P.O. Box 20444 Indianapolis, IN 46220-0444 Not-For-Profit Corporation Phone & Fax: 317-283-6226 e-mail address: [email protected] November/December 1998 Newsletter Co-Editors: Diane Mellinger Shew, Jeff Myers, and Rudy Osenbaugh

Measuring Progress - Indiana's Source Reduction and Recycling Rate Drops... The following article was developed from a discussion at the IRC's October 15th Monthly Meeting. Each bullet represents a comment made by an IRC member. Members from all sectors - business, government, individuals and not-for-profits - participated in the discussion. BACKGROUND According to IC 13-19-1-2, "The goal of the State is to reduce the amount of solid waste incinerated and disposed of in landfills in Indiana by 50% before January 1, 2001 through the application and encouragement of solid waste source reduction, recycling and other alternatives to incineration and landfill disposal." In 1992, this "Reduction and Recycling Rate" was estimated to be 15%. In 1996, the rate was calculated to be 24%, but went down to 21% in 1997 (a drop of 180,000 tons). Often, this "Source Reduction and Recycling Rate" is mistakenly referred to simply as a "Recycling Rate". These calculated rates since 1992 take into account the actual measured amounts of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) disposed of, as opposed to C & D and Special Wastes. This rate calculation also takes into account yearly economic activity. These calculations do not factor in changes in population, greater per capita generation or other societal factors such as more but smaller households. Out-of-state waste amounts are included as best as can be determined. There is no independent survey or direct measurement of actual recycled quantities to confirm the calculations. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF THE CALCULATED RATES? Baselines established in local solid waste management plans and therefore incorporated into the state's plan written in the early 1990's were based on many assumptions and guestimates. Direct measurement of collected recyclables was and continues to be difficult. In addition, since disposal facilities have installed weight scales since early 1990s, today's numbers should be more accurate that the 1992 estimates. In 1998, the disposal rules have changed and it is much more difficult to differentiate between MSW and Special Waste totals. In the future, a new measurement system and formula developed will need to include all waste, not only MSW as the current formula uses. Currently, Indiana estimates that there is one ton per person per year of MSW generated. This estimate is based on the 1992 beginning estimate of 15% recycling adjusted for yearly economic activity. Out-of-state waste has been factored in as best as can be done, but there are some areas of uncertainty. The measurement tells us only about reduction in disposal and by inference, source reduction and recycling rates. In the current system, there is no way to specifically measure actual source reduction, reuse, recycling or composting activities.

Also in this issue....  News Briefs Buy Recycled Workshops GrassRoots Recycling Network Promoting Reuse in Your Community Fourth Annual ULS Day NRC News NRC Corner by Cathy Bastin, IRC Representative Executive Order Coincides with Congress Congress Almost Like Home... Why is this Issue Important to the IRC? M.A.P.: Mercury Awareness Program Reaching Consensus Pollution Prevention Conference Hits Target Zero Drool at Zero Waste Ink a Dink a Due EPS Recycling - Shifting Directing AISWMD Welcomes New Director A 'New' Way to Recycle IRC Membership Form IRC Board of Directors Calendar of Events

