Buổi 117: Reading – Summary (hộp từ) + MC: giảm lãng phí thực phẩm

Where does our food go?

(Bài đọc tự viết; thành phố, chương trình và nhân vật là giả định.)

A It is easy to assume that food waste is mainly a problem of careless households throwing away leftovers. In reality, food is lost or wasted at every stage between the field and the plate, and the causes differ considerably from one stage to the next. Understanding where waste occurs is the first step towards reducing it.

B On farms, some crops are never harvested because their market price is too low to cover the cost of picking them. Others are rejected by buyers because they do not meet cosmetic standards – carrots that are bent, apples that are slightly marked – even though they are perfectly edible. In many lower-income countries, a larger share of losses occurs at this early stage, often because of a lack of cool storage and slow transport to markets.

C Further along the chain, shops contribute in less obvious ways. Supermarkets may order more stock than they expect to sell, in order to keep shelves looking full, and some of this surplus is eventually discarded. Promotions such as “buy one, get one free” may encourage customers to buy more than they can use. Date labels add to the confusion. A “best-before” date indicates when food is at its best quality, but it is usually still safe to eat afterwards; a “use-by” date, by contrast, relates to safety and should be followed. Many consumers treat the two as if they meant the same thing.

D In wealthier countries, households are often responsible for the single largest share of food waste. The reasons are familiar: buying too much, poor planning, large portion sizes, and uncertainty about whether food is still safe. Very few people regard themselves as wasteful, however, which makes the problem difficult to address through campaigns that simply tell people to waste less.

E The hypothetical city of Brenford illustrates a more targeted approach. Rather than a general awareness campaign, the city worked with three supermarkets to redistribute surplus food to local charities at the end of each day. It also funded clear guidance on date labels, displayed in shops rather than in leaflets that most people never read. Households were offered free kitchen caddies for food scraps, which were collected weekly and turned into compost. After two years, the city reported that the amount of food sent to landfill had fallen by roughly a quarter, although officials admit that part of this may reflect the new compost collection rather than less food being wasted.

F Critics argue that schemes like Brenford’s treat the symptoms rather than the causes. Redistributing surplus, they say, does nothing to stop supermarkets over-ordering in the first place, and composting, though better than landfill, still means that the energy and water used to grow the food have been wasted. They argue for stronger measures, such as requiring large retailers to report how much food they waste. Supporters reply that practical, visible schemes build public support for more ambitious policies later.

G What seems clear is that no single measure will be enough. Reducing waste requires changes at each stage – better storage on farms, more realistic ordering in shops, clearer labels, and help for households to plan and store food. Most of these changes are not technically difficult. The challenge is to coordinate them.