ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Food is a Terrible Thing to Waste:

Food Waste Mitigation at CSUMB
Carolyn Hinman, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Figure 1: https://olioex.com/food-waste/the-problem-of-food-waste/

Introduction
In 2010, Americans threw away about 130 billion pounds of food. Of the 430 billion pounds of
food available for human consumption in the United States, 31 percent ended up as trash. The retail value
of this waste comes to about $161.6 billion (Buzby, 2014). Despite the high rate of wasted food, an
estimated 14 percent of American households experienced food insecurity at some point during the year
2013, meaning they lacked reliable access to adequate, nutritious, and affordable food (Morse, 2015). The
food waste epidemic is problematic not only for human health, but also for environmental health. Food
waste in landfills releases methane gas as it decomposes and was the single largest component of landfill
content in 2010 (Buzby, 2014). Other resources are wasted when food is thrown away. Electricity, oil, land,
human labor, and water are lost along with the food that ends up as trash (Buzby, 2014). Americans
attitudes toward food encourage and condone wasting what is available. Grocery stores stock their shelves
with more items than can be sold to create the illusion of unlimited abundance. American consumers expect
perfection from produce, and farmers leave cosmetically challenged fruits and vegetables to rot in fields.
Confusing food date labeling systems convince consumers to throw away viable food, and many retailers
falsely believe donating food opens them up to legal complications.

Approaches for reducing food waste are numerous, but the root of the problem is attitudinal.
America must undergo a psychic shift to eradicate the habit of wasting food. Concrete measures can be
taken, and strategies include launching educational campaigns, changing the misleading food date labeling
system, selling ugly produce at discounted prices, providing legal incentives and tax breaks for those who
donate food, and universal composting systems. This paper explores the benefits of reducing food waste,
and the most effective methods for doing so. Food waste should be reduced and eliminated whenever
possible, and California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) should lead the way. CSUMB would
benefit from implementing a composting program in its East Campus residential community. The school is
geographically located in an ecologically unique region, and members of the community tend to be aware
of and concerned with matters of conservation.

As part of the statewide California State University (CSU) system, CSUMBs administration,
faculty, staff, and students all stand to be impacted by a composting policy. The CSU Sustainability Policy
states that CSUMB and all universities within the system have pledged to reduce the solid waste disposal
rate by 50 percent by 2016, by 80 percent by 2020, and move to zero waste (University, 2014). The
CSUMB Dining Commons and several other campus locations have composting receptacles available, but
composting is not compulsory. Staff, students, and faculty living in campus housing do not have easy access
to compost facilities. Because CSUMB is moving toward a Zero Waste end point, it is necessary to
integrate compost into the habitual activities of everyone on campus. Launching a composting program in
CSUMBs East Campus will lay the framework for changing attitudes toward food waste, and for
implementing compost in other campus buildings. Educating East Campus residents on the importance of
compost, on how to compost, and providing them with tools they need to compost at home will address the
national and global food waste epidemics at the local level.

2
Background
History

Waste is anthropogenic. In nature, waste does not exist. If an animal is killed, it is eaten by other
animals or decomposes back into the Earth. If a tree falls, animals use it for shelter, and is eventually
returned to the dirt from whence it came. It was not until humans evolved that waste was introduced to the
planet. Most animals in their natural habitats do not take more than they need or can use in a reasonable
time period, but as long as humans have eaten food, they have been creating food waste. Today, Americans
generate more food waste than most of the rest of the world.

From its inception, America has been a country of excess. Before 1824, Native Americans occupied
much of North America. The Northwestern Shoshone tribe occupied what is now known as Cache Valley,
Utah for 5,000 years before it was taken by white settlers. The Shoshone were hunters and gatherers and
used fire to track down buffalo, one of their main sources of meat. The Shoshone are known to have utilized
all parts of the buffalo they killed, turning scrotum into rattles and using internal organs for cooking vessels
and storage containers (Willey et al, 2017). Even these most frugal hunters participated in wasteful
practices. They sometimes employed a hunting technique called the Buffalo Jump in which hunters
frightened entire herds into jumping off cliffs, resulting in more buffalo meat than the tribe could eat before
spoilage (Willey et al, 2017).

