What a waste

We throw out, at great environmental cost, a horrific amount of the food we grow. Why?

by Nancy Macdonald on Monday, November 9, 2009 11:24am - 23 Comments

Some waste is inevitable, but the trouble is how much of this has been built into the manufacturing process. Marks & Spencer, for example, insists its sandwich suppliers pitch four slices of bread from each loaf they produce—the crust and the first slice at either end—amounting to 13,000 slices of fresh bread a day. Another example of systemic wastage has been dubbed “overproduction waste.” That is, manufacturers will make more of a product than supermarkets can actually sell; in the convenience-food sector (supplying ready-made meals and sandwiches) overproduction waste levels reach 56 per cent of a company’s total output, meaning that, yes, more food is being wasted than sold.

And as if diners needed any more reason to feel guilty about the grilled salmon or sushi dinner on their plates, it is the global fisheries, an industry plagued by greed, ignorance, corruption and terminal shortsightedness, that are responsible for some of the most stomach-turning examples of waste. The European Commission estimates that 40 to 60 per cent of all fish caught by European fleets are thrown back to sea because they are too small, or the wrong species (Greenpeace puts the figure even higher, suggesting that 117 million of the 186 million fish caught in U.K. waters are tossed back to sea). Indeed, the biggest waste, and source of guilt, isn’t even about the fish we actually eat: the UN Environmental Programme estimates that humans eat barely half of all fish caught. (When waste from scraps, rot, fishmeal and inedible matter are taken into account, the amount of fish-based protein actually consumed amounts to just 10 per cent of the marine animals removed annually from the oceans, according to Charles Clover, author of The End of the Line.) The world’s top marine scientists, meanwhile, continue to warn that the global fishery will collapse within 30 years if trends continue (for some species, it may be too late: the journal Nature estimates that the oceans have already lost more than 90 per cent of large predatory fishes, like cod, salmon and tuna).

Consumers do not escape blame for the mammoth waste problem: the average American throws away 96 kg of edible food each year. In Britain 58 per cent of all the carrots grown currently went in the trash. That is, Stuart says, “for every carrot you eat, you have paid for at least one more to be thrown away.” Lettuce is even worse: for every serving of fresh salad eaten in the U.K., another two have been thrown away. In all, Britons, who have had their trash examined with near-forensic precision, toss an average of 70 kg, totalling $16.5 billion, including 484 million containers of unopened yogurt, 27 apples per person and 2.6 billion slices of bread a year—enough to sate the hunger of more than 30 million people, Stuart adds.

So how did we get here? Government largesse, and the industrialization of agriculture, have brought food prices to historic lows: between 1974 and 2005, food prices on world markets fell by fully 75 per cent in real terms. Until 1952, Americans spent more than 20 per cent of their incomes on food. Last year that portion hit an all-time low of 5.6 per cent—even as the average number of calories available per person per day rose by nine per cent. (In Pakistan, by comparison, the percentage of spending on food can reach 75 per cent of income.) Waste and the amount of food available per person have risen inexorably in tandem. One British study from 1938 put food waste at two to three per cent; U.S. studies from the 1960s and ’70s put wastage levels at seven per cent. Now rich countries, which produce up to 200 per cent more food than needed to satisfy their population requirements, waste more than 25 per cent of household food (the increasing food supply and steep drop in prices are also strongly correlated with the rise in obesity: currently, two-thirds of Americans are overweight, half of those are obese, and it is believed that one-third of those born after 2000 will develop diabetes, a related condition).

Then there is the staggering cost of disposing of all of that waste food, paid for by taxes, and of leaving it to rot in landfills. Canada’s landfills are responsible for up to 38 per cent of human-made methane, a greenhouse gas. Bacteria that breaks down rotting waste produce acids that, when they make it into groundwater or nearby water bodies, can poison fish and amphibians, render water undrinkable, or enter the food chain. In cities, even recycling and composting generate greenhouse gases: they require someone to pick up waste and distribute it. And despite the significant growth of waste-diversion programs we’re still generating more and more garbage every year, says waste management expert Paul van der Werf, noting that Torontonians generated 70 kg more waste per person last year than just 10 years ago. Indeed, from 1990 to 2005, we increased our municipal waste by 24 per cent, compared to the OECD average increase of just five per cent. Currently, Canada produces 791 kg per capita of municipal waste each year, placing us dead last among the 17 OECD countries surveyed by the Conference Board of Canada.

All of which matters most when you consider the massive environmental trade-off that comes with buying a third more food than we actually eat. The environmental fallout goes far beyond the wasted food. To the discard heap, add the resources spent to grow the food: fertilizers, pesticides, oil for the tractor and for transport. In the U.S., the energy-intensive food system uses 19 per cent of fossil fuels—more than any other sector of the economy. Although experts quibble over the precise figure, modern farming is thought to contribute more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anything else North Americans do: 37 percent, according to one study. Factory farms have become one of the biggest sources of pollution on the continent. So when we waste from the industrial food system, we are also wasting oil, releasing greenhouse gases, polluting waterways and hastening global warming.

