Waste Not, Want Not

By Rosa Adimari

November 27, 2017

Mrs. Oliveira, Period 4

Waste Not, Want Not

 STEM 1

The future of the environment lies in the hands of the people. In a world revolving around

a never-ending cycle of wants, people often push legitimate environmental concerns to last place

on their list of priorities. The United States (US), for one, represents the epitome of an imbalance

of priorities. People continue to pile up waste while yearning for the next popular must-have.

Too often, Americans simply toss their waste into the trashcan, assuming it will magically

disappear on trash day. They typically do not consider what happens next. European countries,

however, better manage a balance between both the needs of the people and the regulation of

waste production. Approaches beyond the typical three R’s- reducing, reusing, and recycling-

exist- and demand worldwide recognition. As one of the most powerful and influential nations

of the world, America must commit to promoting alternatives to wastefulness, and instead

prioritize its environment.

Americans generate more trash than there is enough space in landfills to receive it. Such

waste is classified into two categories: hazardous and non-hazardous. Hazardous waste poses a

threat to public health and/or the environment, and can be in the form of liquid, solid, or

contained gas (“Defining Hazardous”). These are the byproducts of manufacturing processes or

discarded material such as cleaning fluids or pesticides (“Defining Hazardous”). Non-hazardous

waste, however, includes virtually anything recyclable or non-recyclable, as long as it does not

pose a potential health risk or environmental threat. Food, plastic, and paper remain the top

contributors of waste production in the US today.

Of the three, food waste is the leading cause of waste produced by Americans. In 2016,

Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) stated “40% of food produced in the US goes

uneaten. Over 97% of this wasted food ends up in landfills-in fact, food waste is the largest

component of landfills in the US” (Leib). Much of food waste is due in part by loose policies on
 STEM 2

organic disposal, but also strict date labeling policies. The FLPC noted “the vast majority of

states do not currently have an organic waste ban or waste recycling law in place” (Leib).

Organic waste bans force states to resort to eco-friendly methods of disposal as opposed to using

landfills. As of 2017, only Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and California

have regulated organic waste in some form (Leib). Regarding date labeling, neither the Food and

Drug Administration nor the US. Dept. of Agriculture require expired by, use by, or best before

dates on food products, instead, leaving this decision “entirely at the discretion of the

manufacturer” (Leib). Manufacturers then place strict date labels as an indicator of food quality,

rather than food safety. Consumers treat such labels as a signal to toss out the product as “37% of

Americans report always or usually throwing away food that is close to or past the date on the

package, and 84% report doing so at least occasionally” (Leib). Conservative date labeling also

strips resources that can be used to potentially reduce or end hunger in the US. Only 1.4% of

uneaten food in restaurants and grocery stores are donated, as opposed to the 84. 3% of food

disposed of in dumps (Verrill). As such, the lack of, and faulty regulations regarding organic

waste contribute to America’s increasing food waste.

Also growing progressively problematic pertaining to environmental and public health is

the landfill and salvage yards usage in the US. As byproducts of the burying or incineration

processes occurring at landfills, harmful toxins and pollutants enter the atmosphere. Of these

harmful toxins, methane and carbon dioxide are most abundant, contributing directly to pollution

which, in turn, translates to global warming and climate change. The Northcoast Environmental

Center asserts “Methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas 23 times more effective at trapping

heat in the atmosphere than the most prevalent greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide (CO2)”

(Gainer). Although CH4 does not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, the effects of
 STEM 3

methane emissions are more devastating in terms of global warming and climate change. Similar

to landfills, salvage yards that receive old car parts allow carcinogenic material to enter the

environment. Toxins released from salvage yards include mercury- from light switches, lead

found in batteries, motor oil, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

found in brake pads and lining of older cars, as well as antifreeze and freon from cooling systems

(“Waste”). When salvage yards lay in close proximity to communities, such carcinogens can

contaminate drinking water. A number of health issues arise from these toxins as “Mercury is

linked to kidney disease, lead may cause brain damage, and PCBs and oil-products have been

linked to liver, kidney, and bone marrow diseases” (“Waste”). While landfills and salvage yards

relieve people of their trash, the byproducts reappear as pollution.

In terms of laws and policies enacted by the US regarding waste, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) covers rules and regulations under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). Hazardous and non-hazardous waste must be handled in a manner that

protects human health and the environment. Subtitle C of the RCRA ensures hazardous waste is

conducted through a “cradle-to-grave” approach for guaranteed proper management and

transportation starting with the moment of production to disposal (“Resource Conservation”). As

for non-hazardous waste, Subtitle D bans the open dumping of waste and sets minimum criteria

for the operation of landfills including design criteria, location and cleanup restrictions, and

financial assurance (“Resource Conservation”). The RCRA, however, merely sets a foundation

for waste management, as states must enforce action. One downfall involves the reality that

government officials oftentimes work together with waste industries “to permit massive

expansions to landfills, increase waste tonnage in incineration, and develop new facilities-like
 STEM 4

trash transfer stations-to increase their profits” (“Waste”). Unfortunately, the money-making side

of landfills in the US outweighs efforts to protect the environment.