The fur trappers and Mountain Men of the 1800s hunted beaver for their pelts which could be
fashioned into hats. The Mountain Men hunted the beaver into virtual extinction, but were meticulous when
it came to waste. They were adept at utilizing nearly every part of the animal from teeth and tails to fat and
anal glands. During the period of the mid to late 1800s, pioneers were moving westward, and relied heavily
on hunted game and fish for their sustenance. They were skilled at stretching their food supplies by using
preservation methods like canning, and used even the bones of the animals they hunted to make stock for
soups and fat to make soap. Waste generated by the pioneers was typically used for feeding livestock or
integrated into other meals (Willey et al, 2017).

The Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 20th Centuries transformed Americas food systems.
People moved out of the country and into cities, and food production became a commercialized process.
The new abundance of inexpensive food made it easy for families to waste more. People began disposing
of food waste on city streets, inspiring the creation of the first municipal waste management systems. In
some cities, edible waste was repurposed into animal feed and non-edible waste was used as filler in road

3
construction (Willey et al, 2017). The invention of the canning process in 1809 helped in the management
of food waste by extending the life of fruits and vegetables up to several years, thereby reducing spoilage
rates (Willey et al, 2017).

During the First World War, American farms produced food for the Allied forces. Much of the
farmland in Europe had been converted into battleground, and transportation of food had become difficult.
Because America had become the Allies best chance at feeding the troops, the United Stated Food
Administration was established to organize and manage the production and distribution of food. Since
participation in food conservation efforts was voluntary, it was branded as patriotic. By the end of the war,
campaigns for Meatless Mondays and Wheatless Wednesdays, combined with the promotion of
increased dietary integration of fruits and vegetables succeeded in reducing Americas food consumption
by 15 percent while doubling the amount of food sent to Europe (Willey et al, 2017).

The relative prosperity in the decade following World War One was followed by the stock market
crash of 1929. The ensuing decade brought the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, and Americans faced
hunger and food insecurity on a grand scale. Americans were losing their jobs, food production ebbed, and
resources were hard to come by. Farmers who were still able to produce were impacted by price reductions
and overproduction. People could not afford to buy the food that was being grown, and in 1932, Californias
Imperial Valley saw 2.8 million watermelons, 1.4 million crates of cantaloupes, and 22.4 million pounds of
tomatoes rot in fields
because people could
not afford to buy
them (Willey et al,
2017). It was during
this era that
processed and
prepackaged food
became prevalent,
and Kraft introduced
its still-popular
boxed macaroni and Figure 2: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese and other processed foods became widely available during the
1930s. http://exhibits.usu.edu/exhibits/show/foodwaste/timeline/thegreatdepression
cheese meals. These
mass-produced food-like products added waste from packaging to the nations landfills. With the national
unemployment rate at 25 percent, Americans could not afford to waste food. Resourceful recipes making

4
use of typically discarded food became popular, and creative recipes repurposing otherwise wasted
ingredients marked the resourcefulness of the period. Despite widespread poverty, the number of American
homes with refrigerators rose from eight to 50 percent, making it easier to save leftovers and reduce spoilage
(Willey et al, 2017).

When America entered World War II on December 7, 1941, the United States economy began
emerging from the Great Depression. During this era, the concepts of planned obsolescence and
conspicuous consumption took hold as a way to keep the economy flourishing. Despite the newfound
prosperity, Americas government encouraged food conservation as an act of patriotism, but the public was
reluctant to participate. Years spent scrimping and saving had taken their toll, and Americans were no longer
willing to make such sacrifices (Willey et al, 2017).

The 1940s, 50s, and 60s ushered in a new age of agriculture. The introduction of chemical fertilizers
and pesticides made overproduction of food possible, and by 1954 America was producing so much food
that it was possible for the government to start sending surplus overseas. Food for Peace was a governmental
program that exported food to countries in need, and President Johnsons War on Poverty in 1960 was an
effort to distribute food to hungry American citizens. This was an era of abundant, inexpensive food
supplies, and Americans began to create more food waste. An out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality crept
over the country, and home appliances like the garbage disposal made it easy to throw food away to a
place Americans did not have to think about (Willey et al, 2017).

As more
highly-processed
food products
were introduced to
the markets,
consumers wanted
reassurance that
the long lists of
ingredients were
safe and shelf-
stable. This
demand led to the
Figure 3. Food rescued from a dumpster in Chicago, IL https://civileats.com/2014/10/07/uncovering-
americas-food-waste-fiasco/ creation of our

5
current food date labeling system. By the 1970s, retailers and manufacturers were putting Best By and
Sell By dates on countless products, and Americans were afforded the luxury of disconnecting from their
food. Consumers now felt they must abide by the dates printed on food packaging, even though the labeling
systems were not and still are not regulated by the federal government (Gunders, 2012).

