Clean Your Plate! Wasting Food Exacts a Heavy Toll on the Environment

It’s an uncertainty we can all relate to. You go to your refrigerator to get some milk, yogurt or sliced meat, and wonder whether you need to throw it out because the “best before” date has just passed.

This misplaced concern is widespread. A British study by the Waste and Resources Action Program has found that close to 50% of consumers are confused about the meaning of food labels such as “best before.” This confusion is just one example of the number of ways food gets wasted in our society.

And we do waste a tremendous amount of food in Canada. A recent study estimated that 40% of the food we produce each year is not actually consumed. It’s lost during processing, packaging and transportation, as well as later in the retail stores, restaurants and in our homes. This loss amounts to some $27 billion dollars annually. Statistics Canada estimated that in 2007 we wasted the equivalent of 183 kilograms of food per person.

Wasting food is not just a waste of money; it has significant environmental costs. Consider for a moment the hundreds of trillions of litres of fresh water that is wasted on food that will never be eaten. Humans use more water for agriculture than for any other use. Then consider the significant amounts of energy and packaging that are used to bring the food to market. An estimated 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the production and preparation of food. To add insult to injury, when our uneaten food is buried in landfill, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than CO2.

Food waste occurs all along the food chain, from “field to fork.” But more than 50% of all the food wasted in Canada is wasted in our homes. And, like most problems, it can be prevented.

Let’s start with the real meaning of the “best before” date. It does not mean that the food in the unopened package is going to spoil on the date printed on the label. As the Canadian Food Inspection Agency says “you can buy and eat [unopened] foods after the ‘best before‘ date has passed. However, when this date has passed, the food may lose some of its freshness and flavour, or its texture may have changed. Some of its nutritional value … may also be lost.” Unfortunately, with so little public education about what “best before” dates actually mean, consumers frequently throw out perfectly edible food under the mistaken belief that it is not safe to eat.

We all have a role to play in reducing food waste. The federal and provincial governments could provide better guidance on food labelling, and sponsor public education campaigns on the best ways to reduce food waste. This paid off in the United Kingdom, where household food waste dropped by 13% following a public awareness campaign.

Manufacturers, restaurants and hotels can increase their donations of unwanted foodstuffs to food banks, shelters and other social service agencies. Farmers can encourage “gleaning” of their fields and collection of crops left on the ground after harvest. All-you-can-eat restaurants and cafeterias can eliminate trays, as people tend to fill their trays whether they want the food or not.

The environmental costs of letting good food go to waste are staggering. Governments can’t reach into our homes and force us to eat our crusts, but they should be providing us with the knowledge, tools and incentives to help us to stop wasting food.

For more information, read A Terrible Waste: The Environmental Costs of Throwing our Food Away” from the ECO’s 2011/2012 Annual Report, Losing Our Touch.

Opening Remarks – Losing Our Touch

The Commissioner’s opening remarks to the legislature for his 2011/2012 Annual Report (part 2), Losing Our Touch, are now online:

The Environmental Commissioner’s Visit to Kingston

Throughout the year, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, Gord Miller, makes many presentations, speeches and appearances across the province. Additionally, Commissioner Miller tours a different part of Ontario each year to learn about the environmental issues, challenges and successes unique to that particular region. This year, he visited Kingston.  Here are some highlights from his trip last week.

 

 

Visiting Ravensview Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was upgraded in 2009 to increase capacity and provide advanced secondary biological treatment; the Commissioner met with staff for a tour of the new facilities, including the plant’s state-of-the-art biological aerated filters.

 

 

 

The Commissioner learning about Kingston’s new wastewater treatment technology from Utilities Kingston staff. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Commissioner in Ravensview’s biosolids storage facility. Biosolids are one of the useful products of wastewater; the biosolids shown here will be applied as crop fertilizer on local farms. 

 

 

Helping unveil the plaque celebrating the new LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) at the Ravensview plant’s administrative offices.

