Green Menu-Engineering: Working with Venues to Save Money and the Environment
•
0 likes•1,160 views
This document discusses green menu engineering principles for planning sustainable food and beverage offerings at meetings and events. It introduces standards and guides for green meetings, examines considerations for sourcing food and beverages like food miles, packaging waste, and certifications. Practical examples are provided for applying a green menu engineering process involving scoring options on popularity and responsibility to identify best choices. Attendees would practice using a checklist and scorecard to evaluate a sample meeting package.
![Session overview… ,[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Green Menu-Engineering: Working with Venues to Save Money and the Environment
Similar to Green Menu-Engineering: Working with Venues to Save Money and the Environment (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Green Menu-Engineering: Working with Venues to Save Money and the Environment
- 1. Green Menu-Engineering Working with your Venue to Save Money and the Environment Presented by Brita Moosmann at the
- 4. Food Miles and CO2 Footprint
- 5. Food
- 6. Beverage
- 7. Packaging
- 8. F&B Waste
- 11. Green Meetings USA: EPA Green Meetings Guide Canada: Environment Canada Green Meeting Guide UK: Defra Sustainable Meetings Guide
- 12. Fair Trade bananas coffee honey oranges cocoa rice nuts tea sugar spices wine juices
- 13. Food Miles &CO2e Emissions
- 14. Example of Carbon Emission Calculator
- 15. Kg CO2e Emissions per 10 lbs of product
- 16. What’s better? Tomatoesgrownin Spain, thentransportedtothe UK Local UK HothouseTomatoes or
- 17. Fish Good Clean Fair
- 18. Well Farmed Fish? Did you know? producing 1 kilo of farmed tuna takes at least 20 kilos of wild fish, used directly or in the form of fishmeal and oil
- 19. Fish Guides and certification
- 20. Meat Less Better Local
- 21. Vegetables and Fruit More Better Seasonal Local
- 22. GMO Good or bad?
- 23. Beverages Bigger Better Local
- 24. Hot Beverages Fresher Better Morefair
- 25. Food Leftovers / Waste Avoid Reuse Donate Compost
- 26. Packaging Avoid Reduce Reuse Bio-degrade Recycle
- 28. Key variables: Popularity and Profitability
- 29. Categorized by meal period
- 32. Key variables: Popularity and Responsibility
- 33. Categorized by type of selection (breaks, meals, beverages, etc)
- 35. Popularity Score
- 38. Scorecard High Popularity Low High Low Responsibility
- 40. Your budget is $120 per person plus Taxes and service charge
- 42. Tables identify the Responsibility Index and Popularity Rating for the meeting package – time limit 10 minutes.
- 43. Tables tabulate and classify the meeting package on the Green ME Chart
- 45. Best Practices
- 46. The Bees in Victoria
- 47. City Rooftop vegetable gardens Example: The InterContinental New York Barclay
Editor's Notes
- It is important to note that the three standards are different in their approach to defining a sustainable event standardThe BS 8901 standard is a management system (similar to ISO 14001) written to inform the process of organizing an event. The APEX standard provides definitions of specific operational actions that comprise a sustainable event. The GRI guidelines inform how to report on the impacts of an event and provide common Key Performance Indicators.
- It is important to note that the three standards are different in their approach to defining a sustainable event standardThe BS 8901 standard is a management system (similar to ISO 14001) written to inform the process of organizing an event. The APEX standard provides definitions of specific operational actions that comprise a sustainable event. The GRI guidelines inform how to report on the impacts of an event and provide common Key Performance Indicators.
