Cited by 360Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability

Open access
Conrad, Zach, Niles, Meredith T., Neher, Deborah A., Roy, Eric D., Tichenor, Nicole E., Jahns, Lisa·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Improving diet quality while simultaneously reducing environmental impact is a critical focus globally. Metrics linking diet quality and sustainability have typically focused on a limited suite of indicators, and have not included food waste. To address this important research gap, we examine the relationship between food waste, diet quality, nutrient waste, and multiple measures of sustainability: use of cropland, irrigation water, pesticides, and fertilizers. Data on food intake, food waste, and application rates of agricultural amendments were collected from diverse US government sources. Diet quality was assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2015. A biophysical simulation model was used to estimate the amount of cropland associated with wasted food. This analysis finds that US consumers wasted 422g of food per person daily, with 30 million acres of cropland used to produce this food every year. This accounts for 30% of daily calories available for consumption, one-quarter of daily food (by weight) available for consumption, and 7% of annual cropland acreage. Higher quality diets were associated with greater amounts of food waste and greater amounts of wasted irrigation water and pesticides, but less cropland waste. This is largely due to fruits and vegetables, which are health-promoting and require small amounts of cropland, but require substantial amounts of agricultural inputs. These results suggest that simultaneous efforts to improve diet quality and reduce food waste are necessary. Increasing consumers' knowledge about how to prepare and store fruits and vegetables will be one of the practical solutions to reducing food waste.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

US consumers wasted 422 g of food per person daily from 2007–2014, with about 30 million acres of cropland used annually to produce that wasted food. Higher diet quality was associated with greater food waste and greater wasted irrigation water and pesticides, but less cropland waste.

Key findings

  • Daily per capita food waste was 421.5 g (95% CI: 409.1–433.9 g), representing nearly 26% of food by weight and over 800 kcal (795–840 kcal) per person per day, about 29% of total daily energy intake.
  • Wasted food was grown on 30.02 million acres (95% CI: 29.29–30.76 million acres), or 7.7% of harvested US cropland, and embodied 4.2 trillion gallons of irrigation water, 780 million pounds of pesticides, 1.8 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer, 1.5 billion pounds of phosphorus (P2O5) fertilizer, and 2.3 billion pounds of potash (K2O) fertilizer.
  • Higher diet quality was associated with greater food waste: mean waste rose from 295 g/day in HEI-2015 quintile 1 to 535 g/day in quintile 5 (P<0.001). Higher diet quality was also associated with less cropland waste (P=0.029) but greater wasted irrigation water and pesticides (P<0.001).
  • Fruits and vegetables and mixed fruit/vegetable dishes accounted for 39% of food waste; over 60% of land used to grow fruit and 56% of land used to grow vegetables was wasted.

Methods

  • Linked US government datasets: NHANES/WWEIA 2007–2014 dietary data from 35,507 individuals aged 2+ years, FCID for ingredient disaggregation, FPED for HEI-2015 components, and USDA LAFA for consumer-level food waste.
  • Diet quality was assessed with HEI-2015 and grouped into quintiles; food waste and agricultural resource use were estimated using the US Foodprint Model, a biophysical simulation model with a Monte Carlo simulation of 1,000 random non-replacement draws.
  • Relationships between food waste or sustainability measures and HEI-2015 quintiles were tested with simple linear regression for trend, adjusted for WWEIA’s complex sampling design; significance set at P<0.05.

Limitations

  • The paper states that food waste estimates included cooking losses, that LAFA waste rates may vary in ways not captured, that the model assumed all food consumed in the US was domestically grown, and that self-reported dietary data are subject to measurement error that may overestimate total food waste.
  • The paper also notes that the US agricultural sector is highly productive, so the approach may have underestimated cropland used to produce wasted food.
  • Evident from the design: the analysis is observational and cross-sectional, so the reported associations between diet quality and food waste or resource use cannot establish causality.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0195405

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 55 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Fruits and vegetables and mixed fruit and vegetable dishes accounted for 39% of food waste.

    “Fruits and vegetables and mixed fruit and vegetable dishes accounted for 39% of food waste, followed by dairy (17%), meat and mixed meat dishes (14%), and grains and grain mixed dishes (12%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Wasted food represents about 29% of total daily energy intake.

