REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS: INSIGHTS FROM A FOOD WASTE TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PILOT
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
© 2026 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA
2
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
ORGANIZATIONS / page 4 ABSTRACT & DEFINITIONS / page 5 INTRODUCTION / page 6 Origin of Food Waste Methodology
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS / page 10 Leanpath Data from Bocuse Leanpath Data from American Bounty
QUALITATIVE RESULTS / page 19 Student Questionnaire Results Chef Instructor Informal Interview Results Perceived Value and Educational Integration Behavioral Impact and Culinary Innovation Operational Constraints and Infrastructure Challenges Desired Enhancements and System Potential Cultural Themes and Curriculum Opportunities
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS / page 24 Quantitative Waste Reduction Outcomes and Environmental Impact
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS / page 26 Shifts in Student Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Insights from Chef Instructor Interviews Implications and Limitations
REFERENCES / page 29
3
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
ORGANIZATIONS Leanpath is a mission-driven technology company that partners with foodservice operations, universities, healthcare systems, and hospitality providers to prevent food waste through AI-enabled tracking, analytics, and behavioral change tools that improve operational performance, reduce costs, and advance sustainability goals.
The Menus of Change University Research Collaborative (MCURC) —co-founded and led by the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), Stanford Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE), and Stanford Prevention Research Center—is a global network of forward-thinking colleges and university scholars, foodservice leaders, executive chefs, students, and administrators, accelerating progress toward healthier, more sustainable, and delicious foods using evidence-based research and education.
The Culinary Institute of America is the world’s premier culinary college, dedicated to improving the nation and the world through outstanding education, practice, and scholarship in all aspects of food and the related industries. Through a transformative learning experience, CIA prepares future food leaders, innovators, and experts for personal and professional success. This study was conducted in partnership with Leanpath through the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative (MCURC) Research Innovation Affiliate (RIA) partnership model. RIAs are mission-aligned innovation and technology organizations that collaborate with MCURC by contributing expertise, data, technology, technical assistance, and in-kind support to advance the collaborative’s research agenda. Learn more about the MCURC RIA partnership model here.
4
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
ABSTRACT Pre-consumer food waste in institutional kitchens represents a significant environmental, economic, and operational challenge. This mixed-methods study evaluated the impact of real-time food waste tracking technology on pre-consumer food waste in two à la carte teaching kitchens at The Culinary Institute of America. Quantitative data were collected through Leanpath’s integrated hardware and software, while qualitative insights were obtained from student questionnaires and chef instructor interviews. Key Findings • Baseline waste levels: Average weekly pre-consumer food waste was 293.4 lbs. ($342.16) at Bocuse and 389 lbs. ($618.60) at American Bounty. • Substantial waste reduction: Following the before and after technology implementation, both kitchens reduced tracked food waste by approximately 60%. • Environmental benefits: Each kitchen avoided approximately 1.62–1.63 U.S. tons of food waste, prevented more than 10 metric tons of CO₂ equivalents, and conserved about 1,155 gallons of gasoline equivalent. • Financial savings: Reduced food waste generated estimated food cost savings of $3,873–$5,672 per site. • Student learning outcomes: Post-intervention, 92% of students identified unused food scraps as the primary source of waste, compared with 29% prior to the intervention, indicating increased awareness of food waste drivers. • Instructor observations: Chef instructors reported greater student awareness, behavior change, and opportunities for culinary creativity and waste prevention. • Study limitation: Due to space constraints and operational challenges, chefs estimated that only about 65% of waste was consistently tracked. These findings suggest that real-time food waste tracking combined with goal setting can effectively reduce pre-consumer food waste while delivering educational, environmental, and financial benefits in teaching kitchens. However, future research should address data capture limitations to improve the accuracy of waste reduction estimates.
DEFINITIONS Back-of-house (BOH) food waste: Food waste generated by restaurants and dining establishments before reaching the customer also known as pre-consumer. It typically results from inventory over-ordering, spoilage, trimming and preparation losses, or other operational decisions. This category does not include food waste discarded directly by customers. Front-of-house (FOH) food waste: Edible food not consumed by restaurant customers after being served or finishing a meal, often referred to as plate waste or post-consumer, it includes all food discarded in customer-facing areas of a foodservice establishment.