An ocean away from the US, however, waste management in Europe eclipses the

substandard programs in the US. Like the US, European countries produce food, paper and

plastic waste, yet their efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle differentiate the two. Hazardous

waste in the European Union (EU) begins with the the initial production phase: reducing the

amount created. In efforts to reduce what becomes hazardous waste “Several types of chemicals

have been banned and the use of other materials has been significantly restricted” (“Being

Wise”). As for biowaste, which includes garden, kitchen, and food waste, around 88 million tons

is thrown out across Europe each year (“Being Wise”). Although a large amount is generated,

“40% of bio-waste sent to landfills is used as a renewable energy source as it is recovered as

biogas or thermal energy” (“Being Wise”). In Europe, products that create hazardous waste are

regulated more strictly, while a majority of non-hazardous waste is converted to energy.

Further upstaging the US, the EU strives more consciously to minimize, if not end, the

continuance of landfill usage. Today, though landfills exist in Europe, “Thousands of sub-

standard landfill sites have been closed across Europe and the amount of municipal waste put

into landfills in the EU has fallen by more than 25% since 1995” (“Being Wise”). In fact,

Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria have completely eliminated their landfill usage and

remaining countries of the EU only send 38% of waste to landfills (Lacey). Belgium and Sweden

follow this example sending less than 1% of waste to landfills, with the rest either recycled,

composted, or turned into energy (Lacey). Incineration processes in landfills across Europe are

created with the intent to capture energy from the large fires, and also recover any heat generated
 STEM 5

throughout the process. The EU also regulates incineration processes by monitoring and setting

emission limits on incineration plants/landfills (Lacey).

As well, the EU holds stricter policies on waste output paired with two approaches to

tackling waste reduction: the 5-step hierarchy and life-cycle analysis. The 5-step hierarchy

begins with prevention of waste generation, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery [through some

incineration], and ends with disposal- in landfills (“Being Wise”). In the EU, landfills are

considered the last resort for disposal. It also incorporates the life-cycle analysis, in which the

EU “pinpoints the area in a products’ life” that produces most waste, pollution, or energy

consumption to decide when best to replace and dispose- rather than continue use of a less

energy efficient product” (“Being Wise”). Life-cycle analysis starts with the initial extraction of

natural resources to make a product, then design, manufacturing, product use, waste collection,

and the reuse, recycle, or recovery stage of the product- again placing waste disposal as an

absolute last resort (“Being Wise”). In efforts to force manufacturing companies to rethink

product’s life cycles, the EU formed the Extended Producer Responsibility which makes

producers responsible for the entire life-cycle of their products. As well, the “Green Dot” system

requires producers to pay a levy for collection and recycling of their product (“Being Wise”).

The EU enforces its policies to restrict waste production and disposal mechanisms, but also

provides alternatives to producing more waste than necessary.

Further, when it comes to waste, many Americans hold an out of sight, out of mind

mentality. Americans find appeal in the simplicity of throwing something out and then not

considering what happens next. Plastic bottles seen on sides of roads and major highways for

instance, are given little to no consideration, yet could remain there for 450 years- according to a

table on how long items take to decompose released by the EPA in 2013 (Abdul-Rahman). The
 STEM 6

mentality of “marking a shift away from thinking about waste as an unwanted burden to seeing it

as a valued resource” instead, needs to be adopted by the mindsets of Americans (“Being Wise”).

If Americans converted wasteful mindset tendencies to more conservative ones, it would mark

the beginning of acceptance of alternatives, and the execution of waste reduction.

Eco-friendly alternatives do exist for American consumers. For instance, buying from

local shops stimulates local economy while reducing negative environmental impacts that occur

with shipping and transportation. Opting for more durable products such as non-plastic cutlery or

reusable cups and water bottles, reduces waste production (Abdul-Rahman). Pertaining to

technology, old cell phones can always be traded in, donated, or recycled, as electronics contain

harmful material and produce hazardous byproducts (Abdul-Rahman). People can also opt out of

delivery of “Phone books...production costs 5 million trees a year and produces 65,000 tons of

waste (2000)” to reduce such impact (Abdul-Rahman). Regarding food waste, composting

provides an alternative to the trash can. Composting aids “the chemical, biological, and physical

properties of soil, reducing the need for chemical fertilizers” while remedying the problem of

food waste (Abdul-Rahman). Taking any of these actions would bring America one step closer to

saving its environment.

Government intervention also plays an enormous role in promoting a waste-free society.

