Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in the WCSD

1. Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in the WCSD PROGRESS REPORT By: Diane Shaw

2. 1. Definition and Boundaries of Community Washoe County School District, located in west Nevada: 6,302.36 square miles land area 239.85 square miles water area (USA.com) The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau shows WCSD population at 429,908

3. About the Washoe County School District • WCSD • 127 schools • 63,310 Students • 63 elementary schools • 14 middle schools • 13 comprehensive high schools • A special education school • 8 public charter schools • Truckee Meadows Community College High School (magnet school) • Washoe High School (alternative school) • Academy for Arts, Careers and Technology (advanced level occupational classes) • Licensed Kindergartens • SOURCE: (Back to School, 2014)

4. 2. Description of the Problem Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in the WCSD…

5. 2. Description of the ProblemWasteA Lesson in Sustainability:Maryland school district leads the way in organics Hartford-Schools.pdf To roll something out on this scale, we needed to tap into their knowledge of composting in our district,” Cassilly said. Cassilly’s next task was to get buy-in at a higher level. To do that meant showing a long-range plan. Waste Management and Cassilly assembled a meeting with representatives from procurement, food and nutrition, facilities, operations, individual school stakeholders and Waste Management consultants. This meeting enabled all constituents to ask critical questions and express their views. Waste Management demonstrated how it would leverage existing composting truck routes to manage costs and shared examples of customized recycling and composting signage they’d create to communicate the new program to students and staff. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW WASTE MANAGEMENT CAN HELP YOUR SCHOOL OR DISTRICT DEVELOP RECYCLING AND ORGANICS PROGRAMS, CONTACT HERB SHARPE, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AT 855 764 5227 OR VISIT US AT WM.COM/SCHOOLDISTRICT https://webmail.washoeschools.net/owa/attachment.ashx?attach=1&id=RgAAAAAYTuZlyla4TqfbASnMFjYkBwDSTQreLekbRrMwVF1kirQLAAAA0UmRAADSTQreLekbRrMwVF1kirQLAAAxNL6YAAAJ&attid0=BAADAAAA&attcnt=1

6. 2. Description of the Problemhttp://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/09/food-waste-worsens-ghg-emissions-fao/ Food waste worsens GHG emissions – FAO Sept 2013 But the FAO says the waste not only causes huge economic losses but is also doing very significant damage to natural resources – climate, water, land and biodiversity. It says its report, Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources, is the first study to analyse the impacts of global food waste from an environmental perspective. The authors say: “Without accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from land use change, the carbon footprint of food produced and not eaten is estimated at 3.3 Gigatonnes [billion tonnes] of CO2 equivalent: as such, food wastage ranks as the third top emitter after the USA and China. “Finally, produced but uneaten food vainly occupies almost 1.4 billion hectares of land; this represents close to 30% of the world’s agricultural land area.”

7. 2. Description of the Problem About 134 million tons of MSW (53.6 percent) were discarded in landfills in 2011 (see Figure 4). SOURCE: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/MSWcharacterization_508_053113_fs.pdf

8. 2. Description of the Problem http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/09/12/un-says-that-if-food-waste-was-a-country-itd-be-the-3-global-greenhouse-gas-emitter/ By Melissa C. Lott | September 12, 2013  UN says that if food waste was a country, it’d be the #3 global greenhouse gas emitter

9. 2. Description of the Problem http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/09/12/un-says-that-if-food-waste-was-a-country-itd-be-the-3-global-greenhouse-gas-emitter/ By Melissa C. Lott | September 12, 2013  According to the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food waste represents more greenhouse gas emissions than any country in the world except for China and the United States. In their report “Food wastage footprint,” the U.N. states that more than 1.3 billion tonnes of food are thrown away each year, representing 3.3 billion tonnes in annual carbon dioxide emissions. In their press release, the FAO states that: “…food that is produced but not eaten each year guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia’s Volga River and is responsible for adding 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the planet’s atmosphere. Similarly, 1.4 billion hectares of land – 28 per cent of the world’s agricultural area – is used annually to produce food that is lost or wasted.”