5
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
INTRODUCTION
6
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
ORIGIN OF FOOD WASTE Food waste is a critical global issue, with approximately one-fifth of all food produced for human consumption at the retail, foodservice, and household levels wasted each year, amounting to an estimated 1.05 billion tons annually (UN Environment Programme [UNEP], 2024). This is in addition to the estimated 13% of the world’s food that is lost in the supply chain from post-harvest up to and excluding retail (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN [FAO], 2022), leading to the frequently-cited one-third of global food being lost or wasted. This loss has significant economic, environmental, and social consequences, including wasted resources such as water, energy, and labor, and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions that exacerbate climate change (FAO, 2011). Of the food wasted, 27.5% comes from foodservice (UNEP, 2024). Within foodservice operations, especially in institutional settings, a substantial portion of food waste occurs at the pre-consumer stage, before food reaches diners or customers. Pre-consumer food waste includes discards from food preparation, trimmings, spoilage, overproduction, and equipment failure, often referred to as “back-of-house” waste (Costello, Birisci, & McGarvey, 2015). Because pre-consumer food waste is generated entirely within the control of kitchen staff and management, it represents a key opportunity for waste reduction interventions (Byker Shanks, Banna, & Serrano, 2017). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) explicitly identifies prevention as the “most preferred” strategy for reducing food waste, consistent with global food waste hierarchies used around the world (US EPA, OLEM, 2015). Institutional foodservice environments, including university dining halls, à la carte campus restaurants, and culinary education programs, serve large populations daily and face unique operational challenges. These include demand variability, high food safety standards, labor constraints, and menu complexity (Chua, Link, & Szeto, 2021; Costello et al., 2015). In university dining halls, studies have found that pre-consumer food waste can range from 4% to 10% of all food prepared, with a significant amount of this wasted food still edible at the point of disposal (Costello et al., 2015). For example, Costello et al. (2015) conducted a waste audit in a large Midwestern university dining program and reported that roughly 5.6% of food prepared was wasted prior to service, equating to thousands of pounds of edible food discarded each semester. Similarly, Jayasekara, Cork, Reeve, Shan, and Chen (2024) found that campuses using waste tracking systems and staff training could significantly reduce food waste, highlighting the impact of deliberate operational interventions. À la carte campus restaurants, which often feature more diverse and changing menus, encounter unique challenges that may increase food waste. These challenges include complex inventory management, variable customer flow, campus-wide scheduling inconsistencies, and variable portion sizes (Chua et al., 2021). These factors can lead to overproduction and spoilage if not managed properly. Chua et al. (2021) analyzed food waste at a university à la carte facility and identified overproduction and poor forecasting as primary contributors, recommending improved demand prediction and increased attention to portion control as effective strategies. Culinary education programs also contribute to pre-consumer food waste, often as a byproduct of skill development and experimentation. Students learning cooking techniques frequently discard ingredients and partially prepared items during practice sessions (McArthur-Floyd, Brako, Akorfa Morgan, & Amoah, 2024). However, these settings offer an opportunity to integrate sustainability and waste reduction concepts and practices early in foodservice training. McArthur-Floyd et al., (2024) emphasizes that incorporating food waste education into culinary curricula can cultivate a culture of sustainability among future chefs, potentially influencing broader foodservice industry practices.
7
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
A growing focus in recent research is the role of food literacy, defined as the knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to plan, prepare, store, and consume food, in mitigating food waste. While much of the literature on food literacy targets consumer or household settings, growing evidence suggests that food literacy is also relevant in institutional and educational contexts, including pre-consumer waste reduction (Remolina, Teuber, Lee, & Fetter, 2025). For instance, Remolina et al. (2025) implemented a culturally relevant meal kit intervention with university students, which enhanced cooking self-efficacy and highlighted food waste reduction practices, indicating that increased food-related skills and knowledge about kitchen operations can lead to less waste during preparation. Furthermore, Byker Shanks et al. (2017) conducted an analysis of school nutrition programs and identified that effective use of production records, inventory management, and training were associated with lower levels of pre-consumer food waste. Reducing pre-consumer food waste offers notable environmental and financial benefits. From an environmental perspective, food waste contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions throughout the food supply chain (FAO, 2011). Costello et al. (2015) estimated that reducing pre-consumer waste in campus dining halls could substantially decrease these emissions. Financially, minimizing food waste translates into cost savings on purchasing, labor, and disposal. Van der Werf and Gill (2006) found that institutions implementing food waste tracking and staff engagement programs could save significant amounts of money annually by reducing food waste. The integration of food literacy training in institutional kitchens may amplify these benefits by equipping foodservice workers with the skills necessary to implement waste-reducing practices and behaviors. Pre-consumer food waste in institutional foodservice operations represents a significant challenge with environmental and financial consequences. Research shows that operational improvements such as food waste tracking can substantially reduce losses. Incorporating food literacy into staff and student training may result in further reductions, as food literacy increases and the behaviors necessary to prevent waste during food preparation and handling become more standard practice.
METHODOLOGY METHODS This mixed-methods study was conducted through a collaboration between The Culinary Institute of America (CIA) and Leanpath. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of real-time food waste tracking and goal functionality efficacy on pre-consumer, in-kitchen food waste in two à la carte teaching kitchens on CIA’s New York campus: American Bounty and Bocuse. Additionally, the study collected qualitative data via pre- and post-intervention questionnaires completed by students along with informal interviews conducted with the restaurant chef instructors. The study was conducted between February 15, 2025, and June 1, 2025.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS The research took place within two of CIA’s publicly-facing campus restaurants, which serve as applied learning environments for students in the final semesters of their degree program. Each kitchen is staffed by cohorts of 12 to 24 culinary students, supervised by a head chef instructor and supported by a kitchen manager. Students spend seven weeks staffing the kitchen, during which they engage in hands-on kitchen training alongside weekly classroom lectures. A new cohort of students enters each kitchen every seven weeks. 8
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
OPERATIONAL CONTEXT AND LIMITATIONS Menu design and kitchen operations at both restaurants are influenced by a combination of curriculum requirements and the instructional strategies of the chef instructors. Ingredient procurement is managed through CIA’s centralized campus storeroom, which supplies all campus dining facilities. Ingredients may be swapped, substituted, or returned before entering the kitchen, and such alterations are not witnessed by the kitchen staff and therefore not tracked. Consequently, waste that occurs during the procurement stage is not reflected in the Leanpath data. Additionally, the educational nature of the kitchens means that trial, error, and experimentation are inherent to the setting, potentially influencing waste patterns in ways that differ from non-education centered kitchens. These factors represent key limitations when interpreting the generalizability of the waste tracking results. During the study period, American Bounty chefs spent $254,141.77 and Bocuse chefs spent $253,184.78 on trackable food items. American Bounty served 14,836 meals during this time, resulting in $17.13 of trackable food cost per guest. Bocuse served 11,407 meals during the same period, resulting in $22.19 of trackable food cost per guest.