- EPA Green Meetings Website: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenmeetings/ EPA Planning Guide: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/grn-mtgs/gm-bklt.pdfGreen Meetings Industry Council: http://www.greenmeetings.info/ Great Summary on Green Meetings standards: http://www.greenmeetings.info/Resources/Documents/GMIC%20Sustainable%20Event%20Standards%20Summary.pdf Canada:Sustainable Development Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/default.asp?lang=En&n=C2844D2D-1Green Meeting Guide http://asi.abelearn.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Server_118790/File/ASI_DataStick_2008/Green_Meeting_Guide_07.pdf Defra in the UK = department for environment, food and rural affairsDefra: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/advice/documents/SustainableEventsGuide.pdf
- Wikipedia Fair Trade:For a product to carry either the International Fairtrade Certification Mark or the Fair Trade Certified Mark, it must come from FLO-CERT inspected and certified producer organizations. The crops must be grown and harvested in accordance with the international Fair trade standards set by FLO International. The supply chain must also have been monitored by FLO-CERT, to ensure the integrity of labelled prod Fairtrade certification purports to guarantee not only fair prices, but also the principles of ethical purchasing. These principles include adherence to ILO agreements such as those banning child and slave labour, guaranteeing a safe workplace and the right to unionise, adherence to the United Nations charter of human rights, a fair price that covers the cost of production and facilitates social development, and protection and conservation of the environment. The Fairtrade certification system also attempts to promote long-term business relationships between buyers and sellers, crop prefinancing, and greater transparency throughout the supply chain and more.There have been some claims that adherence to fair trade standards by producers has been poor. In 2006, a Financial Times journalist for example found that ten out of ten mills visited had sold uncertified coffee to co-operatives as certified. It reported that "The FT was also handed evidence of at least one coffee association that received Fairtrade certification despite illegally growing some 20 per cent of its coffee in protected national forest land," but the FLO has since set standards to bar such practices.[21] Enforcement of fair trade standards (such as through involuntary decertification) and handling of complaints from producers by certification bodies have not been publicized. However, fair trade principles (such as those regarding long term contracts and physical traceability for which adherence is optional) are stricter than fair trade rules.[22]The Fairtrade certification system covers a growing range of products, including bananas, honey, coffee, oranges, cocoa, cotton, dried and fresh fruits and vegetables, juices, nuts and oil seeds, quinoa, rice, spices, sugar, tea, and wine. Companies offering products that meet the Fairtrade standards may apply for licences to use one of the Fairtrade Certification Marks for those products.The International Fairtrade Certification Mark was launched in 2002 by FLO, and replaced twelve Marks used by various Fairtrade labelling initiatives. The new Certification Mark is currently used worldwide (with the exception the United States). The Fair Trade Certified Mark is still used to identify Fairtrade goods in United States _ Trans Fair.