10. Food Facts http://www.nrdc.org/living/eatingwell/files/foodwaste_2pgr.pdf

12. Food Facts Food loss and food waste in the United States are so enormous in terms of squandered nutrients, dollars, and energy that the overall impact is hard to fathom, in part because the results are relatively well hidden in Dumpsters and landfills relatively far removed from our daily orbits. Somehow, we Americans each account for approximately 600 to 650 pounds of lost and wasted food, most of which we barely see or consider.29 And seldom do we connect food waste to energy waste. Food loss and food waste in the United States are so enormous in terms of squandered nutrients, dollars, and energy that the overall impact is hard to fathom, in part because the results are relatively well hidden in Dumpsters and landfills relatively far removed from our daily orbits. Somehow, we Americans each account for approximately 600 to 650 pounds of lost and wasted food, most of which we barely see or consider.29 And seldom do we connect food waste to energy waste. http://www.postcarbon.org/article/1658954-so-much-wasted-energy-rethinking

13. Food Facts http://www.postcarbon.org/article/1658954-so-much-wasted-energy-rethinking Food loss and food waste in the United States are so enormous in terms of squandered nutrients, dollars, and energy that the overall impact is hard to fathom, in part because the results are relatively well hidden in Dumpsters and landfills relatively far removed from our daily orbits. Somehow, we Americans each account for approximately 600 to 650 pounds of lost and wasted food, most of which we barely see or consider.29 Jenny Gustavsson et al., Global Food Losses & Food Waste: Extent, Causes, & Prevention (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011), http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf And seldom do we connect food waste to energy waste. Most of us are likely unaware of how much food is wasted on a global scale: Approximately one-third of the edible foods produced worldwide are never consumed by humans. That amounts to a stunning 1.3 billion tons of food wasted annually. In the United States, the food waste percentage is closer to 40 percent. 

14. Costs of food waste http://www.postcarbon.org/article/1658954-so-much-wasted-energy-rethinking Transporting, processing, distributing, and even storing food waste is energy intensive. Due to its significant water content and its bulk, food waste is heavy and expensive to transport. Landfills are essentially inefficient storage vessels that create unwanted by-products through decomposition and leaching. In fact, food waste comprises an astonishing one-third of all material sent to landfills, and it is estimated that landfills in the United States produce approximately 20 percent of the nation’s methane emissions—energy lost and pollution unleashed.30 30. “Basic Information about Food Waste,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed November 26, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm. Decomposition of an average ton of food generates approximately 376m3 of biogas (primarily methane) ref. 33  Stephanie Pruegel, “Pioneering Partnership Optimizes Power Production,” BioCycle, July 2010, 51.

15. Benefits of food waste sustainability • Maximizing the energy recapture of food waste through anaerobic digestion • Minimizing the transport of heavy, water-laden food waste • Minimizing nutrient loss from the food system by transforming food waste into engineered soils, while also reducing the potential for the leaching of these nutrients into waterways

16. Transporting, processing, distributing, and even storing food waste is energy intensive. Due to its significant water content and its bulk, food waste is heavy and expensive to transport. Landfills are essentially inefficient storage vessels that create unwanted by-products through decomposition and leaching. In fact, food waste comprises an astonishing one-third of all material sent to landfills, and it is estimated that landfills in the United States produce approximately 20 percent of the nation’s methane emissions—energy lost and pollution unleashed.30 30. “Basic Information about Food Waste,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed November 26, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm.

17. 2. Description of the Problem • Environmental effects[edit] • Landfill gases have an influence on climate change. The major components are CO2 and methane, both of which are greenhouse gas. Methane is considered over 20 times more detrimental to the atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide[21]http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html • "Methane". Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 20 September 2012.

18. 2. Description of the Problem U.S. Methane Emissions, By Source • http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html • "Methane". Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 20 September 2012. • Overview of Greenhouse Gases • Emissions and Trends • Reducing Methane Emissions • According to the EPA, “Landfills are the third largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. For more information see the U.S. Inventory's Waste chapter.” Note: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.

19. 2. Description of the Problem • http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html • "Methane". Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 20 September 2012. • Overview of Greenhouse Gases • Emissions and Trends • Reducing Methane Emissions • According to the EPA, “Landfills are the third largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. For more information see the U.S. Inventory's Waste chapter.” Note: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.