Today, Americans waste more food than any other nation in the world. Up to 40 percent of the food
produced in this country is thrown away, and over 12 percent of the American population experiences food
insecurity (Reich and Foley, 2014). Each American wastes the equivalent of 1,250 calories per day, which
nearly meets the USDAs recommendation for an adult females daily energy intake. An estimated one in
six children, one in three adults, and one in four college students experiences food insecurity each year, and
the food that we throw away in America would meet the daily calorie needs of over 80 percent of the
countrys adult population (Gunders et al, 2017).

Scientific Background
Food releases methane as it breaks down, and the food in landfills releases 20 percent of Americas
total methane output each year (Mugica, 2017). Other resources are wasted when food is thrown away.
About 2.5 percent of Americas total energy consumption is associated with food waste. Production of
wasted food requires about 300 million barrels of oil and 25 percent of Americas fresh water annually
(Buzby, 2014). The United States currently throws away 40 percent of its food supply, and along with it,
30 percent of all fertilizer, and 31 percent of all cropland (Reich, 2014).

Policy Context

The United States Government has been aware of the growing problem of food waste for decades.
A report called Food Waste: An Opportunity to Improve Resource Use, was presented to Congress in
1977. It brought to light the issue of food waste in America and set forth propositions on recouping losses,
diverting and repurposing food otherwise destined for the trash. At the time the report was made, 20% of
food produced in America was lost or wasted annually and had an estimated retail value of $31 billion. The
report states that an effort at waste reduction would increase the productivity of Americas food system,
improve the efficiency of natural resources for food production, and would provide an opportunity to feed
the hungry (Comptroller General, 1977).

Though no regulations were implemented at the time, in the last several years there has been
significant progress on food waste policy. In September 2015 the United States Department of Agriculture

6
(USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set goals of reducing national food waste by 50
percent by the year 2030 (Gunders et al, 2017). In 2015, Congress enhanced tax incentives for food
donations with its omnibus budget package of 2015, extended benefits to businesses of any size (Gunderson
et al, 2017). The first iteration of the Food Recovery Act was introduced in 2015, and in 2016 the Food
Date Labeling Act and the Food Waste Transparency Act were introduced to Congress. While none of these
Acts were successfully passed, their introduction represents progress on food waste policy. By December
of 2016 Congress initiated guidance for standardizing the food date labeling system to help curb food waste,
and tax incentives for donated food were adopted by nine states, and five states have imposed requirements
for some business to repurpose food and prioritize diverting food recovery and surplus (Gunders et al,
2017).

Senate Bill 1680, The Food Recovery Act of 2017, was introduced to the Senate on July 31, 2017.
Its intent is to decrease the incidence of food waste, among other purposes (Blumenthal, 2017). This bill
calls for farms to install anaerobic digesters that will use manure and food waste to produce renewable
energy, improved storage and handling facilities to reduce food waste, and the use of composting as a
conservation method. Implementation of this policy would entail the diverting food waste from landfills
by composting. It takes into account the Good Samaritan Act, which protects those donating food from
legal prosecution, food loss occurring at both retail and school levels, misleading date labeling, and how to
best effect real change at the consumer level by utilizing the media. The bill also addresses the importance
of government funding for waste-to-energy operations and building food waste management infrastructure
and calls for $100,000,000 to be provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation for the states to put toward
storage and distribution costs. The bill allows for the expansion of programs to provide funding to rural
communities for adapting waste management facilities for use of anaerobic digesters and other composting
measures.

The United States Congress passed H.R. 4719, also called the America Gives More Act, during the
113th Congress (2013-2014). It amended Section 170 of the Internal Revenue code to incentivize
corporations to donate surplus or unused foodstuffs by providing tax deductions for charitable donations.
The Code also states that when wholesome food is correctly saved and donated to a sanctioned agency,
it is eligible for an enhanced deduction, which is equivalent to half of the donated foods value.

