We all know that Americans eat too much food. It turns out that we also waste too much food. Experts agree that between 30% and 40% of the food produced in the US goes straight to the trash can. That's over 300 pounds of food per person.

The environmental and human impact of this waste is staggering. Roughly 25% of the US water supply is used to produce discarded food. 350 million barrels of oil---about 2% of the country's energy consumption---are also used. Food is the second largest component of the nation's waste stream, and it costs $1 billion annually to dispose of it. Finally, food rotting in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Throwing out food also has tremendous societal consequences. 45 million people in the US are "food insecure," meaning they had trouble getting enough to eat in the past 12 months. Many of them are kids. If the nation threw out 5% less food, 4 million additional people could be fed.

What can we do to reduce food waste in our supply chain? How can we help consumers throw out less food at home?

There’s a key takeaway for all of us from the recent “Pink Slime” controversy.  A company can do something completely legal, and consumers can still believe it has done something horrible wrong.

That’s because today’s consumers value transparency, assess motivations, make decisions, and communicate with each other faster than business can react.

What can we learn at the meat industry’s expense?

• The more we don’t want to tell consumers something, the more important it is to share it NOW. The meat industry had years to explain “lean finely textured beef” and highlight its positives. But, they likely decided it was complicated and could be misinterpreted, so they avoided it. As a result, consumers led the discussion, in the most negative way possible.
• Consumers usually assume the worst about companies that do not share information, so the downside of “leaving out” facts is huge. It may be unfair, but consumers don’t stop to consider if a company has good or bad intentions---they almost always presume they were bad. Really bad.
• The gross out factor triumphs all science, laws, and “logical explanations.” Once the words “pink slime” and “ammonia” were associated with “ground beef,” the battle was lost. The more unappealing something sounds on the surface, the more important it is to proactively explain it to customers.
• The Internet allows consumers to communicate so quickly that companies who do not frame the discussion get run over by it. Social media postings, viral videos and celebrity online involvement all contributed to the pink slime firestorm that was unstoppable once it started.

Are there any places where we are vulnerable to being absolutely right but totally wrong?

Biodegradable plastics sound like the perfect eco-friendly alternative to landfills full of plastic containers, cups, and bags that last past eternity.

However, scientists at North Carolina State University have discovered that new materials like PLAs are a mixed blessing. They are definitely better than conventional plastics. But, they still have a negative impact on the planet.

When biodegradable plastics break down in landfills, they produce methane, a greenhouse gas that is substantially more potent than carbon dioxide. Only about one third of dumps capture methane and convert it into fuel. The majority let the gas escape into the environment, or burn it off as waste.

What’s more, the landfills that use methane capture equipment install it after garbage has been in a specified “cell” for two years. Most biodegradable plastics are designed specifically to break down in less than two years. The methane they produce is not contained even by the greenest waste facilities.

Scientists are quick to point out that this does not mean we should give up on biodegradable plastics. Instead, we should realize that like many new green technologies, they are a step in the right direction, but not a perfect solution. They suggest that we focus on biodegradable plastics that degrade more slowly, so that most of their methane release occurs after two years. Additionally, they highlight the need for more landfills to capture methane and convert it into fuel.

More and more experts have shifted from talking about how to prevent climate change to discussing how to deal with its inevitable effects.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers recently released a report detailing the impact global warming will have on business. Some of what they highlight has already been talked about extensively: warmers winters, more extreme weather events, and water shortages.

Other important business implications have received much less press: uncertainty, disruption, and new trade routes.

Pricewaterhouse identifies “uncertainty” as the #1 way climate change will affect the economy. The business environment will become less predictable because no one can accurately project the magnitude, location, or timing of the side effects of global warming.

“Disruption” is also near the top of the list. Climate change, in the form of weather events, will damage physical infrastructure. At the same time, climate refugees will leave areas that become too wet, too dry, or too hot, putting a further burden on infrastructure and services in areas that remain habitable.

Finally, the report highlights new trade routes as a significant positive impact for business. As the Arctic melts, a new, shorter shipping channel will open from the Atlantic to Asia.

You can read more about the report and Triple Pundit’s analysis of it here http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/03/top-ten-effects-global-warming-business/