Concept paper on FoodPort - a Global Food Waste Reduction Initiative -- delivered by Mark Mitchell (Supercool AP) and Steven M. Finn (ResponsEcology/University of Pennsylvania) at Carrier/United Technologies' 3rd annual World Cold Chain Summit in Singapore (December, 2016).

2. Introduction
FoodPort is a concept aimed at developing a means of engaging the wider community of
the developed world in the challenge of reducing food waste by making food normally
marked as waste, re-usable or useful in some form.
It is based on the premise that communities, including businesses, farms and restaurants,
waste food because there is nowhere to take it in order to save it.
FoodPort would solve this problem by creating a destination where food at risk or on the
brink of wastage can be checked, sorted and dispatched to a new destination that
consumes the food or re-uses it in some way for overall community and environmental
benefit.
FoodPort would operate in much the same way as airports and hospitals which succeed
at dealing with very complex issues every day due to the value placed on their cargo –
passengers travelling by air and human lives. This same value would be placed on food,
which forms the fundamental basis of FoodPort.
Background
Airports and hospitals are much more than distribution centres because they deal in either
human safety, crises or dangerous activity. The people they service and care for are
treated as extremely valuable to their function, and the systems and infrastructure built
around these activities are now so efficient that these operations achieve positive
outcomes in very high volume.
Modern airports are particularly good at processing valuable cargo, either passengers or
freight, safely and efficiently over millions of transactions each day, and it is from this
model that FoodPort gains its foundation as a concept.
Airports and how they happened
If we go back to the time when the first decent aeroplane took off on Kitty Hawk beach all
those years ago, the first and most apparent problem for Orville Wright after take-off was
to identify a place to land. In fact, all the subsequent early pioneering pilots were faced
with the same dilemma and, like Orville, so many of those early flights had nowhere to go
other than to return to where they started.
As planes got better, the flight distances increased and landing destinations were taken
up in farm paddocks and fields, or in any suitable place where flat ground existed.
1

3. Then, as the planes became reliable, commercialisation was the next big step, and the
carriage of passengers and freight soon became a mainstream activity for the global
aeroplane fleet.
The landing fields became airstrips which soon supported tin shed and warehouse style
infrastructure, and the focus for many years was on the continuing development of the
planes and equipment to improve the duration and safety of flying.
For so many years the tin shed airstrips were ignored. They were surpassed by the time
and energy put into everything to do with actually flying, and they were places of absolute
chaos and disorganisation. Flying in the early days, even in the 1960s and 1970s meant
waiting in queues for hours just to board a plane or see a customs officer, then another
few hours waiting for bags that didn’t arrive on the same flight or were simply lost in
transit.
So flying was frustrating and a dilemma for most passengers. It was something you only
did if you had to. There was no such thing as a mystery flight, or a weekend away, and
you wouldn’t dream of taking a two or three hour flight to holiday somewhere because it
meant spending double or triple this amount of time negotiating your way through the
airports.
The airlines and airports really struggled to deal with the very complex task of processing
passengers, luggage, safety and timetables in a single transaction. It was accepted that
each of the steps encountered in the flying experience was something that simply had to
be endured by the passenger, to the point where passengers even accepted they had to
'work’ for their seat on the plane when navigating through all the obstacles and archaic
processes. Passengers were even seen as part of the problem. If there weren’t so many
the problem wouldn’t exist. These early airports didn’t grasp the value of the passengers
and neither could they imagine a future massive growth in numbers.
It wasn’t until the emergence of the modern airport, familiar today, that flying finally
achieved a level of efficiency sufficient to remove the delays and frustration suffered by
passengers. Airports are now well-oiled machines managing passengers in the millions
every day. Each passenger is treated as valuable cargo, and the function is very clear –
every passenger must depart and arrive safely on time every time. Of course there are
always exceptions due to weather conditions and malfunctions, but flying is now a
mainstream activity for most citizens of the world because it is well known the airports and
airlines operate efficiently to such a level that flying is now a safe and pleasant
experience.
2

