Connect with us

International

How We Stop Wasting Food

How We Stop Wasting Food

Published

on

Getting surplus food into the mouths of the hungry is more complicated than it seems. Join our moderator, Hugo, and portfolio manager, Simon, for a conversation with Laura Winningham, CEO of City Harvest London, which has rescued 4,000 tons of surplus food and delivered 10 million meals to those in need.

Laura’s comments are edited excerpts from our podcast, which you can listen to in full below.

 

Why did you start City Harvest London?

Laura: I was aware of food rescue efforts in other major cities around the world, but when I arrived in London 12 years ago, there really was no one doing this—rescuing perfectly edible surplus food that’s unused for any number of reasons, such as oversupply or mislabeling.

How did you get your arms around the program? How did you discover how much food was being wasted and how many people were going hungry?

Laura: The United Kingdom, unlike other first-world countries, didn’t keep food poverty statistics. But we had information on poverty and could infer that people were hungry. So we started small, collecting food from Whole Foods Kensington and delivering it to one church in West London. From that point, we could see how great the need was.

Then, a couple of years ago, Bain & Company did some pro bono work for us so we could have numbers surrounding food poverty and food waste. From that research, we learned that in London, every month, 9.2 million meals are missed by people living in food poverty, and 13.3 million meals are wasted by businesses. So there’s more than enough food being wasted to feed people every meal that they’re missing.

In London, every month, 9.2 million meals are missed by people living in food poverty, and 13.3 million meals are wasted by businesses. So there’s more than enough food being wasted to feed people every meal that they’re missing.

How did you identify who the big food wasters were, and how do you get them on board to help?

Laura: Given limited data, it involved networking—speaking to companies one at a time. At the time, the media was starting to look at food waste and supermarkets were getting into trouble on social media, so they were interested in speaking to us.

So it’s not that people don’t want to help; they just need a solution that is fairly frictionless?

Laura: Exactly. And the challenges differ by business.

In an average supermarket, the person by the back door is making the decision about whether to chuck the food or put it safely aside for us to collect. Because there’s high turnover, even if we introduce the concept of donating surplus food, when the person by the back door changes, we’re back to square one.

Manufacturers have surplus food coming out of assembly lines, but those assembly lines are efficient, and manufacturers don’t want to add the extra cost of stepping in and collecting the surplus. They also might not have storage facilities.

So, we work with each potential donor to understand its needs and how we could offer a frictionless solutions.

Can you share a success story?

Laura: Nando’s restaurants were throwing out a lot of edible chicken because its moisture decreased after a couple of hours. So they started putting the chicken pieces in freezer bags in a dedicated freezer. City Harvest came in, went to the freezer, picked up the chicken pieces, and left. So it was as easy for the restaurant to give us the chicken as it would have been to throw it out. That’s the best-case scenario. The supplier is happy it is donating, and there’s no extra work or cost.

How often do you try to partner with a producer of surplus food and find it just too difficult to make it work?

Laura: Once we get our foot in the door, the relationship rarely ends. The hardest part is getting in. Sometimes someone will call us and ask for help, but when we get in the door, senior management isn’t interested. It could be generational. Younger people are more focused on food waste and the environment, so maybe 10 years from now, when the people that are calling me are in more senior positions, things will be different.

It costs us around £50,000 to keep a van rolling each year, but one van can redistribute around £500,000 a year in value. That’s a 10:1 ratio.

 How much surplus food is still out there to be captured?

Laura: Pre-crisis, some weeks we were rescuing 30 tons of food, around 65,000 meals. We just had a 70-ton week, around 150,000 meals. People who come to our West London depot are stunned by the volume of food they see, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. We’re probably collecting 3% of what’s out there. I think as investors start to ask more questions, changes will be made. But those questions aren’t necessarily being asked as much as they should be.

Is there an ESG or reputational angle here, so in time stakeholders in companies will be asking these sorts of questions much more?