- CO2-Emission durch LebensmittelKlimaschutz im Supermarkt: In Schweden wird der CO2-Fußabdruck von Lebensmitteln auf der Verpackung angegeben.Hühnchenbrust statt Rinderfilet, Möhren statt TomatenDass ein Porsche Cayenne mehr CO2 in die Luft bläst als ein VW Polo, wissen wir inzwischen. Es steht ja groß und breit auf dem Preisschild. Aber dass bei der Erzeugung von Rindfleisch 10-mal so viel Treibhausgase anfallen wie bei der von Geflügel, wissen die wenigsten - pro Kilogramm, versteht sich. Oder dass Reis das Klima 3-mal stärker belastet als Gerste, Tomaten 10-mal stärker als Möhren, ...In Schweden soll sich das nun ändern - durch die Angabe des Klima-Fußabdrucks von Lebensmitteln. Einbezogen sind alle Treibhausgas-Emissionen von der Herstellung über den Transport bis zum Verkauf der Produkte, also vom Feld über den Stall und die Wursttheke bis auf den Esstisch. „0,9 kg CO2 pro kg Haferflocken“ heißt es da zum Beispiel auf der Müsli-Tüte, „20 6kg CO2 pro kg Rindfleisch“ erfährt man an der Fleischtheke.Landwirtschaft erzeugt fast so viel Treibhausgase wie StraßenverkehrDas kann sich für das Klima lohnen: Wenn sich alle Bürger klimafreundlich ernähren würden, könnte Schweden seine gesamten Treibhausgas-Emissionen um die Hälfte reduzieren.Auch in Deutschland gelangen durch die Landwirtschaft mit jährlich über 130 Millionen Tonnen CO2-Äquivalenten fast so viele Treibhausgase in die Atmosphäre wie durch den Straßenverkehr.Marketing-Chance für klimafreundliche ErzeugerDie Burger-Kette MAX gibt auf den Menükarten an, wie viel CO2 ein Hamburger im Vergleich zu einem Chickenburger verursacht (Bild oben). Seitdem das schwedische Fast Food ein CO2-Kennzeichen trägt, verkaufen sich die klimafreundlichen Produkte um 20 % besser als vorher.Die Klimaschutz-Deklaration wird von schwedischen Bauern, Milch- und Fleischerzeugern sowie der Lebensmittel-verarbeitenden Industrie unterstützt. Die heimischen Anbieter rechnen sich dadurch Vorteile gegenüber Importeuren aus.Bislang dürfen nur schwedische Lebensmittel mit dem Klima-Label werben, deren Produktion mehr als 25 % Treibhausgase gegenüber dem Durchschnitt aller Lebensmittel der entsprechenden Kategorie einsparen. Eine Deklaration für Importwaren ist in Arbeit.
- Notes:* All food carbon emissions are reported above in Kg of CO2e, including major greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.* Production emissions are for the production (cradle to farmgate) and any processing of quantity purchased.* Transport emissions are for the transport of quantity purchased: local transport, any ocean transport, and user-defined long-distance truck transport.* Waste emissions are for the landfilling of quantity wasted (with typical waste energy recovery).* Packaging and cooking are not included.
- Values based on averages, are not representative – needtobedonemorespecificifyouwanttostartlookingatthis in moredetail.Used a free online resource „CleanMetrics“Values used:10 lbproductpurchased1400 Miles fortransport10% wasteproduced
- A recent DEFRA case study indicated that tomatoes grown in Spain and transported to the United Kingdom may have a lower carbon footprint in terms of energy efficiency than tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in the United Kingdom
- Slow Fish Website: http://www.slowfood.com/slowfish/welcome_en.lasso?-id_pg=1 The Slow Food philosophy is based on everyday gastronomic pleasure for everyone. This goes hand in hand with recovering the links that have long united people to the planet and their food. To embody this philosophy, Slow Food has developed a concept of food quality divided into three fundamental and interdependent principles, summed up as good, clean and fair. Good: fresh, delicious and seasonal, satisfying the senses and connected to our culture and local identity. Clean: produced using methods that respect the environment and human health. Fair: accessible prices for consumers, but also fair earnings that can guarantee decent working and living conditions for small-scale producers and workers.These principles correspond to a global vision of food production, taking into consideration the environment’s ability to renew itself and the need for people to live together in harmony, and are as applicable to fish as any other food.Slow Food criteria:Avoid endangered species such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic salmon, tropical shrimps, swordfish, etc. Click here to view regional sustainable seafood guides.Choose a local fish, i.e. caught in seas or rivers near to you.Ensure the fish are of the minimum size necessary to reproduce (there are fish such as Orange Roughy which only reach the age of reproduction at 20 years!)The fish should be in season, i.e. outside its period of reproduction.
