The number of students eating school lunch is only available for National School Lunch Program (NSLP) participants. We do not know how many students nationwide are buying lunch outside of the NSLP. We also cannot reasonably track food waste in schools from packed lunches without assessing all trash.
School lunches may be a significant source of food waste in America. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics show that 31 million students receive lunches each school day through the NSLP. An unknown number of students buy school lunches outside the NSLP.
Most school food waste figures discuss plate waste, which is how much a student puts on their plate but does not eat. Researchers collect this data because the NSLP uses tax dollars. Thus, the program is subject to both USDA evaluation and public scrutiny.
Researchers collected more plate waste data after Michelle Obama's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The studies measured plate waste in schools related to the law's new nutrition standards. However, the studies included a limited number of schools, and not all included data from prior years. Also, only one study examined the difference between the first and second year of the new nutrition standards. This article provides plate waste data but does not discuss what it means for the success or failure of nutrition standards.
Data is scarce on the quantity of school lunch that is prepared and then not served. Four studies give useful but limited information. Two of the studies looked at the amount of food waste in the total trash from the dining area. The two other studies looked at the amount of food waste in the total trash throughout the school.
One study in Florida compared food waste from three kitchens that each used different food preparation methods. This is the only study we have located that discusses the quantity of food that is prepared and then not served.
Below is a roundup of available school food waste information. Note that universities cooperated with private entities for two of the studies. Thus, biases benefiting the private organizations are possible.
Knowing how much waste your school produces is an important first step in the environmental planning process. You can use the documents below to plan a waste audit for the whole school or just the dining areas. Future articles on this website will discuss methods to reduce food waste in schools.
The studies discussed below evaluated the quantity of food waste in total trash. The Minnesota and California studies looked at trash from the entire school, while the studies in Louisiana and Florida looked at trash only from the dining service areas. None of these studies specifically assessed plate waste.
Collection Year(s) | 1995* |
School(s) Location | Louisiana, Ascension Parish School District |
School Type | 2 elementary (K-4), 2 middle (5-8), and 3 primary (K-8) schools |
Data Collection Method | Collected 20 days' worth of all waste in food service operations and separated them into the following categories — food, milk, and packaging |
Findings | The largest trash material by weight was food waste at 63% of the total |
Collaboration between Kansas State University, Louisiana State University, and the Ascension Parish School Board in Louisiana
*The study does not specifically state when the data was collected, but the research was published in 1995.
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2010 |
School(s) Location | Minnesota, Hennepin County and City of Minneapolis |
School Type | 2 elementary, 2 middle, and 2 high schools |
Data Collection Method | Collected and sorted 2 days' worth of all waste (trash, recycling, and compost) throughout the school |
Findings | The largest trash material was food waste at 23.9% of the total |
Source — Minnesota Pollution Control Agency School Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2012 |
School(s) Location | Alachua County, Florida |
School Type |
|
Data Collection Method | Collected and sorted one week's worth of trash from food service areas |
Findings |
|
Source — University of Florida School Food Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2014 |
School(s) Location | California |
School Type | Unknown* |
Data Collection Method | Collected and sorted 45 waste samples* |
Findings | The most prevalent material was organics, including food waste, at 50.8% of the total trash |
Source — California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery School Waste Analysis
*We located a summary of the findings, but not the full report denoting the school locations and data collection method.
Back to summary of findingsThe studies discussed below evaluated plate waste alone and did not examine how much food was prepared but not served. Four of the studies assessed waste related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. However, we present the data only as sources of school food waste in general.
Collection Year(s) | 1991-1992* |
School(s) Location | Nationwide, 45 states participated |
School Type |
|
Data Collection Method | Researchers conducted in-person interviews with the student or the parent. In part, they asked how much school lunch food the interviewee threw away. |
Findings |
|
Source — USDA School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-I
*The USDA conducts recurring studies on NSLP meal nutrition. To date, four such studies have been completed but only the first (completed 1991-1992) looked at plate waste.
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2010 |
School(s) Location | Northern Colorado |
School Type | 3 elementary and 2 middle schools |
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Source — Colorado State University Plate Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2010-2011 |
School(s) Location | Boston, low-income and urban areas |
School Type | 4 middle schools
|
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Collaboration between Harvard School of Public Health, Project Bread, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Tufts University
Source — Harvard School of Public Health Plate Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | April and May 2012 (Phase I — before Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) and October and November 2012 (Phase II — after Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) |
School(s) Location | Central Texas |
School Type | 3 elementary schools |
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Collaboration between Texas A&M University and Alliance for Potato Research and Education
Source — Texas A&M University Plate Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | Spring 2012 (before Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) and Spring 2013 (after Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) |
School(s) Location | Northeast United States |
School Type | 2 elementary schools |
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Collaboration between University of Vermont Burlington and University of California
Source — University of Vermont Burlington Plate Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | 2012 (before Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) and 2013-2014 (after Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) |
School(s) Location | Urban, low-income district (exact location unspecified) |
School Type | 12 middle schools |
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Collaboration between University of Connecticut, Henderson Consulting, University of California Berkeley, and Yale University
Source — University of California Berkeley / University of Connecticut / Yale University Plate Waste Analysis
Back to summary of findingsCollection Year(s) | March 2013 (after Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) |
School(s) Location | Not identified, but is presumably Montgomery County, Virginia based on the author list for this study |
School Type | 1 elementary school (looked at 1 pre-kindergarten and 5 kindergarten classes) |
Data Collection Method |
|
Findings |
|
Collaboration between Montana State University, Virginia Tech University, and Montgomery County Public Schools
Back to summary of findings