WHAT FACTORS AND SITUATIONS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CALCULATIONS? Current calculation methods do not factor in or give "extra credit" for diversion of materials such as household hazardous waste, which generally pose a greater threat to health and the environment than other waste materials. The current calculation method does not consider the added benefits of reduced pollution through the reduction of illegal dumping or illegal burning. In many areas, trash that previously was disposed of improperly, such as through illegal dumping or burning, is now in compliant waste management programs (reduction, reuse, recycling, composting or disposal). Also, there may be amounts of yard debris that now are going to disposal facilities were not included in the original calculations. The amount of these materials that go to the disposal facilities now that didn't go to disposal in 1992 can account for a small portion of the increase in disposal. Another possible factor is that as economic activity increases, businesses focus more on growing their businesses, and not necessarily on reducing expenses through the development of source reduction or recycling programs. Could the change in disposal be due to disposal patterns across state lines? There have not been any big landfill closures. A new landfill opened in Newton County but we have good tracking with Illinois so this scenario is not likely. The current goal does not factor in recycling market forces which impact recycling programs and may result in marginally profitable or unprofitable recyclables being destined for landfills during poor markets. Did we divert less through source reduction, recycling, reuse, composting or did we just dispose more? That is, did people continue to do just as much recycling and composting for instance, but buy more and dispose more in addition? In some areas, specific new growth could account for disposal increase - a new power plant, the addition of a big company, such as Toyota; rapid growth in counties surrounding Indianapolis, etc. The yard waste ban was rescinded. Recycling was free for some entities when the markets were high; e.g. when OCC was at $100/ton. When prices dropped and haulers began charging for placing and pulling recycling bins, many entities dropped their recycling programs. Some of our efforts have not yet been realized. We need to wait until our 3rd grade advocates grow up and become consumers. IS THE 2001 GOAL REALISTIC AND ACHIEVABLE? We have a long way to go to reach the 50% goal, and how can people be held accountable to meet a voluntary goal? Apathy will increase if we can't meet our current goals, and if there is a sense that there is no possibility of meeting the goals, why even try to meet the goals? Are we really failing and not wanting to admit it? In some areas, the goals have already been met. In other areas, nothing is being done. Why are there no repercussions for poor performance? One suggestion is to revisit the goals and move to a goal that involves small incremental improvement each year, rather than a high goal several years in the future. Or do we want to revisit our goals to parallel how EPA has reduced national goals to 35%, down from their previous 50% goal? Do we need a better way to define progress, success or failure? Is success measured strictly by tonnage a fair reflection of where we want to go with our goals? OPTIONS TO CONSIDER We need to focus on positive impacts that are measurable, based on real success stories. We should not base our definition of success entirely on calculated numbers. We need to continue to evaluate where we are at this point and to identify places where sustainability has been incorporated or can be improved. Programs need to move towards sustainability, although we're not there yet. Some programs may need to be revisited to evaluate if the operations can be refined to better meet the goals. However, if a program is not currently sustainability, it should not necessarily be eliminated based on current markets, because we continue to move towards a sustainable infrastructure. In the absence of powerful mandates and subsidies, recycling programs are being prematurely forced to move into the realities of the marketplace. Under current recycling market forces, we can't push programs entirely into the market-place just yet. One suggestion is to be sure that at least 90% of recyclables collected in a program actually get recycled. Haulers have economic self-interest to haul as much as they can as quickly as possible. Recycling is a bigger investment. Haulers do not see the reduced disposal costs, therefore, there is not incentive for haulers to be strong players. Recent legislation has pushed the recycling collection and processing to the private sector, who have little economic incentive to work hard in this area. As market prices go up and down, it influences profitability and costs to participants. Did we glut the markets? Does the focus need to shift to reduction, reuse and buy-recycled while recycling markets cycle back up? How can IDEM's programs work better? The numbers are incomplete, and IDEM should work to collect more data to more accurately measure what actually is occurring regarding source reduction, recycling and composting. IDEM could be looking at districts that have met goals and look and understand why they are successful? Then, we can work together to promote what works. IDEM could also be looking at districts that aren't participating at all or doing nothing. IDEM could evaluate source reduction and recycling grants programs that have been very successful and ones that haven't been successful. Marion County's disposal rates are reported to be going down. Is there an economy of scale that might make it easier to get diversion? Other suggestions included focusing more on high-volume generators (businesses, apartments, etc,. instead of residents); also focus more on high percentage items (industrial waste, construction and demolition debris, yard waste); giving local SWMD responsibility for MSW, while IDEM should focus on non-MSW? Most districts want to be a part of HHW programs. The environmental and health benefits are clearer to understand. Also, private sector profitability issues are not involved here. Another suggestion was that we need to emphasize the bigger picture - to remove the mineral content of wastes and substitute these recovered minerals for minerals that otherwise would be mined. COMMUNICATING WITH OTHERS ABOUT THIS ISSUE Do we spend our efforts explaining the currently-reported numbers and what they mean; or do we improve the calculations or develop a different measurement system; or do we redefine progress (incremental small-step improvement towards goals)? We need to clearly understand what the rates mean, so that we can communicate effectively with others. We also need to be aware of the limitations of the calculated rates, and be able to describe program successes in other ways. Do we say we're failing? Do we say goals were too lofty? How to present the message. Since we did not meet our own goals, how will the opposition spin this? Focus on positives - like great education programs. HOW DO WE COMPARE TO OTHER STATES? Indiana's "Source Reduction and Recycling Rate" is different than other state's "Recycling Rates". Therefore, it is impossible to fairly compare Indiana's efforts to those of other states using these figures. In addition, Indiana does not adjust baseline to calculate the rate as other states do. Other states are putting more resources into their programs, and may have other contributing factors, such as expensive disposal rates, that are incentives to find alternatives and help recycling programs continue to work towards sustainability. As a follow-up to this discussion, there will be two sessions, one in December and one in January, to further explore these issues. For meeting specifics, contact Robert Gedert at 317/233-5431 or check the "Upcoming Meetings" mailbox at the the IRC phone number or on the IRC's website.