20. 2. Description of the Problem • Microbial oxidation[edit] • When landfill gas permeates through a soil cover, a fraction of the methane in the gas is oxidized microbially to CO2.[22] • Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., Bogner, J.E., De Visscher, A., Gebert, J., Hilger, H.A. & Spokas, K. (2009) Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste Manage. Res. 27:409-455.

21. Waste Management Sustainability report 2012 Appendix https://www.wm.com/sustainability/pdfs/2012_Sustainability_Report_Appendix.pdf • We participate with the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Newsweek Green Rankings Research, and we have made our voluntary reports to these organizations publicly available. We have also commented on federal, regional and state frameworks for addressing climate change. Extensive comments and recommended strategies have been discussed with: • • U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce • • U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology • • U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee • • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • California Air Resources Board • • Western Climate Initiative • • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative • • Climate Registry • • Climate Action Reserve • All comments are a matter of public record.

22. Waste Management Sustainability report 2012 https://www.wm.com/sustainability/pdfs/2012_Sustainability_Report_Appendix.pdf Pg 25 / 42 • Waste Management’s emissions are reported annually to the EPA, and the most recent totals are provided on p. 19 of Book 2 in our main report. From 2000 to 2010, we reduced our overall emissions (from our hazardous waste facilities, waste coal plant and mercury waste treatment facilities) by 84 percent. Releases to surface water declined over 99 percent over the same 10-year period. In 2010, we saw a significant rise in air emissions over 2009 resulting from the receipt of increasing amounts of customer wastes containing methanol, nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid. These increases, as well as increases attributable to the EPA’s decision to expand TRI reporting to include air emissions from municipal waste landfills adjacent to hazardous waste landfills, has resulted in a 66 percent rise in reported air emissions from 2000 to 2010.

23. EPADRAFT Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 6 Emissions and Sinks: EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 422 / 521 7-78 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 Data on discards (i.e., the amount generated minus the amount diverted to centralized composting facilities) for both yard trimmings and food scraps 31 were taken primarily from Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: 2011 Facts and Figures (EPA 2013), which provides data for 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2007 and 2009 33 through 2011. Data were not yet published for 2012, consequently, 2012 data on discards for yard trimmings and 34Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry 7-79 food scraps were assumed to be equal to 2011 data from EPA (2013).

24. EPA EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 422 / 521 • Food scrap generation has grown by 52 percent since 1990, and though the proportion of food scraps discarded in 4 landfills has decreased slightly from 82 percent in 1990 to 79 percent in 2012, the tonnage disposed of in landfills 5 has increased considerably (by 47 percent). Overall, the decrease in the landfill disposal rate of yard trimmings has 6 more than compensated for the increase in food scrap disposal in landfills, and the net result is a decrease in annual 7 landfill C storage from 24.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 1990 to 13.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2012 (Table 7-50 and Table 7-51X). 8 • Table 7-50: Net Changes in Yard Trimming and Food Scrap Carbon Stocks in Landfills (Tg 9 CO2 Eq.) 10 Carbon Pool 1990 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 • Yard Trimmings (21.0) (7.4) (7.0) (8.5) (9.3) (9.4) (9.4) • Grass (1.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) • Leaves (9.0) (3.4) (3.2) (3.9) (4.2) (4.3) (4.3) • Branches (10.2) (3.4) (3.1) (3.8) (4.1) (4.2) (4.2) • Food Scraps (3.2) (4.6) (3.8) (4.5) (4.3) (4.1) (3.8) • Total Net Flux (24.2) (12.0) (10.7) (13.0) (13.6) (13.5) (13.2) • Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values

25. EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 • Table 7-51: Net Changes in Yard Trimming and Food Scrap Carbon Stocks in Landfills (Tg C) 11 Carbon Pool 1990 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 • Yard Trimmings (5.7) (2.0) (1.9) (2.3) (2.5) (2.6) (2.6) • Grass (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) • Leaves (2.5) (0.9) (0.9) (1.1) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) • Branches (2.8) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) • Food Scraps (0.9) (1.3) (1.0) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1) (1.0) • Total Net Flux (6.6) (3.3) (2.9) (3.5) (3.7) (3.7) (3.6) • Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values

26. EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 • Empirical evidence indicates that 14 yard trimmings and food scraps do not completely decompose in landfills (Barlaz 1998, 2005, 2008; De la Cruz and 15 Barlaz 2010), and thus the stock of C in landfills can increase, with the net effect being a net atmospheric removal of 16 C. Estimates of net C flux resulting from landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps were developed by estimating 17 the change in landfilled C stocks between inventory years, based on methodologies presented for the Land Use, 18 Land-Use Change, and Forestry sector in IPCC (2003).

27. EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 • Planned Improvements 1 • Future work is planned to evaluate the consistency between the estimates of C storage described in this chapter and 2 the estimates of landfill CH4 emissions described in the Waste chapter. For example, the Waste chapter does not 3 distinguish landfill CH4 emissions from yard trimmings and food scraps separately from landfill CH4 emissions from 4 total bulk (i.e., municipal solid) waste, which includes yard trimmings and food scraps. Pg 426 / 521

28. EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 429 / 531 • Box 8-2: Waste Data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program • Further information on the reporting categorizations in EPA’s GHGRP and specific data caveats associated with monitoring methods in EPA’s GHGRP has been provided on the EPA’s GHGRP website.249 • EPA presents the data collected by EPA’s GHGRP through a data publication tool250 that allows data to be viewed in several formats including maps, tables, charts and graphs for individual facilities or groups of facilities

29. EPA 7-78 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 430 / 531 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 • Methane production typically begins one or two years after waste is disposed of in a landfill and will continue 45 for 10 to 60 years or longer as the degradable waste decomposes over time. 46 • In 2012, landfill CH4 emissions were approximately 102.8 Tg CO2 Eq. (4,897 Gg), representing the third largest 47 source of CH4 emissions in the United States, behind natural gas systems and enteric fermentation.

30. EPA 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 Pg 430 / 531 • Methane and CO2 are the primary constituents of landfill gas generation and emissions. However, the 2006 23 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines set an international convention to not report 24 biogenic CO2 released due to landfill decomposition in the Waste sector (IPCC 2006). Carbon dioxide emissions 25 from landfills are estimated and reported for under the Land Use/Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector 26 (see Box 8-4). Additionally, emissions of NMOC and VOC are not estimated because they are considered to be 27 emitted in trace amounts. Nitrous

31. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 431 / 531 • In 2012, landfill CH4 emissions were approximately 102.8 Tg CO2 Eq. (4,897 Gg), representing the third largest 47 source of CH4 emissions in the United States, behind natural gas systems and enteric fermentation. Emissions from 48 MSW landfills, which received about 69 percent of the total solid waste generated in the United States, accounted 49 for about 95 percent of total landfill emissions, while industrial landfills accounted for the remainder. 50 Approximately 1,900 to 2,000 operational MSW landfills exist in the United States, with the largest landfills 51Waste 8-5 receiving most of the waste and generating the majority of the CH4 emitted (EPA 2010; BioCycle 2010; WBJ 2010).

32. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 431 / 531 • The estimated annual quantity of waste placed in MSW landfills increased 26 percent from approximately 205 Tg in 12 1990 to 284 Tg in 2012 (see Annex 3.14). The total amount of MSW generated is expected to 15 increase as the U.S. population continues to grow. The percentage of waste landfilled, however, may decline due to 16 increased recycling and composting practices. 17 • Net CH4 emissions have fluctuated from year to year, but a slowly decreasing trend has been observed over the past 18 decade despite increased waste disposal amounts. For example, from 1990 to 2012, net CH4 emissions from landfills 19 decreased by approximately 30 percent (see Table 8-3 and Table 8-4). This decreasing trend can be attributed to a 21 20 percent reduction in the amount of decomposable materials (i.e., paper and paperboard, food scraps, and yard 21 trimmings) discarded in MSW landfills over the time series (EPA 2010) and an increase in the amount of landfill gas 22 collected and combusted (i.e., used for energy or flared) at MSW landfills, resulting in lower net CH4 emissions 23 from MSW landfills.251 For instance, in 1990, approximately 954 Gg of CH4 were recovered and combusted from 24 landfills, while in 2012, approximately 8,648 Gg of CH4 were combusted, representing an average annual increase 25 in the quantity of CH4 recovered and combusted at MSW landfills from 1990 to 2012 of 11 percent (see Annex 26 3.14

33. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 431 / 531 • The quantity of recovered CH4 that is either flared or used for energy purposes at MSW landfills has continually 29 increased as a result of 1996 federal regulations that require large MSW landfills to collect and combust landfill gas 30 (see 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cc 2005 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW 2005). Voluntary programs that 31 encourage CH4 recovery and beneficial reuse, such as EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and 32 federal and state incentives that promote renewable energy (e.g., tax credits, low interest loans, and Renewable 33 Portfolio Standards), have also contributed to increased interest in landfill gas collection and control. In 2012, an 34 estimated 67 new landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects (EPA 2012) and 3 new flares began operation. While the 35 amount of landfill gas collected and combusted continues to increase every year, the rate of increase in collection 36 and combustion no longer exceeds the rate of additional CH4 generation from the amount of organic MSW landfilled 37 as the U.S. population grows.

34. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 432 / 531 • Methane generation is based on nationwide waste disposal data; it is not landfill-specific. 15 The amount of CH4 recovered, however, is landfill-specific, but only for MSW landfills due to a lack of data 16 specific to industrial waste landfills. • States and local municipalities across the United States do not consistently track and report quantities of collected 1 waste or their end-of-life disposal methods to a centralized system. Therefore, national MSW landfill waste 2 generation and disposal data are obtained from the BioCycle State of Garbage surveys, published approximately 3 every two years, with the most recent publication date of 2010. The State of Garbage (SOG) survey is the only 4 continually updated nationwide survey of waste disposed in landfills in the United States and is the primary data 5 source with which to estimate CH4 emissions from MSW landfills. The SOG surveys use the principles of mass 6 balance where all MSW generated is equal to the amount of MSW landfilled, combusted in waste-to-energy plants, 7 composted, and/or recycled (BioCycle 2010).

35. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 438 / 531 • Estimates of the annual quantity of waste landfilled for 1960 through 1988 were obtained from EPA’s 38 Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States, Estimates for 1990: Report to Congress (EPA 1993) and an 39 extensive landfill survey by the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste in 1986 (EPA 1988). • Box 8-3: Methodological Approach for Estimating and Reporting U.S. Emissions and Sinks 21 • Municipal solid waste generated in the United States can be managed through landfilling, recycling, composting, 22 and combustion with energy recovery. There are two main sources for nationwide solid waste management data in 23 the United States, 24 •  The BioCycle and Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University’s State of Garbage (SOG) in America 25 surveys and 26 •  The EPA’s Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: Facts and Figures reports.

36. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 438 / 531 • The State of Garbage surveys are the preferred data source for estimating waste generation and disposal amounts in 41 the inventory because they are considered a more objective, numbers-based analysis of solid waste management in 42 the United States. However, the EPA Facts and Figures reports are useful when investigating waste management 43 trends at the nationwide level and for typical waste composition data, which the State of Garbage surveys do not 44 request.

37. 8-4 Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 pg 439 / 531 Table 8-6: Materials Discarded in the Municipal Waste Stream by Waste Type, percent 24 Waste Type 1990 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Paper and Paperboard 30.0% 24.5% 21.7% 19.7% 14.8% 15.3% Glass 6.0% 5.7% 5.5% 5.3% 5.0% 4.8% Metals 7.2% 7.7% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.3% Plastics 9.6% 15.7% 16.4% 16.0% 15.8% 16.3% Rubber and Leather 3.1% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% Textiles 2.9% 5.5% 5.9% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% Wood 6.9% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% Othera 1.4% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Food Scrapsb 13.6% 17.9% 18.2% 18.6% 19.1% 19.3% Yard Trimmingsc 17.6% 7.0% 6.7% 6.6% 7.6% 8.1% Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1.7% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% • Data for food scraps were estimated using sampling studies in various parts of the country in combination with demographic data on population, grocery store sales, restaurant sales, number of employees, and number of prisoners, students, and patients in institutions. Source: EPA 2010.