- Well FarmedA large proportion of the fish eaten today comes from aquaculture. Even though in some places certain forms of aquaculture can provide a significant food source for local populations, they must always be developed responsibly. All too often, intensive fish farms have a negative social and environmental impact. Ecosystems are destroyed and polluted with fecal mater, species are genetically manipulated, wild species are threatened, exotic species introduced, antibiotics and disinfectants used intensively, local communities devastated and so on. Some environmentalists are strongly against the farming of carnivorous species, which make up the vast majority of farmed fish. Enormous quantities of forage fish are required by the farms. According to Greenpeace, producing 1 kilo of tuna takes at least 20 kilos of wild fish, used directly or in the form of fishmeal and oil. Seen from this perspective, instead of reducing pressure on wild species, aquaculture increases it. Just like the farming of chickens, pigs or cows, fish farming must return to less intensive and more responsible methods that respect local ecosystems. The “blue revolution,” as the growth of aquaculture is sometimes termed, must become green. Until a certification system is put in place, fishmongers and restaurateurs must guarantee the responsible nature of the farms that have produced their fish. Consumers must find out about the quality of farmed products before buying them.
- Certification: Marine Stewardship CouncilVarious Guides: Ocean Wise (Canada)Best Fish (NZ)Sustainable seafood can be defined as species that are caught or farmed in a way that ensures the long-term health and stability of that species, as well as the greater marine ecosystem.Ocean Wise’s RecommendationsOcean Wise’s recommendations are based on 4 criteria. An Ocean Wise recommended species is:Abundant and resilient to fishing pressures Well managed with a comprehensive management plan based on current research Harvested in a method that ensures limited bycatch on non-target and endangered species Harvested in ways that limit damage to marine or aquatic habitats and negative interactions with other species.Ocean Wise’s classification system is based on two categories: sustainable or unsustainable, simply a good or bad choice for our oceans. Species are regularly updated and/or reclassified with the latest scientific information. Classifications, including changes to and Ocean Wise recommendations are provided regularly to Ocean Wise participants.Ocean Wise Recommendation Policy (PDF) The IssuesIssues that trouble our marine environment in order to feed an ever-growing population include overfishing, bycatch and habitat damage.Overfishing Global consumption of seafood has doubled since the 1970’s. Now, roughly 130 million tons of seafood is harvested every year. Improvements in fisheries related technology have allowed us to remove organisms from the ocean more quickly and with less effort, putting increased pressure on the oceans. With an estimated 90% of all large, predatory fish already gone from our world’s oceans since industrialized fishing began; we are now fishing the last 10% of species such as tunas, swordfish, and sharks. Quite simply our marine species can not reproduce fast enough to keep up with the hunt.Bycatch Not all marine life that is captured by fishing gear makes it to the dinner table. An estimated 25% of what is caught in commercial fisheries is unintended catch (bycatch) and discarded. Bycatch can include unmarketable species, undersized species, and endangered species. Unfortunately the majority of the animals tossed back overboard do not survive. It is important to understand how your seafood has been harvested as some fishing gear types, like pelagic or surface longlining and bottom trawling can increase the likelihood and amount of bycatch incurred.Habitat Damage Certain fishing and farming practices can have negative impacts on critical marine or aquatic habitats. With the loss of crucial habitats such as spawning, nursery, breeding or sheltering areas, many species find it challenging to survive, let alone thrive. Communities such as coral reefs, kelp forests, mangroves and wetlands provide critical habitat for a wide array of organisms and damage to these key areas can have dramatic consequences for the environment.How Different Harvest Methods can be Sustainable or UnsustainableThe different types of fishing and aquaculture techniques used to harvest seafood influence the environmental integrity of our marine ecosystems. This influence can be sustainable or unsustainable. The issues of bycatch and habitat damage and their extent are principally determined by the type of fishing or farming method used.Fishing TechniquesAll fishing techniques have to address a certain level of bycatch, however the type of harvesting technique determines the typical amount of bycatch associated. Certain fishing techniques are commonly associated with highbycatch such as trawling, dredging