DATA COLLECTION These three sources were quantitative waste tracking data collected in-kitchen via Leanpath equipment and qualitative data gathered via questionnaires administered to students as well as informal interviews conducted with restaurant chef instructors.
QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION Both kitchens were equipped with Leanpath to track pre-consumer food waste. The tracking technology system enables real-time measurement and categorization of food waste, including data on weight, food type, source, and reason for wasting. The versatility of Leanpath equipment allows each system to include menu items and kitchen stations specific to the individual kitchen and menu. Following the establishment of baseline waste numbers, food waste was tracked continuously throughout the course of the study. At Bocuse, the kitchen used Leanpath’s standard functionality, tracking all food waste data without intervention beyond regular monitoring and staff engagement. At American Bounty, the kitchen team also utilized Leanpath’s goal feature to set targeted goals for reducing specific waste categories identified as high priority. These categories were identified by both the software’s analysis of trends and results, as well as the chef instructor’s understanding of limitations and possibilities within their kitchen.
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION Student questionnaires were administered at the beginning and end of each student’s seven-week kitchen rotation. The pre-program questionnaire assessed students’ baseline motivations and understanding of food waste in professional kitchen environments. The post-program survey, administered after students’ seven-week kitchen rotation, evaluated changes in knowledge and attitudes for reducing food waste, along with gaining insight into Leanpath functionality and ease of use in a kitchen environment. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and responses were not linked to student performance. The total number of students surveyed was 57. Additionally, two rounds of unstructured interviews were conducted with the chef-instructors leading each of the kitchen teams. These interviews explored overall food waste tracking functionality in an a-la-carte kitchen setting, as well as the impact of food waste tracking on the functioning of a kitchen in a culinary education setting.
9
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
10
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Using Leanpath’s built-in functionality, baseline data was collected before implementing any waste reduction interventions. For Bocuse, baseline waste was recorded at $342.16 and 293.4 lbs. per week. For American Bounty, baseline waste was $618.60 and 389 lbs. per week. After establishing this baseline, in-kitchen interventions and Leanpath goals were implemented, and changes in recorded waste were compared to the baseline figures. Figure 1 shows the top loss reasons by value recorded during the study at Bocuse. Figure 2 shows the top loss reasons by weight at Bocuse. In both value and weight, trimmings and by-products were the largest sources of food waste, with 1,363.57 lbs. composted, representing $1,281.96.
TOP LOSS REASONS BY DOLLAR VALUE AT BOCUSE (USD) 100% 89.5%
$1,281.96
100%
93.2%
90%
83.6%
1,200
80%
72.3% 1,000
60.8%
70% 60%
Value (USD)
800
50% 600
40% 30%
400 $242.43
$238.62
20%
200
$123.02
$77.99
$143.68
110% 0%
0
Figure 1
Cumulative Percentage (%)
1,400
Trimmings & By-Products
Expired/ Out of Date
Overproduction
Spoiled
Mishandled
Other
TOP LOSS REASONS BY WEIGHT AT BOCUSE (LBS)
1,200
1,363.57 lbs
96.0%
94.1%
97.4%
100% 100%
88.5%
90%
75.5%
80%
Weight (lbs)
1,000
70% 60%
800
50% 600
40% 30%
400 234.86 lbs 200
20% 110.17 lbs
34.22 lbs
25.3 lbs
47.63 lbs
Mishandled
Spoiled
Other
0%
0
Figure 2
110%
Trimmings & By-Products
Overproduction
Expired/ Out of Date
11
Cumulative Percentage (%)
1,400
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Figure 3 shows the dollar value, and Figure 4 shows the weight of the top wasted food categories at Bocuse. Vegetable waste represented both the highest dollar value and the largest volume by weight of discarded food. Beyond vegetables, however, there was less alignment between weight and value among the other food categories. For example, while high-value fish waste accounted for the second-highest dollar value of wasted food, by weight it ranked fifth.
TOP WASTED FOODS BY DOLLAR AT BOCUSE (USD) Vegetables
$508.49
Fish-High Value
$366.89
Beef-Whole
$289.41
Fish-Common
$289.00
Bread
$114.97
Shellfish-Shrimp
$69.57
Mixed Foods-Other
$62.09
Lamb
$57.33
French Roll
$49.37
Ice Cream/ Frozen Yogurt
$41.21 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 3
TOP WASTED FOODS BY WEIGHT AT BOCUSE (LBS) Vegetables
733.25 lbs
Beef-Whole
268.76 lbs
French Roll
179.03 lbs
Fish-Common
134.42 lbs
Fish-High Value
73.77 lbs
Bread
60.30 lbs
Mixed Foods-Other
52.22 lbs
Lamb
42.50 lbs
Leafy Greens
38.29 lbs
Fruit
24.94 lbs 0
100
200
300
400
Figure 4
12
500
600
700
800
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 show cumulative food waste avoided in U.S. tons, cumulative food waste avoided in U.S. dollars, cumulative CO₂e avoided in metric tons, and cumulative equivalent gallons of gas conserved respectively, as compared to Bocuse baseline numbers. These numbers were determined by Leanpath’s data analysis software and average metrics built into the system. During the course of this sixteen week study, 1.63 U.S. tons of food waste were avoided, 1,155 gallons of gas were conserved, $3,873 worth of food waste was avoided, and 10.32 metric tons of CO₂e were avoided in the Bocuse kitchen.