39. 2. Description of the ProblemA Lesson in Sustainability:Maryland school district leads the way in organics FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW WASTE MANAGEMENT CAN HELP YOUR SCHOOL OR DISTRICT DEVELOP RECYCLING AND ORGANICS PROGRAMS, CONTACT HERB SHARPE, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AT 855 764 5227 OR VISIT US AT WM.COM/SCHOOLDISTRICT

40. 2. Description of the ProblemA Lesson in Sustainability:Maryland school district leads the way in organics FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW WASTE MANAGEMENT CAN HELP YOUR SCHOOL OR DISTRICT DEVELOP RECYCLING AND ORGANICS PROGRAMS, CONTACT HERB SHARPE, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AT 855 764 5227 OR VISIT US AT WM.COM/SCHOOLDISTRICT “Everyone agrees philosophically with the idea of implementing an organics program. What Waste Management helped us do is prove it can be done operationally. “ Andrew Cassilly Resource Conservation Manager Harford County Public Schools Bel Air, MD

41. 2. Description of the Problem Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in the WCSD…

42. Land • Disposing • H20 Food Waste Equals Wasted Resources • Storing • Labor 40% of all food produced Is W A S T E D • Preparing • Energy • Production • Transport (www.plosone.org)

43. Landfills • Land Fills • Food is the single largest component of municipal solid waste going to landfills • It accounts for over 20% by weight. SOURCE: http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/sources.htm

44. Landfills • Land Fills • Dumping food into landfills costs the WCSD $200,000/yr. • The EPA estimated that in 2010 there were 33.74 million tons of total food waste sent to landfills in the U.S. The USDA estimates costs related to said food waste exceeded $2 billion. • SOURCE: http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/sources.htm

45. Green House Emissions • Green House Gas Emissions • Accounting for over 20% by weight, food waste quickly generates methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. • Landfills are the third largest source of methane in the U.S. • SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agencyexternallink • SOURCE: http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/sources.htm

46. 3. Literature Discussion • 1936: • NSLA is created -Excess crop commodities go to schools • 1936, the federal government created the Commodity Donation Program as a means of eliminating price-suppressing crop surpluses. • In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act which permanently established a school lunch program to improve child nutrition.

47. 3. Literature Discussion • 1936: • NSLA is created -Excess crop commodities go to schools • Today, the NSLP program continues to expand offering not only free and reduced school lunches, but also breakfast, after-school snacks, dinners and summer meals. • (New America Foundation) • 2012: • 101,000 schools • 5 billion+ lunches • 31 million+ students • $16 billion cost • (New America Foundation)

48. 4. Historical Roots and Aspects of Problem • http://docs.schoolnutrition.org/newsroom/jcnm/06fall/rainville/index.aspIssue 2, Fall 2006 The Journal of Child Nutrition & Management • Recess Placement Prior to Lunch in Elementary Schools: What Are the Barriers? • Prior to hot school lunches kids would take aluminum lunch boxes and a thermos for their drink to school. • Population growth • Free and Reduced lunches increased as population increased • Water has become a scarce resource in Nevada - our wetlands that were plentiful are drying up • STYROFOAM waste packaging • List all the products found from observation and sorting from other schools that have weighed problem. • - what companies win the contracts for meals?- get list-ok • -POLITICAL • - $$$ Follow the money • Washing fruits and vegetables from pesticides- safety regulations

49. 5. Contemporary Aspects And Impacts Of Problem Further Research Needed Contemporary causes (2-3 pp) Ecological/environmental aspects and impacts (3-5 pp) Social aspects and impacts (including economic, political, and cultural) (4-5 pp)- teaching kids to throw good food away, attributing to future waste

50. 5. Contemporary Aspects And Impacts Of Problem K-12 schools have a special role in not only reducing, recovering, and recycling food waste on their premises, but also in educating the next generation about recovering wholesome excess food for donation and about reducing food waste to conserve natural resources. “I know schools are already doing so much to cut food waste and educate children about food and agriculture. It would be great if we could get hundreds of schools to join the Food Waste Challenge and spread the word about these good efforts…and stimulate more!”– Janey Thornton, Deputy Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, USDA – The Department of Agriculture stresses the importance of careful menu planning and production practices in the lunch and breakfast programs to reduce food waste and improve consumption of healthy foods. But even with careful planning, there can be excess food from time to time. USDA strongly encourages schools to donate leftover foods to appropriate nonprofit institutions provided this practice is not prohibited by State or local laws or regulations. Food donation has been a longstanding policy in all Child Nutrition Programs, as clarified in recent guidance from the Food and Nutrition Service. SOURCE: http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/K12_schools.html