Laura: I think the focus on ESG actually could make a difference. In a couple instances, I have seen a shareholder of a company step in and drive change. And the companies that were influenced really felt good about it afterward; they actually didn’t know there was a solution.

So I’m confident that it will change. The food is there; companies just aren’t being forced to do anything about it at this point. I understand there would be a cost for them to put aside the food, so I’m not minimizing that. But if there’s edible food, it shouldn’t be wasted when thousands of people are going hungry. And when it goes to landfill, it’s so detrimental to the environment.

Let’s talk about the demand side—how you increase awareness so the hungry can find you.

Laura: I think that side of the business benefited from my background as a financial analyst. There was no centralized list of community organizations preparing meals for vulnerable people, so I spent a year researching it. Now, I have a Google map of 1,300 community organizations we could be delivering to. We deliver to 300 and have a waitlist of 200 organizations. Many of these places we deliver to aren’t just simply feeding people; they’re using the food as a tool to bring people in, often to give them other services.

You’ve grown very fast and are in every borough right now. How do you manage that intense growth?

Laura: It’s logistically complicated because we don’t know what food is coming in each day. And the charities have many different dietary requirements and are open different times of day. I wish I could say technology made it all possible—we do have an app that routes our fleet of 14 vans—but it takes a lot of human interactions to make it work each day. We have a logistics team that just sits and tries to figure it out.

What makes it so complicated?

Laura: Our drivers are not just collecting then delivering. The routes go pickup, pickup, delivery, pickup, delivery. We also have ad-hoc calls coming in, sometimes from film shoots, and drivers don’t know how much food is going to be donated at each stop. So they have to make decisions along the way. If they’re going to a charity that helps children, they’ll take the produce from the first donation stop and put it aside so that the children get the ripe fruit and vegetables.

Companies that were making generous donations to food aid in Africa are starting to wake up to the fact that in addition to that problem, there’s a problem in their backyard.

 On what does future growth depend?

Laura: We’ll always be limited by funding because we’re a charity. Vans and paid drivers have to be added to the fleet for us to be able to grow. All in, it costs us around £50,000 to keep a van rolling each year. But we get the food for free, and the charities that get that food can use their food budgets for other essential services. The ripple effect is huge. One van can redistribute around £500,000 a year in value. That’s a 10:1 ratio.

 Could you talk about the funding landscape?

Laura: A couple of years ago, we were dependent on a few private donors. That’s grown, and we’ve had more corporate engagement, like William Blair. Now we’re looking at things like corporate sponsorships for the vans.

Has the current pandemic-related crisis changed the landscape?

 Laura:  There’s tremendous hunger that people don’t know about—a sort of hidden hunger. It’s the working poor—people who have jobs but at the end of the month don’t have money for food. I think this crisis has brought that to light. Companies that were making generous donations to food aid in Africa are starting to wake up to the fact that in addition to that problem, there’s a problem in their backyard.

If you were prime minister for a week, what would you do to help City Harvest?

Laura: A couple of years ago, I would have said the government should stay out of it, but I’ve changed my mind a little. Because there’s so much food surplus, there might have to be some legislation. I think companies have to be more transparent in reporting their food. And there are also subsidies that make it less expensive for companies to send edible and inedible food waste to anaerobic digestion, which disincentivizes food donation.

What might accelerate giving, so every organization that has surplus food donates it?

Laura: Awareness is needed, and I think the current crisis will actually lead to long-lasting change. At the beginning of the crisis, people just wanted to do something. But places with food surplus have found that their employees enjoy giving back; it makes their lives better.

This is what we’ve told food companies all along. For example, the Nando’s chicken donation program came about because Nando’s canvassed its employees and asked, “What can make your life better?” It wasn’t about the environment, and it wasn’t about food waste. Employees said, “Throwing out food is depressing.”