CUMULATIVE FOOD WASTE AVOIDED AT BOCUSE (U.S. TONS) 2.0 1.63
Weight (Tons)
1.5
1.38 1.12
1.0
0.92 0.71 0.55
0.5 0.31
0.21
Figure 5
CUMULATIVE VALUE OF FOOD WASTE AVOIDED AT BOCUSE (USD) CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT GALLONS OF GAS CONSERVED AT BOCUSE
4,000
1,200
3,000
$3,837.4
$3,194.59 1,155.9
1,000
$2,562.87
2,000
929.07
$1,798.08
800
$1,354.15
705.16
600
1,000
371.44
$142.41 260.3
2000
09 /2 02 5
1
9/ 06 20 /0 25 9/ 20 062 /5
/2 02 5
05 /1 9/ 20 525/
/
20 05 25 /0 5/ 2005 2/50 5
20 25
13
04 /1 4/ 0 204 25/14
5
25
03 /3 1/ 03 20 / 25 31/
Figure 6
91.72
02 02 /1 /1 7/ 7/ 20 25 20 2
0
32.9
03 /0 03 3/ /0 20 3/ 25 20
02 02 /0 /0 3/ 3/ 20 20 25 25
168.16
25
400
537.98
$688.51
03 /1 0 7/ 3/ 20 1 25 7/2 0
Savings (USD) Volume (Gallons)
06 /0 9/ 20 25
05 /1 9/ 20 25
05 /0 5/ 20 25
04 /1 4/ 20 25
03 /3 1/ 20 25
03 /1 7/ 20 25
02 /1 7/ 20 25
03 /0 3/ 20 25
0.04
02 /0 3/ 20 25
0
06 /0 9/
05 /1 9/
05 /0 5/
04 /1 4/
03 /3 1/
03 /1 7/
03 /0 3/
02 /1 7/
02 /0 3/
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
CUMULATIVE CO2e AVOIDED AT BOCUSE (METRIC TONS)
CUMULATIVE FOOD WASTE AVOIDED AT BOCUSE (U.S. TONS) 12
2.0 1.63
10 1.38
8.72
1.127.08
61.0
0.92 5.83
0.5
/2 06 02 /0 5 9/ 20 25
05 05 /2 /0 02 5/ 20 5 25 05
/1
5/
04
09
9/ 05 20 /1 25 9/ 20 06 25 /
04 /14 / /1 4/ 202 20 5 25 0
0
03 03 /1 /17 7/ /2 20 02 25 5
5
02 /012 7//17 20/2 2502 5
0.04 0.24
02 /00 23/ /023 0/22 502
0
0
0.31 1.99
0.21 1.32
03 0 /03/0 3/ 3/ 20 20 25 25
2
5
0.71 4.47
0.55 3.48
4
03 3/ /3 31/ 1/ 20 20 25 25
CO2e (MT)
Weight (Tons)
1.5
8
10.32
Figure 7
CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT GALLONS OF GAS CONSERVED AT BOCUSE 1,200 1,155.9
Volume (Gallons)
1,000 929.07
800 705.16
600 537.98
400
371.44 260.3
200
Figure 8 14
06 /0 9/ 20 25
05 /1 9/ 20 25
05 /0 5/ 20 25
04 /1 4/ 20 25
03 /3 1/ 20 25
03 /1 7/ 20 25
03 /0 3/ 20 25
91.72
02 /1 7/ 20 25
32.9
02 /0 3/ 20 25
0
168.16
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Figure 9 shows the top loss reasons by value at American Bounty during the study. Figure 10 shows the top loss reasons by weight. In both dollar value and weight, trimmings and by-products represented the most significant source of food waste, with 2,465.1 lbs. composted, representing $2,544.92.
3,000 $2,544.29
83.9%
100% 100%
88.7%
90%
77.1%
2,500
80%
67.6%
70%
2,000
60%
51.7%
Value (USD)
1,500
50% 40%
1,000
$780.84
30% $557.90
$469.13
500
$336.57
$233.31
20%
Cumulative Percentage (%)
TOP LOSS REASONS BY VALUE AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (USD)
110%
0
0% Trimmings & By-Products
Overproduction
Expired/ Out of Date
Spoiled
Quality
Other
Figure 9
TOP LOSS REASONS BY WEIGHT AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (LBS) 92.2%
2,465.1 lbs 83.6%
2,000
95.1%
100% 100%
88.9%
90%
72.1%
80%
Weight (lbs)
70% 1,500
60% 50%
1,000
40% 30%
500
392.46 lbs
20% 181.75 lbs
113.73 lbs
0
98.67 lbs
166.77 lbs
110% 0%
Trimmings & By-Products
Overproduction
Mishandled
Expired/ Out of Date
Figure 10 15
Spoiled
Other
Cumulative Percentage (%)
2,500
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Figure 11 shows the top wasted foods by value, and Figure 12 shows the top wasted foods by weight at American Bounty. Fish-common (as opposed to fish-high value which represents a premium priced product) waste accounted for the highest dollar value of discarded food at $1,034.64, while vegetables represented the largest volume of food waste at 1,376.43 lbs. Although fish-common had the highest waste by dollar value, the recorded weight was only 38% of the vegetable discard.
