Client Choice Distribution Model Is Associated with Less Leftover Food in Urban Food Pantries. (29th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pruden, Brianna; Poirier, Lisa; Gunen, Bengucan; Park, Reuben; Hinman, Sarah; Daniel, Leena; Gu, Yuxuan; Katragadda, Nathan; Weiss, Jacqueline; Gittelsohn, Joel
• Is Part Of: Current developments in nutrition. Volume 4(2020)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 266
• Page End: 266
• Publication Date: 2020-05-29
• Subjects: Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Nutrition; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 612.3
• DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa043_117
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2475-2991

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Assessing client-level food waste is a priority for hunger relief organizations to effectively address food insecurity. Our objectives were: 1) to measure the amount of, and reasons for leftover food at the household level after receiving food from urban food pantries; 2) to assess differences in the amount of leftover food associated with different food pantry distribution models. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study. Food-pantry clients (n = 53) were surveyed from four food pantries in Baltimore, MD. 28 of those clients were followed-up with 2 weeks later. Half of the follow-up sample used a client-choice food pantry in which clients select their own food, while the other half received pre-packed bags. At baseline, we recorded the brand, type, and weight of each product in client bags, and grouped them into Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) categories. FAST scores were calculated for each bag by multiplying each category's gross weight share by a healthfulness parameter and summing the categories. At follow-up, clients estimated the percentage of each product that was consumed by their household, and reported what happened to the unused portion, and why it was unused. Results: The average client choice bag weighed 27.8 ± 14.8 lbs, whereas the average pre-packed bag weighed 18.3 ± 5.3 lbs. Clients from client-choice food pantries had 22.6% of their bag leftover at follow-up; clients from traditional pantries had 34.1% of their bag leftover ( P = .0375). At baseline, FAST scores were higher among traditional bags (70.3 ± 5.2) compared to client choice bags (63.5 ± 7.3) ( P = .007). FAST scores of foods client-choice visitors used by follow-up was 66.7 ± 7.8, higher than scores of their baseline food selections ( P = .014), suggesting use of healthy foods first. The greatest proportion of leftover food was beverages. The smallest proportion of leftover food was processed fruits and vegetables. The most common reason for not using an item was "Plan to use later" (80% of leftover items). Conclusions: Food pantries distributing foods via a prepackaged bag model should consider switching to a client choice method to reduce leftover food, which may eventually be wasted. Further research should expand on this association using larger sample sizes and follow-up periods >2 weeks. Funding Sources: Funded by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative Evidence Generation Awards.