and pelagic longlining. Examples of seafood that typically involve high bycatch issues include shrimp, orange roughy, groundfish, scallops and other wild caught shellfish, large pelagic species such as mahimahi, tuna and swordfish. However many of these species can be harvested with limited bycatch if the fishing method is sustainable. Sustainable fishing techniques associated with low bycatch include trolling, hook and line, pot and traps.Certain fishing techniques can be associated with habitat damage and negative environmental impacts. Fishing methods that have detrimental effects on marine ecosystems include bottom trawling and dredging. In some cases, trawlers may sweep the same piece of seafloor many times a year, leaving no time for re-growth or recovery. Species that are typically caught by bottom trawl include: orange roughy, cod, shrimp, and ground fish such as flounder and sole. Dredges rake the ocean’s bottom habitat creating a disturbance in the seabed in order to sift out the targeted species, typically shellfish. Alternative sustainable fishing methods that limit habitat damage include trolling, hook and line and bottom longlining.AquacultureOne third of the world’s seafood production comes from aquaculture. If done in a sustainable manner, aquaculture can help to take pressure off of wild stocks and provide a source of protein in areas where other alternatives are scarce. However, aquaculture can also have a negative impact on the environment and may actually harm wild populations through habitat damage and degradation, pollution, and disease outbreaks. The destruction of critical habitats such as wetlands and mangroves to create ponds, localized disease or parasite epidemics, and the pollution of marine or aquatic habitats are all very real concerns with various systems of farming.Shrimp and prawns (such as tiger prawns) are typically farmed in coastal ponds that are created through the destruction of mangroves and wetland habitats and should be avoided. Open net pen finfish farms such as those used for Atlantic salmon also create major environmental concerns and should be avoided.Sustainably farmed options include shellfish such as scallops, mussels, clams and oysters, which are farmed on lines or trays suspended from rafts and are more sustainable than their wild counterparts. Inland, closed system farms are another good alternative and include species such as rainbow trout, tilapia, channel catfish, sturgeon, and Arctic char.
- Slow Talk23 May 11Meat: Less, Better and LocalCarlo PetriniWorking to save an agricultural breed from extinction is not merely about being attached to the past or idealism. The Slow Food Presidia are protecting dozens of breeds connected to local territories around the world, but this commitment is not dictated by nostalgia or a fascination with biodiversity, but by a more complex rationale that concerns more than food and looks to address the major problems and injustices of the industrial meat and dairy industry today. When rural communities are abandoned or farming is modernized, agricultural and food traditions are lost. Animal breeds and plant varieties disappear, and we face the demise of small-scale local economic systems that are centered around products derived from animals and human activities associated with them: sustainable farming systems, healthy meat and dairy processing and consumption dictated by the rhythms of nature rather than industry. Many cheeses, for example, would not be able to be continued to be made if the breed that provides the milk for production becomes extinct, as the composition of other milks is simply too different. The milk from Holstein cows, today’s most commonly farmed breed, cannot be used to produce a Sicilian Ragusano or Provolone del Monaco from Sorrento. While the replacement of native breeds with these black and white milk machines, which produce almost twice as much milk as many traditional breeds, is steadily reducing variety in dairy products, this standardization has also led to ridiculously low milk prices, which don’t event cover the costs of production. Protecting breeds for food production means giving them the value they deserve and restoring the correct price to the product derived from them, supporting local economies so they may once again become profitable. It means recreating local communities, enticing young people to return to and nurture the countryside instead of building industry and repossessing a relationship with the land. It means protecting our regions in the most gentle and loving way we can. Moreover, it means we can continue to enjoy the pleasures of food derived from these breeds. Today it would be better all-round – for human health, animal welfare and the environment – if we eat less meat, but of better quality. Italians consume 92 pounds per capita each year: 250 grams per day, while nutritionists recommend not to exceed 500 grams per week. Choosing to eat less and better, and favoring local breeds where possible, can have a big impact. We can pay the right price to sustainable producers, promote local regions and protect the environment in one fell swoop.Carlo PetriniSlow Food International President