November 15, 1998 is the day-America Recycles Day-and Indiana is knee-deep in buying recycled activity.
87 events are happening around Indiana. Get an up-to-the-minute events list (city/county, date, time) on the internet:

www.americarecyclesday.org
www.indianarecycling.org
www.indianarecycling.org/ard.html

And remember, BUYING RECYCLED is a year-round sport!

The mission of the Indiana Recycling Coalition is to support source reduction, reuse, composting and recycling activities in Indiana. To encourage integrated recycling, the Coalition supports buying recycled-content products, and the collection and remanufacturing of recyclable materials. The goal of this support is to conserve our natural resources, decrease reliance on final disposal and to encourage environmental responsibility.

The Coalition provides this support by:

• Fostering a diverse and active membership
• Offering forums for discussion, networking and education
• Supplying materials to support the development of solutions at the local, regional, and state levels
• Developing consensus positions, to serve as a voice of the membership

It's here, it's here!

Mercury collections have begun across the State! As of October 10, 140 lbs. of elemental mercury have been diverted from the waste stream for recycling; over 1000 fluorescent bulbs and 140 fever thermometers have been collected. And, some very strange items containing mercury are showing up at collections-including a mercury filled medical device that is designed to go down the esophagus...scary!

At a press conference held at an Indianapolis mercury collection site on October 13, 1998, Lieutenant Governor Joe Kernan urged Hoosiers to make their homes safer and healthier by turning in mercury products for recycling. He said this free collection is a safe way to get rid of mercury without hurting the environment. If mercury is released to the environment, it can pollute our air and water and it can wreak havoc on the food chain, building up in the tissues of fish and other wildlife.

The message is clear: keep our environment clean and our children safe from this toxic threat-RECYCLE your household mercury at a recycling site near you. How does the program work? Each local collection site will bring the mercury containing items to their nearest HUB. The HUB collection sites are:

From the HUB, the mercury is transported to Global Recycling Technologies, Inc. in Stoughton, MA. There the mercury containing items will be demanufactured and the mercury cleaned through a distillation process. The mercury is sold to a mercury switch manufacturer for reuse, and the other components are sold through the appropriate recycling markets.

Have you done the Mercury Search in your home? You may find fever thermometers, thermostats, fluorescent bulbs, clothes irons (with tilt shut-off switches), silent light switches, or a jar of plain old elemental mercury in your home-they all contain mercury and need to be recycled!

Counties across the state are holding mercury collections this October and beyond. Your local solid waste management district has more information about mercury recycling in your area. Or call the Household Hazardous Waste Taskforce 812-349-2115 for more information about the Mercury Awareness Program.

Last spring, the Coalition's Consensus Issue Task Force began to gather information about the role of Indiana's Solid Waste Management Districts and their impact on the goals and objectives of the Coalition (see IRC mission statement on page 1). On February 12, 1998, at the Midwest Waste and Environmental Exposition and Conference, the Task Force hosted a panel discussion titled, "The Role of Solid Waste Districts in Indiana". The goal of this panel discussion was to solicit opinions from business, the general public, legislators, and districts about how Districts were performing. On a broader scale, the Task Force also wondered if districts were accomplishing the original goals of HEA 1240. Forty-two people attended. Although legislators had intended to participate, they could not attend due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict.

Some general points made during this panel discussion include:

• Public/CAC Representative: Districts and the government should take the lead in putting together programs for persons to recycle and have less dependence on landfills. The legislature needs to be more aware of the long term consequences of landfilling. They should be encouraging recycling, reuse and reduction. The legislature should also mandate buying recycled products in all purchasing areas in an effort to stimulate recycling markets.
• District Representative: A framework or infrastructure needs to be developed paralleling the landfill alternative. This is what Districts were established to do. The private sector is subject to market fluctuations which create instability and lack of confidence on the part of citizens. Districts, by building local infrastructures, can make collection volumes increase and will in turn help as feedstock for manufacturing marketable recycled products.
• Business Association Representative: The original intent of HEA 1240 was that Solid Waste Districts establish education, and programs to encourage residents to reduce waste and encourage recycling. It was not inherent that they develop collection and processing programs, but in some cases, it may be necessary.
• Solid Waste District Board Representative: I don't agree at all with the notion that the private sector should be the only one involved in recycling and waste reduction efforts. There needs to be emphasis from the legislature to encourage Waste Districts to develop programs and work with the private sector to create a network that can develop cost effective alternatives to landfilling.
• Business Representative: Solid Waste Districts and the private sector can work together to develop recycling programs, however, the private sector should be contracted to perform the services. The government needs to let the market place take care of itself.
• Solid Waste District Representative: Districts have evolved at varying rates when it comes to program development. Some have great programs and some have nothing. If Districts are to be successful, a uniformity needs to be developed so that all communities in Indiana can understand the overall message that we want to have a priority on waste reduction and recycling.
• Recycler: More state money needs to be provided to encourage markets.

