Development and Evaluation of the Eetmaatje Measuring Cup for Rice and Pasta as an Intervention to Reduce Food Waste

Abstract

Of all of the stages in the supply chain, more food waste comes from households than any other sector. A Dutch composition analysis showed that the solid food waste (including sauces, fats, and dairy products) from household waste amounted to 48.0 kg per person per year (in 2013), of which 5.0 kg consisted of cooked rice and pasta. These two product groups were numbers 1 and 3 in terms of relative waste: 34% of the purchased quantity of rice and 23% of that of pasta was wasted. Using questionnaires, we discovered that Dutch consumers mainly throw away food because they prepare too much of it. The same is true for rice and pasta because they increase greatly in volume when cooked. The water uptake ratio of rice is 2.5 (2.3-2.8) and that of pasta is 1.8 (1.5-2.3), which increases the chances of consumers overestimating portions. In 2013, more than half of the people surveyed did not measure pasta and rice portions. In view of this, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre developed a measuring cup called the Eetmaatje, which is marked with the recommended volumes for Dutch adults for different types of pasta and rice in terms of dry weight. The theoretical reduction of food waste the Eetmaatje provides is calculated to be ∼6% for pasta and 21% for rice, or 12.5% combined. Between 2014 and 2019, more than 1.6 million Eetmaatje cups were distributed for free among Dutch households. Over that period, the measuring of pasta and rice by Dutch households increased. Most people (85-89%) in a panel of consumers who own an Eetmaatje think it is handy or very handy to use. The majority of those in the panel (50-80%) say that they use the Eetmaatje most times when they prepare a meal. Four out of five of those in the panel (77-87%) are convinced that the Eetmaatje helps them waste less pasta and rice. The Eetmaatje functions as a nudge to change cooking behavior and thus food waste behavior. Consumers who measure their pasta using the Eetmaatje self-reported that they produced less total food waste. The measured household waste of cooked rice and pasta seems to show a downward trend since the introduction of the cup. There is strong evidence that the Eetmaatje has increased the number of Dutch households measuring rice and pasta and thereby reducing food waste.

What Nudge Techniques Work for Food Waste Behaviour Change at the Consumer Level? A Systematic Review

“…Three studies used a food waste sorting bin, arguably a visual prompt or reminder nudge for food waste behaviour [53,62,63]. Other interventions included: sticker prompts for a food waste bin, i.e., a visual reminder nudge [60]; social recipes whereby participants shared ingredients to make recipes together to reduce waste incorporating social norm nudges [57]; verbal information with environmental disclosure [54]; written social comparison feedback on food waste behaviours of nearby streets, i.e., social norms nudging [64]; written reminders and recommendations to change food waste behaviours, i.e., including nudges of pre-commitment strategies, reminders and setting implementation intentions [65]; a measuring tool for portioning of rice and pasta, i.e., increase in ease of convenience [66]; and environmental impact feedback on food waste habits, i.e., a nudge informing people of their individual consequences [57].…”

“…Sixteen studies included participants who were self-selected. Total sample sizes of all eighteen studies ranged from 15 to 64,284, 9 studies used individuals [31,51,52,[57][58][59]62,65,66] and 8 studies used households as the sampling unit [53][54][55]60,61,63,64,67] and 1 study was unclear [56]. In one study the sample sizes were unclear [56].…”

“…Five studies had sample sizes between 100 and 500 [31,52,53,61,65]. Seven studies had total sample sizes of over 500 [51,54,58,59,64,66,67].…”

“…Regarding the allocation of the interventions, nine studies used geographical area [53,54,56,60,61,[63][64][65][66]. Once the geographical area was selected, two studies used random sampling methods [64,67].…”

“…Two studies used purposive sampling [60,63] and two studies were unclear on sampling methods [53,56]. Five studies recruited from a supermarket customer base [51,55,58,59,66].…”