 

 

 

 

The Commissioner unveiling LEED certification plaques with Kingston mayor, Mark Gerretsen.

 

 

 

Touring Belle Park Landfill Site, a former City of Kingston waste disposal site now converted for recreational use (including a golf course), and learning about the ongoing remediation efforts such as trees planted for passive leachate control.

 

 

 

 

The Commissioner with 4-year-old hybrid poplar trees planted on site for leachate control.

 

 

 

Visiting the Wolfe Island Wind Farm, which consists of 86, 2.3 MW wind turbines, and hearing about the construction and first years of operation at the site.

 

 

 

 

The Commissioner with TransAlta site supervisor beside a turbine blade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viewing of some of Wolfe Island’s 86 wind turbines.

 

 

 

Meeting with staff from the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) at Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area to hear about their work across the region.

 

 

 

 

Speaking with staff on a hiking trail in Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area

 

 

The ECO sincerely thanks everyone he visited for taking the time to share their experiences and knowledge of environmental initiatives in Kingston.

Protecting Ontario’s Aquatic Biodiversity

Marine Biodiversity is the theme for this year’s International Day for Biological Diversity on May 22, 2012.

Ontario has a large marine coastline that spans over 1000 kilometres along James and Hudson Bays.  The ECO will be discussing the province’s marine biodiversity in an upcoming report.  In the meantime, this year’s focus on marine biodiversity provides an opportunity for a more general discussion of Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity.

There are more than 250,000 lakes in the province, including the Great Lakes that alone hold over 20 percent of the world’s freshwater and provide 3000 kilometres of coastal shoreline habitat.  With all this water, Ontario holds a great diversity of aquatic ecological communities and systems, and provides habitat for an amazing variety of freshwater species, ranging from tiny shrimp-like crustaceans to giant water bugs to carnivorous plants  to mudpuppies to American eels.

Should we be concerned about the overall health of Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity?

There are some indications that we should be worried. The State of Ontario’s Biodiversity 2010 showed some deteriorating trends in the Great Lakes.  For example, shoreline hardening has increased, destroying coastal habitats for nearshore ecological communities; scientists have also observed drastic declines in the abundance of Diporeia, an important crustacean prey species that plays a central role in the offshore food web.  The Canada-wide Wild Species Reports show that across the country, many groups of aquatic species are at risk of extinction or extirpation, including Ontario species; for example, 61 per cent of the country’s freshwater mussels and 27 per cent of freshwater fishes are at risk or are potentially at risk.  Meanwhile, we still don’t have the essential trend data for other important indicators on the status of Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity, such as alterations to stream flow and fragmentation by dams.

What could the provincial government do to better protect aquatic species and communities in Ontario?  The ECO has recommended that the provincial government establish a statutory responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the state of the province’s biodiversity, so we can better understand trends and prevent species from becoming endangered.  Further, in our 2012 Special Report, Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, An Obligation for Ontario, we highlighted the need for the government to create a strategic plan of action to conserve, protect and recover our province’s biological diversity.

Another option could be to design protected areas specifically to conserve Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity.  As the ECO noted in our 2006/2007 Annual Report, the province could create aquatic class provincial parks under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006.  Unfortunately, the section of the Act authorizing this classification has never been proclaimed, so this important policy tool has yet to be used.

The ECO has previously discussed a number of other issues related to Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity and options for protecting it.  Some recent examples include:

  • Engaging Solutions on the Great Lakes: What steps could the Ontario government take right now to protect and restore the Great Lakes biodiversity?  The ECO identified a number of policies and programs the province could implement, including: reporting on pollutant loadings; banning Asian carp imports dead or alive; defending wetlands; curbing agricultural runoff; and championing the Great Lakes.
  • Ontario’s Commercial Fisheries: Ontario has a long history of commercial fishing, but the types of species targeted today are different from those caught in the past – due to historical population collapses amidst overfishing, pollution, habitat loss and the absence of regulation.  The ECO examined Ontario’s current commercial fisheries policies and urged Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to develop a publicly available policy to explain how it allocates fish between different uses, such as commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries and conservation.
  • Oversight of Aquaculture in Lake Huron:  There are numerous ecological concerns associated with the practice of fish farming in floating net cages in open waters.  The ECO found inspection rates at cage aquaculture sites in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay were low, and even when negative environmental impacts were detected, little enforcement action was taken.
  • Dams and American Eels: Fragmented rivers and streams have damaging effects on many aquatic species, including the endangered American eel.  The ECO believes that MNR should require all new dams to allow natural passage of fish by installing fish ladders.

For more on what the ECO has previously written about biodiversity, including aquatic biodiversity, please see ecoissues.ca.

From Tired Grey to Green Infrastructure – Philadelphia’s Makeover

Green City Clean Waters

When you hear “Philadelphia”, what comes to mind? Their hockey team, maybe? Or the historic cracked Liberty Bell? You might be surprised to learn that this venerable eastern U.S. city – founded in 1682; home to six million – is in the news as North America’s green model on managing storm water.

Since many older Ontario cities struggle with chronic stormwater pollution, we would be smart to look closely at the landmark agreement signed days ago between the City of Philadelphia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Green infrastructure is at the heart of a $2 billion plan to manage the city’s stormwater runoff. With the EPA’s blessing and technical support, the city will address its aging infrastructure of pipes and concrete – not by perpetuating grey technology, but by shifting to green approaches such as porous pavements, rain gardens, grassy swales and green roofs. As this inspiring three-minute video shows, Philadelphia has embarked on a 25-year plan to capture at least the first inch of each storm through green solutions. One example of how the city is overturning conventional approaches: the city bills landowners for stormwater based on the amount of impervious surface area. Private landowners who reduce impervious surfaces can receive almost 100% rebates on their stormwater bill.

Green Infrastructure is a concept that is right for our times, and my latest Annual Report encouraged Ontario ministries to embrace it. It is a tool that can help us prepare for the twin challenges of a rapidly growing urban population and a less predictable future climate, marked by more extreme weather events and higher flooding risks. Green infrastructure can provide cost-effective approaches in many settings and at many scales.

The Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) has a key role to play in making green infrastructure a mainstream approach in Ontario. In June 2011, the ministry released a Long-term Infrastructure Plan for Ontario called Building Together. I am pleased that this new plan does at least contain language encouraging municipalities to use green infrastructure. But MOI could also leverage the greening of many provincial projects: MOI was charged with oversight of close to $16 billion worth of infrastructure projects in 2010/2011 alone. There are compelling arguments for MOI to seize the huge potential embodied in green infrastructure, and to translate the encouraging green words of Building Together into pilot projects, measurable targets and goals.

Impacts of climate change on Canada’s freshwater resources at the Munk School of Global Affairs

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario will be speaking at the Munk School of Global Affairs tomorrow about Climate Change, Freshwater Management, and the Role of Science

This event will examine the impacts of climate change on Canada’s freshwater resources. The panelists will explore the importance of scientific research and monitoring in understanding the state of freshwater resources and in managing them sustainably, as well as the linkages between water use and the natural resource sectors in Canada.

Click here to register (Registration is required )

Other speakers:
Scott Vaughan, Federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development,
David McLaughlin, President and CEO of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

The event will be moderated by:
Jeffrey Simpson, National Affairs Columnist at the Globe and Mail, and co-author of Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge

Date and Time: Tuesday, March 13, 2012.
Reception from 8:30am-9:30am.
Panel Discussion from 9:30am-11:30am.

Location: Vivian and David Campbell Conference Facility
Map: http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/location/

To register, visit: http://www.munk.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=11797 (Registration Required)

Webcast of the panel discussion will begin at 9:30 am (EST) at http://www.powi.ca

The Fish That Could Get Away

People are talking about “huge, ravenous invaders”, and “potential catastrophe”… is it a Godzilla Movie?  No, it’s the Asian Carp, and this fish truly does present a grave threat to the Great Lakes.  Our Great Lakes are already being pummeled by a barrage of pressures, as I have sketched out in my newest Annual Report. The lakes have goopy algal mats fouling many shorelines; their waters are polluted by combined sewer overflows in urban areas and by agricultural runoff in rural areas.  Soon they may have Asian carp too, gobbling up the food of native species, dramatically altering Great Lakes ecosystems and wreaking havoc with both commercial and recreational fisheries.

To control one means of entry for this invasive species, I have suggested that the Ministry of Natural Resources consider tightening its rules on fish importation, and prohibit outright the possession of Asian carp, dead or alive. The seizure of six tonnes of live Asian Carp by Canadian border officials just this past month is sobering.  But another key risk is that this species will swim into the Great Lakes through the link of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.  Now a new study by the Great Lakes Commission and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative argues for protecting the Great Lakes from this avenue of invasion, and proposes a plan for separating the waterways.  It would be very expensive, yes; but consider the alternatives.

 

 

 

Ontario Government Missing in Action to Halt the Loss of Biodiversity

Toronto, January 10, 2012 – The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario says the Government of Ontario must come up with a new strategy to stem the continuing decline in Ontario’s species and natural spaces.  In a special report released today, “Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario,” Gord Miller says unless Ontario and all other provinces take action, the international commitments made by the federal government will be meaningless.

“The Ontario government did adopt a Biodiversity Strategy in 2005,” says Gord Miller. “Unfortunately, it expired in 2010, and the government has so far chosen not to adopt an updated plan.  Our government cannot avoid its obligation,” says Miller, “to guide Ontario’s response to this urgent crisis.”

In 2010, Canada met with almost 200 nations in Nagoya, Japan and agreed on 20 biodiversity conservation targets that should be achieved by 2020.   But the Commissioner says most of the constitutional responsibility for meeting these targets lies with Ontario and the other provincial governments. “Efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity must be implemented at the provincial level if they are to be effective. And Ontario won’t be able to do that unless it has a new Biodiversity Strategy.”

In Ontario, the most significant threats to the province’s species and natural spaces are habitat degradation, climate change, invasive species, overexploitation and pollution.  The Commissioner has previously warned about the lack of action to safeguard the province’s 200 species at risk such as snapping turtles, cougars, and Jefferson salamanders. Gord Miller has said the government also needs to address the threats from invasive species like Asian carp, and protect wetlands and woodlands in southern Ontario.

The Environmental Commissioner says, “the federal government has promised, during the current International Decade for Biodiversity, to conserve biodiversity on behalf of all Canadians.” It is imperative that the Government of Ontario acts quickly and come up with a plan to implement those commitments.  This requires a new Biodiversity Strategy. Rhetoric alone will not suffice.”

-30-

 The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is appointed by the Legislative Assembly to be the province’s independent environmental watchdog, reporting publicly on the government’s environmental decision making.

Download the special report “Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario” and the Commissioner’s opening remarks to the Legislature at http://www.eco.on.ca/

Watch the Commissioner’s comments of this report here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-6mWZcio4

For more information, contact:

Maria Leung

Communications and Outreach Coordinator

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

416-325-3371

1-800-701-6454

maria.leung@eco.on.ca

For support in French, please contact Jean-Marc Filion at 705-476-9665.

Aussi disponible en français 

Will Ontario weather the next big storm?

Memories from the destructive blow of Hurricane Hazel on Southern Ontario on October 15, 1954, still linger. Torrential rain devastated many communities. Bridges, roads and railway lines were washed out. Homes were flooded or collapsed from the force of raging water overflowing from swollen creeks and rivers. The biggest tragedy, however, was the loss of human life. More than 80 Ontarians lost their lives in this catastrophic event.

Hurricanes and severe storms are often described as rare and extreme events; somehow this suggests they are out of our hands and that it is okay to merely hope they won’t happen. Unfortunately, they do happen. I grew up in Timmins, and played in Town Creek. I recall the Timmins Storm of 1961 that ripped roads apart and drowned a family in their home. The Peterborough storm of 2004 overwhelmed the city’s storm sewer system and left most of the city under a meter of murky water. We are wiser to accept that these extreme weather events will happen and must be planned for.

Planning for severe storms will become even more important in the future under a changing climate, as the severity and frequency of such events are expected to increase. In my 2009/2010 Annual Report, I called on the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for swift, coordinated and decisive action on “Planning for Stormy Weather.”

MOE has recognized the need for a policy framework to support resilient municipal stormwater management systems. The ministry has also identified the need for updating existing stormwater management guidelines and for a concerted planning effort by a number of provincial ministries, municipalities and conservation authorities.

For this important planning work, we will be relying on the ongoing good work of conservation authorities. Conservation authorities manage flood control and prevention infrastructure and work closely with provincial, federal and municipal levels of government to prepare for and respond to extreme weather events. They deliver programs that prevent some $100 million in flood damages every year. To continue their important work on mitigating flooding risks, CAs will need adequate funding. For over a decade, provincial funding for these programs has remained steady at about $7.6 million per year, eight times less than the early 1990s. It is estimated that an additional $14 million per year is needed from the province.

More storms are coming our way; will we be prepared? Will we have the resilience to weather them?

What is Green Infrastructure anyway?

Commissioner’s Remarks to the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition Launch:
November 22, 2010, Evergreen Brick Works, Toronto

A Vision for a Green Infrastructure in Ontario

So what is green infrastructure?  Before we can answer that we have to understand a more basic question: What is Infrastructure?

The Ministry of Infrastructure says that its objective is to make strategic investments that will meet the needs of a growing population and economy by identifying what infrastructure developments will most benefit key public sectors and the standard of living in Ontario over the long run.  They divide those investments into four major categories:

  • Education
  • Health Care
  • Transportation
  • Municipal and Local:
    • Safe drinking water
    • Environmentally responsible sewage and waste disposal
    • Health promoting parks and recreation facilities
    • Better local  roads, bridges and transit

Most of those investments are done through an agency called Infrastructure Ontario.  On its website, the following current projects are listed:

  • 37 hospitals and health care
  • 11 justice system
  • 4 highways and roads
  • 1 data centre

These projects are not driven by provincial mandate; they are based on applications received for capital projects from various institutions in our society.  So in a real sense, this is how “we” collectively see infrastructure.  And, although it seems that the goal of all those infrastructure things is to keep our water clean and safe, not pollute our environment and protect our health … we mostly do it by pouring a lot of concrete, laying a lot of asphalt and constructing a lot of steel and glass.

These are necessary things, but are they sufficient to meet the goal?  Sounds like drinking water is covered, and maybe sewage, but what about storm water … the water that runs off after rainstorms and feeds our streams and rivers?  In most urban areas its quality is not so great, and although there are rules and policies, storm water quality isn’t really reflected as a priority in this model of infrastructure.

What about air quality?  Surely urban air quality has public benefits and standard of living implications.  Certainly the emphasis on health and medical treatment helps us deal with the impacts of smog days and poor air quality – but how does our infrastructure spending model help us improve air quality?

What about thermal control?  Our urban areas are often heat islands, accumulating heat well in excess of suburban or rural landscapes surrounding.  Of course this adds to our air conditioning energy costs but, more importantly, we must recall the European heat wave of 2003 that killed 35,000 people … we have been spared this type of event so far, but for how much longer?  How does our infrastructure model address that risk?

And there are other public benefits and implications to our standard of living.  I mentioned energy costs: does our infrastructure paradigm reflect the growing need to improve our energy productivity and control costs?  Do we require or even endorse distributed electrical generation?  Do we take advantage of ground source or solar thermal heating opportunities?  When surplus heat is available, do we capture it in district heating systems like the Europeans do?  On a global level, we have a responsibility to reduce our GHG emissions, is such a reduction a natural function of our infrastructure investments?  And on a more local scale, are we building infrastructure and protecting it in a way that will maximize its life and thus minimize our replacement costs?

Since there are these other benefits and improvements to our quality of living in the long term that are available, perhaps it would be wise if we reconsidered our perspective of what infrastructure is and how we could bring in other tools and approaches into our infrastructure toolkit. Many of those tools could be things we have come to characterize as green initiatives.

We actually have a lot of interesting green stuff around the province.  Toronto and some other cities have some pretty sophisticated systems to improve and maintain tree biodiversity and coverage within the city.  We have some urban parks and sometimes have ravines or escarpments that are ecologically rich natural systems.  Some municipalities like Richmond Hill have added to these lands by building quite sophisticated and naturalized storm water management facilities.

Toronto has a green roof by-law which in increasing greening its roofscape, but I don’t think it has anything yet like the rooftop of the Rideau Centre in Ottawa where four stories up there are lawns and gardens and trees 25 cm or more in diameter with baby rabbits hopping around.  And there are only a few instances where the carpet of living things we put on top of our buildings is encouraged to spread down the sides and integrate into the grey water and storm water management systems and other landscaping.  The techniques of actually designing for building integrated vegetation (BIV) are in their early stages of development.

There is a great renaissance in urban agriculture occurring across the province.  Although it’s worth noting that what may be new to some, has always persisted in the yards of many immigrant neighborhoods.  Nonetheless, it is growing and spreading and presents a different view of the urban landscape.

We love to make our urban surfaces hard to support the weight of our various machines and the high volume of human traffic, and so far our hard surfaces are impermeable to water.  Unlike living soft surfaces which absorb water and process pollutants, hard surfaces collect wastes and pollutants during dry periods and shed them rapidly into streams and rivers during rainfall and snow melt events.  We know how to build permeable hard surfaces, but their adoption is limited so far.

So there are green tools for the infrastructure toolkit.  But they are just pieces, scattered around, not integrated into the normal course of business, because they are not seen as parts of a greater infrastructure approach.  The benefits of cost savings and improvements to the quality of life they offer are lost because we see infrastructure as just the buildings and pipes and roads and wires that we construct.

Perhaps it would be useful to step back and consider another complex infrastructure that we are familiar with … it is called a forest.  It was here before the urban areas of Ontario were built and it functioned quite well.  It ran exclusively on renewable solar energy and had a large built environment that was self sustaining.  It produced 100% of the food for its inhabitants and recycled 100 % of its waste.  The air in the forest was clean and cool and the shaded environment did not experience photo degradation.  The streams of this infrastructure flowed clear, clean and cool.

The forest (much modified) is still with us, of course.  It’s all around us and if you look at Google Earth for Toronto, for example, you will see how the forest seamlessly penetrates the urban landscape right down to where we are standing.  It is still here and it is still functioning to some extent … still cleaning the air and the water and where we don’t rush in to pick it up, processing its own wastes.  It is part of our infrastructure and it is providing benefits and improving our quality of life.

We can’t have the all the environmental benefits of a forest in a human occupied urban landscape, but we can learn from nature.  We can see what works and why and investigate the interconnectedness of the systems.  We can do things differently.  We can make a human landscape that not only utilizes all those tools I have listed to get the benefits described but does more than that.  We can have a living environment rich with living things to which people intrinsically respond in a positive and relaxed way.

So my task was to define what green infrastructure is so that the coalition can get on with its task …

Green Infrastructure is a new way of conceptualizing our urban landscape … a way of integrating life and life forces into our urban living spaces that maximizes the utility of ecosystem goods and services thus lowering operating costs and capital replacement investment while improving our well being.  Green infrastructure is about good business and a good life.

Thank You