 

 

 

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Public support for extending the 14-day rule on human embryo research indicated by foundational dialogue project

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded…

Published

on

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded Human Developmental Biology Initiative (HDBI). The HDBI is an ambitious scientific endeavour to advance our understanding of human development. The dialogue project, which was co-funded by UKRI Sciencewise programme, engaged a diverse group of the public to consider how early human embryo research can be used to its fullest, the 14-day rule and the fast-paced field of stem cell-based embryo models.

Credit: Dr Matteo Molè (Babraham Institute)

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded Human Developmental Biology Initiative (HDBI). The HDBI is an ambitious scientific endeavour to advance our understanding of human development. The dialogue project, which was co-funded by UKRI Sciencewise programme, engaged a diverse group of the public to consider how early human embryo research can be used to its fullest, the 14-day rule and the fast-paced field of stem cell-based embryo models.

Headline findings include:

  • Appetite for review of the 14-day rule: Participants recognised that extending the 14-day rule could open up ways to achieve benefits in fertility and health, with participant support for reviewing this, including national discussion.
  • Confidence in regulation: There was a high level of confidence in how human embryo research is regulated, despite a low level of awareness of the regulators and statutes themselves. This included strong desire to see robust regulation governing any changes to the 14-day rule and further regulation for the use of stem cell-based embryo models.
  • Support for improved fertility and health outcomes: The strongest hopes for future human embryo research were where new knowledge would deliver improvements in understanding miscarriage, preventing health conditions such as spina bifida and raising the success rates of IVF procedures.
  • Concerns about genetically engineering humans: The public expressed concerns on the application of developments in this field to genetically alter or engineer humans.

The dialogue engaged a group of 70 people broadly reflective of the UK population in over 15 hours of activities including a series of online and face-to-face workshops with scientists, ethicists, philosophers, policy makers and people with relevant lived experience (such as embryo donors from IVF procedures).

Dr Peter Rugg-Gunn, scientific lead for the HDBI and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, said: “Recent scientific advances bring incredible new opportunities to study and understand the earliest stages of human development. To ensure this research remains aligned with society’s values and expectations, we must listen and respond to public desires and concerns. This public dialogue is an important first step and as a scientist I am reassured by the findings but there is still a long way to go to fully understand this complex issue.” 

The report is exceedingly timely, following notable scientific advances in human developmental biology presented at conferences and in leading scientific journals in recent months. As well as generating excitement in scientific fields and with the public, announcement of these breakthroughs also prompted some concerns and criticisms, with the view that these findings raised significant ethical issues. The dialogue provides insight into public considerations following deliberation on early human embryo research. The hope is that it will act as a foundational reference point that others in the sectors can build upon, such as in any future review of the law on embryo research.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, co-chair of the HDBI Oversight group, senior group leader and head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute, said: “We have learnt a lot about human development before 14 days, but there are areas of investigation that could change how we understand development, and associated diseases, that lie beyond our current window of knowledge. Despite low awareness of current laws, members of the public quickly recognised many of the critical issues researchers are keenly aware of when it comes to growing embryos beyond the current limit. This dialogue also reinforced the fact that the public are in support of research that will yield better health outcomes, and in this case, increase the success of IVF procedures.

Other countries will be looking to the UK to see how we deal with the 14-day rule; we are not there yet with any mandate to make a change, but this does give a strong pointer. The next step will be to delve deeper into some of the topics raised through this dialogue as they apply to specific areas of research, as well as feeding into policy changes.”

The 14-day rule and the regulation of stem cell-based models

When considering the regulation of research involving human embryos, the dialogue explored participant’s views on the 14-day rule. Introduced in 1990, the 14-day rule is a limit enforced by statute in the UK. It applies to early human embryos that are donated by consent to research and embryos that are created for research from donated sperm and eggs. It limits the amount of time early human embryos can be developed in a laboratory for scientific study to 14 days after fertilisation. Due to technical advances, it is now possible to grow embryos in the lab past 14 days, but researchers are not allowed to by the law. If the law changed, it would open up this ‘black box’ of development with researchers able to investigate this crucial time in development from 14-28 days after fertilisation.

