Sustainability generates a lot of talk at foodservice gatherings these days and rightfully so. All of the raw ingredients used in the foodservice industry come from nature and yet the very act of growing, harvesting, transporting and cooking those ingredients puts ever more pressure on the environment. What's become obvious to the industry is the need to put the balance back into food cultivation. What is not well-understood is the part that food preparation plays in the sustainability equation.

The awards banquet at a recent sustainability conference included a “zero-waste” dinner. The food was locally grown, organic and sustainable, the plates and cutlery were all biodegradable and the food waste was headed for the compost bin. Even the beer was organic and, of course, the glass bottles were recycled. The meal was fabulous and the students hosting the event were justifiably proud of their efforts but this was not a zero-waste meal. Most of the food had to be stored in refrigerators and then cooked on heavy-duty equipment. In addition, all the serving dishes and cookware took a trip through the dishmachine. As much as three-quarters of the energy consumed by that commercial kitchen did no real work towards cooking and holding the food and instead ended up as waste heat. This is a perfect example of the split in the industry between food cultivation and food preparation. We are really starting to get it on the cultivation side, but only a handful of operators also make the connection between the energy-use and sustainability.

The fact that sustainability from an equipment/energy/water standpoint does not get as much mainstream attention in foodservice as the food side of sustainability is just the nature of the industry. Who wouldn't want to focus on wild salmon rather than pipes and wires? But, energy- and water-use represent a significant portion of the environmental footprint of a kitchen and the foodservice industry must address it if it's sincere about producing green kitchens. Plus, from a purely business perspective, energy and water represent expensive commodities, just like wild salmon, and wasting a commodity, is bad for the bottom line.

One practice that retards the industry's efforts at greening the kitchen is the failure by the folks who specify and procure kitchen equipment to do an adequate life-cycle analysis. When first cost alone serves as the primary basis for a purchasing decision, without looking at the total cost of ownership, then the benefits of higher performance, energy-efficient equipment are not considered and the operator gets stuck with the energy waste and the higher operating cost. This is called “split incentives.” What might be attractive to the purchasing agent from a capital cost perspective is not beneficial to the operator and it stalls the evolution of the green kitchen. To help the industry get over this speed bump on the green highway, the foodservice engineering community needs to launch an education campaign that equals the work being done on the cultivation side.

The resources needed to educate the industry already exist in the form of programs like the EPA's Energy Star, the California Foodservice Incentives and the Food Service Technology Center. These are publicly funded, unbiased, research-based programs that offer lists of efficient appliances, design guides, and life-cycle cost calculators — all online and free of charge. Btu are certainly not as sexy as organic beer but it is amazingly easy to get a chef or a foodservice director to seriously consider efficient appliances once they realize how important energy and water conservation is to their sustainability goals. The fact that their utility bill is lower, their kitchen is cooler and their appliances perform better certainly does not hurt either.