  Based upon the input from this panel discussion, audience comments, and information from the Task Force members, the following consensus position for the Coalition membership is proposed:

  Proposed Statement: Solid Waste Management Districts are an essential part of the State of Indiana's efforts to reach waste diversion goals. Districts provide the framework for the development of source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting programs. These programs are the fundamental tools for accomplishing the goals established by HEA 1240.

  A consensus position on this issue is important to the Coalition because the solid waste districts play an integral role in developing and expanding source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting programs in Indiana. Consensus positions must have the backing of the membership to be valid. This combined "coalition" position is what gives the consensus position strength and garners recognition in the legislature and with other partners in waste reduction in Indiana. In the next week or so the IRC will mail out cards soliciting response on the draft statement. Please respond so that support for this and future consensus surveys can have meaningful impact.

  ---

  Pollution Prevention Conference Hits Target

  From the opening speech by David Kling, EPA's Director of Pollution Prevention, through to the rousing concluding panelists presentations, the First Indiana Pollution Prevention (P2) Conference and Trade Show carried messages of industry and business successes, program achievements, and enthusiasm. The one-day program held at the Valley Vista Conference Center in Greenwood, IN was designed to be an informational and networking forum covering a wide variety of P2 related topics, speaker sectors, and approaches. With some 30 displays, there were ample opportunities for the over 250 attendees to discuss practical solutions and alternatives for toxic use reductions. Among the many guests present were students from several Indiana Universities, including Purdue, Ball State and Indiana University.

  The highlight of the day was the formal presentation, by Lieutenant Governor Joe Kernan and IDEM Commissioner, John Hamilton, of the Governor's Awards for Pollution Prevention to this year's six recipients: Cinergy Corporation, Eli Lilly, Tippecanoe Laboratories, I/N Tek, United Technologies Automotive Berne, and Don Seader, WorldWide Automotive. The five larger companies were cited individually for significant air, water, and solid/hazardous waste reduction and for personal leadership. One of the most telling comments by the recipients came from Don Seader, representing small automotive shops (in this case seven employees). His message was simply a heartfelt thanks for considering small shops to be part of the pollution prevention program.

  Among the featured speakers of the day were, Bob Towsley of Eli Lilly who presented the technical side of production systems cleaning innovation; Matt Gluckman, EPA Region 5, who discussed the Common Sense Initiative; and Kay Nelson of the Northwest Indiana Forum who added her spin on the public process. John C. Hamilton, Chairman, of the Clean Manufacturing Technology Board; John Chavez, newly appointed IDEM-OPPTA Pollution Prevention Branch Chief; and Vince Griffin, representing the State Chamber of Commerce, each provided their perspective on pollution prevention.

  The Conference was co-sponsored by IDEM and Purdue University's Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute, and was supported by a number of business and industry participants under the umbrella of Indiana Partners for Pollution Prevention. The Partners now look forward to planning this conference to be a yearly event, and to establishing an organizational approach that will ensure sustainability of pollution prevention as a key element of state environmental and economic policy.

  ---

  Zero Drool at Zero Waste

  Imagine - No doodling. No drooping heads nodding off to sleep. No whispered conversations unrelated to the topic at hand. No escaping out the back at the changing of the speakers. No bolting out the door at the end of a session.

  When was the last time you attended a conference that was more interesting 'in' the sessions than beside the coffeepot? The 75 people who attended the Association of Ohio Recycler's (AOR) conference, Zero Waste: You Decide - Fact or Fiction? would tell you - just last month! The Zero Waste sessions were filled with laughter AND heated debate as speakers challenged listeners to really think about the waste they create - and what can be done about not creating it in the first place!