TOP WASTED FOODS BY DOLLAR AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (USD) Fish-Common
$1,034.64 $1,024.92
Vegetables $670.82
Fish-High Value Mixed Foods-Other
$274.08
Beef-Whole
$238.75
Coffee
$193.40
Lamb
$154.05
Mixed Veg - Other
$133.66
Shellfish
$128.39
Bread
$113.08
Figure 11
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
TOP WASTED FOOD BY WEIGHT AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (LBS) Vegetables
1376.43 lbs
Fish-Common
522 lbs 223 lbs
Beef-Whole Coffee
214.89 lbs
Fish-High Value
137.19 lbs
Leafy Greens
115.29 lbs
Mixed Foods-Other
92.08 lbs
Fruit
74.87 lbs
Lamb
72.46 lbs
Potatoes
68.28 lbs
Figure 12
0
200
400
600
16
800
1200
1400
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 show cumulative food waste avoided in U.S. tons, cumulative food waste avoided in U.S. dollars, cumulative CO₂e avoided in metric tons, and cumulative equivalent gallons of gas conserved, respectively, as compared to American Bounty baseline numbers set at the beginning of the study. These numbers were determined by Leanpath’s data analysis software and average metrics built into the system. Over the course of the study, 1.62 U.S. tons of food waste were avoided, 1,155 gallons of gas were conserved, $5,672 worth of food waste was avoided, and 10.25 metric tons of CO₂e were avoided.
CUMULATIVE FOOD WASTE AVOIDED AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (U.S. TONS) 2.0 1.62
Weight (Tons)
1.5
1.30 .99
1.0
0.75 0.52 0.37
0.5 0.24
0.13
06 /0 9/ 20 25
05 /1 9/ 20 25
05 /0 5/ 20 25
04 /1 4/ 20 25
03 /3 1/ 20 25
03 /1 7/ 20 25
03 /0 3/ 20 25
02 /1 7/ 20 25
0.05
02 /0 3/ 20 25
0
Figure 13
CUMULATIVE VALUE OF FOOD WASTE AVOIDED CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT GALLONS OF GAS CONSERVED AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (USD) AT AMERICAN BOUNTY 6,000 1,200 $5,672.20 1,155.9
$4,618.68 929.07
4,000 800
$3,667.12 705.16
3,000 600 $2,424.91 537.98 2,000 400
$1,413.20 $623.52 168.16
Figure 14
CUMULATIVE CO2e AVOIDED AT 17 AMERICAN BOUNTY (METRIC TONS) 12
0066 //00 99// 2200 2255
0055 //119 9// 2200 2255
0044 //11 44// 2200 2255 0 055 //00 55// 2200 2255
0033 //33 11// 2200 2255
91.72
0022 //11 77// 2200 2255
0022 //00 33// 2200 2255
32.9
0033 //11 77// 2200 2255
$159.07
00
371.44
260.3
1,000 200
0033 //00 33// 2200 2255
Volume Savings(Gallons) (USD)
5,000 1,000
06 /0 9/ 20 25
05 /1 9/ 20 25
05 /0 5/ 20 25
04 /1 4/ 20 25
03 /3 1/ 20 25
03 /1 7/ 20 25
03 /0 3/ 20 25
02 /1 7/ 20 25
02 /0 3/ 20 25
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
CUMULATIVE FOOD WASTE AVOIDED AT CUMULATIVE CO2e AVOIDED AT AMERICAN BOUNTY (U.S. TONS) AMERICAN BOUNTY (METRIC TONS)
2.0 12
1.62
10.25
10 1.5
1.30 .99
1.0
0.75
6
0.52
2.31
06 0 /06/ 9/09 20/2 2502 5
05 0 /05/ 5/05 20/2 2502 5
04 0 /1 4/ 4/ 14 20/2 2502 5
03 0 /33/ 1/ 31 20/2 2502 5
0.81
03 0 /1 3/ 7/ 17 20/2 2502 5
02 0 /02/ 3/03 20/2 2502 5
0
0.05 0.29
3.29
1.49
03 0 /03/ 3/03 20/2 2502 5
0
0.24
0.13
02 0 /1 2/ 7/ 17 20/2 2502 5
2
4.77
0.37
4 0.5
6.25
05 0 /1 5/ 9/ 19 20/2 2502 5
CO2e (MT)(Tons) Weight
8.24
8
Figure 15
CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT GALLONS OF GAS CONSERVED AT AMERICAN BOUNTY 1,200 1,155.9
Volume (Gallons)
1,000 929.07
800 705.16
600 537.98
400
371.44 260.3
200
06 /0 9/ 20 25
05 /1 9/ 20 25
05 /0 5/ 20 25
04 /1 4/ 20 25
03 /3 1/ 20 25
03 /1 7/ 20 25
03 /0 3/ 20 25
02 /1 7/ 20 25
32.9
02 /0 3/ 20 25
0
168.16 91.72
Figure 16 The three goals set at American Bounty during the study were determined by Leanpath software’s auto-generated prompts, combined with input from the chef instructors and their understanding of the possibilities and limitations of interventions. Each goal was set with a time frame of one month. The goal Vectoring the Veg focused on reducing vegetable waste and achieved a 66.3% reduction. Fixin’ the Fish achieved a 6.3% reduction in high-value fish waste, and Balancing the Bread reduced bread waste by 55.3%. Each of the three goals had a target reduction of 10%. Therefore, Vectoring the Veg and Balancing the Bread exceeded the set goal, while Fixin’ the Fish fell short. 18
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
19
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS All students surveyed indicated that, while working in CIA kitchens, they prioritized reducing food waste. Figure 17 shows the motivation behind students’ efforts to reduce in-kitchen, pre-consumer food waste, expressed as percentages of the total surveyed. These motivations fell into three categories: environmental, financial, and culinary creativity. Forty-four percent of students indicated that environmental sustainability was their primary motivation, 35% reported being financially motivated, and 21% cited culinary creativity as their main motivation for reducing food waste and increasing product efficiency. Surveys also revealed that none of the students had used food waste tracking technology prior to the study.