4. Food as valuable cargo
If food had the same value status as an airline passenger, where and how would it be
discarded or wasted? This is quite difficult to answer, partly because this is an unlikely
proposition in this world of food abundance.
However, imagine that food had somewhere safe to go if it was at risk, and this place was
easy to access and able to provide some form of credit for saved food products delivered
to it, just like the role airports have played in the growth of passenger transport. Without
airports, virtually no-one would fly.
The proposition of a place to process food and send it to an appropriate destination could
achieve the same result.
By creating a FoodPort, more food could be processed for a safe destination rather than
being wasted, and this would occur because an infrastructure and process has been built
for this purpose.
It takes away the uncertainty and thinking required that currently exists within the
community and industry about what to do with surplus or unwanted food, good or bad.
With a destination like this available, the value of food immediately increases because the
opportunity for society to do something about food wastage becomes a reality. There is a
place to go – a place to land the problem and turn it into a benefit. It converts food waste
into a bankable currency because the means to process it is now constant and
predictable.
FoodPort - an airport for food
An airport for food conceived as FoodPort would turn the task of accepting and
processing surplus food in large volume into a measurable and repeatable process. This
is currently seen as impossible.
It would have an arrivals hall where the initial safety and quarantine inspections are
carried out first, and then, depending on the food type and person delivering the food, a
choice could be made from one of the many providers with acceptance counters in the
hall. Non-reuseable food would take a detour away from the standard arrivals system to
an area set aside for waste recycling.
Food marked as reuseable would go directly to the arrival counters rented and staffed by
charities such as Foodbank and other church or kindred organisations. Other industry
organisations could also be represented. Each would have a weigh-in capability linked to
a conveyor belt to the departure hall or storage area in another section of the complex.
3

5. These counters would be designed to take food deliveries up to a certain weight or
volume, and anything larger would be sent to the bulk or large size counter nearby. All
food accepted would be tagged with a barcoded delivery ticket.
The departure hall would process all items via the barcoded delivery ticket. For instance,
items tagged for Foodbank would be sent to their designated storage area, or placed on a
waiting Foodbank vehicle ready for delivery to their community. The same process would
be repeatable for all organisations represented in the complex, which could even go as far
as operating as a distribution centre for a specific organisation. Transactions could be
‘arrival and departure specific’ to an organisation via a pre-booking process
predetermined well in advance of the food actually arriving at FoodPort.
FoodPort currency
Depending on the final structure of FoodPort, the method of construction, finance,
government interest and level of participation from charities, the currency of trade would
have to have some flexibility to meet the needs of willing stakeholders who may not have
the capacity to deal in real dollars.
Good quality food, particularly fresh farm produce in bulk, is the obvious candidate for a
simple ‘buy and sell’ structure in the FoodPort environment. Standard commercial
arrangements for this can be easily developed, and FoodPort would promote and allow
this to happen.
As an alternative, these transactions could also trade on a barter system with a
recognised tax break or benefit provided by the relative local or state government.
Smaller or more community based transactions could trade on carbon credits which could
represent a discount on local rates and taxes, or any kind of benefit provided by the
relative government organisation responsible for environmental management in the region
in which FoodPort is situated.
Carbon values for different types of food by weight could be displayed on a board in the
arrivals hall which would allow any person bringing in food to calculate the value of the
food in carbon dollars or credits. This would work in much the same way as a foreign
currency or a stock market board, except that instead of listing countries and companies,
it will list fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, dairy products and all manner of packaged food.
It would be a wonderful sight to see a local farmer bringing in his surplus tomatoes the
supermarket wouldn’t buy, and for him to cash them in at FoodPort so one of the charities
or non-mainstream food sellers inside FoodPort could send them on to a worthy and
needy destination.
4

6. It would also be great to see other organisations, such as government institutions,
restaurants, food manufacturers, food chains or any organisation with large kitchens or
food storage, bringing into FoodPort any food they may have which is on the brink of
being wasted. This food could be processed through FoodPort as a charitable or
commercial transaction, so that it makes its way back into the community and is
consumed by people in need, or by someone unable or incapable of accessing nutritious
food via the normal food supply chain.
FoodPort structure
The initial development of the FoodPort concept will most likely require a collaboration
between government and industry, including some involvement of syndicates from non-
government organisations and charities. Modern airports enjoy special rights and
privileges provided to them by governments, and in some cases even financial interests in
airports are taken up by government or special bodies set up by them.
The social and environmental benefits provided by reducing food wastage in any form are
sufficient for any government to consider involvement. FoodPort provides an objective
means for a government to take action by building designated infrastructure that helps
solve a growing problem, delivers environmental outcomes and has the potential to
provide employment for a growing workforce and industry wanting to focus on food safety
and development.
The scale and size of FoodPorts would also vary to meet relative market and
geographical demands. Smaller versions would service less populated regions where
food waste opportunities are fewer.
Larger versions would be located in highly populated areas, even close to city centres, or
in large farming areas where food waste is a constant dilemma for hard working growers.
A FoodPort may also incorporate power generation or fertiliser production capabilities on
site, or have a capability to interface with these types of operations adjacent or nearby to
the FoodPort itself.
The Cold Chain will also play a major part. A sophisticated world best practice would be
implemented within the FoodPort facilities, and a dedicated transport network would
handle transfers, pickups and deliveries between stakeholders and participants.
5

