Factors Associated with Food Waste Among University Students in Colombia

Abstract

(1) Background: Globally, millions of tons of food are wasted annually, with a significant portion occurring at the household level. This study aimed to quantify food waste generated by university students and identify key factors associated with this behavior. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a community trial involving 227 Colombian university students. Participants self-reported their daily food waste (grams per person per day), as categorized by food type, which was collected through an online-based questionnaire under prior training. The data were analyzed using a binomial regression model to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (PRaj) and identify associations between food waste and demographic variables. (3) Results: Of the participants, 63% were women, with a mean age of 20.4 ± 3.8 years. Overall, 65% (n = 148) reported food wastage. The average food waste per person per day was 22.6 ± 15.5 g, increasing to 94.0 ± 5.0 g among those who reported wastage. Significant associations were found between food waste and several factors: Among those with a higher prevalence of food waste were women (PRaj = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.89); students from rural areas (PRaj = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.67); and those with higher income levels, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.68) for those earning 1–2 Minimum Legal Monthly Wages (LMMW) and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.93) for those earning 3+ LMMW. Household size and socioeconomic status were not significantly associated with food waste (p > 0.05). (4) Conclusions: On average, the population generates 8.25 kg of food waste per person per year, rising to 34.31 kg among those who report wasting food. Gender, geographic location, and income were key predictors of daily food waste.

1. Introduction

Food loss and waste (FWL) refers to a phenomenon that is a product of unsustainable food systems. Specifically, it is the surplus food mass discarded at different stages of the agri-food chain. Thus, FWL is considered a global problem of widespread magnitude and frequency that affects sustainability and food security. This phenomenon goes against Sustainable Development Goals such as Zero Hunger and Responsible Production and Consumption [1]. Additionally, it contrasts with the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity of 29.3% in the world and hunger figures that by 2021 reached 828 million people [2].

It is essential to distinguish between food losses and waste. Food losses occur in the production stages up to the retailer, excluding surpluses, and include the production or harvest, post-harvest, storage, and industrial processing phases. On the other hand, waste is generated in later stages, from the retailer to consumption (distribution, retail, and consumption phases), whether domestic or bulk, from public or private gastronomic services. This waste is often a result of behavior, purchasing and consumption habits, and the handling of food [3].

At least one-third of the food produced in the world, equivalent to about 1.3 billion tons destined for human consumption, is lost or wasted annually. In Latin America, per capita food losses are approximately 200 to 225 kg/year, with the production stage being the main scenario due to the lack of the necessary capacity for processing and preserving products that meet each country’s food demand [3].

Colombia supplies 28.5 million tons of food, of which 34% is lost or wasted, equivalent to 9.76 million tons [4], enough to feed 8 million people annually. Of the total food lost and wasted, 64% of the losses occur in the production, post-harvest, storage, and industrial processing stages. The remaining 36% is generated in the distribution and household consumption stages [4]. In contrast, it has been estimated that about 40% of waste is produced during agricultural production, and 16% is due to poor management within the household [4]. In the case of Colombia, FWLs represent a monetary value of 15.4 trillion pesos, equivalent to 2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 30% of the agricultural value, and five times the investment budget of the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture [5].

The scenario of multiple determinants of food wastage is complemented by people’s consumption habits and the low nutritional education that generates the purchase of larger quantities of food than necessary, lack of menu planning, extra-large portion sizes, advertising, and food marketing that incites these unnecessary and compulsive purchases that increase the probability of food expiration [5]. FWL generates multiple social impacts, as food systems are disrupted to the point of affecting the global supply of safe, accessible, healthy diets. Furthermore, FWLs contribute to deepening the problem of contemporary food conflict, which consists of the coexistence of overweight, hunger, and inequalities in global food distribution [6]. FWLs also have a negative economic impact, as they affect food systems, resulting in higher food prices and creating difficulties for equitable access to food. All of the above favor food insecurity and poverty while increasing water, land, and carbon footprints [7].