The Zero Waste Development and Expansion Act of 2017, or H.R. 1034, was introduced to the
House of Representatives on February 14, 2017. The Bill would authorize the Environmental Protection
Agencys (EPA) administration to provide grants to support municipal solid waste prevention measures,

7
including reuse and recycling programs, and other waste prevention efforts. The grant program would
enable the Administrator of the EPA to award grants to local governments for development and
implementation of solid waste prevention programs, including composting, community outreach, and
education. There is $100,000,000 authorized to be allocated for these purposes for the years 2018 through
2023. To be awarded one of these grants, the applicant must set precise waste management goals and
develop a clear plan to use grant monies to fund waste prevention, reuse, recycling, compost, or product
reuse programs. Preference for awarding grants may be given to those entities that have the potential to
create jobs, forge domestic business partnerships, address environmental injustice, include many different
stakeholders in their processes, and can show that the grant money will increase future investments. Those
who are awarded grants will report to the EPA Administrator to be held accountable for program progress,
and the Administrator will hold an annual conference for past, present, and future stakeholders and grant
recipients to learn from each other and move toward the ultimate goal of zero waste.

The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) is working with local governments to address
food waste. Landfill challenges, food insecurity, and climate change are all within the purview of city
administrations. The NRDC is developing protocol that will encourage collaboration between city
governments and community stakeholders. Their pilot project in New York City, Denver, and Nashville is
attempting a comprehensive estimation of the amounts and types of food wasted at the city level. The
thought is that identifying root causes for why people waste food will lead to effective and comprehensive
strategies for reducing waste. The program is also assessing how much food could be redirected to those
who need it, and considering the construction of food-rescue infrastructure (Empower 2017).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also undertaken efforts to spread
awareness about food waste and to encourage reducing it. Their Food Recovery Challenge is a voluntary
program in which participating organizations make a pledge to ramp up their sustainable practices as part
of the EPAs Sustainable Materials Management Program (SMM). SMMs goal is to revolutionize the
environmental impact of the extraction, manufacture, distribution, use, reuse, recycling, and disposal of
materials throughout their lifetime. Organizations that join the challenge are eligible for rewards and
recognition, save money and resources, get tax benefits, and help their communities by donating food rather
than throwing it away (FRC, 2017).

Stakeholder Perspectives

8
 The potential for a CSUMB composting system to have a cascading influence on surrounding
schools and communities is apparent, yet with no precedent for establishing and managing such a program
the initial phases may be burdensome. East Campus residents in particular may feel encumbered and
confused by new composting requirements. Busy students who often have jobs, families, and other
obligations outside of full time study may be unwilling to sacrifice time to learn how to compost and then
to actually do it. There are East Campus residents who are Environmental Studies/Science majors, and other
environmental enthusiasts, who may be more willing and enthusiastic about going out of their way to
compost their kitchen scraps.

Andrew Porteous is the East Campus Community Director, and has been pursuing the establishment
of a composting program in the community for over a year. Andrew frequently interacts with East Campus
residents and with CSUMB students in general, and has a general understanding of the students priorities
and concerns. He says (interview stuff here). Depending on the steps involved and the distance required to
travel to the composting facilities, this group may feel either inconvenienced or excited about composting.

East Campus Resident Advisor (RA) Mason Fernandez is also involved in sustainability efforts at
CSUMB (will interview them and insert here).

Lacey Raak is the Sustainability Director for Campus Planning and Development at CSUMB. She
is tasked with bringing the university up to the current standards of sustainability for building construction,
biophilic design, water, transportation, and waste management. One of the barometers for success in her
position is whether or not the university attains the CSU sustainability goals. In the past two years, Lacey
and the Sustainability Department have made strides in sustainable protocol that earned CSUMB a spot on
the Sierra Clubs Cool School list a ranking of American universities involved in increasing their
conservation and sustainability efforts. Her interest in seeing a composting program established on East
Campus is rooted in both personal and professional motivations. At this point, Lacey feels that the measures
being taken at CSUMB amount to little more than keeping up with the Joneses of sustainability. She sees
an opportunity for CSUMB to make greater strides toward sustainability and effect real change in the
Monterey Bay area. Speaking to the attitudinal shift that must occur, Lacey says change will come with a
deeper understanding by a broader group of people of what it means to be sustainable. Its so much deeper
than recycling. Its efficiencies and connecting issues in a broader sense. Meeting the CSU carbon
neutrality and zero waste goals will require coordinated efforts and outside the box thinking, and
integrating compost into the daily routines of CSUMB students is one way to get there.

