Please answer question 2 and 4.

Please answer question 2 and 4.
1 Select TWO of the four essay questions below to answer. Write your answers in an MSWord document, standard fonts and margins only. Answers must be in full sentences and paragraphs – no bullet points, no images, or other inserts. Do not use a title page. Single-spacing ONLY – this saves paper should tests be printed for grading. Answers should be between 500-800 words; much shorter, and you probably haven’t addressed all parts of the question; much longer, and you might be overdoing it. You must cite your sources. This includes lectures. Make sure references are cited fully and correctly and are listed at the end of each answer. APA referencing format guidelines can be found at: https://umanitoba.ca/student/academiclearning/media/cite_APA-1.pdf Cite lectures as: Hallman, B. 2023, lecture name, date of lecture – in both your reference list, and as (Hallman 2023) in any in-text citations. If you cite more than one lecture in an answer, list them as (Hallman 2023a; Hallman 2023b) etc., in order of use. Use course materials only. This includes lectures, readings, and additional materials in UM Learn. No additional research is needed nor expected. Submit the finished answers document to the folder in UM Learn / Assessments / Assignments BEFORE the deadline. Files submitted after the deadline will be accepted ONLY in exceptional circumstances. Drawing on lectures, required readings, and additional course resources as relevant, discuss 2 examples of the diffusion of foods/foodways. Indicate what differentiates ‘failed’ vs. successful diffusion of food innovations. The relationship between food and health is complex. With specific reference to Beagan & Chapman (2012) and Sexton et al (2022), describe 2 examples that assist us to more fully understand this complexity. Using examples from lectures, readings, and your own experience as relevant, discuss the relationship between food, ‘third spaces/places’, and family/self-care. In the course reading Nikolaus et al (2018) the authors explore the food waste beliefs and related behaviours of undergraduate students. Compare and contrast the results of their study with your own awareness / actions regarding food waste. 1
Please answer question 2 and 4.
Contents lists available atScienceDirect Appetite journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/appet Wasted food: A qualitative study of U.S. young adults’ perceptions, beliefs and behaviors Cassandra J. Nikolaus a, Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson a, Brenna Ellison b,∗ aDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 905 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, United StatesbDepartment of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1301 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL, 61801, United States ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Wasted food Food waste Waste behavior Young adults Consumer perceptions ABSTRACT U.S. consumers, namely young adults, are one of the largest sources of preventable food waste. However, the antecedents of wasted food among young adults in the U.S. are unknown. This study aimed to explore the perceptions, beliefs and behaviors related to wasted food among 18- to 24-year-old adults. Fifty-eight individuals (63.8% female) with an average age of 20.2 y ( ± 1.6) who lived in a residence where they had control over some food purchases (excluding co-op or other communal housing, and living with parents) participated in 75- min focus groups during spring of 2016. Thirty participants lived in residence halls at a university and the remaining 28 lived in o ff-campus dwellings. Focus group transcriptions were analyzed for themes by two in- vestigators using a constant-comparative approach. Inductive thematic analyses provided insights that were broadly categorized into: 1) awareness and knowledge of wasted food, 2) factors that in fluence food waste behaviors, and 3) suggested interventions to reduce wasted food. Results provide evidence of heterogeneity in perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors related to wasted food based on dwelling type. Insights from the current study may be used to inform observational or intervention work focused on reducing wasted food by young adults. 1. Introduction The issues of food loss and waste are receiving increased attention around the globe. While government agencies vary somewhat in how they defi ne loss and waste (see Bellemare, Cakir, Peterson, Novak, & Rudi, 2017 for a discussion), all agree on the need for waste reduction strategies. In the U.S., Buzby, Wells, and Hyman (2014) estimated that 31% of food available at the retail and consumer levels was lost, with the majority of losses occurring at the consumer level. Food waste causes increasingly limited agricultural resources to be wasted ( Gunders et al., 2017 ;Hall, Guo, Dore, & Chow, 2009) and costs the average U.S. household of four $1365-$2275 annually ( Bloom, 2010; Gunders et al., 2017). Both public and private initiatives have been formed to address food loss and waste along the supply chain. For ex- ample, the U.S. Food Waste Challenge that was launched in 2015 calls for a 50% reduction of food waste by 2030 ( USDA, 2015). Consumers are one of the largest sources of preventable food waste in developed countries, with over 60% of their waste considered avoidable 1( Gunders et al., 2017; Quested, Parry, Easteal, & Swannell, 2011 ). Waste at the consumer level often takes the form of plate waste, but can also include food that is discarded for other reasons such as spoilage from poor planning or excess purchases due to impulse buying or buying in bulk ( Buzby et al., 2014; Gunders et al., 2017). Some ex- planations for consumer food waste are: lack of connection between individuals and their food ( Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, Amani, Bech- Larsen, & Oostindjer, 2015); poor household food management ( Evans, 2014 ;Gunders et al., 2017 ;Quested, Marsh, Stunell, & Parry, 2013); confusion over date labels ( Gunders et al., 2017;Newsome et al., 2014; Wilson, Rickard, Saputo, & Ho, 2017); and low cost of wasting food ( Gunders et al., 2017; Lusk & Ellison, 2017). Despite these challenges, prevention at the individual-level has been identi fied as one of the most powerful ways to reduce wasted food ( ReFED, 2016). At the consumer-level, age is negatively correlated with wasted food behaviors, and young adults are one of the highest-wasting groups https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.026 Received 2 August 2017; Received in revised form 24 July 2018; Accepted 25 July 2018 ∗Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.J. Nikolaus),[email protected] (S.M. Nickols-Richardson), [email protected](B. Ellison). 1Quested et al. (2011)define avoidable waste as food that “could have been eaten at some point prior to being thrown away ”(pg. 461). In the present study, our primary interest is in avoidable food waste; however, de finitions of what is edible or inedible may vary across cultures. In favor of a more inclusive approach, we do not utilize the avoidable/unavoidable or edible/inedible terminology when discussing waste in our focus group sessions. For more information on our presentation of the food waste concept to participants, refer to section 2.3in the Methods discussion or the focus group script in the Appendix. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 Available online 29 July 2018 0195-6663/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T (Ellison & Lusk, 2018; Quested et al., 2013;Secondi, Principato, & Laureti, 2015 ;Stancu, Haugaard, & Lähteenmäki, 2016 ;Stefan, van Herpen, Tudoran, & Lähteenmäki, 2013; Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016). In a study conducted with Polish university students, participants were fa- miliar with negative outcomes from food waste but this did not impact behavior. The authors concluded this was a byproduct of limited ex- perience with (and creativity for) food management ( Radzyminska, Jakubowska, & Staniewska, 2016 ). In contrast, a recent literature re- view suggests this could be due to underlying psychological di fferences in this age group ( Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). Speci fically, younger individuals’ food waste behaviors may be infl uenced by greater spon- taneity levels, an alignment towards convenience, limited food man- agement experience, and how trade-o ffs are managed ( Aschemann- Witzel et al., 2015). An investigation in a U.K. college setting found that the ‘on-the-go ’culture of campus disrupted any intentions to decrease food waste among students ( Lazell, 2016). Though these findings give insight into underlying aspects that may contribute to high waste be- haviors of this age group, the research on food waste among young adults has almost exclusively been conducted outside of the U.S. It is vital to understand the antecedents to food waste behaviors among young adults in the context of the U.S. because the values of individuals and the food system they interact with vary across geo- graphic regions. In some countries with high adherence to healthful and highly perishable dietary patterns, such as Italy and Spain, avoiding waste requires signi ficant planning ( Mondéjar-Jiménez, Ferrari, Secondi, & Principato, 2016 ). However, U.S. dietary patterns contain a higher proportion of processed foods, providing more than 50% of calories in one estimate ( Steele et al., 2016), yet consumers still pro- duce excessive wasted food ( ReFED, 2016). The role of factors identi- fi ed as important in predicting wasted food behaviors in other countries are underexplored among young adults in the U.S. Within the U.S., one study reported baseline beliefs of university students before an educational campaign on food waste ( Whitehair, Shanklin, & Brannon, 2013). The average student agreed that wasting food was wrong with hungry people in the world, but there was more uncertainty that an individual’s actions could make a di fference. Whitehair et al. (2013) interpret thesefindings as an indication that students already have beliefs about food waste but require reminders to act in line with their beliefs. These data provide insight on young adults’ perceptions of wasted food in the U.S., but the study utilized quanti- tative techniques to explore student attitudes and is restricted by that nature. Speci fically, the value that students placed on these beliefs and their in fluence on perceived behaviors is unknown. An additional factor that could impact waste behavior, which has re- ceived limited attention in this population, is residence type. During young adulthood, many individuals begin to as sert their independence; this could mean moving away from home, making their own purchases (for food and ot her goods), and enrolling in college. Depending on the living situation, one’s involvement with food provisioning activities could vary. For example, young adults who decide to attend college and live on campus may pur- chase a meal plan where the majority of meals are provided by campus dining facilities. Other students may opt to live o ff-campus, where they have more direct responsibility for their food purchases and management. In each case, individuals will likely encounter some amount of food waste; however, the factors that in fluencetheirwastedecisionsmaydi ffer based on their living situation. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions, beliefs and behaviors related to wasted food among 18- to 24-year-old adults through focus groups. Qualitative approaches to understanding food waste among American young adults are important because individuals can provide direct insight into how they understand and interact with the phenomena in question. Perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors were segmented by residence type to determine how waste may be impacted by one’s living situation. Insights from this study can be used to inform future interventions that focus on reducing the amount of avoidable wasted food in this age group. 2. Materials and methods This section describes the development of the script, recruitment of participants, coordination of focus groups, and analysis of the resulting transcripts. A hypothesis for this work was not constructed a prioridue to the explorative and qualitative nature of the study’s aim. Inductive analyses were used to allow participants’ comments to direct the find- ings ( Braun & Clarke, 2006; Krueger & Casey, 2015). After data sum- marization, theories and literature were consulted to categorize re- sponses and interpret findings. 2.1. Script development A script of focus group questions and prompts relevant to consumer- level wasted food was drafted based on food waste literature and script development guidelines ( Krueger & Casey, 2015;Liamputtong, 2011). The script was designed to elicit participants’ knowledge, awareness, and behaviors related to wasted food in addition to their ideas on re- ducing waste. Six experts reviewed the script draft for content validity; each expert held a graduate degree, had experience working with young adults and reviewing research methodology, and was trained in the broader food system and consumer decision-making. Based on the ex- perts’ feedback, the focus group script was revised and pilot-tested with age-eligible volunteers 2for clarity or wording concerns. The final script is available in the Appendix. 2.2. Sample recruitment Participants were recruited from a mid-size city in Illinois, USA. Convenience sampling techniques, such as posted fliers and advertise- ments on listservs were used. To recruit a variety of young adults, fliers were distributed across university campus buildings and community locations. Further, listservs included university-a ffiliated e-mail lists as well as online forums frequented by those in the broader region. Individuals who were interested in participating completed an online screener (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) to establish eligibility; criteria included age (18 –24 years), fluency in English, and residence in a living situation where individuals had some control over food purchases. Individuals living with their parents, in co-op style households, or in Greek housing (a communal building where members of a fraternity or sorority re- side 3) were excluded due to limited food provisioning control. The screener included demographic questions regarding gender identity, race, ethnicity, college enrollment, as well as residential and household characteristics. 2.3. Focus groups Eligible individuals provided availability for focus groups, which were coordinated to include five to nine participants each. Residence type was a segmentation variable of interest. Nine focus groups were scheduled, with six representing homogenous residential characteristics (on-campus only or o ff-campus only) and three with a mixture of in- dividuals from both residence types. The final three groups were scheduled to ensure that the presence of more heterogeneous in- dividuals did not alter participants’ discussion and that saturation had been achieved. This was evidenced by continued vocalization of common themes and ideas within these groups ( Krueger & Casey, 2015 ). Focus groups were conducted in-person. Upon arrival, partici- pants were provided consent information and signed a written informed 2Volunteers were undergraduate students, both domestic and international, from the population of interest. 3Fraternity and sorority members who opted to live outside of the communal building were eligible to participate in the study so long as all other eligibility criteria were met. C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 71 consent form. The moderator (CJN) led each group, beginning with a definition of consumer-level food waste to ensure that a common con- cept of wasted food was understood in each group (see Appendix). Though avoidable food waste is of primary interest, as it can be in- tervened upon, the authors presented the food waste defi nition as containing both avoidable and unavoidable components to avoid ac- cusatory language and defensive reactions among participants. This was followed by script questions and probes. Order of responses and body language were noted by an assistant moderator. Focus groups were recorded with a digital recorder. Sessions were scheduled for a max- imum of 90 min, and participants were provided $30 in cash before leaving. Recordings were transcribed verbatim with the use of assistant moderator notes; transcriptions were veri fied by a second research as- sistant to con firm accuracy. The above protocols were approved by the university’s institutional review board for research involving human subjects (IRB#16759). 