50% 45%
STUDENT MOTIVATIONS BEHIND REDUCING FOOD WASTE 44%
40%
35%
35% 30%
21%
25% 20% 10% 5% 0%
Environmental
Financial
Culinary Creativity
Figure 17 At the beginning of their seven-week kitchen rotations, before engaging with food waste tracking technology, students were asked what they believed was the primary cause of in-kitchen, pre-consumer food waste at the CIA. Figure 18 shows students’ perceptions of the top causes of food waste prior to using Leanpath technology. Thirty-three percent of students believed overproduction was the primary cause, 29% cited unused food scraps, 6% cited spoilage, 29% cited human error, and 3% cited equipment error.
20
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
35%
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TOP FOOD WASTE CAUSE BEFORE USING LEANPATH
33%
30%
29%
29%
25% 20% 10%
6% 3%
5% 0%
Figure 18
Overproduction
Unused Food Scraps
Spoilage
Human Error
Equipment Error
Following the students’ seven-week kitchen rotation during which they tracked food waste using Leanpath food waste tracking technology, students were again asked what they believed was the primary cause of inkitchen, pre-consumer food waste. Figure 19 shows student perception of top food waste causes after after measuring waste. Eight percent believed that human error was the primary driver of food waste and 92% believed that unused food scraps were the primary reason for food waste. No other category was selected.
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF FOOD WASTE CAUSE AFTER USING LEANPATH 100%
92%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
8%
0%
Figure 19
Human Error
21
Unused Food Scraps
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
CHEF INSTRUCTOR INFORMAL INTERVIEW RESULTS Two sets of informal interviews were conducted with the chef instructors regarding their experience using food waste tracking technology. These interviews focused on both in-kitchen use of Leanpath, along with discussing educational, financial, and operational opportunities presented by in-kitchen food waste tracking.
PERCEIVED VALUE AND EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION Participants across various kitchens expressed a consistently positive view of the food waste tracking system. Staff described the technology as intuitive and impactful, particularly in raising awareness of waste among culinary students. Multiple instructors highlighted how the system made food waste more visible, which, in turn, encouraged greater mindfulness. One chef remarked that the interface was so simple that “a three-year-old could do it,” underscoring the ease of student adoption. Beyond operational use, the system was also being incorporated into educational settings. Instructors reported using waste data during weekly meetings with academic leadership, displaying metrics on kitchen boards, and incorporating findings into class discussions. The concept of “being mean to Mother Nature” was invoked by one instructor to highlight the ethical dimensions of waste.
BEHAVIORAL IMPACT AND CULINARY INNOVATION The presence of the tracker appeared to influence student behavior. Instructors used the system both as a practical tool and a behavioral prompt, often reminding students not to let items go to waste. Anecdotes were shared in which students creatively repurposed leftovers or trimmings to avoid waste, such as converting cauliflower stems into soup or using excess pizza dough for daily specials. These practices were seen not only as waste-reducing measures but also as opportunities for creative culinary expression. Several instructors emphasized the importance of cross-utilization, both as a teaching strategy and as a cost-saving measure. For example, vegetable trimmings were regularly turned into stocks and soups, and duck components were fully utilized for confit, pâté, and mousse. These strategies were encouraged both to minimize waste, model efficient kitchen practices, and to demonstrate culinary creativity.
OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES Despite strong support for the system, several operational challenges were noted. Space constraints in busy kitchens often limited optimal tracker placement. The height of the tracker was a particular challenge as it was not compatible with standard kitchen shelving used in CIA kitchens. In some cases, the tracker had to be positioned near high-traffic areas, leading to frequent camera disconnections. Staff acknowledged that during peak periods, particularly service prep times, it was not always feasible to maintain consistent tracking. One chef estimated that only about 65% of transactions were being captured due to these limitations. Additionally, some chefs expressed concern about the static nature of the tracker. Its fixed location made it difficult to track waste generated in other parts of the kitchen, such as at coffee stations or banquet prep areas. This led to suggestions for a mobile, battery-powered version or wall-mounted alternatives that would not interfere with workflow. (Note: Leanpath offers mobile and wall-mounted tracking options as well).