Multiple potential solutions have been attempted to address the problem of FWL, including public policies and actions at the stages of food production, processing, and distribution aimed at impacting consumption, e.g., food guidelines and good manufacturing practices (GMP), food donations to food bank networks, and strengthening the circular economy to promote changes in sustainable production and consumption patterns [8].

Various strategies have been implemented globally to address food waste, aiming to positively impact the environment, the economy, and food security. Notable initiatives include efforts at both governmental and international organizational levels, as well as actions taken by businesses and consumers.

In national policies, many countries have developed action plans against food waste, such as laws prohibiting supermarkets from discarding food in good condition and mandating that they donate it to charitable organizations. There are also laws promoting food waste reduction and encouraging public education and collaboration among different sectors as well as campaigns focused on changing shopping and consumption habits by promoting good practices such as meal planning, utilizing leftovers, and composting organic waste.

At the corporate level, some companies have adopted the methodology of measuring and reporting their food waste levels and implementing technological solutions to optimize the supply chain and reduce surplus food products. Technological platforms are also emerging to connect consumers with businesses to utilize food that would otherwise be discarded, such as through various apps [9].

In Colombia, the legislation that regulates the measures for the prevention of and reduction in food waste is Law 1990 of 2019 [10]. This law aims to establish concrete strategies and actions to reduce food losses and waste throughout the production, distribution, and consumption chain to improve food security and contribute to sustainability. Law 1990 sets measures for reducing food waste at the stages of production, distribution, and consumption; promotes the donation of food fit for human consumption that, for commercial reasons, cannot be sold; and encourages the implementation of educational campaigns and public awareness to promote responsible consumption and reduce household food losses.

This national legislation is complemented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which sets several key objectives related to food waste reduction, such as Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, which refers to ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns. The target most directly related to food waste (target 12.3) is to halve the per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels by 2030.

On the other hand, measuring household food waste is challenging due to the diversity of methods available and variations in consumer behaviors. Several methodologies measure household food wastage, including wastage diaries, direct food weighing, visual plate estimation, image-based tools, waste composition studies, and questionnaires/surveys/forms [11].

Food waste affects all levels of society, including university students. Food waste is a global issue with significant environmental, social, and economic implications, and studying it within the context of university students is particularly relevant due to the characteristics of their lifestyle. University students often live under budgetary constraints and in shared or temporary accommodations, and they frequently manage irregular schedules due to academic and work commitments. Thus, in a study conducted in New Zealand among university students, it was found that the most important factors leading to food waste were the lack of meal and shopping planning as well as the improper separation of food waste from other types of waste, which resulted in the disposal of a considerable amount of avoidable food waste, such as fresh food and leftovers [12]. Meanwhile, a study conducted among university students in Italy and Poland investigated the influence of living conditions and dietary practices on students’ perception of food waste. The findings indicated that 39% of respondents in Italy and 31% in Poland were highly aware of food waste. It was also identified that students belonging to Generation Z (ages 18 to 25) are more likely to be influenced by environmental campaigns aimed at reducing food waste compared to Millennials (ages 26 to 35). This highlights the need for educational initiatives targeting this population regarding the importance of sustainable consumption and strengthening university curricula to enhance students’ environmental commitment [13]. Measuring food waste among university students is relevant to developing effective awareness, education, and reduction strategies at the school or university level. Thus, this study aimed to estimate food waste derived from consumption by university students and determine its associated factors. The scope of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimation of food waste generated by university students and to explore the factors that contribute to this behavior. By examining key variables such as gender, geographic location, and socioeconomic status, the study aims to shed light on the underlying causes of food waste within this demographic. The findings offer insights into the potential strategies for reducing food waste in academic settings, thereby informing policy development and educational interventions to promote more sustainable consumption habits among university students.