    “Over 800 kcal (795–840 kcal) were wasted per person per day, representing about 29% of total daily energy intake (S4 Table).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Nearly 26% of food was wasted by US consumers every day from 2007-2014.

    “Nearly 26% (95% CI: 25–26%) of food was wasted by US consumers every day from 2007–2014 (S3 Table).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Approximately 1.8 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer were applied to wasted cropland.

    “Approximately 1.8 billion pounds (1.8–1.9 billion pounds) of nitrogen fertilizer (S7 Table), 1.5 billion pounds (1.4–1.5 billion pounds) of phosphorus (P2O5) fertilizer (S8 Table), and 2.3 billion pounds (2.2–2.3 billion pounds) of potash (K2O) fertilizer (S9 Table) were applied to wasted cropland, largely attributable to cropland used to produce feed grains and oilseeds and hay.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Higher diet quality was not associated with fertilizer waste.

    “Importantly, higher quality diets were associated with greater food waste but less waste of cropland; as well as greater waste of irrigation water and pesticides, but not fertilizers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Annually, wasted food was grown on 30 million acres of cropland, representing 7.7% of all harvested cropland in the US.

    “Annually, wasted food was grown on the equivalent of over 30 million acres (95% CI: 29.3–30.8 million acres) of cropland, representing 7.7% (7.5–7.9%) of all harvested cropland in the US (Fig 2A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Higher diet quality is associated with greater food waste but less cropland waste, and greater waste of agricultural irrigation water and pesticides.

    “Furthermore, we find that higher diet quality is associated with greater food waste but less cropland waste, and greater waste of agricultural irrigation water and pesticides.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Two investigators matched data independently, and consensus was used to resolve infrequent differences.

    “Two investigators matched data independently, and consensus was used to resolve infrequent differences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    All analyses were adjusted for the complex, multistage, probability sampling design of WWEIA using standardized procedures and variables provided by the National Center for Health Statistics.

    “All analyses were adjusted for the complex, multistage, probability sampling design of WWEIA using standardized procedures and variables provided by the National Center for Health Statistics.[42]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Analytic Guidelines, 2011–2012. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx" xlink:type="simple">https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    HEI-2015 provides a measure of compliance with the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

    “HEI-2015 provides a measure of compliance with the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,[33] and includes 13 components, nine of which assess adequacy”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015–2020. Washington, DC; 2015–2020. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/" xlink:type="simple">http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The population-ratio method generates scores that more closely reflect the true population mean than the arithmetic mean of individual-level scores.

    “which has been demonstrated to generate scores that more closely reflect the true population mean than the arithmetic mean of individual-level scores.[35]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] LS Freedman, 2008, A population&apos;s mean Healthy Eating Index-2005 scores are best estimated by the score of the population ratio when one 24-hour recall is available, J Nutr source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    These results are robust and novel given this interdisciplinary context, the large size of our dataset, and the timely nature of the topic and data sources.

    “These results are robust and novel given this interdisciplinary context, the large size of our dataset, and the timely nature of the topic and data sources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    FCID is the only source of data on the amount of individual ingredients in each WWEIA dish and represents the most comprehensive and reliable data available on dish recipes.

    “FCID is the only source of data on the amount of individual ingredients in each WWEIA dish and, therefore, represents the most comprehensive and reliable data available on dish recipes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] US Environmental Protection Agency. Food Commodity Intake Database (FCID). 2005–2010. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://fcid.foodrisk.org/#" xlink:type="simple">http://fcid.foodrisk.org/#</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    Simultaneous efforts to improve diet quality and reduce food waste are necessary.

    “These results suggest that simultaneous efforts to improve diet quality and reduce food waste are necessary.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Analyses linking diet quality and environmental sustainability have typically focused on a limited suite of sustainability indicators and have not typically included food waste.

    “Analyses linking diet quality and environmental sustainability have typically focused on a limited suite of sustainability indicators, and have not typically included food waste, despite a growing focus on understanding where and how food is wasted in the food system.[14–16]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [14] M Kummu, 2012, Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use, Sci Total Environ source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] KL Thyberg, 2016, Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development, Res, Cons, & Recyc source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] KL Thyberg, 2015, Quantification of Food Waste Disposal in the United States: A Meta-Analysis, Environ Sci Technol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    US food waste accounts for 760-790 kcal per person per day.