2.4. Data analyses Transcriptions were analyzed by hand for themes by two in- vestigators (CJN and BE) using an inductive analytical and constant- comparative approach ( Krueger & Casey, 2015). The two investigators independently analyzed transcripts with open coding methods. Authors discussed impressions and codes after each transcript, and the codes were organized into a joint working codebook. A third investigator (SNR) reviewed all transcriptions independently and her open coding was compared to the joint codebook to verify all themes and codes. After finalizing the codebook, two authors coded all quotations, using these discrete codes, within the transcripts. Di fferent codes could be applied to the same segment of dialogue. Before final interpretation and summarization, coded segments were organized digitally in a spread- sheet (Excel, Microsoft O ffice Professional Plus 2016). 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Participants A total of 321 individuals completed the eligibility screener. Participant recruitment, enrollment, and completion are shown in Fig. 1 . A sample of 72 young adults were selected based on availability and purposive selection of a diverse (based on screener responses to race and gender identity) sample from the pool of eligible applicants, with a final sample of 58 participants who consented to participate. Despite purposive oversampling of often underrepresented groups, the sample included a large proportion of female (64%) and White/Cau- casian (48%) participants. The majority of participants were college students, living with at least one roommate. Participants living on- campus were younger than their o ff-campus counterparts (18.9 years old versus 21.6 years old), and among those who were enrolled in college, distributions of student classi fications were di fferent between groups (more on-campus participants self-identi fied as Freshmen or Sophomores, 87% versus 7%). 3.2. Themes A number of themes emerged from analyses of focus group tran- scripts and were broadly categorized into: 1) awareness and knowledge of wasted food; 2) factors that in fluence food waste behaviors; and 3) suggested interventions to reduce wasted food. 3.3. Awareness and knowledge of wasted food Very few participants demonstrated high awareness or knowledge of the issue; some indicated they had never thought about the issue. Limited awareness is of concern, as awareness has been linked to be- haviors to avoid excess waste ( Principato, Secondi & Praseti, 2015). Awareness primarily stemmed from personal behaviors or friends’ knowledge and behaviors. Dining halls commonly sparked awareness through the visual amount wasted by students or waste reduction in- itiatives on campus. Low knowledge and awareness of the issue was connected to the lack of visual consequences of waste. Food waste in the U.S. was perceived to be generally high; partici- pants estimated that consumers wasted between 20 and 40% of food. When comparing their own food waste to the average American, many participants perceived they wasted less which is in line with previous studies ( Ne ff, Spiker, & Truant, 2015 ;Parizeau, von Massow, & Martin, 2015 ). A substantial portion of participants in the present study pro- jected their waste was as low as 3 –15%, though this likely does not re flect reality. In the U.K., households that estimated they wasted 0% were actually wasting 90 kg of food each year when objectively eval- uated ( Quested et al., 2013 ). Notably, a small subset of participants felt they wasted more than the average American, but this was connected to transitionary periods in their lives and not a perpetual state of high- wasting behavior. Despite the focus groups’ stated purpose of exploring personal waste behaviors, it was common for conversations to shift towards retail sources of waste. Participants commonly attributed food waste to the university, foodservice establishments, and society as opposed to Fig. 1. Recruitment flow-diagram of young (18- to 24-year-old) adults in a qualitative study on perceptions and behaviors related to consumer-level wasted food. C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 72 themselves. In particular, university dining halls were pinpointed as wasting large amounts of food. Some used the amount of foodservice waste to justify their behaviors as dining hall patrons. Participants as- sumed dining halls prepared excess quantities of food, and thus their behavior made no impact, demonstrating limited understanding that large-scale dining facilities forecast preparation based on previous (over)selection.Wasted food knowledge and estimates of personal waste were not impacted by residence type. However, awareness of food waste was more likely to stem from personal foodservice work experience or coverage in academic settings among those who lived o ff-campus. This is likely a byproduct of this group’s slightly older age, their increased experience providing for themselves, as well as the greater number of college courses (as several noted the topic was covered in multiple courses) they have enrolled in as primarily Juniors and Seniors. 3.4. Factors that in fluence food waste behaviors Participants identi fied several factors that in fluenced their food waste behaviors with di ffering roles in reducing and/or increasing waste (outlined in Table 1). Sensory/value of food . Highly desirable foods, such as favorite res- taurant dishes, were considered too good to throw out. This is con- sistent with evidence indicating that taste is a dominant force in food decisions ( Boek, Bianco-Simeral, Chan, & Goto, 2012 ;Lorenz, Hartmann, & Langen, 2017; Lorenz, Hartmann, Hirsch, et al., 2017). In contrast, foods deemed less valuable (i.e. side dishes, fast food, junk food, and otherwise inexpensive items) were easily wasted with little guilt. These foods were either less respected or provided more practical concerns (e.g., ability to reheat well, over-ripening of produce, disliked taste), resulting in waste. For dining hall patrons living on-campus, many took extra food from the bu ffet service as “insurance ”against potential dissatisfaction. In contrast, those living o ff-campus were more likely to mention “failures” in their own food preparation causing waste. Reuse value . Saving leftovers and feeding animals were frequently mentioned practical ways to reuse potentially wasted food, but these were more common practices for participants’ parents. Only those living o ff -campus spoke of current reuse practices, with some repurposing leftovers by transforming them into new meals. When perceived as having no reuse value, food was almost im- mediately destined for waste. This included undesirable sensory prop- erties (e.g., visible rot/mold, bad smell), particularly for perishable products. Participants expressed frustration that healthy items, such as fruits and vegetables, spoiled quickly and perceived they lacked control over this ( Williams, Wikström, Otterbring, Löfgren, & Gustafsson, 2012 and Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016 note similarfindings among Eur- opean consumers). Spoilage was attributed to large portions, passing expiration dates, deviations from plans to prepare meals, or items for- gotten in their refrigerator. Most participants were unwilling to utilize food with signs of spoilage; however, a few admitted to salvaging items, for example by cutting o ffmolded portions. This was more common for those living o ff-campus, as on-campus students who primarily ate in the