22
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
DESIRED ENHANCEMENTS AND SYSTEM POTENTIAL Interviewees offered multiple suggestions for improving the system’s functionality. Several chefs requested additional data buttons tailored to high-cost or seasonal items, such as morels, artichokes, or banquet-specific categories. Leanpath’s platform allows continuous menu updates, and these items were added. There was also significant interest in expanding the system’s environmental metrics, including visual displays of the carbon or energy impact of waste. Enhanced photo features, animations, and content-rich home screens on the in-kitchen systems were seen as promising tools for maintaining student engagement. The concept of using the tracker to follow the flow of food across kitchens emerged as a major opportunity. Staff envisioned a system that could show where on the CIA campus surplus items were available, enabling chefs to repurpose them before new purchases were made. Some referred to this model as a “shopping cart” system for surplus food, which could facilitate resource-sharing and reduce costs. This tracking was viewed as especially valuable in the CIA context, where multiple kitchens operate independently but draw from shared inventory.
CULTURAL THEMES AND CURRICULUM OPPORTUNITIES The interviews revealed broader cultural opportunities for the tracker within the institution. Many instructors expressed a desire to link kitchen data more directly with academic instruction. For example, one chef proposed using waste imagery from the tracker to teach product breakdown processes, such as the steps from whole fish to filet to trim. Another suggested the tracker be integrated into “fundamentals” classes to establish waste-conscious habits from the beginning of the student experience. While waste minimization was embraced in principle, participants acknowledged that institutional structures and time limitations often constrained execution. Nonetheless, many instructors saw the tracker as a powerful tool for fostering a culture of sustainability and continuous improvement. The idea of extrapolating waste data to annual cost or environmental impact was viewed as particularly effective in influencing both students and decision-makers. Finally, several participants highlighted the importance of giving students ownership in the process. The potential for students to submit their own ideas, track their individual waste output, or repurpose items into creative dishes was seen as a powerful way to deepen engagement and learning.
23
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
24
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
QUANTITATIVE WASTE REDUCTION OUTCOMES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Baseline waste averages revealed differences between the two kitchens: American Bounty produced more waste both by weight (389 lbs. vs. 293.4 lbs.) and by dollar value ($618.60 vs. $342.16) per week before the intervention. When these figures were compared with the average food costs of each restaurant, it was found that American Bounty operated with 4.3% food waste (by dollar value), while Bocuse operated with 2.4% waste. American Bounty averaged nearly 25% more meals served than Bocuse, and this difference is reflected by the nearly 25% increase in food waste by weight at American Bounty. By dollar value, however, American Bounty produced nearly 45% more waste than Bocuse. These differences likely reflect differences in menu design and ingredient selection between the two restaurants. Heikkilä et al. (2016) reported that back-of-house food waste can range from only a few percentage points up to 20%, and that fast-food restaurants may average between 5% and 50% in food waste. Although robust data on back-of-house food waste is limited and vary widely., the 4.3% and 2.4% waste averages measured in this study suggest that both restaurants are operating relatively efficiently. After implementation, both kitchens demonstrated reductions in food waste, avoiding approximately 1.62– 1.63 U.S. tons of waste each, yet American Bounty achieved greater financial savings than Bocuse ($5,672 compared to $3,873). When compared to total food purchases during the study period, food waste by dollar value dropped to 2.2% at American Bounty and 1.5% at Bocuse. Environmental metrics further underscore the importance of waste reduction, with over 10 metric tons of CO₂e and 1,155 gallons of gasoline conserved at each site. These figures align with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2013) estimates of food waste’s environmental footprint, demonstrating the important role of interventions in sustainability initiatives within kitchen operations. Trimmings and by-products emerged as the largest contributor to waste both in weight and dollar value at both kitchens (Bocuse: 1,363.57 lbs., $1,281.96; American Bounty: 2,465.1 lbs., $2,544.92), consistent with previous studies identifying kitchen prep scraps as significant waste streams (Byker Shanks, Banna, & Serrano, 2017; Chua, Link, & Szeto, 2021). Vegetable waste dominated by volume, yet fish waste, particularly at American Bounty, carried a disproportionate financial impact despite lower weight, highlighting the importance of considering both economic and weight-based waste metrics when targeting reduction strategies. The goal setting at American Bounty notably accelerated waste reduction in prioritized categories. The “Vectoring the Veg” goal and “Balancing the Bread” goal both exceeded the reduction target, demonstrating how goal-setting fosters behavior change and operational improvements. However, “Fixin’ the Fish” fell short, potentially due to factors such as the perishability, handling complexity, or preparation demands of high-value seafood. These results suggest that operational goals may affect the reduction strategy used. Environmentally motivated chefs may find success simply using Leanpath’s standard functionality while chefs hoping to reduce food costs may have better luck employing Leanpath’s goals, focusing on reducing waste coming from high-value items. The study’s quantitative data suggest that real-time food waste tracking and goal setting may be effective in reducing pre-consumer kitchen waste, which is consistent with prior research in commercial and institutional settings. Combined, the data suggests that each of the kitchens achieved a waste reduction of approximately 60% over the test period.
25
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
26
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
SHIFTS IN STUDENT KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND PERCEPTIONS Student questionnaires revealed motivating behaviors regarding food waste in culinary education. Fortyfour percent of students identified environmental sustainability as their primary motivation to reduce waste, followed by financial (35%) and culinary creativity (21%) factors (Figure 17). These results align with the growing emphasis on sustainability in culinary education and professional kitchens. Students’ baseline beliefs about waste causes were distributed among overproduction (35%), unused scraps (29%), and human error (29%) spoilage (6%) and equipment error (3%) (Figure 18), reflecting common assumptions documented in the literature regarding kitchen waste sources (FAO, 2011). Importantly, after seven weeks of using Leanpath technology, student perceptions shifted dramatically, with 92% attributing waste primarily to unused food scraps and only 8% to human error (Figure 19). This shift suggests that real-time waste tracking enhances students’ ability to recognize specific waste sources rather than relying on generalized or subjective explanations. This increased accuracy in perception is crucial for developing waste reduction behaviors and has implications for curriculum design. The integration of technology not only provided potential operational benefits but also served as a pedagogical tool fostering awareness and responsibility.