Even worse, many of the environmental costs of creating, then wasting, so much food—such as deforestation, water depletion and soil erosion—are being foisted on developing countries, where increasing amounts of cereals, grains and produce are being grown to sate the West’s growing appetite. When we pay Brazil to chop down the rainforest to grow soy, or have Kenya drain the Tana River delta to make sugar, we of course also hasten the never-ending extension of the agricultural frontier into the world’s last, remaining forests and wetlands.

Bookmark and Share
  • TedTylerEzro

    The need for uniform, unblemished food in supermarkets is what favours factory farms more than anything else. If your food is unblemished, it is probably being produced with some amount of fungicides, pesticides, or genetic engineering. Organic doesn't always mean what people think it means.

    If you want to support a type of food production that people are always saying that they want, you need to buy a variety of foods, and a varieties of particular types of foods. So not only should you be buying things of every shape and colour, you should also buy individual products (say tomatoes) that are different shapes, sizes and flavours.

    Factory farms are good at producing very few monocultures which are best suited to that type of farming. Smaller units of production are able to give personal attention to products that require it. Why should you care? Because varieties selected for appearance, tolerance of hardship, and fast growth aren't usually the most nutritious or tasty.

  • Olga P

    Thank you for this article. We are all hypocrites talking about sustainability on one side and demanding the perfect fruit or vegetable on the other. It is time we realize that the food we eat comes from organisms that come in all sizes and shapes. When we look for the uniform perfection we see in supermarkets it comes at a huge price. You have highlighted one of the untold stories of our agricultural systems. Fruit and vegetables that does not make the grade and that is perfectly good to eat goes to waste at an alarming rate! To become really sustainable we have to start by changing our own ways and be satisfied with produce that may have a blemish on the skin or be odd looking but tasty!

  • Home412AD

    The over-production caused by farming subsidies, which result in food wastage, are a pragmatic, practical choice of governments. Even in the most developed countries of North America and Europe, the vast majority of farms are still small (under 2,000 acres) family farms. The sad reality is that most family farmers are not too bright, and there are only so many truck driver and cleaning women needed in any nation. Even when farming is only 2 percent of the population, it is actually cheaper for a government to pay those families farming subsidies than it would be to pay the same number of people welfare. The same equation of governance is far worse, naturally, in the nations of Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Southeast and Central Asia, China, and East Europe, including Russia. The only way to remove the restriction is to reduce the number and percentage of slow-witted people in the world, which no one has been able to do yet, with a practical, realistic plan.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bigfarmer bigfarmer

      A good start would be in reducing you.

    • Home412AD

      Your comment, like the previous one, is not worth a reply. What evidence do you have that I am wrong, aside from rhetorical blanket assertions containing no data? The physical, biological fact remains that most — more than 75 percent — of family farm members are extremely stupid, so stupid that they can't work in any occupation more complex than farming, they can't even do that competently, and they are extraneous and superfluous to human society. They are unnecessary, redundant, and nothing but a burden on everyone else, who actually do contribute to humanity, and keep farming families alive with our taxes. Denials and maudlin rhetoric won't change the physical, biological facts.

      • Cody Helrich

        Ya ok buddy….farmers feed our cities everyday! Our produce and meat products would be through the roofs in cost if we had to get it shipped to our grocery stores all the time…..farmers pay the same taxes as city folks you turd!!! How about you go do a bull and die slow! Your a piece of poop and a disgrace to society!! Have a nice day homo412AD

        • Home412AD

          Thank you for proving my point about the average IQ of some people. For your information, about 20 percent of the farms in Canada are very well run businesses. Some are even family businesses in their third generation of profit-making. Naturally, they are all far larger than a paltry 2,000 acres, a size so inefficient it can't possibly make a profit, but can only be supported by taxpayers, like any family on welfare.

          For your information, farming families supported by government subsidies, like any public sector unionist, have 100 percent of their gross income paid for by people who do work and pay taxes. Therefore, their taxes are paid by the taxpayers, and they don't pay any taxes at all themselves. Possibly the arithmetic of gross, taxes, and net is a little too complicated for you to grasp.

          The successful farmers in Canada make a lot of money, and they have no need to be supported by taxpayers in any way. Farming is the easiest occupation in the world, and making a lot of money farming is very easy as well. All that's required is an IQ above 85.

  • Chad Kamminga

    I appreciate the article and am disappointed with our culture. What disturbs me is the by line on the top of the page. The big concern regarding the waste is on the environmental impact. What of the poor and starving people all over the world. I read articles exposing charitable organizations telling the poor all over the world to have fewer children and more abortions when we in the west alone trash more food every day than most of these people eat in a month. We sit hear and talk about environmental impact. How about something a little more immediate like the starving refugees of war and famine.