Professor Bobbie Farsides, co-chair of the HDBI Oversight group and Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: “It has been a fascinating experience to support HDBI in the undertaking of this exercise.  I commend the participants for the care and mutual respect they have shown throughout. Their engagement and commitment to a subject few of them had previously considered allowed for a wide range of views to be expressed and considered. I hope the scientists involved will be encouraged by the high level of interest in their work, and will want to keep the public conversation going around these important subjects.”

The dialogue included participant discussion on what a change to the 14-day rule might look like, and identified points that should be considered, such as defining what the benefits of extending the rule would be and potential mis-alignment with human embryo research regulations in other countries.

Participants acknowledged the astonishing possibilities of stem cell-based embryo models. The majority of participants would like to see these models further regulated. Work in establishing potential governance mechanisms is already underway. In recognition of the need for additional guidance and regulation in this area, the Cambridge Reproduction initiative launched a project in March 2023 to develop a governance framework for research using stem cell-based embryo models and to promote responsible, transparent and accountable research.

Future steps

A key outcome from the public dialogue is the identification of areas for further exploration, with participants proposing how future national conversations might be shaped. It is hoped that the project acts as a reference base for both widening engagement with the subject and also prompting deeper exploration of areas of concern.

Dr Michael Norman, HDBI Public Dialogue coordinator and Public Engagement Manager at the Babraham Institute, said: “This dialogue shows that people want the public to work closely with scientists and the government to shape both future embryo research legislation and scientific research direction. It is crucial that others in the sector build on these high quality, two-way engagement methodologies that allow for a genuine exchange of views and information to ensure that the public’s desires and concerns are listened to and respected. Transparency and openness around science is vital for public trust and through this we, as a society, can shape UK research in way that enriches the outcomes for all.”

Public Participant (Broad public group, south) said: “I do think that an extension of this public dialogue, and educating a wider society has a benefit in itself. This is really complex and sensitive and the wider you talk about it before decisions are made, the better.”


Read More

Continue Reading

International

Public support for extending the 14-day rule on human embryo research indicated by foundational dialogue project

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded…

Published

on

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded Human Developmental Biology Initiative (HDBI). The HDBI is an ambitious scientific endeavour to advance our understanding of human development. The dialogue project, which was co-funded by UKRI Sciencewise programme, engaged a diverse group of the public to consider how early human embryo research can be used to its fullest, the 14-day rule and the fast-paced field of stem cell-based embryo models.

Credit: Dr Matteo Molè (Babraham Institute)

The findings of a foundational UK public dialogue on human embryo research are published today, Wednesday 25th October 2023, as part of the Wellcome-funded Human Developmental Biology Initiative (HDBI). The HDBI is an ambitious scientific endeavour to advance our understanding of human development. The dialogue project, which was co-funded by UKRI Sciencewise programme, engaged a diverse group of the public to consider how early human embryo research can be used to its fullest, the 14-day rule and the fast-paced field of stem cell-based embryo models.

Headline findings include:

  • Appetite for review of the 14-day rule: Participants recognised that extending the 14-day rule could open up ways to achieve benefits in fertility and health, with participant support for reviewing this, including national discussion.
  • Confidence in regulation: There was a high level of confidence in how human embryo research is regulated, despite a low level of awareness of the regulators and statutes themselves. This included strong desire to see robust regulation governing any changes to the 14-day rule and further regulation for the use of stem cell-based embryo models.
  • Support for improved fertility and health outcomes: The strongest hopes for future human embryo research were where new knowledge would deliver improvements in understanding miscarriage, preventing health conditions such as spina bifida and raising the success rates of IVF procedures.
  • Concerns about genetically engineering humans: The public expressed concerns on the application of developments in this field to genetically alter or engineer humans.

The dialogue engaged a group of 70 people broadly reflective of the UK population in over 15 hours of activities including a series of online and face-to-face workshops with scientists, ethicists, philosophers, policy makers and people with relevant lived experience (such as embryo donors from IVF procedures).