Matt Kasper, researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute proposes “to begin reducing the

amount of waste sent to landfills, increasing recycling rates, and generating renewable energy, a

municipal-solid-waste portfolio standard must be enacted by Congress and applied nationwide”

(Lacey). Along with a portfolio standard, grant programs and direct funding should be allotted to

food recovery organizations in efforts to reduce food waste and also hunger. Laws pertaining to

food safety should be altered to allow selling of past date foods, at least,become more donation
 STEM 7

friendly. In accordance with the harmful effects of salvage yards in close proximity of

communities, location of such sites should be decided by the directly impacted community

members. With government involvement and imposed penalties, people would likely become

more mindful of their waste habits.

The most difficult of proposals, yet the most efficient, is zero waste. As defined by the

Toxic Action Center, “Zero Waste is not any single technology, program, or policy”, but rather a

“...vision or goal” that can be achieved through a series of processes (“Waste”). The idea of zero

waste “centers around reducing needless consumption, minimizing waste, maximizing recycling,

and incentivizing the manufacturing of products that can be intentionally reused, repaired, or

recycled back into the marketplace” (“Waste”). Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling, woven in

with attentiveness to consumption and use of alternatives, leads people to implementation of a

zero-waste philosophy. This concept means a nation and world with less hunger, more economic

growth and opportunity, and an improved sustainable environment.

While many recognize the growing waste problem and some of its negative impacts on

the environment, too many seem disinterested in solutions. Over-ordering, overbuying, and

littering, among other wasteful behaviors remain prevalent American habits. Too often, people

“forget that restaurants allow you to add on, but you cannot return the extra food to the kitchen

once it is prepared and served” (“Food Wasting”). These flagrantly wasteful habits contradict the

idea that people are informed and in favor of change, as their day-to-day actions prove otherwise.

Even more disturbing, a poll released in October 2015 by the University of Michigan revealed

30% of Americans do not believe humans have any impact on global environmental changes

(Cimons). Such skepticism prevents people from progressing to a waste-free lifestyle. Also, too

many Americans disregard the notion that wasteful habits will not affect them during their
 STEM 8

lifetime. They neglect to recognize the effects of accumulative waste as it is somewhat invisible

to them. These Americans, who have power to make change, must consider protecting the planet

for future generations.

On a global scale, waste management is a significant issue having both negative impacts,

but feasible solutions. With pollution, global warming, and climate change remaining consistent

problems today, it is important for this generation to take action to prevent a destructive future

for the planet. The US must follow the example set by the European Union in terms of waste

management and conservation. It must design and enforce stricter rules and regulations to push

its citizens to make change. The food waste crisis and widespread hunger America faces can be

diminished through looser policies regarding date labeling as well as donation-wise. Landfills

and salvage yards posing health risks and environmental threats can be replaced by reducing,

reusing, and recycling, and that which remains in landfills, can be converted to energy. As one of

the most powerful nations in the world, if the United States’ citizens convert to to eco-friendly

alternatives, they will create a more waste-conscious society.

Works Cited

Abdul-Rahman, Fahzy. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Alternatives for Waste

Management.” January 2014, aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_g/G314.pdf.

“Being Wise with Waste: the EU’s Approach to Waste Management.” European

Union Environment, Publications Office of the European Union, 2010,

ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf.

Cimons, Marlene. “Poll Finds Fewer Americans Than Ever Doubt Climate

Change Is Happening.” ThinkProgress, 2015, thinkprogress.org/poll-finds-fewer-

americans-than-ever-doubt-climate-change-is-happening-16257790947d/.
 STEM 9

“Defining Hazardous Waste.” California Department of Toxic Substances

Control, 22 Mar 2016,

www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWMP_DefiningHW111.pdf.

“Food Wasting Habits May Depend on Age and Gender.” TODAYonline, 21 Oct 2015,

www.todayonline.com/lifestyle/food/food-wasting-habits-may-depend-age-and-

gender.

Gainer, Margaret “Landfills Contribute to Global Warming.” The Northcoast

Environmental Center, Feb 2013, yournec.org/content/landfills-contribute-global-

warming.

Lacey, Stephen. “Look at How Much Waste America Puts Into Landfills

Compared to Europe.” Gtm, Greentech Media, 3 June 2013,

www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/look-at-how-much-waste-america-puts-

into-landfills-compared-to-europe#gs.IzTI230.

Leib, Emily Broad. “Keeping Food Out Of The Landfill: Policy Ideas for States

and Localities.”End Hunger, 2016,

www.endhunger.org/PDFs/2016/Harvard_FoodWaste_Toolkit_Oct2016.pdf.

“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Overview.” EPA,

Environmental Protection Agency, 9 Feb. 2017, www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-

conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-overview#subtitleC.

Verrill, Courtney. “American Restaurants Are Wasting an Incredible Amount of

Food - Here's the Proof.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 17 May 2016,

www.businessinsider.com/solving-food-waste-in-americas-restaurants-2016-5.

“Waste.” Toxics Action Center, 6 Mar 2016, toxicsaction.org/issues/waste/.

STEM 10