2. Material and Methods

A cross-sectional analytical quantitative study was conducted in Bucaramanga, Colombia, during a community trial. The target population of this study was university students. By convenience, two hundred and twenty-seven undergraduate students from a state university were selected. The sample size was calculated in the Open Epi program, considering the following criteria: population size (n = 18,264), significance level of 95%, power (1-beta, % probability of detection) of 80%, hypothetical prevalence of food waste of 18%, risk/prevalence difference of 10, and design effect of 1.

The dependent variable of this study was the total wastage/person/day (g). Other variables were (1) biological and socioeconomic variables: the characteristics of the respondent and his/her household, including sex, age, socioeconomic level, marital status, weight and height, geographic location of the household (urban/rural), career, university to which he/she belongs, and household income; (2) shopping habits and attitudes: who makes the food purchases, the criteria for making and the frequency of food purchases, and money spent per week on food; (3) food habits and attitudes: the frequency of meals at home and outside the home and the preparation of meals; and (4) food waste: the types of food most discarded, the causes of food waste, and the habits and customs that encourage it.

• Data collection

All the information was collected through an online-based questionnaire, under prior training, to evaluate all the variables of interest. For the questions related to food wastage, the instrument designed by the FAO was used as a basis to measure food wastage in households [11].

The amount of food wasted and the other variables were measured through self-reporting. Senior students of Nutrition and Dietetics explained to the participants, before filling out the survey form, the concepts of food losses and food waste; emphasized the concept of waste, which is the object of this study; and explained in detail how they should fill out the form in terms of food waste for each of the meal times and in terms of the amounts and reasons to report. A pilot test was conducted with 20 university students to validate the level of understanding of each question and the correct completion of the questions related to the amount of food wasted.

The questionnaire used was structured and took approximately 30 min to complete. It aimed to inquire about the levels of food waste produced in the domestic environment in terms of the volume (g), type of food wasted, reasons why food is wasted, consumer behaviors, and attitudes towards the correct use of food. For further details regarding the structure and questions of the surveys, please contact the corresponding author.

• Data analysis

If a student self-reported wasting at least one meal time, it was considered food wasting. The prevalence of students who wasted and did not waste food for each category of the variables of interest was contrasted to establish differences between them with chi² tests. Using binomial regression models with the prevalence of wasting as the dependent variable (0/1), we calculated the adjusted prevalence ratios (PRaj) by sex, socioeconomic stratum, geographic area, number of people in the household, and income in terms of legal monthly minimum wages (LMMW). In addition to the estimator for the adjusted variable in the model (PRaj), the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the p-value (p-value) were reported. The grams/person/day of waste estimated for each subject as the dependent variable was transformed to approximate a normal distribution as (grams/person/day)^1/3.3. The mean and standard error (S.E.) described the back-transformed values. In addition, based on Simple Linear Regression or ANOVA models, the p-value was estimated for each variable of interest. Finally, Multiple Linear Regression models were performed with grams/person/day as the dependent variable to estimate the adjusted differences using adjusted B coefficients (βaj) in each category of the variables of interest. The absolute adjusted difference was reported with its 95% CI and p-value. All data were analyzed using the software Stata v. 15.

• Ethical approval

The Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Universidad Industrial de Santander approved this study (Project Code FS202201). All participants signed an informed consent form.

3. Results

Sixty-three percent of the participants were women. The mean age was 20.5 ± 3.5 years (mean ± S.E.). Food wastage was reported by 65% (n = 148). The wastage/person/day (g) in the total population analyzed was 22.6 ± 15.5; among students reporting wastage, it was 94.0 ± 5.0.

The highest frequency of food wastage occurred during lunch (49%), followed by breakfast (33%). The food consumed was purchased in 71% of the cases by the parents and 20% by the participants. Quality (33%), food price (30%), and consumption habits (30%) were the aspects that determined the purchase of food. The frequency of weekly purchases predominated (44%), followed by biweekly (28%). The parents prepared the food in 66% of cases and the participants in 22%. Cereals/tubers/roots were the food group with the highest self-reported wastage (15%), followed by the meat/legumes/egg group (6%). The lowest self-reported wastage was for the milk/dairy group (1%). Among students who wasted food, the main reason for wastage was because the food or preparation was over-purchased or over-prepared (43%) or because the food or preparation deteriorated due to poor preservation or storage (14%).