    “over 20% of food is lost or wasted at the consumer level each year,[24] accounting for 225–290 pounds per person per year[16, 24, 25] and 760–790 kcal per person per day.[16, 24–26]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [16] KL Thyberg, 2015, Quantification of Food Waste Disposal in the United States: A Meta-Analysis, Environ Sci Technol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] J Buzby, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] US Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 tables and figures. 2016. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures-report" xlink:type="simple">https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures-report</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] ML Spiker, 2017, Wasted Food, Wasted Nutrients: Nutrient Loss from Wasted Food in the United States and Comparison to Gaps in Dietary Intake, J Acad Nutr Diet source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The US Foodprint Model estimates cropland use associated with user-inputted data on food intake.

    “The US Foodprint Model estimates cropland use associated with user-inputted data on food intake.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] C Peters, 2016, Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios, Elementa

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee identified a need for additional investigation of the relationship between consumer behaviors, waste disposal, and the sustainability of individual food groups.

    “Furthermore, the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee identified a need for additional investigation of the relationship between consumer behaviors, waste disposal, and the sustainability of individual food groups in order to improve long-term food security.[12]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. Part D, Chapter 5. Washington, DC; 2015. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/" xlink:type="simple">www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/</ext-link> (verified 03 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    US food waste accounts for 225-290 pounds per person per year.

    “over 20% of food is lost or wasted at the consumer level each year,[24] accounting for 225–290 pounds per person per year[16, 24, 25] and 760–790 kcal per person per day.[16, 24–26]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] KL Thyberg, 2015, Quantification of Food Waste Disposal in the United States: A Meta-Analysis, Environ Sci Technol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] J Buzby, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] US Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 tables and figures. 2016. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures-report" xlink:type="simple">https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures-report</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Successful matches were achieved for 92% of the FCID foods.

    “Successful matches were achieved for 92% of the FCID foods; the remainder typically represented foods consumed infrequently and in minute amounts by the general population (such as passionfruit, arrowroot, and seaweed), and were not included in the analyses (S1 Table).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Higher quality diets have been associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, water use, and cropland use.

    “For example, higher quality diets have been associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, water use, and cropland use.[8–11]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [8] CG Fischer, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] LF Ruini, 2015, Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The “Double Pyramid Model” developed by the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition to raise awareness about the environmental and nutritional impact of foods, Front Nutr source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] ME Nelson, 2016, Alignment of Healthy Dietary Patterns and Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Review, Adv Nutr source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] P Behrens, 2017, Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations, P Natl Acad Sci USA

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    A Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000 random, non-replacement draws was embedded into the US Foodprint model to provide measures of variation, based on inter-individual variation in reported food intake from WWEIA.

    “A Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000 random, non-replacement draws was embedded into the US Foodprint model to provide measures of variation, based on inter-individual variation in reported food intake from WWEIA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Producing animal-sourced foods, especially beef, imposes burdens on land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas emissions, and reactive nitrogen.

    “Past investigators have highlighted the land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of producing animal-sourced foods, especially beef.[44, 45]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [44] G Eshel, 2014, Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] MC Heller, 2015, Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss, J Ind Ecol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The US agriculture sector is among the most productive in the world.

    “The US agriculture sector is also among the most productive in the world,[64]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64] US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural total factor productivity growth indices for individual countries, 1961–2013. 2017. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity/" xlink:type="simple">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity/</ext-link> (verified 04 January 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The divergence between the present study's estimates and Kummu et al.'s can likely be explained by differences in scope: Kummu et al. did not focus exclusively on the US and did not restrict to consumer-level waste.

    “This divergence can likely be explained, in large part, by differences in scope: Kummu et al. did not focus exclusively on the US (data on North America and New Zealand were aggregated) and did not restrict their findings to consumer level waste (all post-harvest losses were aggregated).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] M Kummu, 2012, Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use, Sci Total Environ source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The results should be interpreted as the best available evidence rather than perfect estimates.

    “these results should therefore be interpreted as the best available evidence rather than perfect estimates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Not all consumer waste can be prevented.