  The conference planning committee worked diligently to create an environment of zero waste. Meetings were held with the hotel housekeeping and banquet staff to assure that as little waste as possible would be created by the conference. Attendees saw frequent reminders to "Take only what you need - use all that you take!" And where waste couldn't be avoided - it was measured! A combined total of only 9.2 lbs. of food waste was thrown away. However, a full 55 lbs. of food was taken to a local shelter as coordinated through Northcoast Food Rescue.

  If copies of the speakers' materials or information on the topic in general is desired, please call the AOR office at 888-718-6639.

  ---

  Ink a Dink a Due

  Ink jet cartridge recycling is becoming easier these days thanks to the teamwork of The Indiana Recycling Coalition (IRC) and Enviro Smart/AAA Environmental, Morton Grove, Illinois. In the past year our efforts to divert computer plastics from the waste stream had leveled off. Now a new customer friendly, triangle-shaped dispensing unit is available for display at campus bookstores, office supplies stores and organizations that use significant numbers of ink jet cartridges.

  The cardboard dispensers house a roll of plastic, pre-addressed, postage-paid, ready sealed mailing pouches that can be detached, (much in the same way as paper towel dispensers in public rest rooms). A patron pulls out a free pouch, drops his/her used cartridge in the pouch, and drops it in the mail. It is just that simple.

  The cartridges are reconditioned, re-filled with ink, and then sold in a secondary market. And best of all, the pouches have bar codes on them that credit the IRC to receive a refund for every cartridge that's recycled and in good condition. Unfortunately, not all brands are accepted, but the types of ink jet cartridges that are accepted are clearly marked on the display unit. A sample unit can be seen at the IN Environmental Institute located in the ISTA Building, 150 West Market Street, Suite 520, Indianapolis, IN.

  United Airlines Maintenance Facility in Indianapolis and the East Central Solid Waste District have already placed orders for units to be shipped to them. There are no out-of-pocket costs to the user to display the new units but there are some delivery and operational considerations. Direct inquiries to IRC Board Member Jeff Miller at 317-328-1189. So help the environment and raise funds for the IRC in the process!

  ---

  EPS Recycling - Shifting Directions

  The Illinois Recycling Association, U.S. EPA Region V, Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs sponsored a Polystyrene Recycling Forum, which was held on October 13 in Chicago. The Indiana Recycling Coalition was a supporting organization for this forum. Plastics industry representatives, recycling haulers and processors, community recycling program managers , and interested persons participated in this day of dialog, summarized below.

  Problem #1: When it comes to the PACKAGING GRADE of expanded polystyrene (EPS) that is collected co-mingled curbside, there no longer exists any market for the collected material. Period. There currently is no identified end-user for this material, which is often contaminated beyond acceptable levels during the co-mingled collection process. (Examples include the polystyrene packaging that a consumer finds when he or she unpacks a new electronic item, stereo or computer). However, there IS a stable market for EPS PACKAGING GRADE MATERIAL that is collected from industrial or commercial sources, and which is clean and in large quantities. The clean industrially- and commercially-generated EPS is remanufactured into EPS foam packaging peanuts.

  Problem #2: When it comes to the FOOD GRADE of EPS, there is only one company that is accepting the collected material, and they are currently charging $300 per ton, plus transportation costs, to process it before it gets shipped overseas for final use. (Examples include egg cartons, meat trays, fast food containers, school lunch trays, and coffee cups). Programs that are collecting this material are at the mercy of this one market.

  Problem #3: Some community recycling program contracts may require collecting, processing and recycling of these EPS materials. Continuing to handle these materials has become very expensive and difficult to market. As a result, many programs have removed EPS from their curbside collections. In some cases, the EPS materials that are curbside collected end up in the "residual stream" (i.e. destined for a disposal facility), because there is no outlet for them, regardless of the cost. Both of these situations can reduce the sustainability of the entire recycling program.

  Background: In the early 1990's, the plastics industry made a concerted effort to promote EPS recycling, actively recruiting communities to participate in collection programs. In addition, the industry made a huge financial investment in the formation of the National Polystyrene Recycling Company, located near Chicago. In 1995, EPS recycling peaked. Since that time, even with aggressive efforts, a number of factors have contributed to a sure but steady decline in the recycling of the "problem" EPS materials (co-mingled packaging grade and also food-grade EPS). These factors include: the low cost of virgin PS pellets, the even lower cost paid for recycled PS pellets, contamination and rodent problems, the difficulties in handling the EPS once collected, high overall transportation costs because of the material's low weight, and low demand for new products made from recycled EPS. Although the future is impossible to predict, the current trends indicate that markets will not improve any time soon, and the consensus that came forward from the October 13 forum focused on how to encourage removal of the "problem" EPS materials from curbside recycling programs.

  The American Plastics Council and the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers (AFPR) agreed to work with the affected parties to develop user-friendly education materials about this issue, using a two-tiered approach geared toward community and recycling program coordinators and also residents. The AFPR offered use of it's toll-free 1-800-944-8448 number to help answer questions, in addition to including a fact sheet on it's web site at www.epspackaging.org for program organizers to utilize. Several of the key players at the forum agreed to assist in the development of the educational materials. In addition, information on reuse and recycling of foam packaging peanuts can be found at the peanut hotline at 1-800-828-2214.

  This overall situation begs the question: How are decisions made about which individual materials are included in recycling programs? When fine-tuning a program requires the surgical removal of a specific material that is no longer viable to accept, how can this message most effectively be communicated, without jeopardizing the healthy part of the recycling program. In other words, how can we work together towards the goal of more effective and sustainable recycling?

  ---

  AISWMD Welcomes New Director

  The annual conference of the Association of Indiana Solid Waste Management Districts (AISWMD) was held October 28 - 29th in Indianapolis. The "new" Executive Director, Mark Davis, is an "old" friend to a majority of the 125 people who attended. In addition to a reunion with Mark, attendees enjoyed a full conference agenda.

  Workshop session topics included; Commissioner's Environmental Court; HHW Education for Children; Brownfield Redevelopment; Web Page Design; HHW Mercury Project; Boards and CACs working together; State Board of Accounts-What you must know; Pollution Prevention; What's new with OSHA; and a legislative discussion section on HEA 1339 and SEA 349.

  If you failed to attend, you missed a wealth of information crucial to management of a solid waste district. The AISWMD is currently comprised of 40 paid member districts and conference attendees were present from 40 districts. The conference was coordinated by members of the AISWMD Board of Directors, with great thanks to the Northeast Indiana SWMD and Monroe County SWMD.

  The return of Mark Davis to solid waste management issues in Indiana is expected to lead the AISWMD to growth in membership and increased involvement with districts individually and collectively. He summarized his objective simply, "to help districts do their jobs better."

  Mark Davis formerly served as director of the Brown County Solid Waste District from 1993-1996, and was president of the Indiana Recycling Coalition and an IRC board member from 1995-1997. For the past 2 1/2 years Mark has worked for PDR Engineers, an environmental engineering consulting firm headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.

  A two-year grant from IDEM for $70,000 funds the position and AISWMD projects. The grant is matched in-kind and with funds from membership dues. Mark expects to travel a lot but will maintain his office at the Monroe County Solid Waste Management District in Bloomington. His voice mail is at 812-349-2117 and his pager number is 888-694-5814. Please consider contacting him for information on becoming a member. The success of districts depends on unity and mutual support of the mission to reduce and properly manage waste generated in Indiana.

  ---

  A 'New' Way to Recycle:
  Gleaning and Food Rescue

  What is gleaning? From biblical origins, gleaning is the practice of gathering extra crops that are left in the fields after a harvest. Coupled with food rescue and recover, it denotes the collection and distribution of food to disadvantaged individuals.

  Prepared and perishable foods are gathered from a number of sources, including restaurants, caterers, hotels, corporate cafeterias, farms, wholesale docks, farmers' markets, and supermarkets. Anyone can lend a hand at any level, from large restaurant chains donating in bulk, to individuals volunteering time to glean on a farm.

  Gleaning groups - 'prepared and perishable food rescue programs' (PPRFP), cleanly and efficiently pick up and deliver the food donations. These organizations are trained in careful food handling and preparation methods. These donations are routinely sent to child-care centers, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, food banks or pantries, all of which serve the needy daily.

  • Currently, more than 10% of the US population depends on nonprofit food distribution organizations for a significant part of their nutritional needs
  • It is estimated that almost 27% of our food supply is wasted More than 96 billion pounds of edible 'surplus' food is thrown away each year.

  The USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse, administered by World Hunger Year, aims to connect people and organizations seeking information about reducing food waste. Congress recently passed the "Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Law" (HR2428) protecting donors for good faith donations of food for free distribution by charitable organizations. Tax credits are also available to donors!

  For more information, contact USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse at World Hunger Year, Phone: 800-GLEAN-IT or http://www.iglou.com/why/glean

  ---

  ---

   

 

Copyright 1998 by the Indiana Recycling Coalition
Web Page Design by Cyberville Webworks