dining halls required much less food provisioning and management activities. Further, students living o ff-campus were more likely to ex- press personal awareness of the financial consequences of wasting food, prompting some to search for reuse value where others would not. Management of food, body, and schedule . Planning, formally as well as informally with guidelines such as ‘fi rst in, first out ’, was a common strategy among participants living o ff-campus to ensure food was used. For shopping and meal preparation, participant strategies included accounting for weekly schedules when shopping, more frequent but smaller grocery trips, and taking inventory of available foods. Others felt they could not plan due to unpredictable schedules and in- tentionally purchased nonperishable or frozen foods. Wasted food often resulted from participants’ disconnect between their food selection behaviors and other needs (e.g., academic schedule, actual hunger). University dining halls were identi fied as large sources of waste. Many participants living on-campus took more food than they could consume. Despite feelings of guilt about wasting food, this was a common (and repeated) occurrence. Positive intentions about eating healthfully or preparing food at home, particularly among those living o ff -campus, also led to waste when plans changed. Food was forgotten in their refrigerator, and many connected this situation to their limited previous food provisioning and management behaviors. Some partici- pants attributed their waste behavior to adopting their family’s shop- ping practices; this was more likely to be an issue for students who grew up in larger families. However, planning skills improved over time among those living o ff-campus as they became more aware of their individual food needs. Several participants living on-campus stated that they wanted to decrease their food waste but were restricted by their environment, which was a source of frustration. Dining hall patrons could be fined if they tried to take food with them. Despite these prohibitions, some used food storage containers to take excess food with them. However, lim- ited storage space within residence hall rooms and perceived inability to transport food when traveling for holidays or term breaks caused additional wasted food. Personal values . Some tried to limit their food waste because of personal ethos. They felt guilty when they wasted food, or it was in- appropriate to waste food when others went without. Surprisingly, apathy toward food waste was a more common sentiment. Wasted food was an issue many did not care or think about because it did not per- sonally impact them. They felt there was no reason to worry about waste due to the abundance of food available, and many thought their actions would make no di fference if others continued to waste. This was more pronounced in the qualitative results than previous surveys have found among U.S. college students ( Whitehair et al., 2013). In the present study, reports of apathy did not vary by residence type; how- ever, dining hall patrons living on-campus felt that even if they de- creased their personal waste, the dining hall would continue to produce too much food, making waste unavoidable. Interestingly, some parti- cipants noted that concern about wasted food did not necessarily translate into action, particularly if substantial time commitments were required to adopt waste-reducing behaviors. This sentiment runs counter to evidence collected in other contexts ( Principato, Secondi & Praseti, 2015 ). Portion sizes . Some consciously portioned meals to reduce food waste. This was accomplished with di fferent tactics dependent on re- sidence type, re flecting the di fferent food provisioning skills required. Those living on-campus primarily focused on taking smaller helpings in dining halls with the knowledge they could take additional trips as needed. Purchasing foods outside of the dining halls was less frequently discussed, but some individuals bought food for 1 or 2 days at a time to avoid generating waste. For those living o ff-campus, conversations fo- cused on controlling portions purchased while grocery shopping by going more frequently for fewer items, avoiding bulk options, and learning to shop just for one’s self. Large portion sizes in grocery stores and restaurants across America were believed to generally drive food waste –a sentiment that has also been documented in the U.K. ( WRAP, 2011 ), Germany ( Lorenz, Hartmann, Hirsch, et al., 2017 ), Portugal ( Dinis, Martins, & Rocha, 2013 ), and the Netherlands (Hermans, Larsen, Herman, & Engels, 2012). (Dis)connection with cost . Instances of low food waste were often connected to cost. While all students acknowledged the role of cost in waste decisions, this connection was particularly important among those who identi fied themselves as growing up in lower-income households. First-generation college students discussed the need to exert tight control over their food behaviors. In general, participants noted the connection between wasting food and wasting money was more salient when physical money was exchanged. It was this more salient cost of food that likely led o ff-campus participants to have a C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 73 Table 1 Factors that influence food waste behaviors of young adults (18- to 24-year-olds; n = 58). Factors Reduces waste Increases waste Sensory/Value of Food I think [I’m] less likely to throw out things from restaurants just because it tastes much better than what I could usually get (19 y old female, living on-campus) Fries in general like they’re not good the second time around so I really don’t like pay attention to them just throw them out (18 y old female, living on- campus) The cheaper it is, the more likely it is I will throw it out (19 y old male, living on-campus) Like junk food um I just throw it out um but I feel bad like throwing out like fruit cause fruit is expensive and it’s good for you (21 y old female, living o ff -campus) Reuse value I had enough left over for like three extra meals and so I just had it in the fridge and I’d just eat it like have it for lunch the next day and then maybe the day after that for dinner and then the day after that have it for lunch again(21 y old female, living o ff-campus) I took bananas that got like really gross, and we froze them and then we made banana bread, which was pretty good (19 y old female, living on- campus) Some scraps I’ll keep for certain things like chicken ones are good to make stock and things like that (22 y old female, living o ff-campus) I throw away my bread because usually the [store] like gives you bread, that’s like gonna expire in like four days so like I can’t eat it that fast, so it ends up turning bad (19 y old male, living on-campus) Management of food, body, and schedule When I eat out …and get a burrito or something um I just kinda go into it knowing that’s too much for one meal and I’ll eat half and have the next half later on (19 y old female, living on-campus) Usually if I see that something’s gonna- about to expire soon I bring it closer to the front [of the fridge] (20 y old female, living off-campus) Learning not to go to the grocery store hungry because everything looks good (24 y old male, living o ff-campus) We have food in the fridge so we try to eat that food before the break comes so we don’t have to waste it (19 y old male, living on-campus) Environmental In fluence When I’m already in my kitchen I can easily like save something (21 y old male, living o ff-campus) If it’s just like not convenient if you’re gonna go to like the [campus library] or something after you eat like I mean you’re not gonna take like a to-go box (22 y old female, living o ff-campus) Environmental In fluence Living in a dorm like when I go out to eat like it’s just harder to like bring the leftovers home because like I don’t have like- like I have a microwave and stu ffbut like sometimes I’ll run out of like plastic forks or knives so like it’s just not possible to bring it home so like it’s not like I don’t like not bringing