Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder

Watch a brief interview with highlights of the interview with Colin.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Colin Tomkins-Bergh, Strategic Business Development Manager of Food Maven. By default, Colin is qualified to speak about overcoming objections to sustainability because his job is to grow a market for a service and products that are inherently sustainable. Food Maven distributes and handles logistics for food that might otherwise go to waste. As Colin stated, their mission is that "all food is used with good purpose."

Food Maven's approach is to utilize food according to the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy - feed people, then animals, and so forth. This is the same methodology Astrapto uses when teaching and implementing food waste reduction at convention centers, hotels, and restaurants. Below are highlights of our conversation and I invite you to listen to the full interview at the bottom of this page.

I asked Colin what common 'excuses' he hears and his response is a great example of Principle #6 from our IGNITE course. The excuse is "it's against our policy." What Colin encounters is a result of both specific policies and, more subtly, unwritten policies.

Let's start with the policies that create this excess food in the supply chain in the first place. One of the categories Food Maven deals with is "out of spec", meaning food that does not meet some sort of standard (e.g., date, color, size, shape, etc.).

Wait a minute! You mean an eggplant with a nose would be rejected? What about a lemon with legs? Or a potato with arms? Isn't beauty a thing within a person, not only a matter of external appearance? Similarly, ugly (misshapen, off color, etc.) fruits and vegetables are still valuable on the inside, with nutritional value equal to their perfect brethren. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I don’t like the flavor of bananas with lots of brown spots on them but they make the best banana bread! YUM! (Brief writing break while I go check if I have ingredients to make banana bread.)

So what is the policy that got us here? Is there some sort of governmental guideline on how ugly or old food can get before we can no longer safely consume it? As Colin explains, this is generally set by the manufacturer or grocer or other buyer. While the government (local, state, or federal) may have some stipulations regarding food standards, I found, in my doctoral studies of food startups, that navigating exactly what standards, if any, apply was rather a challenge. (Note that there has been lots written in recent years on the need for clarity and regulation of best by, sell by, use by dates. Here’s an article on the problem with food dates.)

Colin described the challenges he confronts when chefs perceive food as "old." On the surface, this appears to be the opposite of fresh so it's understandable there would be resistance. "The notion of 'old' is not consistent and not shared across the same categories of food, across states. There's no federal regulation to designate any consistent use of dates. That's all set by the manufacturer, the farmer, the grower."

The nature of Food Maven's sourcing means "products change quite frequently", Colin explained. Chefs often resist the idea initially. Notice in the interview the words Colin uses when explaining the Chefs' reactions: "normal" and "consistent". This stems from either a real or perceived set of standards (like a policy, or sometimes an actual policy). Getting chefs to think with a more agile mindset is like "trying to stick a round peg into a square", Colin stated.

But isn't consistency a good thing? Shouldn't we have policies that require consistency? In some cases, yes, but not at the cost of rigidity that prevents diversion from landfill. Colin overcomes this thinking by highlighting ways the chef changes (e.g. menus, daily specials, etc.) and showing alignment of flexible inventory with the chef's goals (e.g. lowering food costs) and sustainability outcomes.

Colin elaborated that the conversation that stems from the perception of "old" food. Since the dates on food are "arbitrary" this requires a more fluid conversation. It strikes me that policies are rigid; certainly the opposite of "fluid." Furthermore, something that could be described as "arbitrary" is not conducive to setting policies.

An interesting thing Colin said in the interview as it relates to chef's perceptions of buying food that might be considered "out of spec" is that it depends on "different industries" and "where the chef has cooked before." This is why entire industries can operate on a pervasive policy myth. We do tend to carry such notions from job to job. Astrapto sees this when we ask staff about food donations and see that, even in facilities that are donating food, the majority believe the business can be sued if someone gets sick. Despite this law never having been tried in court, the majority of those in the hospitality industry have developed policies around the idea of high risk in donation. Learn more about it here.

This mentality of taking preferences and turning them into policy is perhaps human nature. Those in leadership want conformity to certain standards and expectations. And sometimes a written policy is transferred to a new position with a new company even though it may no longer be relevant. And if that person is in a position of authority, he or she may just copy and paste their former policy because that's what is comfortable. Or it becomes a de facto rule ("that's just how Chef likes it.")

The IGNITE Leadership Principle #6 is to inform and be informed. This is true for both written and unwritten, internal and external (such as legislation). I recommend from time to time you pull out a policy and question whether it is still relevant and the best practice for your organization (this is a great exercise for a cross-functional green team). It's healthy to question the research and reasoning behind a policy.

Expose those unwritten policies, too, which tend to be spoken or even just in someone's head, and are naturally vague and inconsistent. Inform everyone of what the decision making, purchasing, and other criteria are. Being fully informed about a policy means being fully cognizant of all the ramifications. Being more open-minded and flexible means considering the trade-offs of going outside the policy to realize other benefits.

In closing, there are additional principles at play in this story. Food Maven shares monthly impact reports that inform clients on their positive social and environmental impact. Colin remarked clients benefit from improved employee moral and customer satisfaction.

Please watch the full interview below and go to Food Maven's website to learn more.

Read and watch more from the IGNITE series here.