9
 Green Waste Recovery and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD)
provide solid waste disposal services for residential and commercial areas. CSUMB already contracts with
Green Waste Recovery, a service that takes garbage, recyclables, and compost to MRWMD for processing.
Sara Treat is the Customer Service and Outreach Manager for Green Waste Recovery. Her job is centered
around signing customers up for waste management services and ensuring their needs are met. She works
for Green Waste because she personally values conservation and waste diversion as a means of
environmental remediation. Saras main concerns regarding the implementation of a composting system on
CSUMBs East Campus is that it will be difficult to monitor, and contamination might be an issue. The
committee overseeing the program must decide who will be responsible for any contamination, and should
incorporate an educational element along with the launch of the program. Sara recommended starting on a
small scale with a pilot program, and scaling up after an evaluation of the programs effectiveness and
shortcomings.
.

Stakeholder Impact What does the How can the What are the
group and stakeholder value stakeholder concerns of the
representatives about the contribute to the stakeholder?
project? project?
East Campus Medium Environmental By participating Time and effort
Residents benefits and proactively required,
learning mess/smell
CSUMB High Meeting Financial and Proper procedure
Sustainability sustainability organizational
Department goals support
CSU Medium Meeting Instituting policies Following
Administration sustainability protocol and
goals procedure
Alliance Rental Medium Adopting better Contracting with Illegal dumping in
Company sustainability Waste receptacle,
procedures Management and accessibility to
installing required animals
infrastructure
Green Waste Low-Medium Making money, Communicating Getting non-
securing a new and contracting contaminated
contract/new with us, providing compost
customers resources and
education

10
Discussion

Recommended strategies for addressing food waste include three options for the scope of this
survey. Option 1 pertains to the implementation of a standardized composting system on CSUMBs East
Campus to help convert wasted food into other resources like compost and electricity. Option 2 is in
regards to changing the current misleading food date labeling system to curtail premature disposal of food
and amending federal tax code to incentivize composting and food donations. Option 3 would deploy an
educational campaign to inform the public about food waste and what can be done to reduce it, thereby
encouraging waste reduction activities like composting. Criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of each
option include the effectiveness of the option at reducing the cost of food waste, its effectiveness at
reducing total volume in tonnage of wasted food, the feasibility of implementing each option, how far
each option would go in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and what impact each option would
have on reducing food insecurity. Each option is rated using one, two, or three asterix signs to indicate the
strength of its impact. One asterix indicates relatively low impact; two indicates moderate impact; and
three indicates high impact.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Change food date labeling
Criteria Mandatory and accessible system/Tax breaks and Educational campaigns on
composting on East Campus incentives for food donations reducing food waste
and composting
Reducing Cost of
Waste * * **
Reducing Volume of
Waste *** ** **
Feasibility
** * ***
Reduction in GHG
emissions *** ** **
Reduction in food
insecurity/hunger * ** **
Figure 4: Policy Analysis Table

The options for reducing food waste explored in this analysis include creating and implementing a
composting system on CSUMBs East Campus, changing the confusing and misleading food date labeling

11
system, increasing incentives and tax breaks for those who donate and compost food, and the creation of
educational campaigns on food waste and strategies for reducing it. Each option has strengths and
weaknesses, and ultimately a hybrid of each option would be most effective at addressing the problem.
Option 2 was originally categorized as two separate options, but for the scope of this paper, were considered
a single option, as both of these strategies would require action at the federal level. Option 1 and option 3
are more feasible to implement at the local level, without the necessity of passing federal legislation that
would take years to implement, and require resources and expertise exceeding the purview of this plan.
Option 1, mandatory and accessible composting on East Campus, would provide a central location
for residents to drop off their kitchen scraps. Residents would be provided with their own kitchen
composting bin (one per unit) at no charge to them. The Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club is granting
CSUMB $5,000 to help with the cost of purchasing the kitchen bins. Providing bins for residents makes
composting more attainable for students who are living on tight budgets, and takes the burden of shopping
and paying for a kitchen bin off them. Placing a compost collection receptacle in a central location within
the residential community gives students a convenient place to which they can bring their kitchen scraps,
eliminating the need for each student to start their own compost operation in their backyards, and relieving
them of a longer drive to take their waste to an off-campus location. This makes participation more likely,
and students who would not go out of their way to compost may be more likely to divert their food waste if
it is accessible for them to do so. There will likely be issues with contamination when students put non-
compostable materials into the receptacle, There is also the problem of where to place the large receptacle,
and how to monitor the waste that is collected. This will likely be a process of trial and error, and many
different strategies for collecting and monitoring the kitchen scraps may have to be explored.
Option 2, changing the food date labeling system and giving tax breaks or other incentives for
composting and donating food, would go a long way in appealing to the publics fear of consuming or
giving away contaminated food. Many people will not eat food past the date printed on the package, even
though that food item is often still safe to eat for weeks past the date. The belief that food must be disposed
of by the date printed on the label leads to packaging waste in addition to food waste. Given that food date
labels are not regulated by any federal agency, there is no standard for freshness or safety within the food
industry. Removing or redesigning food date labels would give consumers more realistic expectations for
windows of safe consumption. Similarly, incentivizing composting and especially food donations would
encourage retailers to donate excess foodstuffs rather than throwing it away for fear of being sued over a
donation that makes someone sick. Revising tax code is a process requiring knowledge and expertise of the
federal tax system, and would be beneficial in encouraging more people to divert their waste, but will likely
require years of negotiations and proposal submissions.

12
 Option 3, launching educational campaigns around food waste and how to reduce it, is an important
element of revolutionizing the food waste situation. People cannot understand or care about an issue unless
they are informed about it. They cannot be expected to change their habits unless they are given the tools
to do so. A population must be educated on a subject and then given the opportunity to come to their own
conclusions in order to make lasting change. Composting is a process that many Americans are not familiar
with, and so will need information about it before they can do it correctly, and before they can want to do
it at all. Understanding the effects of food waste on the planet and the implications its diversion could have
on world hunger may motivate people to change their daily routines if they want to have an impact.

Recommendation

Though the intended impact of policy around food waste mitigation would be widespread and
significant at the federal level, immediate action is needed to reach zero waste goals. Pursuing Option 1 and
Option 2 implementing a mandatory and accessible composting program on CSUMBs East Campus and
launching an educational campaign, would have an immediate effect on food waste. Raising awareness
through an educational campaign is a step toward changing attitudes, thereby changing behaviors, and
making it easy for busy college students to compost kitchen scraps will make it more likely that waste will
be diverted. Though a combination of Options 1 and 2 would have the most immediate and tangible impact,
they do not address the historic systemic shortcomings that have made food waste possible. Option 2,
standardizing food date labels and restructuring federal tax code, would put scaffolding in place to regulate
some of the factors that contribute to food waste, and should be pursued in the future, if not simultaneously
with Options 1 and 2.

Though a composting program on East Campus paired with an educational campaign may be slow
to catch on, and participation will not be highly incentivized. Students may be resistant to the extra time,
effort, and attention it will take to separate their kitchen waste from other trash and bring it to a centralized
drop off location. There will be a learning curve as students acclimate themselves to the new habit of sorting
kitchen scraps and becoming familiar with what can and cannot be composted, and accidental
contamination may occur. Monitoring of the drop off container during the initial weeks of the program will
be necessary to determine how many residents are participating, and to perform quality control for the
components being designated by participants as food waste.

The recommendation to pursue of course of action in which both Options 1 and 2 are considered
has the potential to be the most effective path for reducing and diverting food waste on East Campus.

13
Providing educational resources alongside the physical tools needed to collect and compost food waste
gives a foundation for establishing a new habit and changing attitudes. It is the hope that establishing a
composting protocol for one of CSUMBs residential communities will make the adoption of composting
or other food waste diversion methods possible in all residential buildings on campus. As the process is
refined and adapted to best suit the CSUMB community, it may be implemented in many different
iterations. Several other universities in California and in other parts of the country have integrated compost
facilities in the habitual activities of their staff and faculty, and the methods employed by these institutions
may be helpful guides for establishing a system at CSUMB. Working with Sustainability Department,
students, and administration will provide the best context for building a program, and continued research
and modifications will make the program flexible enough to grow and change with the advent of new
techniques and strategies.

Conclusion
Food waste has become an important part of Americas cultural landscape. A nation built
on sacrifice and suffering now celebrates its survival by producing and consuming more than it
needs. While food waste is not a uniquely American issue, it is a larger issue here than in other
parts of the world. Food waste is a global problem, but it happens at the local level. It happens in
homes, and in grocery stores. It happens at the corner deli and in our school cafeterias. We have
more food than we consume, but a significant portion of the American population goes hungry
every day. While composting kitchen scraps will not directly address food insecurity or hunger,
combined with an educational campaign it will raise awareness of the problem, and create an
atmosphere which is more conducive to change. Generations of Americans have gone without in
order that we no longer need to make those same sacrifices. Today, we produce enough food to
prevent nearly every person on this planet from experiencing hunger, but because of inefficient
systems, we waste almost as much as we eat. We must start to behave in a way that acknowledges
that this waste exists. Creating this state of awareness will make passing federal policy around food
waste, including regulation of food date labels and tax deductions for diversion measures, will
make passing legislation at higher levels more likely. Sometimes, in order for change to happen,
we must begin to take action, even if there is no perfect plan in place.