it and like not like I don’t like wasting it but sometimes I like have to (18 y old female, living on-campus) Personal values Even just like knowing someone actually made this food it kinda feels bad to throw it away(19 y old male, living on-campus) I feel like we also have like the money to waste food, you know? So, it’s not like really that pressing of an issue cause we can just like produce and buy more food. (19 y old male, living on-campus) Yeah also I feel like as an individual there’s not really much that you can change because a lot of people around you are doing like just wasting food and even if you are like concerned enough about it you just be like you don’t really change that much and that- I guess probably a lot of people think the same way so (20 y old female, living o ff-campus) Portion sizes I started to try and eat like healthier and less so now I’ll just get a little amount of food because I’d rather go up and get more rather than just waste it by getting too much(18 y old female, living on-campus) In the dining halls it’s just also really easy to like take a lot of food because it’s all you can eat and they like keep putting it out so it’s easy to take a lot and then just throw away whatever you don’t eat (20 y old female, living on-campus) (Dis)connection with cost I think I wasted more before I paid for my own groceries (22 y old female, living o ff-campus) It’s a lot easier to throw food out in a dining hall opposed to like a restaurant where you actually like have to hand over money to get the food, because like with the dining hall, it’s included with your um- in like your housing tuition or whatever, so you don’t think about how much you’re like paying for it (19 y old male, living on-campus) Social in fluence My girlfriend is very conscious about [wasted food] so it’s like you know I’ll get nagged if I don’t eat everything o ffof a piece of fruit or something and so it’s something I’ve been trying to change (20 y old female, living on- campus) When I was younger um there would be you know food that I wouldn’t wanna eat and they- my parents would kind of be like you’re not leaving this table until you eat it (21 y old female, living o ff-campus) It depends also on like if I’m- who I’m with or if I’m with a group of friends and we’re like eating and then if I don’t see other people like taking their like stu ffto go I’m not like gonna take my like leftovers to go. (18 y old female, living on-campus) I kinda slipped into my parents habits of buying too much and that’s just what I was used to and then I saw uh how much I would waste (24 y old male, living o ff-campus) (Dis)connect with preparer My mom cooks most of our meals, and stu ffso I think it’s just sort of out of respect for her like we either finish what we have or like we’ll just have like a day of leftovers (19 y old female, living on-campus) [The dining hall’s] not like personal at all like you get your own food no one like gives it to you (coughing in background) so you don’t have like an interaction so …I think people don’t think of it as like being made by someone it’s just like the school’s food that they’re giving to you, and the like we pay tuition so it’s fine if we waste as much as we want (19 y old male, living on-campus) Sharing If I’m like opening something that like-say microwaveable popcorn like I know I’m not gonna eat the whole bag, so like ahead of time I usually ask like some- some of the girls on myfloor like oh does anyone wanna split this popcorn with me? (19 y old agender individual, living on-campus) N/A Prioritization of convenience and newness N/A Every time I go out to eat…I always just think it’s a hassle to like take the leftovers home so usually I like never even take it (18 y old female, living on-campus) When I actually throw out that food I already have like a newer bag of chips or whatever that I had bought recently and like oh that looks better I’ll just eat that instead (21 y old male, living o ff-campus) Concerns about food safety and expiration dates N/A Meat is like one thing I never want to mess with so it’s like if it’s a little hint of going bad I’m like ehh don’t really wanna risk like getting salmonella or something(21 y old male, living o ff-campus) I feel like I have like such a fear of expiration dates, and if it’s like anywhere close to it, then that thing is in the trash (19 y old female, living on- campus) C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 74 greater concern about thefinancial costs associated with wasting food and more interest in food management strategies. This connection was less prevalent among on-campus participants that lived in residence halls. Because meal plans are pre-paid at the beginning of terms, meal plan holders indicated that there was little financial consequence if food was wasted. More broadly, some participants were apathetic to food waste because they thought the U.S. could a fford to produce and buy more food as needed. Social in fluence . For many, decreasing food waste was engrained in ethno-cultural norms or prior hardships that motivated them to cherish food. Individuals cited their parents’ teachings to avoid food waste or eat everything on their plate. In addition, friends’ behaviors encouraged some participants to waste less food. Forcing others or being forced to eat food was a common term used to describe an involuntary (though often gentle or humorous) method to ensure food was consumed. In contrast, many thought saving food was not valued in American society. Waste was seen as a cultural norm that was a byproduct of the U.S. economical position, detachment between food and agriculture, as well as the “American way of eating ”(22 y old female, living o ff- campus). For personal waste behaviors, participants discussed how others (family or friends) impacted their decisions. Some participants indicated that leftovers were not commonly consumed while growing up, and this impacted their perspective as young adults. Others in- dicated their decision to keep or waste leftovers at a given meal was dependent on the actions of their accompanying peers. Previous re- search has shown that peers can have a signi ficant impact on food choice and consumption (see Ellison, 2014;Ariely & Levav, 2000; Young, Mizzau, Mai, Sirisegaram, & Wilson, 2009 for examples), but less work has examined how social in fluences may impact waste be- haviors. Lorenz, Hartmann, and Langen (2017) off er one of the few studies to explore how the presence of one’s peers may in fluence waste and find an insigni ficant relationship. Focus group participants in this study, though, indicated that the behavior of the other person, such as their decision to take leftovers from a restaurant meal, may be a more important determinant of waste behavior than their mere presence. (Dis)connect with preparer. Participants felt it was disrespectful to waste food when they had a personal connection with the food preparer or when it seemed like the food was prepared with care. This connec- tion extended to one’s self, as some were more motivated to avoid waste when they personally prepared a dish. However, a personal connection did not always impact waste behaviors. In the dining halls, some par- ticipants living on-campus attempted to simply hide their waste from sta ff. Issues of disconnect with food preparers exclusively referenced experiences of those living on-campus and eating in dining halls. Participants indicated they had little respect for the food as they had limited interactions with food-preparing sta ff. The lack of emotional connection and perceived regard for the food produced reduced the weight of their food wasting behaviors. Sharing . Many prevented wasting food by sharing with others (e.g., family, friends, roommates, in common areas at work or in residence halls). Surplus food was sometimes used as an opportunity to create social gatherings or routinely incorporated into meetings with others. For those living on-campus, the high volume of people on campus and number of interactions with others facilitated sharing food. Prioritization of convenience and newness . Food waste was sometimes driven by the inconvenience of saving food, such as practical issues of transporting or carrying leftovers. Among individuals living on-campus, desires to avoid waiting in lines multiple times at dining halls drove them to take larger portions which regularly resulted in waste. Participants indicated a “ culture of fresh ”often led to waste. Items that were no longer new were wasted, even if the food was still con- sidered safe. Residence type did not impact this perspective. Instead, participants noted that items that had been stored for a long time (e.g., one week, months, or vaguely defi ned) or items where a newer re- placement was available were commonly wasted. Other studies have found consumers have a similar preference for fresh foods which may contribute to waste ( Principato, Secondi, & Pratesi, 2015 ;Qi & Roe, 2016 ). Future work might elucidate how the term ‘fresh ’is being used by young U.S. consumers, though, as participants in this study discussed wasting food due to concerns about ‘freshness, ’even when referring to processed foods with a long shelf life. Concerns about food safety and expiration dates . Participants reported wasting food out of concern for becoming ill, frequently connecting this to animal-derived products (dairy, mea t, poultry, etc.). Concerns about ex- piration dates were not as widely discussed as expected based on the at- tention this issue has received in the literature ( Gunders et al., 2017; Newsome et al., 2014 ;Principato et al., 2015 ;Wilson et al., 2017 ), with expiration dates explicitly referred to by less than five participants. That being said, some participants expressed interest in getting clari fication on how to interpret date labels, as is discussed in the next section. 3.5. Suggested interventions to reduce wasted food When asked for suggested interventions that would be best for people like themselves to reduce waste, participants provided various suggestions. Interest in some interventions varied by residence type, and this is noted, where relevant, in the discussion that follows. Make waste visible. Several participants recommended making the issue and consequences of food waste more visible to prompt behavior change. Speci fically, participants suggested shocking images or graphs, physical representations of waste generated, and contrasting messages about waste with statistics on hunger. Increasing awareness may be a fi rst step in promoting behavioral change. Among those living on- campus, some felt that promoting actions taken by the university would inspire individuals to reduce their waste. Reward waste reduction. A common suggestion was incentivizing food waste reduction behaviors. Individuals living on-campus primarily focused on developing an on-campus competition where residence halls could compete for a prize. From those living o ff-campus, suggestions included restaurants lowering costs for customers who consumed their entire meal or subsidizing costs for urban gardeners, to strengthen in- dividuals’ connection to their food with the hope of reducing waste. Changes in dining hall. Various changes were suggested related to the university dining halls. Participants mentioned o ffering to-go boxes, posting visuals with recommended serving sizes, providing reminders that students could visit serving lines multiple times, reducing serving utensil volume, or reducing plate sizes to encourage smaller portions. More drastic suggestions included limiting diners to one plate, fining students who wasted food, adopting an a la carte pricing strategy, or having sta ffserve food (instead of self-serve). Though these interven- tions may be e ffective, they may not be well accepted by patrons. For example, participants who suggested monetary fines were quick to add that these would be unpopular with students. Changes to portions. Outside of dining halls, participants also pro- vided suggestions for restaurants and grocers. Some suggested smaller portions at restaurants or the option to divide orders into halves (one half to consume now, one half to take home). In grocery settings, par- ticipants living o ff-campus suggested providing more packaging sizes (such as half-loaves of bread), recommending use-by dates for produce items, clarifying date labeling terms, removing discounts for bulk sizes, and providing samples to customers. Increase sharing and donations . Two participants, one on- and one o ff- campus, indicated their desire for a structured food sharing system, noting excess food produced from on-campus events and people leaving for school breaks. Participants indicated that food recovery activities would be a po- sitive solution for excess waste. Previous e fforts to create a sharing system in a U.K. college setting had limited success ( Lazell, 2016), but lessons could be taken from that report if a system was established in the U.S. Further, the U.S. has been experimenting with “share tables ”in elementary and sec- ondaryschoolsasameansto fight hunger and prevent waste ( USDA, 2016). Schools that have implemented share tables could also o ffer insight on scaling up a sharing system to colleges and universities. C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 75 Larger campus involvement. Participants wanted the university to become more involved with food waste issues through easily accessible composting or on-campus grocery stores with smaller portions for purchase. They believed university-level initiatives would enable con- sumers to make smarter food decisions and may inspire improved personal waste behaviors. Participants living on-campus demonstrated the most interest in larger campus involvement, likely because they felt the locus of control regarding food waste was at the university level. However, some noted that university actions may o ffset individuals’ guilt about personal wasted food behaviors. Others argued university messaging was impersonal and input from friends on waste behaviors was more likely to be in fluential. Education for personal waste . One of the most common suggestions was teaching or enabling individuals to address their personal waste by improving food provisioning and management behaviors. Participants suggested education e fforts on preventive tactics such as meal planning, using shopping lists, e ffective food storage, and cooking/shopping for one person. Several o ff-campus participants in particular indicated that such educational materials would have been helpful to them as they transitioned to living on their own. 3.6. Limitations and implications for future research This qualitative study has limitations. Participants were from a single Midwestern city, so results may not generalize to all U.S. young adults. Further, participants opted into the study, so there may be some self-selection bias. The majority of study participants were enrolled in college courses, so themes may more closely typify young adult college students, and not necessarily the broader age group. While many so- ciodemographic variables were collected from respondents, questions on disposable income were not asked. Accurately measuring income in this population is challenging, especially among college students, be- cause individuals often have multiple sources of support (e.g., savings from a summer job, loans, grants, scholarships, support from parents or other family members) that have varying distribution periods. This precludes the ability to discuss the in fluence of disposable income on perceptions or the generalizability of income-related characteristics of the sample. Responses may have been impacted by social desirability bias, but the candid and less popular responses that were provided (e.g., taking food from dining halls when prohibited, apathy about issue) make this less likely. Finally, the group setting means that some par- ticipants may have been in fluenced by statements of others. For ex- ample, food waste estimates were often related to percentages said by others in the group. More commonly, however, participants provided a diversity of perspectives and opinions within groups. Food waste is known to be a result of many factors and behaviors ( Lorenz, Hartmann, Hirsch, et al., 2017 ;Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016 ), and this is true in the U.S. young adult context examined in the present study. One novel factor identi fied in this study was the impact of residence type. Those living o ff-campus had di fferent perspectives on food waste compared to those living on-campus. Prior work studying wasted food among young adults has either solely studied those living on-campus ( Whitehair et al., 2013) or excluded individuals living in apartments or student residence halls ( Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016), but our results indicate these living situations make for unique food provisioning (and wasting) behaviors. Given the impact of di fferent residence types, this may be a worthwhile segmentation approach for future research. Participants living on-campus primarily discussed the impact of university dining halls. This setting shares some features with other venues serving food away from home, yet the bu ffet-style service and the lack of a salient monetary exchange in dining halls present unique issues. Outside of the dining halls, it may be of greatest interest to test family and consumer sciences-based lessons for students moving from residence halls to o ff-campus residences to decrease food wasted during this transitionary period and develop waste reducing behaviors before an individual’s food patterns become ‘deeply entrenched ’(Evans, 2012 ). Future studies would also bene fit from including quantitative measurements of food waste, particularly if quantities of waste could be traced to each of the in fluencing factors described in the present study. Such an exercise would help to identify the most critical factors that should be targeted in interventions. 4. Conclusion In an e ffort to understand why food waste is often greater among young adults, this study investigated wasted food perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors of 18- to 24-year-old adults. Focus groups indicated there is generally low awareness and knowledge of the issue among this age group, and many estimated they wasted little, often shifting focus and blame onto other entities. A novel finding from this study is the dif- ference between on-campus and o ff-campus participants’ attitudes to- ward and attention to waste, likely driven by a more direct responsi- bility for food purchases for those students living o ff-campus. Waste reduction e fforts targeting on-campus students should focus on the college/university dining environment whereas initiatives targeting o ff- campus students should focus on providing practical suggestions for food shopping, preparation, and storage. Future research should in- vestigate if findings are reproduced in quantitative investigations, how factors relate to objective food waste behaviors, and whether inter- ventions based on these findings are e ffective at changing behaviors. Author contributions All authors developed focus group questions. CJN collected data; CJN and BE analyzed focus group transcripts for themes; SMNR veri fied themes; CJN and BE wrote the first draft with contributions from SMNR. All authors reviewed and commented on subsequent drafts of the manuscript. Funding disclosure This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number ILLU-971-328. The funding source had no in- volvement in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. Competing interests disclosure CJN has received research funding from a Kraft Human Nutrition fel- lowship; the United States Department of Agriculture; and McCormick Science Institute within the past three years. SMNR has received research funding from the United States Depa rtment of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Dairy Management Institute; and McCormick Science Institute within t he past three years. BE has received research funding from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture; ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss; and McCormick Science Institute within the past three years. Acknowledgements The authors thank the individuals who participated in the focus groups for openly sharing their thoughts and experiences. In addition, we appreciate the time committed by our Assistant Moderators and Undergraduate Research Assistants. Appendix B. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.026 . C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 76 Appendix. Focus Group Script IntroductionHello, thank you for joining us for this focus group. We appreciate your participation. Our aim in this study is to better understand your knowledge and perceptions regarding food waste. If you are unfamiliar with the term food waste, it is often defi ned as any food that is lost or thrown out along the supply chain, from farm to fork. For today’s dis- cussion, we will be focusing on food waste at the consumer level, or the fork end of the supply chain. Consumer food waste could include things like bones in a piece of chicken, a banana peel, cutting the crusts o ff bread, pouring out the extra milk in a cereal bowl, or throwing out last week’s leftovers. Before we begin, I’d like to go over a few items. First, we want you to discuss each of the questions with one another. We encourage you to speak with each other, rather than responding directly to me. Second, there are no right or wrong answers and all views are valued. In fact, we value any disagreements because they show a range of perspectives that people have. Thus, I want you to feel free to speak about any issues or concerns openly without worrying about other group members dis- agreeing with you. However, any disagreements should be voiced with respect and disrespectful language or actions will not be tolerated. Finally, we will be recording the session and writing notes to keep track of the conversation. On that note, we ask that you silence your cell- phones so they are not picked up by the recording. These recordings and notes will be used to verify conversations and publish findings in articles or presentations. No one will be named in those presentations, and we would appreciate if you would only use your first name throughout the conversation, to preserve con fidentiality. While the research team will ensure all data is con fidential, we cannot guarantee that others in the focus group will not divulge what was said outside the research setting. If you’d prefer not to use your real name than you’re welcome to use a pseudo-name. Does anyone have any questions? Alright, before we talk speci fically about food waste, I’d like to start with a brief introductory question for everyone. Icebreaker question I’d like to go around the group and have everyone tell us their name and your summer plans. Questions 1. Introductory Question Please describe the typical meals that you eat, and where they are prepared. 2. Transition Question(s): a. How knowledgeable would you consider yourself about con- sumer food waste in America? As a reminder, this can range from an orange peel to forgotten dinner leftovers. i. What percentage of food do you think is currently wasted by U.S. consumers? ii. What percentage of food do you think you waste? b. To what extent are you concerned about … i. Food waste in America, and why? ii. Food waste on/around campus, and why? iii. Food that you waste, and why? c. Based on what has just been discussed, do you think that there are other issues that are a bigger concern than food waste? 3. Focus Questions (based on research questions): Probing Questions (to be used as needed): Can you say more about what you have just told me? ’and ‘Can you give me a bit more example of this issue? ’ ‘What happened? ’, ‘When did it happen? ’, ‘How did it happen? ’, ‘ Where did it happen? ’, ‘How did you get involved in it? ’and ‘What was that like for you? ’ a. Now we want to hear about your observations of and experience with people around you.i. While you were growing up, what did your parents and other family members think or do about extra or leftover food? ii. Speci fically during your experience here in the Champaign- Urbana area, what do the people around you (such as your friends or classmates) think or do about extra or leftover food? b. Now we would like to focus on your personal routines. i. Please describe your current food planning and shopping practices. ii. Please describe your food preparation routines, including what kitchen or cooking and storage equipment you have access to and/or use. iii. Think of a recent time that you had to deal with extra or leftover food, what did you do? 1. Are there factors that impact how you deal with extra orleftover food, such as where you are or who has prepared it? c. Next we want to explore how decisions are made about wasting food.i. Which foods are you most likely to throw out? ii. What are some reasons that you end up throwing out food? iii. What are some strategies that you have used to prevent or reduce food waste? 4. Summarizing Question We are planning on implementing changes to help people reduce the amount of food they waste. Think back on your experiences and our discussion today and tell us what you think would be the most e ffective for helping young adults, like yourselves to waste less food. (Have you heard of other campuses or cities trying things? What would that entail? Would that motivate you to change?). 5. Summarization of Conversation a. Based on the notes, the moderator will cover each point andcon firm that the notes accurately re flect the comments that were made. 6. Concluding Question Is there anything else that anyone feel that we should have talked about but didn’t? Conclusion Thank you again for participating in this focus group. We appreciate your time commitment and hope that this was a pleasant experience for you. If at any time you have questions about this research, please feel free to contact the researchers listed on the information form that was provided before the focus group began. Thank you for sharing all of this information with us today. References Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 , 279–290 . Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 77 6457–6477 . Bellemare, M. F., Cakir, M., Peterson, H. H., Novak, L., & Rudi, J. (2017). On the mea- surement of food waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99 (5), 1148 –1158 . Bloom, J. (2010). American wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Boston, MA: Da Capo Lifelong Books . Boek, S., Bianco-Simeral, S., Chan, K., & Goto, K. (2012). Gender and race are signi ficant determinants of students’ food choices on a college campus. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44 (4), 372–378 . Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101 . Buzby, J. C., Wells, H. F., & Hyman, J. (2014). The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=43836 . Dinis, D., Martins, M. L., & Rocha, A. (2013). Plate waste as an indicator of portions inadequacy at school lunch. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Engineering, 7 (7), 477 –480 . Ellison, B. (2014). “I’ll have what he’s having ”: Group ordering behavior in food choice decisions. Food Quality and Preference, 37 ,79–86 . Ellison, B., & Lusk, J. L. (2018). Examining household food waste decisions: A vignette approach. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy . (in press), Retrieved fromhttps:// doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx059 . Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a so- ciological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56 . Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture and everyday life. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing . Gunders, D., Bloom, J., Berkenkamp, J., Hoover, D., Spacht, A., & Mourad, M. (2017). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to land fill. Natural resources defense council report#17-05-A. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nrdc. org/sites/default/ files/wasted-2017-report.pdf . Hall, K., Guo, J., Dore, M., & Chow, C. (2009). The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS One, 4(11), 1–6 . Hermans, R. C., Larsen, J. K., Herman, C. P., & Engels, R. C. (2012). How much should I eat? Situational norms a ffect young women’s food intake during meal time. British Journal of Nutrition, 107 (4), 588–594 . Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications . Lazell, J. (2016). Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: Sharing as a means of prevention. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15 (5), 430–439 . Liamputtong, P. (2011). Conducting focus groups and practicalities. Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice (71 –86). London, UK: Sage Publications . Lorenz, B. A., Hartmann, M., Hirsch, S., Kanz, O., & Langen, N. (2017). Determinants of plate leftovers in one German catering company. Sustainability, 9(5), 807. Lorenz, B. A. S., Hartmann, M., & Langen, N. (2017). What makes people leave their food? The interaction of personal and situational factors leading to plate leftovers in can- teens. Appetite, 116 ,45–56 . Lusk, J. L., & Ellison, B. (2017). A note on modelling household food waste behavior. Applied Economics Letters, 24 (16), 1199–1202 . Mondéjar-Jiménez, J. A., Ferrari, G., Secondi, L., & Principato, L. (2016). From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138 ,8–18 . Ne ff, R. A., Spiker, M. L., & Truant, P. L. (2015). Wasted food: US consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127881 . Newsome, R., Balestrini, C. G., Baum, M. D., Corby, J., Fisher, W., Goodburn, K., et al. (2014). Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13 (4), 745–769 . Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35 , 207–217 . Principato, L., Secondi, L., & Pratesi, C. A. (2015). Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths. British Food Journal, 117(2), 731–748 . Qi, D., & Roe, B. (2016). Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among U.S. Consumers. PLoS One, 11 (7), e0159250 . Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79 ,43–51 . Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., & Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 460–467 . Radzyminska, M., Jakubowska, D., & Staniewska, K. (2016). Consumer attitude and be- haviour towards food waste. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development, 39 (1), 175 –181 . ReFED (2016, March 9). A roadmap to reduce US food waste by 20 percent. Retrieved from https://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf . Secondi, L., Principato, L., & Laureti, T. (2015). Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 56,25–40 . Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96,7–17 . Steele, E. M., Baraldi, L. G., da Costa Louzada, M. L., Moubarac, J. C., Moza ffarian, D., & Monteiro, C. A. (2016). Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: Evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 6(3), e009892 . Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28 (1), 375–381 . Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106 , 110–123 . USDA (2015, September 16). USDA and EPA join with private sector, charitable orga- nizations to set nation’s first food waste reduction goals. [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/09/16/usda-and-epa-join- private-sector-charitable-organizations-set . USDA (2016). The use of share tables in child nutrition programs. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/use-share-tables-child-nutrition- programs . Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113 (1), 63–69 . Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24 , 141–148 . Wilson, N. L., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S. T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55,35–44 . WRAP (2011). Reducing household bakery waste. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org. uk/content/reducing-household-bakery-waste-0 . Young, M. E., Mizzau, M., Mai, N. T., Sirisegaram, A., & Wilson, M. (2009). Food for thought. What you eat depends on your sex and eating companions. Appetite, 53(2), 268 –271 . C.J. Nikolaus et al. Appetite 130 (2018) 70–78 78