Dr Peter Rugg-Gunn, scientific lead for the HDBI and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, said: “Recent scientific advances bring incredible new opportunities to study and understand the earliest stages of human development. To ensure this research remains aligned with society’s values and expectations, we must listen and respond to public desires and concerns. This public dialogue is an important first step and as a scientist I am reassured by the findings but there is still a long way to go to fully understand this complex issue.” 

The report is exceedingly timely, following notable scientific advances in human developmental biology presented at conferences and in leading scientific journals in recent months. As well as generating excitement in scientific fields and with the public, announcement of these breakthroughs also prompted some concerns and criticisms, with the view that these findings raised significant ethical issues. The dialogue provides insight into public considerations following deliberation on early human embryo research. The hope is that it will act as a foundational reference point that others in the sectors can build upon, such as in any future review of the law on embryo research.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, co-chair of the HDBI Oversight group, senior group leader and head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute, said: “We have learnt a lot about human development before 14 days, but there are areas of investigation that could change how we understand development, and associated diseases, that lie beyond our current window of knowledge. Despite low awareness of current laws, members of the public quickly recognised many of the critical issues researchers are keenly aware of when it comes to growing embryos beyond the current limit. This dialogue also reinforced the fact that the public are in support of research that will yield better health outcomes, and in this case, increase the success of IVF procedures.

Other countries will be looking to the UK to see how we deal with the 14-day rule; we are not there yet with any mandate to make a change, but this does give a strong pointer. The next step will be to delve deeper into some of the topics raised through this dialogue as they apply to specific areas of research, as well as feeding into policy changes.”

The 14-day rule and the regulation of stem cell-based models

When considering the regulation of research involving human embryos, the dialogue explored participant’s views on the 14-day rule. Introduced in 1990, the 14-day rule is a limit enforced by statute in the UK. It applies to early human embryos that are donated by consent to research and embryos that are created for research from donated sperm and eggs. It limits the amount of time early human embryos can be developed in a laboratory for scientific study to 14 days after fertilisation. Due to technical advances, it is now possible to grow embryos in the lab past 14 days, but researchers are not allowed to by the law. If the law changed, it would open up this ‘black box’ of development with researchers able to investigate this crucial time in development from 14-28 days after fertilisation.

Professor Bobbie Farsides, co-chair of the HDBI Oversight group and Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: “It has been a fascinating experience to support HDBI in the undertaking of this exercise.  I commend the participants for the care and mutual respect they have shown throughout. Their engagement and commitment to a subject few of them had previously considered allowed for a wide range of views to be expressed and considered. I hope the scientists involved will be encouraged by the high level of interest in their work, and will want to keep the public conversation going around these important subjects.”

The dialogue included participant discussion on what a change to the 14-day rule might look like, and identified points that should be considered, such as defining what the benefits of extending the rule would be and potential mis-alignment with human embryo research regulations in other countries.

Participants acknowledged the astonishing possibilities of stem cell-based embryo models. The majority of participants would like to see these models further regulated. Work in establishing potential governance mechanisms is already underway. In recognition of the need for additional guidance and regulation in this area, the Cambridge Reproduction initiative launched a project in March 2023 to develop a governance framework for research using stem cell-based embryo models and to promote responsible, transparent and accountable research.

Future steps

A key outcome from the public dialogue is the identification of areas for further exploration, with participants proposing how future national conversations might be shaped. It is hoped that the project acts as a reference base for both widening engagement with the subject and also prompting deeper exploration of areas of concern.

Dr Michael Norman, HDBI Public Dialogue coordinator and Public Engagement Manager at the Babraham Institute, said: “This dialogue shows that people want the public to work closely with scientists and the government to shape both future embryo research legislation and scientific research direction. It is crucial that others in the sector build on these high quality, two-way engagement methodologies that allow for a genuine exchange of views and information to ensure that the public’s desires and concerns are listened to and respected. Transparency and openness around science is vital for public trust and through this we, as a society, can shape UK research in way that enriches the outcomes for all.”

