SUBJECT: UNSOLD FOOD
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to unsold food from vendors.
ISSUE: There is not enough regulation on unsold food.
Background:
The food and beverage industry in the USA for 2017 had revenues of $5.75 Tn in retail. Worldwide however the market is expected to reach $20 to 25 Tn by 2030. Food and beverage is a big business as it is a service that is considered essential. The food industry provides products that are required for human survival and sustenance. With such a large amount of revenue, it is certain that food wastage is expected to be high as well. It is estimated that over 1/ 3 of the food produced globally goes to waste. Furthermore, the annual value of food wasted globally is $1Tn weighing at 1.3Bn tonnes. Food wastage’s carbon footprint is estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 released to the atmosphere. This means that there is plenty of food that could be donated to charitable organization who then can redistribute the food to those in need.
Considerations:
There are approximately 12.8 Mn Americans on welfare which accounts for 4.1% of the population. The US government spends about $131.9 Bn on welfare programs. Similarly, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia, in Canada, 9% or 2.6 Mn were receiving social assistance in 1998. Poverty in Canada cost taxpayers $24 Bn per year according to the National Council of Welfare. Recipients are given funds to use for their daily expenses each month of which include food, clothes, and etc. With food prices increasing, it is likely that these people will require more aid in order to be able to survive. Canada currently has programs such as the Salvation Army and the Food Bank to be able to distribute food to those in need however, it becomes clear that grocery stores and restaurants have a significant amount of food the goes unsold and thus is thrown to the rubbish. Canada needs a streamlined system whereby these foods can be distributed in an efficient manner before they become expired and inedible.
Options:
Option 1: Mandate that unsold food be donated
Italy has made strides with regards to food wastage. They have implemented a law which compels businesses to donate unsold food. This has the potential to not only help those in poverty but also the environment. By mandating companies to donate food to the charity of their choice they are contributing to the objective of taking citizens out of the poverty line as the recipients will have more money to spend elsewhere such as for rent, utilities and clothes. In France, they have taken it a step further and have decided to fine those who throw away unsold food. As mentioned, there is a large amount of people experiencing hardship therefore having companies such as supermarkets donating food can have a large impact on their monthly budget. This option is the most feasible of all the options available however, it is potentially disorganized as charities will be left with the task of advertising their ability to give food to those in need. These charities are already short on funds and thus it is not expected that the government rely on them for a sure way to distribute the donated food. Charities rely on word of mouth to be able to convey messages to the public about their programs. Perhaps the government can use nudges to be able to inform people that charities are helping by distributing the donated food to recipients in need. This option is very sustainable as it aims to reduce the CO2 emissions of food wastage.
Option 2: Streamline a publicly owned food service
This option is the least feasible because it demands that the government take action in solving the unsold food crisis. What we propose here is that the government streamline a food donation service within the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. This is not as feasible however it is more organized. Having trucks filled with donated food come daily from businesses to the Ministry office is the most sure way to ensure that those actually experiencing hardship get first priority when receiving donated food. This option is difficult because the Ministry offices would need to have coolers and refrigerators. This would increase electrical expenses and furthermore lots have to be bigger to accommodate these proposed appliances. Despite this, it is our belief that streamlining the service is the way to ensure that these people receive the equity that they are entitled to. Choosing this option would mean not only having more expenses for the Ministry, but also more trained staff that can assess the food to be distributed. As mentioned this is the most expensive but the surest way of ensuring that people who actually need this service receive it.
Option 3: Status quo
This option is the most feasible however it is the least sustainable as it won’t do anything to reduce the carbon foot print. Choosing this option would not benefit those in need at all, thus equity would not be met. There would be a continued wastage of food however this waste can be converted into compost. The compost industry is worth a hefty sum of money for example in the UK it generates £300 - £500 Mn per year. Policy makers are then given the option to weigh the pros and cons of this option versus others. What remains unchanged if this option is selected is the poverty.
Recommendation:
Mixture of option one and option two is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment