Table 3.
Reference |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jansen and colleagues, 197833 |
Davidson and colleagues, 197934 |
Comstock and colleagues, 198235 |
Getlinger and colleagues, 199636 |
Whatley and colleagues, 199637 |
Adams and colleagues, 200538 |
Toma and colleagues, 200939 |
Hoffman and colleagues, 201040 |
Lazor and colleagues, 201041 |
Chu and colleagues, 201142 |
Hoffman and colleagues, 201143 |
Cohen and colleagues, 201244 |
Yon and colleagues, 201245 |
Cohen and colleagues, 201346 |
Ramsay and colleagues, 201347 |
Byker and colleague, 20145 | Cohen and colleaugues, 201448 | Hunsberger and colleagues, 201449 |
Jones and colleagues, 201450 |
Jones and colleagues, 201451 |
Cohen and colleagues, 201552 |
Miller and colleagues, 201553 |
Wilkie and colleagues, 201554 |
|
Study design | Qb | CSc | CS | Ide | If | CS | Ie | If | CS | CS | Lg | CS | MMh | CS | Q | CS | Ie | MM | Ie | Ie | RCTi | Ie | CS |
Specific data collection method | DWjk | DW | DWk | DWk | DWl | DWm | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWn | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWk | DWo | DWo | DWk | DWk | DWp |
Type and no. of schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Elementary | 29 | 23 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 4q | 1 | 1q | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | |||
Middle | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
High | 29 | 2 | 2q | ||||||||||||||||||||
Grade level | 5 and 10 | 1–3 | 1–5 or 6 | 1–3 | 3–5 | 1–5 | Kindergarten-6 | Kindergarten-1 | NRr | NR | Kindergarten-1 | NR | 3–5 | 6–8 | K | Prekindergarten-Kindergarten | 1–8 | Kindergarten-2 | Kindergarten-8 | 1–5 | 3–8 | Kindergarten-5 | Kindergarten-12 |
Average percent wasted for dietary components measureds | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Grains/bread | 21 | ◇t | 18 | ◇ | 35 | ◇ | ◇ | ||||||||||||||||
Vegetables | 51 | ◇ | 16 | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | 73 | ◇ | 51 | 67 | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | 73 | ◇ | |||||||
Fruits/fruit juice | 30 | ◇ | 12 | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | 47 | ◇ | 33 | 43 | ◇ | ◇ | ◇ | 36 | ◇ | |||||||
Meat/meat Alternate | 18 | ◇ | 18 | ◇ | ◇ | ||||||||||||||||||
Milk | 9 | ◇ | 82 | 75 | ◇ | 25 | ◇ | 46 | 41 | ◇ | |||||||||||||
Other | 32u | ◇uv | ◇ | 2 | ◇v | ◇u | ◇v | 18u | 19u | 51u | 20u | ◇u | 27u | ◇ | |||||||||
Days of food waste data collectionw | 10 | NR | 33 | 8 | 76 | 4 | 7 | 36 | NR | NR | 60 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 23 | 64 | 84 | 3 | 20 |
No. of waste observationsx | 130,000 | 230 | 13,749 | NR | 560 | 294 | NR | 1,414 | 1,933 | NR | 1,060 | 3,049 | 793 | 3,049 | 473 | 304 | 1,030 | 261 | 180 | 251 | 2,638 | 2,027 | NR |
Effective public health practice project quality rating10 | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak |
Data were collected to assess food waste after new school lunch meal patterns implemented beginning 2012.
Q=quasiexperimental.
CS=cross-sectional.
I=intervention.
Pre-post intervention.
Pre-post-follow-up intervention.
L=longitudnal.
MM=mixed methods.
RCT=randomized controlled trial.
DW=direct weighing.
Difference weight of plate waste for each food minus weight of average selected serving.
Percent plate waste calculated by dividing the weight of edible food waste by the mean serving weight.
Difference weight of plate waste for each food minus pre consumption selections for all students’ plates.
Weight of fluid milk remaining was determined using the full weight and empty container weight of the carton.
Fruit and vegetable consumption was calculated by weighing all produce prepared and subtracting unserved and waste weights, divided by number of students.
Waste was sorted by hand and weighed on a digital scale.
At least one study school was not identified as elementary or middle, but identified kindergarten through eighth grade or was not identified as middle or high, but identified as grades six through 12.
NR=not reported with specificity.
In some cases, the average percent waste within a dietary component was reported within the cited article. In other cases, this study’s authors calculated average percent wasted within a dietary component when research design collected waste across multiple intervention periods. When percent consumed was reported (instead of percentage waste), this study’s authors calculated average percent waste by subtracting the percent consumed from 100% and, if necessary, averaged across multiple intervention periods or groups.
◇=study indicated dietary component measured but not average percent wasted within dietary component.
Measured waste of a mixed entrée.
Specific macro- and/or micronutrients measured in whole meal.
Data calculated as number of days reported for study multiplied by number of schools involved in food waste collections.
Data reported according to study as individual food items or entire student tray.