14
References Cited

Berkovitch, E. (2016, September 9). How do you beat hunger and food waste? Try compost. High
Country News. Retrieved from http://www.hcn.org/articles/how-do-you-beat-hunger-and-food-
waste-try-compost

Bloom, J. (2011). American Wasteland: How America Throws Away Nearly Half of its Food (and What
We Can Do About It). Da Capo Press, ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csumb/detail.action?docID=625066.

Blumenthal, S. R. (2017, July 31). S. 1680 - Food Recovery Act of 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/1680/titles?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22food+waste%22%5D%7D&r=3

Broad Leib, E., & Gunders, D. (2013). The dating game: How confusing food date labels lead to food
waste in America. Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and the National Resource Defense
Council, New York, NY. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2013/09/dating-game-report.pdf

Buzby, J. C., Hyman, J., & Well, H. F. (2014). The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest
food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-
details/?pubid=43836

Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C. A., & Rabbitt, M. P. (2017, October 4). Food Security in the U.S.
Retrieved December 03, 2017, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-
assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

Comptroller General of the United States. (1977, September 16). Food Waste: An Opportunity to Improve
Resource Use. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/CED-77-118

Deutsch, T. (2010). <i>Building a housewife's paradise: gender, politics, and American grocery stores in
the twentieth century</i>. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-
com.library2.csumb.edu:2248

15
Ellison, R. K. (2017, February 17). Zero Waste Development and Expansion Act of 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/1034/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22food+waste%22%5D%7D&r=2

[Empower]. Empower Cities to Prevent, Rescue, and Recycle. (2017, October 30). Retrieved November
10, 2017, from https://www.nrdc.org/issues/empower-cities-prevent-rescue-recycle

[FRC]. Food Recovery Challenge (FRC). (2017, November 20). Retrieved December 04, 2017, from
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-challenge-frc

Food Waste. (2017, October 30). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.nrdc.org/issues/food-
waste

Gordon, I. (2016, December). The Unintended Consequences of Reducing Food Waste. Australasian
Science, 37(10), 40. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.library2.csumb.edu:2248/docview/1841364866?accountid=10355

Gunders, D. (2012, August). Wasted: how America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to

fork to landfill. National Resources Defense Council, 5. Retrieved from

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf

Gunders, D., Bloom, J., Berkenkamp, J., Hoover, D., Spacht, A., & Mourad, M. (2017, August). Wasted:

how America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. Retrieved from

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-2017-executive-summary.pdf

Hael, S. (2017, August). Packaging technologies fight food waste. National Provisioner, 231(8), 51-52.
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.library2.csumb.edu:2248/docview/1932320318?accountid=10355

H.R. 4719 - America Gives More Act of 2014 (July 14, 2014). Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4719

Morse, A. (2015). Hungry for solutions. State Legislatures, 41(5), pp. 20-23.

16
Mugica. Y. (2017, October 25). Case Studies: Cutting Waste & Boosting Food Donation. Retrieved
November 11, 2017, from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/yerina-mugica/case-studies-cutting-
waste-boosting-food-donation

Porter, S. D., Reay, D. S., Higgins, P., & Bomberg, E. (2016, November 16). A half-century of
production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply
chain. Science of the Total Environment, 721-729. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716314863)

Reich, A. H., & Foley, J. A. (2014, April). Food Loss and Waste in the US: The Science Behind the
Supply Chain. Retrieved from
https://www.foodpolicy.umn.edu/sites/foodpolicy.umn.edu/files/food-loss-waste.pdf

Tunc, T. E. (2015). Eating in Survival Town: Food in 1950s. Cold War History, 15(2), 179-200.
doi:10.1080/14682745.2014.950239

Willey, D., Hickock, S., Pendergast, H., & Ewing, S. (2017). Food Waste. Retrieved December 02, 2017,
from http://exhibits.usu.edu/exhibits/show/foodwaste/intro

17