
AIT DFAC executed 2,113
separate waste transactions
representing the disposition of
16,485 pounds of waste (Figure
11). Compared to the baseline
month of March, the AIT DFAC
decreased food waste by
approximately 1,078 pounds.
The top wasted food by weight
for the AIT DFAC was
vegetables (Figure 12). This
was not unexpected by the
DFAC management and staff,
but they suggested that it may
be useful to have more specific
information (i.e., the types of
vegetables). They suggested
that they could identify the top
five vegetables used in the
kitchen and have them
identified clearly in the system
and then have an "other
vegetables" option. This could
provide management more
actionable information.
Figure 13 shows that whole
beef was the highest value of
food wasted. Note that both
but the volumes of waste were
not in the top ten of foods wasted by weight shown (Figure 12). Most of the waste is from
overproduction (Figure 14). As discussed above, it is possible that some of this reported
overproduction is due to field exercises (e.g., units unexpectedly not reporting for meals) or
calorie restrictions.
AIT DFAC was able to donate approximately 40% by weight of their excess edible food to a local
food bank (Figure 15). As discussed before, by examining Leanpath data, management noticed
a trend of higher food waste on days when the food bank was collecting donations.
Management believed that this was due to kitchen staff cooking extra food knowing that if it
was not eaten by the customers it would be donated to a good cause such as the food bank.
Top Waste Foods (Weight)
Vegetables
Potatoes
Rice
Chicken - Bone-in
Eggs
Hot Cereal
Gravey
Pasta
Beef-Ground
¦¦i
Beef-Whole
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Weight (lb)
Figure 12 ATI DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Weight
Top Waste Foods (Value)
Beef - Whole
Turkey
Beef - Ground
Vegetables
Potatoes
Chicken - Boneless
Chicken - Bone - in
^¦ll
Pork
Eggs
Pasta
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Value (USD)
Figure 13 ATI DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Relative Cost
turkey and pork are on the top foods wasted by relative value
10
-------
Management addressed this issue and the DFAC is now producing food at a more stable level
regardless of whether food is being donated or not. It is also important to note some user
input errors in the disposition of waste—230 pounds of waste were sent to composting even
though composting was not available at Fort Jackson (Figure 15).
Top Loss Reasons for Beef - Whole (Value)
A ¦ Overproduction: $3,716
1 ¦ Calorie Restriction: $279
¦ ¦ Trim Waste: $70
Figure 14 ATI DFCs Top Loss Reasons for Whole Beef
Top Dispositions (Weight)
M ¦ Trash: 9,489 lb
Donation: 6,766 lb
Compost: 230 lb
Figure 15 AIT DFACs Top Dispositions by Weight
Top Loss Reasons (Weight)
Overproduction 13,677 1b
Trim Waste: 2,118 1b
¦
Field: 476 1b
¦
Calorie Restriction: 194 1b
¦
Overcooked: 9 lb
¦
Expired: 5 lb
w
Misorder: 3 lb
Handling: 13 1b
Figure 16 AIT DFACs Top Loss Reasons by Weight
11
-------
Overproduction is the primary reason for waste at AIT DFAC according to data (Figure 16). As
discussed above, field exercises and calorie restrictions probably play a larger role than what is
revealed in these data. DFAC Management has been able to use these data to show that field
exercises have a material impact on their operations and hope that they will be able to use this
information to foster better communication between unit commanders and themselves.
DSA DFAC Results
DSA DFACs experience has been extremely positive. Both management and kitchen staff
interviewed thought that the tracking system helped them be more efficient and reduce food
waste. The kitchen staff enjoyed using the system and seeing instant feedback, as shown in
Figure 4. DSA DFACs management said that the Leanpath data have allowed them to make
operational changes that led to significant cost savings and waste reductions. Before using the
Leanpath system, they cooked all the food for a given meal and kept it in warmers until it was
needed. After seeing how much food was being wasted, management moved to a progressive
cooking process where food is prepared throughout the meal service based on the demand.
Although no behavior changes were noted specifically for how they deal with trim waste, all the
cooks said that they were more aware of food waste and tried to minimize it.
Given that the DSA DFAC handled a lower volume of customers per meal and the Leanpath
system was placed in a more ideal location in the kitchen, it functioned more like commercial
kitchens where Leanpath has worked with previously. Therefore, it is not surprising the system
was well received and provided actionable data. The primary concern for management was
that NCOs do not have to eat their meals at the DSA DFAC. This choice adds uncertainty in the
number of customers they serve for any given meal.