  • Hans Duerichen

    Re: Nancy McDonald's Article, "what a Waste"

    David Blume has the perfect solution on a farmer's level what to do with the waste. All that waste can easily be turned into ethanol for fuel in cars displacing gasoline. the material left over from making the ethanol is perfect organic fertilizer! Se his site:

    http://www.permaculture.com/

    Hans Duerichen, PEng

  • Hans Duerichen

    Here is David Blume's video:
    [youtube x-Y08RSDP6s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Y08RSDP6s youtube]

  • http://www.raydw.com Ray Wegner

    Regarding your article " What a Waste. "

    I feel this problem of too many people wasting good food has a spiritual base to it – ingratitude. A lack of thanksgiving to God for giving you your daily bread.

    I went through some interesting times when younger and once ran out of money – with only 4 cents in my pocket – and was homeless for awhile, but would not beg or steal, so went three days without food, before I got a job with a temp agency – this was in Toronto. This taught me a good lesson in humility and taught me to appreciate my daily bread which God gives me. Rarely go to restaurants, but this evening I did go out for a meal, and ate every last little tiny morsel.

    Ray Wegner

  • Gord tulk

    Hans has an interesting option, but as someone who has worked in the field (pardon the pun) the economics of it just aren’t there and with natural gas and oil supplies increasing they Likely won’t be for decades.

    “Waste” happens in all aspects of a capitalist economy. (how many thousands of paper copies of macleans go unread some aftr being shipped across the continent?) In fact it is a Principle tenet of capitalism that there needs to be ‘creative destruction’. Compare the surplusses of food that permit us as consumers to be picky and only buy the best. Ever see a potato that was grown in poland before the wall fell? Try peeling the lumpy scabby mass. To single out the AG sector for the frankly necessary waste is to dmonstrate ones ignorance of hoiw markets work and in the long run result in less, not more, waste. Take for instance apples. Technology was developed for controlled atmosphere (CA) storage that enabled apples to be stored in pristine condition for up to a year. The only difficulty is that any scabby or damaged apples that type of storage will cause the entire lot to rot far too quickly. Thus very strict culling is required. The result – some waste at harvest but far less than would occur if CA wasn’t used and over time breeding, cultural and harvesting practices have resulted in far far fewer culls – the economc pressure on producers begat it.

    Thus pointing to (very) isolated incidents of attempts at supply control is wrong-headed if well-meaning. (some of the most evil acts of humankind were well-meaning, i digress) This includes the culling that happens at the shop level – a spoiled banana causes the others to rot more quickly, and it turns off consumers so less are purchased and presumably eaten. The trickle-down impact of bad food handling in a shop will either put the shop out of business or make it handle and manage it’s inventory better.

    And if you are someone who still thinks it is unacceptable you either never eat bananas or any other tropical fruit because of the evironmental impact of the transport involved or you are a hypocrite.

  • KatieMate

    There is a terrific book by Peter Singer and Jim Mason called "The way we eat: Why our food choices matter". It explores (among other things) the ethics involved in chosing our daily bread.

    I highly recomend reading this!

  • RagingRanter

    Well then we should burn it for fuel!!! Oh wait, that idea is already being subsidized with billions of our money.

  • RagingRanter

    The spuds story is nothing unique. Dairy and egg producers ALL throw out produce every year after their quotas have been filled.

    And how many hogs were "depopulated" this year, using millions in government subsidies to do so? And this after governments spent billions in the 1990s subsidizing super hog barns to the point that the market could no longer absorb the production?

    As an example of how silly this all got, consider that Manitoba has a population of 10 hogs for every person in the province, largely because of ridiculous subsidies over the past 15 years to "encourage diversification amongst Manitoba's farmers." (That's 1 million Tobans; ten million hogs.) Precisely how did the government ever think that could end well?

  • http://www.thefluecase.com rick

    This is the problem Monsanto genetically modified food and world health organization run by Freemasons.
    Get rid off both the world is happier.

  • delford t louis

    garbage is now slightly challenged food unfit for human consumption

  • http://www.floridafencecompany.com Jacksonville Fence

    A monkey's dream.

  • http://www.gold-cash.com sell gold

    I saw the news the other night regarding food consumption. It's scary but the fact that we harvest more than we want is really not good.

  • http://www.spartanmoving.com/ San Jose Movers

    I can see the food of tons and tons of monkey wasted here.

  • http://www.everlastwelders.ca/ Plasma Cutters

    As per the words by Jacksonville Fence It is "Monkey's dream"

  • http://www.everlastwelds.com.au/welders/ welders

    Gord tulk is right,

    Hans has an interesting option, but as someone who has worked in the field (pardon the pun) the economics of it just aren't there and with natural gas and oil supplies increasing they Likely won't be for decades.

  • Maria

    Very good point, I Germany there are now many debattes about this issue too. If we want to leave this planet in a good shape then we should work more responsible with the ressources that we have. My friend Jessica who is currently also on sprachreisen in Canada also told me that the debatte is still very strong about this issue. I hope that we can have a similar debatte in Europe. This would at least help to move the countries further.

From Macleans