Table 1. Number and percentage (%) of students who generated food waste by type of food (n = 227).

Type of Food	Number (%)
Total	148 (65)
Breakfast	75 (33)
Mid-morning	37 (16)
Lunch	112 (49)
Mid-afternoon	24 (11)
Dinner	63 (28)

shows the proportion of wastage by type of food. Sex, income, and food preparation frequency determined whether or not a student reported food wasting; p-value < 0.05 (

Table 2. Number and percentage (%) of students who generated food waste according to biological and socioeconomic variables.

Variable	Total (%)	Freq [mean], (%)	Yes (%)	p-Value
Waste—grams *	227 (100)	79 [0.0]	148 [94.0]	<0.0001
Age—year	227 (100)	79 [20.3]	148 [20.5]	0.751
BMI—kg/m2	204 (100)	70 [22.7]	134 [22.5]	0.663
Sex				<0.0001
Female	143 (63)	36 (46)	107 (72)
Male	84 (37)	43 (54)	41 (28)
Socioeconomic status				0.108
Very low and low	148 (65)	57 (72)	91 (61)
Medium and high	79 (35)	22 (28)	57 (39)
Area				0.529
Rural	21 (9)	6 (8)	15 (10)
Urban	206 (91)	73 (92)	133 (90)
LMMW **				0.039
<1	95 (42)	42 (53)	53 (36)
1–2	97 (43)	28 (36)	69 (47)
≥3	35 (15)	9 (11)	26 (17)
Frequency of food purchase				0.059
Weekly	126 (56)	49 (62)	77 (52)
Biweekly	62 (27)	14 (18)	48 (32)
Monthly	39 (17)	16 (20)	23 (16)
Weekly food expenditure				0.357
<50 (12.39/11.38) ***	26 (11)	9 (11)	17 (11)
50 to 100 (24.77/22.75)	93 (41)	34 (43)	59 (40)
>101 (25.02/22.98)	88 (39)	26 (33)	62 (42)
I do not know	20 (9)	10 (13)	10 (7)
Do you prepare food?				0.002
Never	7 (3)	7 (9)	0
Rarely	45 (20)	19 (24)	26 (18)
Sometimes	112 (49)	35 (44)	77 (52)
Usually	37 (16)	12 (15)	25 (17)
Always	26 (12)	6 (8)	20 (13)
Household members				0.398
<5	163 (72)	54 (68)	109 (74)
≥5	64 (28)	25 (32)	39 (26)

* Based on transformed values (g)^1/3.3. ** LMMW: Legal Monthly Minimum Wages. *** COP(USD/EUR): thousands of Colombian pesos/U.S. dollars/euros.

).

Table 3. Adjusted prevalence ratios (PRaj) for food waste generation according to biological and socioeconomic variables.

Variable	PRaj *	95% I.C.	p-Value
Sex			<0.0001
Female	Ref
Male	0.67	0.53 to 0.84
Socioeconomic status			0.768
Very low and low	Ref	-
Medium and high	1.03	0.85 to 1.24
Area			0.001
Rural	Ref	-
Urban	0.72	0.60 to 0.87
LMMW **
<1	Ref	-
1–2	1.38	1.14 to 1.68	0.001
≥3	1.49	1.15 to 1.93	0.002
Household members			0.829
<5	Ref	-
≥5	0.98	0.82 to 1.17

* PRaj: achieved in a multiple binomial regression model where the dependent variable is food waste generation (0/1). 95% ** LMMW: Legal Monthly Minimum Wages. 95% I.C.: confidence intervals for the PRaj.

shows the P.R.s for the biological and socioeconomic variables: Being male, living in urban areas, and low socioeconomic income (<1 LMMW) are protective against food wastage.