    “But practically, not all consumer waste can be prevented.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    WWEIA includes more foods than LAFA and likely better represents total dietary intake.

    “This is important because WWEIA includes more foods than LAFA and, therefore, likely better represents total dietary intake; and also provides data on foods as they were reported consumed (i.e., mixed dishes rather than individual ingredients), thereby making our estimates relevant to actual food consumption patterns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Several novel technologies have been developed to help consumers identify whether foods are safe to eat, such as sensors on food packages that detect spoilage, and apps to remind consumers of date labels and help plan meals to avoid food waste.

    “Several novel technologies have recently been developed to help consumers identify whether foods are safe to eat, such as sensors on food packages that detect spoilage;[57] and apps have been developed to remind consumers of date labels and help plan meals to avoid food waste.[58, 59]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [57] VTT Group. VTT sensor detects spoilage of food. Available at website: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.vttresearch.com/media/news/vtt-sensor-detects-spoilage-of-food" xlink:type="simple">http://www.vttresearch.com/media/news/vtt-sensor-detects-spoilage-of-food</ext-link> (verified 07 March 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [58]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [59]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The observed differences between the present study's estimates and Birney et al.'s could be explained by Birney et al. including retail food loss and waste and not accounting for multi-use crops and multi-use cropland.

    “In contrast to our analysis, Birney et al. included retail food loss and waste in their analysis and did not account for multi-use crops (i.e., crops that are used to produce multiple products from equivalent mass) and multi-use cropland (cropland used to produce multiple crops during different parts of the year), both of which could explain the observed differences in results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] CI Birney, 2017, An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States, Environ Res Lett source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Voluntary industry standards for date labels have been adopted by some of the largest US trade groups for the grocery industry.

    “At the same time, voluntary industry standards for date labels have been adopted by some of the largest US trade groups for the grocery industry.[61]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [61] Grocery Manufacturers Association. Grocery industry launches new initiative to reduce consumer confusion on product date labels. Available at: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/grocery-industry-launches-new-initiative-to-reduce-consumer-confusion-on-pr/" xlink:type="simple">https://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/grocery-industry-launches-new-initiative-to-reduce-consumer-confusion-on-pr/</ext-link> (verified 21 February 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Increasing consumers' knowledge about how to tell when fruits and vegetables are ripe, how to store and prepare them, and how to tell the difference between bruises/abrasions and spoilage is critically important to reducing food waste.

    “increasing consumers’ knowledge about how to tell when fruits and vegetables are ripe, how to store and prepare them, and how to tell the difference between bruises/abrasions and spoilage will be critically important to reducing food waste.[15, 24]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] KL Thyberg, 2016, Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development, Res, Cons, & Recyc source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] J Buzby, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Consistent clinical recommendations to increase diet quality may lead individuals to purchase more fruits and vegetables that may go uneaten without tandem efforts to support healthy diets and reduce waste.

    “In some circumstances, consistent clinical recommendations to increase diet quality may lead individuals to purchase more healthful goods, like fruits and vegetables, which may go ultimately uneaten without tandem efforts to support healthy diets and reduce waste at the institutional, programmatic, and legislative levels, like those mentioned above.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Planning food purchases based on household food stocks can reduce food waste due to over-purchasing.

    “Increased efforts to plan food purchases based on household food stocks is one way that consumers can reduce food waste due to over-purchasing;[53, 54]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [53] S Romani, 2018, Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste, Appetite source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] M Hebrok, 2017, Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design–An extensive review, J Clean Prod source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It may not be possible to prioritize food waste avoidance in households with other competing priorities.

    “Realistically, it may not be possible to prioritize food waste avoidance in households with other competing priorities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The proposed Food Date Labeling Act of 2016 aims to standardize date labels on foods to reduce consumer confusion and food waste.

    “Legislative efforts, such as the proposed Food Date Labeling Act of 2016, aim to standardize date labels on foods to reduce consumer confusion and food waste,[60]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [60] Food Date Labeling Act of 2016, House of Representatives, 114 Congress Sess. (2016).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Self-reported dietary intake data are subject to measurement error but are particularly useful for comparing dietary patterns between groups.