Public Participant (Broad public group, south) said: “I do think that an extension of this public dialogue, and educating a wider society has a benefit in itself. This is really complex and sensitive and the wider you talk about it before decisions are made, the better.”


Read More

Continue Reading

International

UC Riverside physicist awarded National Medal of Science

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Physicist Barry C. Barish, a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy at UC Riverside, was awarded the National Medal…

Published

on

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Physicist Barry C. Barish, a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy at UC Riverside, was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Joe Biden at a ceremony held at the White House today. Established in 1959 by the U.S. Congress, the National Medal of Science is the highest recognition the nation can bestow on scientists and engineers.

Credit: Stan Lim, UC Riverside.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Physicist Barry C. Barish, a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy at UC Riverside, was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Joe Biden at a ceremony held at the White House today. Established in 1959 by the U.S. Congress, the National Medal of Science is the highest recognition the nation can bestow on scientists and engineers.

The President’s National Medal of Science is given to individuals “deserving of special recognition by reason of their outstanding contributions in biology, computer sciences, education sciences, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, and social, behavioral, and economic sciences, in service to the Nation.” It is administered by National Science Foundation.

Barish was recognized for “exemplary service to science, including groundbreaking research on sub-atomic particles. His leadership of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory led to the first detection of gravitational waves from merging black holes, confirming a key part of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. He has broadened our understanding of the universe and our Nation’s sense of wonder and discovery.”

“UCR congratulates Prof. Barish on receiving the National Medal of Science,” said UCR Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox. “The distinguished names of previous winners make this recognition very exceptional. Prof. Barish is a strong inspiration for our students, researchers, and faculty. UCR continues to benefit from his extraordinary achievements.”

Barish won the 2017 Nobel Prize in physics for the discovery of gravitational waves. He joined the UCR faculty in 2018. He earned his bachelor’s degree in physics in 1957 and his doctorate in experimental particle physics in 1962, both from from UC Berkeley. He joined Caltech as a postdoc in 1963, became a professor in 1966, and was appointed Linde Professor of Physics in 1991. He led the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory, or LIGO, effort from its inception through the final design stages, and in subsequent discoveries. In 1997, he created the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, which enables more than 1,000 collaborators worldwide to participate in LIGO.

Barish has served on many committees, including co-chairing the subpanel of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel that developed a long-range plan for U.S. high-energy physics in 2001. He chaired the Commission of Particles and Fields and the U.S. Liaison Committee to the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics.

He is the recipient of the Fudan-Zhongzhi Science Award (China), Princess of Asturias Prize for Science and Technology (Spain), Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize from the European Physical Society, the Enrico Fermi Prize from the Italian Physical Society, and the Klopsteg Award from the American Association of Physics Teachers. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, which awarded him the Henry Draper Medal. From 2003 to 2010, he served as a presidential appointee to the National Science Board.

He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Physical Society, where he also served as president. He has received honorary doctorates from the University of Bologna, University of Florida, University of Glasgow, and Universitat de València in Spain. He has been inducted as honorary academician into the Royal Academy of European Doctors, based in Spain. He was elected a foreign member of the Royal Society in 2019. Last year, he won the Copernicus Prize, bestowed by the government of Poland. Earlier this year, he was elected a corresponding member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Barcelona. 

The University of California, Riverside is a doctoral research university, a living laboratory for groundbreaking exploration of issues critical to Inland Southern California, the state and communities around the world. Reflecting California’s diverse culture, UCR’s enrollment is more than 26,000 students. The campus opened a medical school in 2013 and has reached the heart of the Coachella Valley by way of the UCR Palm Desert Center. The campus has an annual impact of more than $2.7 billion on the U.S. economy. To learn more, visit www.ucr.edu.


Read More

Continue Reading

Trending