Table 4. Food waste generation according to biological and socioeconomic variables. Mean (g) and Standard Error by variable category.

Variable	Total (%)	Freq [mean] *	S.E.	p-Value
Waste—grams	227	148 [94.0]	0.00
Age—year	227	148 [20.5]	0.35	0.751
BMI—kg/m2	204	134 [22.5]	0.27	0.663
Sex				0.145
Female	143 (63)	107 [83.3]	0.00
Male	84 (37)	41 [119.4]	0.01
Socioeconomic status				0.028
Very low and low	148 (65)	91 [112.2]	0.00
Medium and high	79 (35)	57 [67.3]	0.00
Area				0.921
Rural	21 (9)	15 [96.2]	0.06
Urban	206 (91)	133 [92.3]	0.00
LMMW **				0.281
<1	95 (42)	53 [115.8]	0.01
1–2	97 (43	69 [84.8]	0.01
≥3	35 (15)	26 [72.4]	0.01
Frequency of food purchase				0.900
Weekly	126 (56)	77 [97.0]	0.01
Biweekly	62 (27)	48 [86.2]	0.01
Monthly	39 (17)	23 [92.3]	0.01
Weekly food expenditure				0.198
<50 (12.39/11.38) ***	26 (11)	17 [146.3]	0.06
50 to 100 (24.77/22.75)	93 (41)	59 [104.4]	0.01
>101 (25.02/22.98)	88 (39)	62 [71.7]	0.00
I do not know	20 (9)	10 [91.5]	0.19
Do you prepare food?				0.026
Never	7 (3)	-	-
Rarely	45 (20)	26 [52.5]	0.01
Sometimes	112 (49)	77 [124.1]	0.01
Usually	37 (16)	25 [67.9]	0.01
Always	26 (12)	20 [81.9]	0.03
Household members				0.819
<5	163 (72)	109 [93.8]	0.00
≥5	64 (28)	39 [88.5]	0.01

* Based on transformed values (g)^1/3.3. S.E.: Standard Error. ** LMMW: Legal Monthly Minimum Wages. *** COP(USD/EUR): thousands of Colombian pesos/U.S. dollars/euros.

shows the grams/person/day of wastage for each category of the variables of interest and the p-values for the raw differences.

Table 5. Partially adjusted regression coefficients (βaj)—adjusted differences—for food waste generation according to biological and socioeconomic variables.

Variable	βaj *	95% I.C.	p-Value
Sex			0.038
Female	Ref	-
Male	−0.66	−1.29 to −0.04
Socioeconomic status			0.671
Very low and low	Ref	-
Medium and high	−0.16	−0.90 to 0.58
Area			0.216
Rural	Ref	-
Urban	−0.69	−1.78 to 0.41
LMMW **			0.048
<1	Ref	-	-
1–2	0.62	−0.09 to 1.34	0.087
≥3	0.79	−0.32 to 1.90	0.162
Frequency of food purchase			0.489
Weekly	Ref	-	-
Biweekly	0.46	−0.23 to 1.16	0.188
Monthly	−0.07	−0.90 to 0.75	0.864
Weekly food expenditure			0.131
<50 (12.39/11.38) ***	Ref	-	-
50 to 100 (24.77/22.75)	−0.09	−1.09 to 0.92	0.865
>101 (25.02/22.98)	−0.41	−1.49 to 0.68	0.463
I do not know	−0.84	−2.21 to 0.53	0.229
Do you prepare food?			0.041
Never	Ref	-	-
Rarely	1.54	−0.30 to 3.36	0.095
Sometimes	2.63	0.90 to 4.36	0.003
Usually	1.97	0.12 to 3.82	0.037
Always	2.50	0.56 to 4.38	0.012
Household members			0.338
<5	Ref	-
≥5	−0.29	−0.96 to 0.37