    “While self-reported dietary intake data are subject to measurement error (for example, some participants may not accurately report their food intake in order to simplify the survey process or to impress the interviewer) [48, 49], they are particularly useful for comparing dietary patterns between groups.[50]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [50] AF Subar, 2015, Addressing Current Criticism Regarding the Value of Self-Report Dietary Data, J Nutr source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Consumers face a balance between following dietary recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and wasting less of them.

    “Consumers face a delicate balance between following dietary recommendations to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables (which requires purchasing more of them) while also wasting less of them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The association between higher diet quality and greater food waste but less cropland waste and greater irrigation water and pesticide waste is largely due to the greater amount of fruits and vegetables in higher quality diets, which have higher waste rates, lower cropland needs, and higher agricultural input application rates compared to other crops.

    “This is largely due to the greater amount of fruits and vegetables included in higher quality diets, which have higher rates of waste, lower cropland needs, and higher application rates of agricultural inputs compared to other crops.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
34 of 34
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Uneaten portions/cooking loss represents waste for the purpose of this study.

    “We assumed that uneaten portions/cooking loss represents waste for the purpose of this study.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fruits and vegetables require small amounts of cropland but substantial amounts of agricultural inputs.

    “This is largely due to fruits and vegetables, which are health-promoting and require small amounts of cropland, but require substantial amounts of agricultural inputs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Until now, there has been limited research on the relationship between diet quality and food waste, representing a critical research gap in the field of food system sustainability.

    “Until now, there has been limited research on the relationship between diet quality and food waste, representing a critical research gap in the field of food system sustainability.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fruits and vegetables are more likely to be purchased raw than other foods, transferring more of the processing activity and waste to the consumer phase of the food system rather than to the processor (pre-consumer) phase.

    “Fruits and vegetables are also more likely to be purchased raw than other foods, transferring more of the processing activity and waste to the consumer phase of the food system rather than to the processor (pre-consumer) phase.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For many Americans with adequate financial resources, when food was discarded, other food was purchased and consumed in its place to prevent hunger.

    “More to the point, for many Americans with adequate financial resources it is likely that, when food was discarded, other food was purchased and consumed in its place in order to prevent hunger.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For individuals with limited food budgets, wasted food may not be replaced with other foods and may contribute to hunger.

    “By contrast, for individuals with limited food budgets, wasted food may not be replaced with other foods and may indeed contribute to hunger.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The modeling approach assumed that all food used to feed US consumers was domestically grown.

    “The modeling approach we used assumed that all food used to feed US consumers was domestically grown, which does not reflect the globalized nature of the current food system.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Food waste is a critical component of environmental sustainability that, until now, has not been rigorously analyzed alongside diet quality.

    “Food waste is a critical component of environmental sustainability that, until now, has not been rigorously analyzed alongside diet quality.”
8 of 8

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?

  • US consumer food waste is estimated at roughly 422 g per person per day, representing an annual allocation of 30 million acres of cropland.

    “US consumer food waste, estimated to be roughly 422 g per person per day, represents an annual allocation of 30 million acres of cropland along with considerable commitments of fresh water and other agricultural inputs (Conrad, et al., 2018).”

    From Waste watchers: A food waste reduction intervention among households in Arizona (2021) · cites this paper as Conrad, et al., 2018

  • Participants' baseline median food waste (28.22 oz) was far less than the national average of roughly 104 oz of food per week.

    “Based on national data, Americans on average waste roughly 104 oz of food per week (Conrad et al., 2018).Our participants wasted far less with a baseline median of 28.22 oz.”

    From Waste watchers: A food waste reduction intervention among households in Arizona (2021) · cites this paper as Conrad et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conrad, Z., Niles, M. T., Neher, D. A., Roy, E. D., Tichenor, N. E., & Jahns, L.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Conrad, Zach
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-04-18
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
e0195405
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800430407
Cited by
360
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8
FWCI
28.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Issue Lab (Candid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Agricultural Research Service (3062-51000-051-00D)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
food waste, diet quality, environmental sustainability, cropland use, irrigation water, pesticides, fertilizers, Healthy Eating Index-2015, fruits and vegetables, biophysical simulation, agricultural inputs
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Dairy Products, Diet, Food, Fruit, Humans, Meat Products, Nutrition Surveys, United States, Vegetables, Waste Products

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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