- Ten Reasons to Say No GMOSItaly - 05 Mar 10 - Carlo PetriniSummarizing complex issues, such as all those concerning food and agriculture, is not easy, nor is it necessarily a good thing. However I believe that it could be helpful to list the reasons why we and others say “no” to GMOs. Not because of ideological positions or prejudices, as those who think they are the only repositories of knowledge love to claim, but for serious and justifiable reasons, shared by many researchers and scientists. 1) CONTAMINATION: Here in Italy, and in many countriesl, safely cultivating GMOs is impossible because of our small farms and lack of adequate natural barriers to protect organic and conventional crops. Additionally, agriculture is part of a living system which includes wild fauna, the water cycle, the wind and the reactions of microorganisms in the soil; GM crops cannot be confined to the surface of the field in which they are being cultivated. 2) FOOD SOVEREIGNTY: How could organic, biodynamic and conventional farmers be sure that their products are not contaminated? Even the limited spread of GM crops in open fields would change forever the quality and the current state of our agriculture, destroying our freedom to choose what we eat. 3) HEALTH: It has been shown that animals fed with GMOs can develop health problems. 4) FREEDOM: GM crops denature the role of farmers, who have always improved and selected their own seeds. GM seeds are owned by multinationals to whom the farmer must turn every new season, because, like all commercial hybrids, second-generation GMOs do not give good results. It is also forbidden for farmers to try to improve the variety without paying expensive royalties. 5) ECONOMY AND CULTURE: GM products do not have historical or cultural links to a local area. In Italy for example, a significant part of its agricultural and food economy is based upon identity and the variety of local products. Introducing anonymous products with no history would weaken a system that also has close links to the tourism industry. 6) BIODIVERSITY: GM crops impoverish biodiversity because they require large surface areas and an intensive monoculture system. Growing only one kind of corn for human consumption will mean a reduction in flavors and knowledge. 7) ECO-COMPATIBILITY: Research on GMOs has so far focused on two kinds of “advantages”: resistance to a corn parasite (the corn borer) and resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate). Supporters of GMOs say that they allow the reduced use of synthetic chemicals. But crop rotation is the only real way to fight the corn borer, and herbicide resistance will only lead to freer use of the chemical in the fields, given that it harms only undesirable weeds, not the actual crops. 8) CAUTION: Around 30 years since GMOs began to be studied, results in the agricultural sector concern only three crops (corn, rapeseed and soy). In fact the plants do not support the genetic modifications very well and this science is still rudimentary and partially entrusted to chance. We would like to see a more cautious and careful approach, as in Germany and France, where some GM crops have been banned. 9) PROGRESS: GMOs are the result of a myopic and superficial way of seeing progress. The role of small-scale agriculture in the protection of local areas, the defense of the landscape and the struggle against global warming is increasingly clear to consumers, governments and scientists. Instead of following the siren call of the market, modern research should support sustainable agriculture and its needs. 10) HUNGER: When it comes to hunger, the United Nations says that family agriculture will protect the sectors of the population at risk of malnutrition. Multinationals instead promise that GMOs will feed the world, but since they began to be marketed around 15 years ago, the number of starving people in the world has only grown, just like the profits of the companies that produce the seeds. In countries like Argentina and Brazil, GM soy has swept away energy-providing crops like potatoes, corn, wheat and millet on which the daily diet is based. By Carlo Petrinic.petrini@slowfood.it
- Avoid: portionsize, confirmednumberofmeals, etcReuse: Portion onlyasmuchasnecessary, keepleft-over HACCP safeforre-useDonate: Localcharities, foodbanks, etcCompost: ownorparticipate in localcomposting
- Sustainability Index – includes Environmental impact,
- Fairmont Victoria – imported a queenbeeand 400 000 honeybees in theirgardens. Pollinated an abundanceofflowersandfruits, arepackagingandselling / usingresultinghoneyfor VIPs, functions, etc
- Fairmont Victoria – imported a queenbeeand 400 000 honeybees in theirgardens. Pollinated an abundanceofflowersandfruits, arepackagingandselling / usingresultinghoneyfor VIPs, functions, etc