Food discard practices of householders
Abstract
Food discard patterns and reasons were determined for a sample of 243 households in Oregon. Personal interviews were conducted, and 7-day records of discards were collected. Discards over a 3-day period also were collected from a subsample of 50. The householder's estimate of amount, converted from measures to grams using food composition tables, was found to be 97% of the actual grams of food, as weighed in the laboratory. Households discarded an average of 1,587 gm ($2.88) food in a 7-day period on the basis of the 79% completed usable records. Major reasons were poor quality for fruits and vegetables; storage time for meat, fish, and poultry; non-use of leftovers for combination dishes; and plate waste for cereals and dairy products. Twenty-nine percent of the discarded food (by cost) was considered to be unsafe to eat by the householder. Aesthetic factors dominated decisions by the 18- to 25-year age group, but experiences related to food storage were the basis for decisions by half of the respondents more than 65 years old. Discards increased with number of members in the household and were influenced by age of children. Household income was not linearly related to amount of discard. As household refrigerator temperatures increased from 1.7 degrees C to 20 degrees C, the amount of discards also increased. Consumers generally lacked criteria for evaluating the safety of foods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If respondents use many different criteria to assess edibility out of fear of possible food risks, they throw away more food.
“However, if respondents use many different criteria to assess edibility out of fear of possible food risks, they throw away more food (Parizeau et al., 2015;Van Garde and Woodburn, 1987).”
From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Van Garde and Woodburn, 1987
Most studies report a negative correlation between the amount of food wasted and age.
“While most studies report a negative correlation between the amount of food wasted and age (Secondi et al., 2015;Stancu et al., 2016;Van Garde and Woodburn, 1987;Visschers et al., 2016), others indicate that older people waste more (Cecere et al., 2014).”
From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Van Garde and Woodburn, 1987
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 108
- Authors
- Van Garde, S. J., & Woodburn, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Oregon State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the American Dietetic Association
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1987-03
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 322-329
- ISSN
- 0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2416960851
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Dietetic Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
- Keywords
- food waste, plate waste, leftover food, food storage, food safety, food quality, household size, refrigerator temperature, household income
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude, Costs and Cost Analysis, Food, Food Preservation, Garbage, Humans, Income, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Oregon, Refuse Disposal, Rural Population, Time Factors, Urban Population
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review