7. Market position and image
FoodPort would not seek to replace or directly compete with traditional food supply
methods such as supermarkets, retail stores and fresh food markets. Food made
available to FoodPort would be categorised into two main groups, pre-production farm
produce, and post production food items.
Pre–production farm produce would arrive at FoodPort sourced from producers unable to
sell food via traditional means, and at no point would FoodPort overscore the market price
because it is unlikely FoodPort stakeholders processing unwanted food will have the
commercial capacity to do so. In essence, FoodPort becomes a second tier alternative for
growers and producers to recoup some lost income, not a mainstream food reseller or
distributor.
The post production food category is mostly held in the supermarkets and the majority of
it will always be well within safe use before reaching expiry dates. However, the nature of
human production to feed the masses is driven by the supermarket institutional concept of
well-stocked shelves and stock turnover calculated and judged on gross margin and sale
quantities in any one day, week or month.
So based on this, the system will always produce surpluses, and it will be the function of
FoodPort to collect the dry and fresh unsold items and items approaching the final use-by
date, and save it all from the supermarket dumpster.
FoodPort as a destination will be a very clean, modern and brightly lit facility. It will give
anyone entering the arrival hall an immediate feeling of confidence and efficiency. It will
not be a place to dump food, to the contrary, it will be a place where meaningful decisions
are made and a process is put in place to re-direct extremely valuable food cargo to
worthy destinations.
The image of FoodPort should be so strong, that anyone exposed to it would feel guilty
even contemplating wasting food unnecessarily.
6

9. Conclusion
Our current levels of food wastage across the globe are neither ethical nor moral, and
they certainly aren’t sustainable. Allowing one to two billion tons of food to go to waste
annually while roughly 800 million global citizens are hungry is nonsensical, as are the
environmental and financial costs associated with that waste. Beyond hunger, consider
that if food waste were ranked as a country, it would be the third largest emitter of
greenhouse gases behind the U.S. and China.
Currently we’re scratching the surface in terms of the amount of excess food that is
recovered, and with increasing population growth, increasing urbanisation, and increasing
pressure on scarce resources, we need to do much better. Clearly, we need scalable,
replicable, actionable food recovery solutions – and FoodPort is one such model.
FoodPort presents an opportunity to scale up food waste reduction by providing an
efficient receiving and processing destination for excess food while combining all aspects
of the food recovery hierarchy in that one location. It is a hub where excess food can be
redirected and, importantly, optimised at scale based on the characteristics of that food.
‘Imperfect’ produce, on-farm waste and rejected loads throughout the food system all
provide enormous opportunities for recovery.
Consider the health and social benefits to be attained in processing such nutritious food
for millions of food insecure individuals, or the benefits to feeding animals that will in turn
provide food to people. Further, it is certainly conceivable that some portions of the
incoming food would be appropriate for an on-site digester which could generate a portion
of the power needs of the facility, while other food items unsuitable for human
consumption could be used to produce compost to nourish soils for future food
production.
FoodPort addresses the most basic problem related to food waste – the fact that it is
often difficult for donors to find a viable, cost-efficient drop off point. Conceptually,
FoodPort is a sound model. Operationally, of course, it is more complex. Redirecting large
quantities of food for people or animals involves a number of challenges – maintaining the
cold chain, economics (moving often-heavy food in a cost effective manner), managing
perishability, maintaining food safety, overcoming liability fears, developing infrastructure
and processing/storage space and managing labour.
And while such innovative pilot projects are needed, they aren’t a panacea by
themselves. Instead, they must be coupled with broad and deep culture change regarding
food. Mindsets must change, particularly in developed countries, such that food is valued
properly at national and global levels.
8