The Leanpath system at DSA had a failure in its network card and it had to be replaced.
Leanpath shipped the replacement part and it was easily replaced by Fort Jackson IT staff. DSA
DFAC management said that the process
went very smoothly.
Over the course of the pilot, DSA DFAC
executed 1,386 separate waste
transactions representing the disposition
of 15,363 pounds of waste (Figure 17). If
we again consider the baseline month to
be March, they saved approximately 2,576
pounds of waste by the end of the pilot
period (Figure 17). It is likely much of the
reduction in food waste is due to the shift
to progressive cooking (cooking as the
food is consumed instead of all prior to
the meal service).
Waste Trend (Weight)
5000
4500
4000
3500 — H
3000
I, 2500
llllll
N /\ N N N
o" o o" o"
rv A/
Co" «0 ^ <0
Q ^ rv>
ry ^ v w ^
o o' o © o
Figure 17 DSA DFAC Waste Trend by Weight
12
-------
The top wasted food category by
weight for the DSA DFAC was
vegetables (Figure 18). This was
expected by the DFAC management
and staff, as not all soldiers like to
eat their vegetables. They felt that
the general category was good
enough for them to make some
decisions. There was concern that
additional options may confuse the
process that they had learned.
An interesting side note is that the
kitchen staff was surprised that
pancakes did not make the top ten
list given that they felt they were
frequently disposing of expired pancakes during breakfast service. Bread was also thought to
be a major contributor to the waste of the DFAC and it shows up on both the top ten list by
weight and relative cost.
Top Waste Foods (Value)
Beef-Ground
Vegetables
Beef-Whole
Turkey
Bread
Potatoes
Eggs
Fish
¦m
Rice
Shellfish - Shrimp
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Value (USD)
Figure 18 DSA DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Weight
Top Waste Foods (Weight)
Vegetables
Rice
Hot Cereal
Potatoes
Eggs
Beef-Ground
Mixed Plate - Other
Bread
Pasta
Turkey
s
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Weight (lb)
Figure 19 DSA DFACs Top Foods Wasted by Relative Cost
Ground beef was the highest
value of food wasted (Figure
19). This is different from AIT
DFAC where whole beef was
the highest valued item
wasted. When asked, DSA
DFAC management did not
have any real insights as to
why ground beef was
"wasted" more in this DFAC as
opposed to others.
DSA DFAC was able to donate
approximately 32%, by
weight, of their food waste to
a local food bank (Figure 20). It is important to note some user input errors in the disposition of
waste—28 pounds of waste were sent to composting even though composting was not
available at Fort Jackson (Figure 20).
Overproduction is the primary reason for waste in the DSA DFAC (Figure 21). Unlike the AIT
DFAC, DSA DFAC did not think field exercises were a major cause of waste. Instead, they
suspect overproduction is likely because NCOs have a choice of where to eat so it is very
difficult to attribute the missed meals to any one specific cause.
13
-------
Top Dispositions (Weight)
Donation: 5,006 lb
Compost: 26 lb
Figure 20 DSA DFACs Top Dispositions by Weight
Top Loss Reasons (Weight)
Figure 21 DSA DFACs Top Loss Reasons by Weight
¦ Overproduction 12,847 1b
Trim Waste: 1,582 1b
¦ Calorie Restriction: 454 lb
¦ Expired: 345 lb
¦ Spoiled: 94 1b
¦ Overcooked: 19 1b
Handeling: 11 lb
Misorder: 5 lb
¦ Field: 5 lb
Conclusions / Recommendations
The pilot demonstration of the Leanpath system was a success based on the measured
reduction of 3,554 pounds of food waste over three months, and because the staff at Fort
Jackson found the system easy to use and of great benefit. Everyone interviewed stated that
they would like to keep the systems. Ms. Morrell and Dr. Warren stated that they would like to
install systems in the other DFACs on base.
The application of Leanpath data has allowed management of the DSA DFAC to adjust their
operations. This unexpected and major accomplishment and will lead to a substantia]
reduction in food waste going forward, with or without a Leanpath system. It is also believed
that even without the Leanpath systems, kitchen staffs are more aware of food waste and the
DFACs will continue to operate in a more efficient manner. It remains to be seen if this is a
change in culture (e.g., changes will stay through staff turnover), or if this change will only
affect those who have experience using the Leanpath system.
