Evaluating Household Food Behavior With a Smartphone App
Phase: NA
Conditions: Food Habits
Sponsor: Pennington Biomedical Research Center

6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808-4124 • Phone: (225) 763-2693 • irb@pbrc.edu
IRB Certificate
 of Approval
FWA # 00006218
  
Date of Approval:  January 26, 2022
Study Expiration Date:  January 25, 2023
Submission Type:  Continuing Review
Review Frequency:  12 months
Number of Subjects Approved:  44 (24 participants in Phase 1 and 20 in Phase 2)
Review Type: Expedited
Approval Status: Approved
Principal Investigator:  Corby Martin, Ph.D.
IRB # 2017-042-PBRC FoodImage
Title:  Evaluating household food behavior with a smartphone app
Sponsor:  USDA
Expedited Approval Category:  6. Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image 
recordings made for research purposes.
Approval Includes:  Study and Investigator(s) for an additional continuing review 
period.  This approval expires on the date noted above.
Clinicaltrials.gov responsibility: Principal Investigator
Clinicaltrials.gov records are required to be updated regularly.   The Study Status 
section must be verified at this time; please update the Record Verification Date, 
Recruitment Status and Study Completion Date as applicable.  Also be sure to include 
any modifications that have been submitted since the last update.
Investigators and study staff must comply with the Human Research Protection 
Program policies and procedures that apply to IRB members and staff, which can be 
found at www.pbrc.edu/HRPP
Signed Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:04:08 AM CT by Gahan, William M.D.
NCT03309306

Page 1 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Study Title: Evaluating household food behavior with a smartphone app (FoodImage)
PI Name: 
Corby K. Martin, Ph.D.
Co-Investigators: 
John W. Apolzan, Ph.D. (Grant Co-PI of subcontract) 
Robbie Beyl, PhD
Brian Roe, Ph.D. Co-I for the PBRC project and PI of the parent award at 
Ohio State University
Protocol Version Date: 3/15/18
IRB Review Plan
This is a subcontract project with Ohio State University as the lead institution and Pennington 
Biomedical Research Center (PBRC), part of the Louisiana State University system, as the 
subcontractor who will conduct the human subjects research. PBRC will pursue the research 
outlined herein and share the resulting data with Dr. Roe at OSU.  
Objectives
Long-term Goals and Specific Objectives 
Our long-term goal is to improve global sustainability and enhance food security while improving 
the competitiveness of the U.S. food system by reducing U.S. household food waste. To reduce 
household food waste, we must first improve the accuracy, convenience and standardization of its 
measurement so that evaluations of waste reduction initiatives have more statistical power, less 
statistical bias, less measurement error, and greater representativeness of targeted populations. 
Such improved evaluative capacity can stimulate research and program assessment, which then 
guides prioritization of emerging private and public programs and policies aimed at reducing 
household food waste.
Specific objectives include:
(1) Development of FoodImage, a smartphone app that measures household food waste and 
food-waste-related behaviors,
(2) Assess differences in the accuracy, time burden and perceived convenience of 
measurements taken with the FoodImage app versus the current state-of-the-art household 
food waste measurement approach (a pen-and-paper diary), and
(3) Use the FoodImage app in a pilot randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the 
effectiveness of reducing household food waste through behavioral nudges in the form of 
personalized feedback about food waste levels and household-specific reduction goals.
Background
About one-third of U.S. food is wasted with two-thirds of this waste attributed to consumers. The 
United States proposes to cut food waste in half by 2030 and, while many policies are available, 
those that change consumer waste behavior will be integral to achieving U.S. goals. However, we 
lack quality data about household food waste because popular data collection methods (diaries and 
waste stream analyses) suffer major shortcomings. Hence, rigorous evaluation of consumer 
interventions prove elusive.
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 2 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
We propose to improve the accuracy and convenience of household food waste measurement so 
that consumer food waste program evaluations yield more power, less bias, less measurement 
error, and greater representation of targeted populations. We will improve measurement via the 
development of the FoodImage smartphone app, a technology leveraging the investigators’ 
expertise in creating and deploying apps to measure food intake and deliver nutritional 
interventions in free-living household conditions. We will validate the app against weighed waste 
in a controlled laboratory setting and then deploy the app in free-living conditions as part of a pilot 
randomized controlled trial to evaluate if behavioral nudges in the form of personalized feedback 
and goals can reduce household food waste. The FoodImage app will extract GPS coordinates 
(latitude and longitude) from the smartphone when food images are taken. This information will 
be used to determine participants’ location when food waste data are captured with the FoodImage 
app. 
The study will yield an app ready for future study deployment while analyses of the data will 
inform rapidly evolving policy discussions concerning optimal approaches to reduce food waste. 
These outcomes align with program priorities to understand the economics of food waste and to 
use behavioral economics to address consumption behavior.
Rationale and Significance
Countries around the world have resolved to reduce food waste in order to help achieve global 
food security and sustainability goals [1-6]. About one-third of global edible food is lost or wasted 
annually [7] while the global production of uneaten food generates greenhouse gas emissions 
estimated to exceed those created by the third largest greenhouse gas emitting nation [8]. The 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development identified reducing food waste as an 
avenue to increase the availability of food [9], while the Obama administration announced in 
September of 2015 a first ever food waste reduction goal for the United States of 50% by 2030. 
While present in the entire post-harvest supply chain, food waste at the retail and consumer levels 
is particularly prevalent in the United States. In 2010, 133 billion pounds of edible food at the retail 
and consumer levels went uneaten (1,249 calories per person per day) with about two-thirds of this 
waste attributed to consumers [10]. This represents not only a significant waste of resources, but 
also substantial negative environmental externalities as about 95% of food waste enters U.S. 
landfills. Food waste is the largest source (35.2 million tons) and the most deleterious component 
(in terms of greenhouse gas emission) of U.S. municipal solid waste [11-14].
Because so much food waste is attributable to consumer residential behavior (about 47% according 
to BSR’s 2013 analysis), it is critical to articulate, evaluate and prioritize the numerous possible 
household food waste intervention strategies. ReFED [15] articulates several categories of possible 
household interventions ranging from labeling interventions to packaging alterations to general 
education campaigns, where each category is likely to give rise to several variants requiring 
evaluation. While it is encouraging that the World Resources Institute (2016) has issued global 
standards for food waste accounting and reporting, a recent review of consumer food waste studies 
[16] reveals few published studies measuring individual level food waste created by U.S. 
consumers [17] [18], and these studies focus on consumer behavior in all-you-can-eat buffet 
settings that may yield limited insight for other dine-out or eat-in settings. Quality data is lacking 
for the United States.
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 3 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
In order to enroll in this study, subjects must meet the following criteria for inclusion: 