10. Further, our daily actions should reflect that valuation, so that when food is produced,
there are efficient processes in place to get it to human mouths in some way, shape, or
form. Those actions could involve established donation links, freezing the food for easy
distribution later, or processing it into other food products such as prepared meals, soups,
sauces, stews and/or smoothies. They might involve innovative dehydration into
nutritious powders or other shelf stable products. Alternatively, they might involve
processing at a lower level of the food recovery hierarchy.
Regardless of the scenario, it will almost certainly involve some level of cooling and
transportation effort, and recovering and redirecting food efficiently at scale will require a
series of partnerships to get pilot projects like FoodPort constructed and operational. It
will also require will and long-term commitment stemming from education and culture
change.
Notably, integrated computer technology allows for preparation of potentially wasted food
before it even arrives at FoodPort. For example, if the owner of the food cargo learns that
it cannot go to the original intended destination, that individual can be connected to eager
secondary sources ready to pick it up through online portals. Decisions on how to process
incoming food could be made while a ship (airplane) carrying that food was still days
(hours) away.
Technology enhances the vision
Technology makes a FoodPort site easier to envision than it would have been years ago,
augmented by the growing momentum behind the importance of food waste reduction.
And continued technology gains, coupled with organics bans in landfills which raise the
costs of discarding food, should bring down the costs of FoodPort such that it is a
competitive alternative.
Small transaction fees over many transactions (in concert with tax deductions) could help
to provide a durable funding stream for FoodPort operations. By taking excess food
‘outputs’ and converting them to ‘inputs’ elsewhere in a financially viable fashion,
FoodPort illustrates the type of circular production model needed to advance
sustainability principles.
The FoodPort concept is perfectly aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals,
and the timing is sound as a juncture has been reached where awareness of food waste
needs to be translated into positive action.
FoodPort will require considerable upfront investment buoyed by a public-private
partnership involving multiple food system stakeholders (food producers, charities,
NGOs, governments, and business organisations from the food, technology, cold chain,
construction, and transportation/logistics sectors).
9

11. The goal would be to develop an initial successful pilot facility that could be replicated in
other appropriate regions of the globe. Social, environmental, financial, and overall
security gains would accrue from each successful FoodPort hub.
Many of us have heard the expression that world hunger is a distribution problem.
FoodPort provides a model for chipping away at the distribution challenge, and for
catalysing global efforts toward achieving 50% food waste reduction by 2030 – a critical
step in the journey to sustainably feed 9.6 billion global citizens by 2050.
10

12. Exercise
Group discussion – visualisation and idea exchange
Hands-on discussion of FoodPort concept – breakout – ‘Backcasting’ exercise*
Imagine a FoodPort facility. Visualise it:
• what would it look like?
• how would it function?
Describe the structure and capabilities.
Explore/list the strengths to leverage.
Explore/list the operational challenges to overcome.
What steps would you take to make the first FoodPort pilot:
• successful?
• durable?
• replicable?
How would you attract investment?
What partners would you seek?
How would you make it financially viable?
What innovations would you seek to couple with FoodPort?
*Backcasting is a strategic planning concept for sustainability initiatives and innovation from The
Natural Step. It involves imagining/envisioning the future desired state, and then asking: ‘What do we
need to do to get there from the current state?’ It is also referred to as the A-B-C-D model, where A is
Awareness and Visioning, B involves Baseline Mapping, C involves brainstorming Creative Solutions,
and D involves Deciding on Priorities.
11

13. Next steps
It is envisaged that a pilot facility will need to be built with a view to developing the
necessary proof of concept before any kind of universal acceptance is sought.
The writers commend this idea and concept to executive members of UTC, Carrier
Transicold management and other selected industry leaders. This is done without any
motivation for personal or commercial gain for the writers or the SuperCool Group of
Companies.
The intention is to find a method of achieving far-reaching and broad solutions for the
whole of industry to reduce global food wastage.
FoodPort is one method which could work in this way. However, it will require far greater
involvement and funding than one person or organisation could provide, and most
importantly it may demand a completely collaborative approach from competing interests
that may not have worked together previously.
The first step in the concept evaluation process involves discussion in a hands-on,
working session with diverse food system experts at Carrier/UTC’s Cold Chain Summit in
Singapore in December of 2016.
Following that discussion, we suggest regrouping to discuss next steps, which could
involve revising the initial white paper with feedback from the Singapore working session
meeting, publishing it to a wider audience, evaluating new responses, and arranging a
series of subsequent meetings to determine if the concept has sufficient support to begin
more specific development plans for a pilot facility.
Mark Mitchell
Steven M. Finn
November 2016
12