14
-------
The location of the system has a real impact on its effectiveness and its acceptance by kitchen
staff. In the DSA DFAC, the system was located right next to their normal waste station. This
led to very low impact to normal operations according to staff comments. In the AIT DFAC, due
to a lack of power outlets, the system was placed around the corner from the normal waste
station where power outlets were accessible. The result was staff had to carry trays of waste
around the corner, weigh the waste, and then carry it where it would ultimately be disposed.
To alleviate some of this, garbage bins were placed next to the scale but that did not help with
waste disposed of via in-sink grinders or placed in hot boxes to be donated to the local food
bank.
To better evaluate the effectiveness of a Leanpath system across all sizes of DFACs, it is
recommended that a pilot be conducted at a larger DFAC such as one of the basic training
DFACs which serve approximately 2 to 3 times the number of meals per service. This currently
is working through contractual and funding issues.
Based on the results of this pilot demonstration, we have the following suggestions for initial
consideration:
1) It is shown that measuring waste teaches kitchen line staff, chefs, and managers the
extent and cost of food waste. This pilot has shown that data on types and timing of
waste production are valuable tools toward waste reduction.
2) Conduct a longer-term pilot at additional DFACs. Our initial short-term pilot suggests
over production for serving lines is the biggest cause of waste. A more definitive
analysis could indicate if:
a. progressive cooking along with reducing the number of options toward the end of
meal time will reduce over production.
b. increased communication with training staff regarding the timing of field exercises
would help DFACs prepare the appropriate number of meals.
c. improved communication with the nutrition staff on the number of soldiers on
various diet restrictions might help DFACs prepare appropriate quantities of food.
3) Encourage nutritionists and chefs to plan to use anticipated leftovers in future meals
(e.g., today's leftover hamburgers can become tomorrow's chili). Freeze unserved food,
particularly meat, vegetables, and other high dollar foods, and incorporate them in
future meals.
4) Continue to coordinate with local groups for food donations, perhaps freezing unserved
meals.
15
-------
References
1 United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump~administration~launches-winning~reducing~food~
waste-initiative, accessed 9 August 2019; s://www.epa.gov/sustainable~management~
food, accessed 9 August 2019; https://www.epa.gov/sustainable~management~food/united~
states~2030~food~loss~and~waste~reduction~goal. accessed 9 August 2019.
2 Buzby, J.C., and J. Hyman. 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States.
Food Policy, 37:561-570.
3 Kantor, L.S., K. Lipton, A. Manchester, and V. Oliveira. 1997. Estimating and Addressing
America's Food Losses. Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 20(1):1-11.
4 Birney, C.I., K.F. Franklin, F.T. Davidson, and M.E. Webber. 2017. An assessment of individual
foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States. Environmental Research
Letters, 12:105008.
5 Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, and J, Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of
Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. Economic
Information Bulletin, Number 121, iii+33 pp.
6 "A ROADMAP TO REDUCE U.S. FOOD WASTE BY 20 PERCENT" ReFED 2016;
https://www.refed.com/resources, accessed 9 August 2019.
7 Methane Emissions from Landfills https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic~information~about~
landfill-gas, accessed 9 August 2019.
8 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army. 2011. The Army's Net Zero Initiative.
https://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ES/doc/revisf lated%20NZ%20White%20Paper%203
0%20Qct%202013,pdf. accessed 9 August 2019.
9 Derquia, B., and V. Fernandez. 2017. The opportunity of tracking food waste in school
canteens: Guidelines for self-assessment. Waste Management, 69:431-444.
10 Leanpath, https://www.leanpath.com/, accessed 9 August 2019.
11 IKEA Aims to Cut Food Waste By 50% With New Food is Precious Initiative;
http://blog.leanpath.com/ikea-food-waste-initiative, accessed 9 August 2019.
12 Promoting Sustainability through Net Zero Strategies;
https://www.asaie.armv.mil/Public/ArmvPowerEnergy/NetZero.html. accessed 9 August
2019; s://www.epa.gov/water~research/promoting~sustainability-through~net~zero~
strategies, accessed 9 August 2019.
16
------- |