INSIGHTS FROM CHEF INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEWS Chef instructor interviews added to the qualitative findings by contextualizing the technology implementation within the complex, dynamic environment of teaching kitchens. Instructors unanimously valued the Leanpath system for its intuitive design and ease of use, noting its role in heightening student mindfulness of waste. Educational integration emerged as a recurring theme, with instructors using waste data to facilitate discussions about sustainability and product efficiency. The comparison of food waste generation and environmental responsibility links culinary practices to ethical and environmental values, reinforcing literature advocating for value-based sustainability education. Behaviorally, the tracker served as both an informational and motivational tool. Instructors reported students repurposing leftovers creatively, demonstrating how waste tracking can inspire culinary innovation. Cross-utilization of ingredients was emphasized as a cost-saving measure. Chefs also noted that workflow changes helped to encourage use of the Leanpath tracker. For example, as opposed to weighing every instance of discard individually, chef instructors encouraged students to collect waste over time and perform bulk transactions when time allowed. This helped to overcome some of the challenges associated with small kitchens and busy workspaces. Additionally, chef instructors found that locating compost bins directly next to the tracker discouraged discard without tracking. Operational challenges, however, were noted. Spatial constraints limited optimal device placement, affecting data capture accuracy, particularly in Bocuse during peak operation. Fixed-location hardware further restricted tracking in dispersed kitchen zones, such as banquet or coffee stations, suggesting a need for more flexible or mobile solutions.
27
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Consistent capture of all wasted food is essential when using tracking technology such as Leanpath. As noted by the chef instructors, it is unlikely that all discarded food was recorded, particularly at Bocuse. Physical limitations within the small teaching kitchens, curriculum priorities, and busy, new-to-the-kitchen students may all have contributed to untracked waste. Additionally, procurement-stage waste was not captured, as initial quality control of products occurs in a storeroom outside the kitchen; this could be addressed by employing additional food waste tracking equipment in the receiving area. This inconsistent waste capture may have affected the quantitative data recorded during this study. Incomplete data capture is particularly impactful when comparing waste figures to food purchases, as purchase totals include all food acquired regardless of whether waste generated by this food was accurately recorded in the system by the kitchen staff. This may explain the unusually low percentage volume of food waste recorded both during the study and in the baseline period. Without secondary recording procedures, researchers could not be certain that the food waste reflected in the data represented the full amount generated. More robust and systematized in-kitchen procedures should be developed to ensure prioritization of tracking and to ensure that cooks can easily and comfortably access the in-kitchen hardware during service.
28
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
REFERENCES
29
REDUCING PRE-CONSUMER FOOD WASTE IN EDUCATIONAL CULINARY ENVIRONMENTS
Byker Shanks, C., Banna, J., & Serrano, E. L. (2017). Food waste in the National School Lunch Program 1978–2015: A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(11), 1792–1807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.06.008 Chua, J. K., Link, L. J., & Szeto, K. L. (2021). Understanding and reducing food waste in a university à la carte restaurant setting. Waste Management, 128, 1549–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.026 Costello, C., Birisci, M., & McGarvey, J. A. (2016). Food waste in campus dining operations: Inventory of pre- and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000166 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome. https://www.fao.org/4/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022). Tracking Progress on Food and Agriculturerelated SDG Indicators 2022. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/619f2de64b6c-4b43-9a46-9d66a815439d/content/cc1403en.html#/12 Jayasekara, S., Cork, S., Reeve, R., Shan, Y., & Chen, G. (2024). Mapping pre-consumer food waste in quickservice restaurants on a university campus: Two Australian case studies. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1364520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1364520 McArthur-Floyd, M., Brako, M., Akorfa Morgan, K., & Amoah, M. (2024). Tackling food waste in culinary education: A roadmap for sustainable change. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24APR1682 Remolina, S. C., Teuber, R., Lee, K., & Fetter, T. (2025). Using culturally relevant meal kits to improve cooking skills, reduce food waste, and promote engagement with a campus food access resource: An exploratory pilot study. Nutrients, 17(5), 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050843 United Nations Environment Programme (2024). Food Waste Index Report 2024. Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/items/dbe2cd4c-8384-4636-8359-5847f42b9711 US EPA. “Sustainable Management of Food | US EPA.” US EPA, 16 Apr. 2025, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/wasted-food-scale Van der Werf, P., & Gill, J. (2006). Food waste in the hospitality industry: Exploring the potential of AI-driven food waste management strategies for household application. Sustainability, 8, Article 11799730. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11799730/
30
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was made possible through the collaboration of researchers and contributors from The Culinary Institute of America (CIA), the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative (MCURC), and Leanpath: Sean McGurl, Valentina Córdoba, Jason Potanovich, Bob Valgenti, Abby Fammartino, Sophie Egan, and Ghislaine Challamel from CIA and MCURC, as well as Robb White, Lynn Zhang, Anna Mass, Jessica Rosen, and Steven Finn from Leanpath.
To learn more about the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative, explore additional research projects, tools, and resources, visit www.moccollaborative.org
© 2026 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA