Assessing the Quality and Quantity of Initially Unused Food among Urban Food Pantry Clients in Baltimore, Maryland

ABSTRACT

Objective was to assess amount of/reasons for, unused food from client-choice and traditional food pantries through a prospective, observational study. Two weeks after baseline visits, clients estimated percentage of products consumed and reported why unused products were not consumed through interviews. Participants were 28 clients from Baltimore, MD pantries. Clients reported consuming perishable foods first compared to shelf-stable foods. The most common reason for not using items was “plan to use later.” There were no significant differences in unused food between pantry models. Future studies on client food waste should include larger samples and longer follow-up periods.

KEYWORDS:

• Unused food
• food waste
• food insecurity
• client-choice pantry
• traditional pantry

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff, volunteers, and clients of the four food pantries in which this research was conducted (Second Missionary Baptist Church, United House of Prayer, Center for Grace, and CARES) in Baltimore, MD. We would also like to recognize the advisory contributions made to the design of this study by Dr. Caitlin Caspi, University of Minnesota.

Authorship

BG and SY, as Master’s-level students under the supervision of JG and LP, designed the study, formulated research questions, and obtained funding. BG, JG, LP, and RAF developed the data collection surveys and forms. Data collection and data entry were completed by SH, RP, NG, NK, LP, BP, and BG. BP and RP completed the data analysis, with guidance from MMR. BP and MMR led the writing of the manuscript, but all authors contributed to the writing process.

Ethical Standards Disclosure

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving research study participants were reviewed by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt from IRB oversight. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants. Verbal consent was witnessed and formally recorded.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative’s Evidence Generation Award, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers would also like to gratefully acknowledge the support of a Kruse Family Publications Award. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or writing of this research article.