* βaj: Partial regression coefficient is achieved in a multiple linear regression model where the dependent variable is grams of food waste, and the covariates are all those reported in the table. 95% C.I.: confidence interval for βaj, based on transformed values (g)^1/3.3. ** LMMW: Legal Monthly Minimum Wages. *** COP(USD/EUR): Thousands of Colombian pesos/U.S. dollars/euros. R² for the model (%): 7.15.

presents the adjusted differences for grams/person/day for each of the categories of the variables of interest, sex, income in LMMW units, and frequency of purchase, which remain as the determinant variables of wastage: women, PRaj = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.89); students residing in rural areas, PRaj = 1.39 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.67); and students with higher economic income, PRaj = 1.38 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.68) and PRaj = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.93) (1–2 Minimum Legal Monthly Wages (LMMW) and 3+ LMMW versus < 1 LMMW, respectively), presented higher risk of wastage/person/day. Household size and socioeconomic level were not associated; p < 0.05.

4. Discussion

In the present study, food waste behavior was evaluated in university students. It was observed that a significant proportion of the participants reported food waste, with a higher frequency during lunch and breakfast. Most of the food was purchased by parents and prepared at home. The main reasons for waste included food quality considerations and leftovers because excess food was prepared or purchased. The factors associated with food waste included gender, income level, and geographic area of residence, with a higher risk of waste observed in females, students in rural areas, and those with higher incomes. Variables such as household size and socioeconomic status showed no significant association with food waste.

In this study, the amount of food waste per person/day was 22.6 g (S.E. ± 15.5), placing it within the range reported by similar studies [14]. However, the prevalence of waste among university students shows significant variations in the literature, reflecting the influence of different methodologies and socioeconomic contexts on the results obtained. A study conducted in India [15] found that university students waste an average of 31.4% of food. On the other hand, in Valencia, Spain, a study reported a total waste of 14.5%, with higher waste during lunch (18.75%) than at dinner (10.5%), with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) [16].

These differences in the prevalence of food waste, the different methodologies used to quantify it, and socioeconomic contexts can also be attributed to food supply and quality. Cultural norms and habits related to eating often include a lack of meal planning that can lead to over-purchasing or over-preparation of food at home. At the same time, university dining halls usually serve large portions that are not always fully consumed [14]. Despite these variations, studies agree that food waste in college students is a significant problem that needs to be addressed.

4.1. Factors Associated with Food Waste Among University Students

Studies analyzing the factors associated with food waste in university students have found diverse results. In both the general population [8,17] and the student population [15,16], sociodemographic factors such as age, sex, income, educational level, and household composition have been identified as crucial elements that positively and negatively influence the amount of food wasted.

Our study suggests that sex impacts the amount of food discarded in the household. However, more research is needed to understand these possible differences better since the published results are very diverse. For example, Morata et al. found a higher prevalence of waste in women (15.5%) than in men (11.5%) [16], as have other studies indicating that women waste more food than men [18,19]. This is not in line with Soo-Cheng Chuah et al., who found that, in response to the question “How much food do you waste in a day?”, females (73.2%) waste less food than males (79.3%) [20]. In addition, that study found that waste disposal behavior differed only between male and female students. At the same time, no differences were observed in the constructs of food waste knowledge and participation in food waste prevention. At the same time, that study revealed no significant association between gender and food planning, food recycling, and waste behaviors among students who were also asked [20]. In 2015, Secondi et al. assessed household food waste behavior in the 27 countries of the European Community (EU-27) using a multilevel analysis that allowed them to jointly consider individual-level and contextual factors as potential variables associated with food waste. While it was not explicitly investigated in the university population, the study did not find an association between food waste and gender [21].

Thus, differences in gender norms and social roles may influence eating behaviors and food waste such that, in specific contexts, women may be more likely to plan their meals and take smaller portions [22]. In Poland, men were found to be more aware of food waste than women, while in Italy, the university curriculum played a significant role in influencing students [13].

Regarding economic income, one study found a correlation between household income and food waste, where households with higher incomes waste more food than those with lower incomes [23]. Although that study did not focus on university students, its results are similar. This relationship could be because students with higher incomes may have more freedom to buy food without regard to budget, which may lead to less purchase planning and more significant purchases of food that will not be consumed, and therefore, more waste is generated. In addition, they may have less time to cook and prepare food, which may lead to greater reliance on processed or prepared foods, which are more likely to be wasted [22].

This study found that students residing in rural areas waste more food than those in urban areas. Although the existing literature on this factor does not focus specifically on the university population, a general population study that examined the influence of sociodemographic, behavioral, and attitudinal factors on the amount of food waste found no clear correlation with area, form, and type of residence [18].

4.2. Study Strengths and Limitations

This study has several notable strengths. First, it is a detailed analysis of food waste practices among university students, a demographic group under-researched compared to the general population. The main findings of this study are relevant to highlight the situation of food waste among university students in Colombia, which serves as a basis for the design and implementation of future educational interventions. The internal validity of the data is supported by the rigorous training process given to the students in terms of filling out the self-reporting format of the amounts of food wasted to minimize information biases. Including various sociodemographic and economic variables provided a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing food waste.

However, the study also has some limitations. One of them is the possible lack of external validity given that the sample analyzed represents university students from a public university in Colombia, which may not adequately reflect the diversity of the university population in general. In addition, quantifying wasted food represents a great challenge, mainly considering the self-reported, waste diary-type methodology used, in which students recorded all the food discarded during the day. This technique could be biased by the participants’ behavior, who could modify their habits when they know that they are being observed, and therefore, there could be an underestimation of the actual waste or an information bias (memory bias due to self-reporting). In addition, the complexity of measuring food waste also lies in the fact that discarded food can be in different states (raw, cooked, or partially consumed), which complicates its quantification and categorization since waste can include both consumable and non-consumable food (peels and bones).

4.3. Implications of This Study and Future Implications

This study has important implications in both the short and long term. In the short term, the findings can inform universities and educational institution authorities about implementing programs and policies to reduce food waste among students, such as education on purchase planning, meal planning, and proper food storage. In the long term, these results can serve as a basis for future research to explore more effective interventions and comprehensive approaches to minimize food waste in the university setting and other similar contexts. These strategies contribute to achieving food sustainability.

5. Conclusions

This study identifies several essential factors associated with food waste among university students. First, it was observed that gender significantly influences waste levels, with a higher tendency among women. Additionally, economic income level is related to greater waste generation; students with higher incomes tend to waste more food, possibly due to a lack of planning in their purchases. Moreover, geographic location also proves to be an important factor, as students in rural areas report higher levels of waste compared to those in urban areas. However, no significant associations were found with household size and socioeconomic status.

Regarding the possibilities for reducing food waste in the future, it is crucial to implement educational programs focused on meal planning and responsible purchasing. Raising awareness about food quality and proper storage practices is essential for mitigating waste. Initiatives such as workshops and informative campaigns can promote sustainable practices and highlight the importance of conserving food resources.

The impact of food waste extends beyond economic concerns, significantly affecting the environment and social well-being. This waste contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of natural resources, making its reduction a key step toward environmental sustainability. Addressing food waste can help mitigate the effects of climate change and conserve vital resources like water and land.

In higher education institutions, various initiatives and campaigns have begun to be implemented to reduce food waste. These include the establishment of university dining halls that offer appropriate portion sizes and awareness programs about the issue of waste. However, continuous efforts are necessary to foster a culture of waste reduction among students.

Finally, it is recommended that students adopt specific practices to minimize food waste. This includes meal planning, creating shopping lists, and being more conscious of portion sizes. Furthermore, education on food preservation and proper storage can significantly contribute to waste reduction, thus promoting more sustainable consumption behavior.