Age 18-65 years 

Body Mass Index 18.5 – 50 kg/m2, based on self-reported height and weight

Shops for groceries 

Conducts some of the food shopping and food preparation for their household

Be willing to do food shopping for the study (if necessary)

Have an iPhone and an operable Apple ID, password, and email address and is willing to 
use these to collect data during the study, acknowledging that data usage, and associated 
charges, are a result of study participation 

Be willing to complete all study procedures corresponding to their randomization group
Exclusion Criteria
In addition to those who do not meet inclusion criteria, subjects who meet any of the following 
criteria will be excluded from enrollment: 

Persons who are severely immune compromised 

Persons who are pregnant, as assessed by self-report.
Number of Subjects
Approximately 24 participants are expected to complete Phase 1. The 24 participants from Phase 
I, plus an additional 20 participants, will complete Phase II for a total of 44 participants. 
Pennington Biomedical Research Center employees are not eligible to participate.  
Recruitment Methods
After IRB approval is received, a sample of 44 adults will be recruited from the Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana area to participate in the study. Phase I will enroll a total of 24 participants. Phase II will 
enroll an additional 20 participants, totaling 44 enrollees. Recruitment will be completed by 
PBRC’s Recruitment Core. The Recruitment Core manages all community outreach and 
recruitment services for human research studies at PBRC, such as screening all incoming calls to 
determine initial study eligibility; assisting in partnership development, specifically with local 
community groups, physicians, and healthcare facilities; and serving as the first line of contact 
for all human research study participation. Incoming calls are directed to a call center that is 
operated by 3 full time recruiters and is equipped with a Uniform Call Distributor (UCD) 
system. A UCD system expands the capability of a traditional phone system and allows multiple 
individuals to call simultaneously and be directed to the next available recruiter. The core 
utilizes an electronic message tracking application that tracks the outgoing phone call activity 
and a “smart” electronic phone screen system that screens potential participants upon initial 
phone contact and seamlessly matches them to alternative studies when deemed ineligible for the 
original study for which they called. In 2012, the core launched a new web-screener for 
participants to be able to go on-line, choose a study that are interested in and complete a 
preliminary screening. The system is able to tell the participant upon completion whether they 
are eligible at that point in the screening process and if they are ineligible the screener will alert 
them to other studies that they are eligible for and at that point could continue to screen for those 
studies. If the participant is eligible they are then contacted by a live recruiter to complete the 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 4 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
screening process and schedule their first screening appointment. We anticipate approximately 
132 phone screens to enroll 44 participants (3:1 ratio). 
Study Timeline
It is estimated to take up to 1 year to recruit participants for this study. It will take approximately 
3 years to complete the study and all data analyses. Participation in this study will take 
approximately 3-4 weeks. The length of participation is virtually identical for participants who 
complete Phase I and II vs. Phase II only. This is due to Phase I including about one to two hours 
of laboratory-based procedures prior to participants being trained and asked to use the 
FoodImage app to track food waste for 4 to 7 days over the subsequent week. Participants who 
only complete Phase II will not conduct the laboratory-based procedures but all other procedures 
will be identical. 
Study Endpoints
The primary endpoint of this study is food waste and food waste behavior. We will explore these 
endpoints via the following aims and objectives: 

Development of FoodImage, a smartphone app that measures household food waste and 
food-waste-related behaviors; and assess differences in the accuracy, time burden of, and 
perceived convenience of measurements taken with the FoodImage app versus the current 
state-of-the-art household food waste measurement approach (a pen-and-paper diary) 
with and without a food scale

Use the FoodImage app in a pilot randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the 
effectiveness of reducing household food waste through behavioral nudges in the form of 
personalized feedback about food waste levels and household-specific reduction goals.
All data from the FoodImage app (including home address and GPS coordinates from food 
images) will be used as a study endpoint.
Procedures and Visit Description
The study will accomplish three activities:
1) Development of the FoodImage Smartphone app
2) Testing the FoodImage app with consumers in a lab setting (Phase I)
3) Randomized Controlled Trial of behavioral nudges to reduce household food waste 
(Phase II)
FoodImage App Development
The programming and development team that created a previous app called SmartIntake® agreed 
to build the FoodImage app. Originally, we expected the FoodImage app to rely on some features 
of the SmartIntake app, though FoodImage was ultimately built from scratch. The FoodImage 
app sends participants’ images and accompanying data (e.g., receipts, food descriptions, 
Participant ID number, and timestamp) to a secure PBRC server where a team will analyze the 
images to estimate food waste. 
The coverage and capabilities that will distinguish the FoodImage app from the SmartIntake® app 
will include:
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 5 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
A. Comprehensive measurement of food waste. The FoodImage app will quantify food 
waste at all stages where food waste occurs at the consumer level (e.g., left-overs after a 
meal, cabinet or refrigerator/freezer purges, food preparation, etc.). The existing 
SmartIntake® app quantifies plate waste that is present at the end of meals and this is used 
to calculate food intake (food intake = food selection minus plate waste). SmartIntake® 
does not, however, determine if the plate waste was discarded, saved to eat later, etc., thus, 
it cannot determine if plate waste is food waste. 
B. Receipt scanning capability.  An exploratory module will be developed in which receipts 
from food purchases are scanned.  This will provide the potential to calculate the dollar 
value loss of waste using prices actually paid by the participant.  While this module is 
exploratory and not primary, it holds promise for assessing the exact purchase value of 
food waste and for exploring hypotheses that link food acquisition price to eventual food 
consumption and food waste.
Phase I (Overview)
Phase I of this study will consist of testing the FoodImage App with participants in a lab setting. 
The primary purpose of Phase I will be to test the measurement features of the FoodImage app 
under controlled conditions and to obtain user satisfaction data about the app. Participants will 
use three methods in the lab setting:
1) the FoodImage app,
2) a pen-and-paper record, where the participant will visually estimate portion sizes, and
3) a pen-and-paper record, where the participant will use a kitchen scale to weigh the foods.
Participants will be randomly assigned to the order in which these methods will be used, as 
described below. It is noted that, by necessity, the last method that will be used is a pen-and-
paper record with a kitchen scale since this procedure will cue participants to the actual weight of 
the foods and corrupt their visual estimates, should the visual estimation procedure occur after 
the method that relies on a kitchen scale. Thus, the order in which participants first use 
FoodImage vs. a pen-and-paper record with visual estimates of portion size will be 
counterbalanced. The two orders that will be balanced among participants are: 
1) FoodImage, pen-and-paper records with visually estimated portion size, then pen-and-
paper records with the ability to use a kitchen scale.
2) Pen-and-paper records with visually estimated portion size, FoodImage, then pen-and-
paper records with the ability to use a kitchen scale. 
Accuracy will be evaluated for both the FoodImage app and the two methods that rely on pen-
and-paper records by comparing estimated food waste from these three methods to directly 
weighed food waste. Participants will use these three methods to estimate the amount of:
1) food waste that is generated when they prepare provided foods,
2) the resulting food portions that represents the amount of served food during a simulated 
meal, and
3) the amount of food that remains (plate waste) after the study staff discards a randomly 
selected amount of the served foods (participants will not eat any food). 
Participants will also use all three methods to document foods from a simulated shopping trip, 
where participants will be provided with a grocery bag(s) of foods products and one or more 
receipts. It is recognized that some food products may not require use of the kitchen scale since 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 6 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
the packaging contains the weight or portion size of many foods. Finally, participants will also 
use all three methods to document foods that are to be discarded from a simulated kitchen clean 
out. To simulate the kitchen clean out, study staff will present to the participant a series of food 
products on a counter and participants will be asked to document what and how much food 
would be thrown away (the foods will not actually be discarded). The training materials that will 
be used to teach participants how to use the pen-and-paper records and FoodImage app are 
included in Appendix A. 
Following the laboratory-procedures described above, participants in Phase I will complete 
questionnaires assessing their satisfaction with the FoodImage app, if they prefer to use the 
FoodImage app vs. a pen-and-paper record, etc. (these questionnaires are detailed below).  
Phase II (Overview)
Phase II of this study is a randomized controlled trial of behavioral nudges via the FoodImage 
app to reduce household food waste. Phase II will occur in participants’ natural environment 
(free-living conditions) and will include the 24 participants enrolled in Phase I and an additional 
20 participants. Phase II, participants will be trained to use the FoodImage app to capture data on 
food purchases, food waste that occurs during food preparation, food waste that is present after 
eating, and food waste from food purges in free-living conditions. During data collection, 
subjects will record the source, reason, and destination of all food waste in the app. 
Participants will use the app to collect food waste data for approximately 4 to 7 days over the 
first week of Phase II and these data serve as baseline data. Participants will then be provided 
with approximately a one-week break where they will not use the app to track food waste (or do 
any other study procedures). After the one-week break, participants will return to the center and 
will be randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to one of the following groups: 
1. Stress Management (Control Group). These participants will use the app to record food 
waste for approximately 4 to 7 days over the subsequent week. They will also receive 
information on stress management (Appendix C.1). 
2. Food Saver (Intervention Group). These participants also will use the app to record food 
waste for approximately 4 to 7 days over the subsequent week. They will also be provided 
with the following: 
a.
Feedback on the amount of food waste their household created during the first week,
b. A goal to reduce the next week’s food waste by 20% or more, and 
c.
Tips on how to reduce household food waste adapted from current consumer 
campaigns (e.g., Food: Too Good to Waste Implementation Guide and Toolkit, EPA 
2016).  This includes advice to limit purchases of unnecessary foods, donate or freeze 
unwanted and unspoiled foods, prioritize keeping and then eating left-overs, 
minimize waste during food preparation by preparing and serving smaller portions, 
purchase only needed foods, and purchase foods that are not near the expiration date 
(see Appendix C.2).  A PBRC staff member will deliver tips to each respondent in 
this group via in-person and remote sessions (call, text, email, videoconference etc.).
After approximately one week, the Stress Management and Food Saver groups will return to the 
Center to complete questionnaires about the usability of the app and, for participants who also 
completed Phase I, focus groups or cognitive interviews (Appendix B.3.b). 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 7 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Visits
All participants in this study will complete 3 visits at Pennington Biomedical Research Center. 
Visit 1 will differ for participants in Phase I and Phase II. Visits 2 and 3 will be the same for 
participants in both Phases. Procedures are listed below. 
Visit 1 (V1) – Phase I participants (Day 0)
Visit 1 will last approximately 4 hours for Phase I participants. Procedures at V1 include the 
following (Procedures in italic text are only completed by Phase I participants. As noted below, 
participants who only enroll in Phase II conduct all other non-italicized procedures.): 

Provide informed consent

Eligibility will be verified 

Receive training on use of the FoodImage app and pen-and-paper records, with and 
without use of a kitchen scale, to capture food waste data in the laboratory setting 

Capture data from food shopping, preparation, eating, and kitchen clean out events 

Complete the following questionnaires: 
o
Lifestyle and Demographics Questionnaire
o
User Preference Survey
o
PSSUQ
o
User Satisfaction Survey

Body weight will be measured and recorded by study staff

Height will be measured and recorded by study staff and used to calculate BMI

Receive training on use of the FoodImage app to capture data in a free-living 
environment during food shopping, preparation, eating, and tossing events for 
approximately 4 to 7 days over the next week. 
Study staff will keep in contact with participants over their free-living data collection to ensure 
data quality and participant compliance. 
Visit 1 (V1) - Phase II participants (i.e., participants who did not enroll in Phase I) (Day 0)
Visit 1 will last approximately 2.5 hours for Phase II participants. Procedures at V1 include: 

Provide informed consent

Eligibility will be verified

Body weight will be measured and recorded by study staff

Height will be measured and recorded by study staff and used to calculate BMI

Complete the Lifestyle and Demographics Questionnaire 

Receive training on use of the FoodImage app to capture data in a free-living 
environment during food shopping, preparation, eating, and tossing events for 
approximately 4 to 7 days over the next week. 
Study staff will keep in contact with participants over their free-living data collection to ensure 
data quality and participant compliance. 
All participants will have an approximate one-week break after they finish collecting data for ~4 
to 7 days during the week following Visit 1. This results in approximately 2 weeks between 
Visits 1 and 2. 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 8 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Visit 2 (V2) – Phase I and Phase II enrollees (~Day 14)
Visit 2 will last approximately 3 hours for both Phase I and Phase II participants. Participants 
will be contacted by study staff before the date of V2 to remind them of their appointment. 
Procedures at V2 include: 

Body weight will be measured and recorded by study staff

Randomization to either:
o
Stress Management group (these participants will receive information from a 
study interventionist about stress management via an in-person meeting during 
Visit 2 and via the multimedia capabilities of a smartphone, e.g., text messages, 
emails, phone calls)
o
Food Saver group (these participants will receive information from a study 
interventionist about reducing food waste via an in-person meeting during Visit 2 
and via the multimedia capabilities of a smartphone, e.g., text messages, emails, 
phone calls)

Receive refresher training on use of the FoodImage app to collect data in their home 
setting for approximately 4-7 days over the subsequent week. Participants’ follow-up 
visit, or Visit 3 (V3) scheduled.
Visit 3 (V3) – Phase I and Phase II enrollees (~Day 21)
Visit 3 will last approximately 1.5 to 2 hours for both Phase I and Phase II participants. Prior to 
V3, participants will receive a phone call to remind them of their appointment. Procedures at V3 
include: 

Review the data collected over the free-living period and discuss the implementation of 
the stress management or food waste reduction suggestions.

Complete the following questionnaires: 
o
Food Environment Questionnaire
o
Waste Toss Methods Questionnaire 
o
User Satisfaction Survey
o
Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) 
o
Food Waste Tip Questionnaire (Intervention/Food Saver Group only)

Complete a focus group or cognitive interview to assess thoughts and attitudes towards the 
app, pen-and-paper records, food environment, and food waste behaviors (Phase I 
participants only).  

Body weight will be measured and recorded by study staff
Additional visits are possible if more assistance is needed with the app or to resolve data 
collection problems, such as technical challenges with the app. These may be in-person, via 
email, via text or any other mode of communication. 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 9 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Description of Questionnaires

Eat, Prep, and Toss food waste records- These pen and paper records will be used during 
Phase I and are consistent with previous food waste studies (Appendix A.1.e & A.1.f). 

User Preference Survey- This survey asks questions to help staff understand participants’ 
acceptability and preference for using the FoodImage app and pen-and-paper records to 
record food waste (Appendix B.1.a).

Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ)- This is a validated questionnaire to 
assesses satisfaction with electronic platforms [19], such as the FoodImage app 
(Appendix B.2.b).

User Satisfaction Survey- This survey asks questions to help staff understand 
participants’ satisfaction with using an iPhone app (FoodImage) to take and send photos 
of food waste (Appendix B.2.c). 
Table 1. Schedule of Visits and Procedures
Phase 1 
Enrollees
Phase 2 
Enrollees
N
24
20
Phase 1 
Visit 1 (V1): Day 0 
~4 Hours
~2.5 Hours
Consent, eligibility verification, Lifestyle and Demographics 
Questionnaire, body weight, height, BMI 
X
X
Training on and use of the app and pen-and-paper records to capture 
food waste data in laboratory setting
X
User Preference Survey, PSSUQ, User Satisfaction Survey
X
Phase 2 (the following procedures occur at the end of Visit 1)
Training on use of app to collect data in free-living setting. 
Instructed to collect food waste data with the app for approximately 4 to 
7 days over the following week. Instructed to then take approximately a 
one-week break, with Visit 2 occurring at the end of the break. 
X
Visit 2 (V2): ~Day 14
~3 Hours
Randomization to the Stress Management or Food Saver group and 
delivery of each groups’ instructions and materials
X
Refresher training for use of app to collect data in the home setting for 
approximately 4 to 7 days over the next week. Additional training, 
information, and behavioral nudges will be deployed via phone, email, 
and text until Visit 3, which will occur approximately one-week later.
X
Body Weight 
X
Visit 3 (V3): ~Day 21
~<2 hours
Meeting with staff to discuss collected data and implementation of 
behavioral nudges
X
Food Waste Tip Questionnaire
X (Food Saver group only)
Focus groups or cognitive interviews
X (Phase I participants 
only)
Food Environment Questionnaire, Waste Disposal Methods 
Questionnaire, PSSUQ, User Satisfaction Survey 
X
Body Weight 
X
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 10 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18

Food Environment Questionnaire- This questionnaire asks questions about purchasing 
food for the household (Appendix B.2.d).

Waste Toss Methods Questionnaire- This questionnaire asks questions about how 
participants typically dispose of food in their household (Appendix B.2.e).

Food Waste Tip Questionnaire – This questionnaire asks questions to help staff 
understand participants’ satisfaction with receiving training tips to help reduce food 
waste (Appendix B.3.a). 
Data Analysis and Specimen Management
Phase I analysis objectives include:
1) Determining if food waste measured with the FoodImage app is equivalent to the criterion 
value (directly weighed food waste) for each source (plate waste, food purges, etc.). Error (the 
difference between food waste measured with the FoodImage app and the criterion value) will 
also be quantified for each source.
2) Determining if food waste measured with each of the pen-and-paper diary methods (with and 
without a kitchen scale) is equivalent to the criterion value for each source. Error will also be 
quantified for each source.
3) Determining if the error from the FoodImage app is smaller than error from the pen-and-paper 
records.
4) Determining if satisfaction ratings differ significantly between the app and the pen-and-paper 
record approaches. 
5) Determining if the amount of time respondents took to complete measurements differed 
between the app and diary approaches. 
6) Qualitative assessments by respondents of the desirable and undesirable features of the app 
and pen-and-paper records.
7) Determining if the variance of waste measures differed between the app and pen-and-paper 
record approaches.
8) Assessing the accuracy of receipt data as captured by participants using the app.
Power Analysis. We base our power analysis on plate waste data gathered from previous research 
conducted at PBRC [20]. With an N of 24, we are powered to detect equivalence within 20 grams 
with power of 0.80 and alpha of 0.05. Also, t-tests to determine if the error from the app (weighed 
food waste minus estimated waste) differs significantly from the error from the diary method is 
powered to detect differences as small as 12.8 grams. 
It is hypothesized that food waste will be equivalent (within 20 grams) when measured with the 
app vs. direct weights of food waste, while food waste measured with the diary method will not be 
equivalent to directly weighed food waste. It is also hypothesized that the error from the app will 
be significantly smaller than error from the diary method. 
Phase II analysis objectives include: 
1) Quantifying baseline distributions for total weight of household food waste
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 11 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
2) Determining the effectiveness of the behavioral nudge in altering 
a) Total daily weight of household food waste,
b) Total daily weight of each source of household food waste by occasion, including 
i)
plate waste, 
ii) food prep waste, 
iii) purge waste,
c) Total daily weight of each source of food waste by food type (e.g., dairy, meat, fruits, 
etc.) and by macronutrient,
d) Daily percent of served food that is wasted, and
e) Total amount of food purchased by weight and value.
3) Quantifying satisfaction levels with the FoodImage app as measured in Appendix B.1.a. 
(User Preference Survey) and Appendix B.2.c (User Satisfaction Survey),
4) The demographic, household and attitudinal factors measured in Appendix B.2.d (Food 
Environment Questionnaire) related to 
a) Effectiveness of the behavioral nudge intervention in reducing food waste generated 
and all subcomponents listed above, and
b) Satisfaction levels with the app as measured in Appendix B.2.c (User Satisfaction 
Survey).
Withdrawal of Subjects
Subjects may be withdrawn from the study if they are non-compliant with study procedures and 
they will be notified of their withdrawal via telephone or mail. Subjects may voluntarily 
withdraw from the study at any time. No additional data will be collected and they will be 
considered drop outs in the study.
Risks to Subjects
This study involves no greater than minimal risk. The main risk is breach of confidentiality, and 
the PBRC team will work to minimize this during data collection, handling, and analysis.  
Potential Benefits to Subjects
Participants may benefit by increased awareness of their food waste behaviors. 
Setting
All research procedures will be conducted at PBRC and in participants’ natural environment.
Resources Available
PBRC has all the necessary equipment needed to undertake and execute the proposed research 
project successfully.  All investigators and staff have offices or cubicles.  Investigator offices are 
each equipped with a desk, chair, filing cabinets and shelves, telephone with voice mail, printer, 
and access to a photocopier and fax.  Computers are equipped with software for statistics, data 
management, and word processing, and computers are connected to the PBRC mainframe with 
internet access and email access through Outlook Express.  Information Technology (IT) 
provides full technical support to all members of the faculty and staff.  PBRC has all the 
technological equipment and staff needed to conduct the present study.  These information 
technologies assure efficient data handling and optimal communication among the investigators 
and the team.  
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 12 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Compensation
Participants will be compensated $30 for successful completion of Phase I and $175 for 
successful completion of Phase II (maximum compensation = $205 for participants who 
complete both Phase I and Phase II).  
Confidentiality and Provisions to Protect the Privacy Interests of Subjects
Participants’ records will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. Only Drs. Corby 
Martin, John Apolzan, and Brian Roe, the Ohio State University research team, and the PBRC 
research team will have access to the information participants provide.  Information may also be 
shared with necessary Institutional Review Boards and Offices for Human Research Protection 
(OSU Institutional Review Board, Pennington Biomedical Research Center IRB, and the Office 
for Human Research Protection (OHRP)). We will use an identification number rather than 
participants’ names on study records. The information participants provide will be stored on 
secured network drives and will not be identified using any personal information.
Participants’ names and other facts that might identify them will not appear when we present this 
study or publish its results. The findings will be summarized and reported in group form. 
Participants will not be identified personally. All participants will have ample opportunity during 
consent and throughout the study to ask questions concerning study procedures. These questions 
will be answered promptly and fully by study staff to ensure participant ease. A participant may 
choose not to answer questions or participate in study procedures at any time. 
Data Safety Monitoring Plan
Study recruitment, study progress, participant complaints, data collection, data management, data 
integrity, data security, and eventually data analysis will be staffed at weekly meetings at PBRC, 
in which the PI will be in attendance.  Also, Dr. Roe and his team will be briefed on the progress 
of data collection at regularly scheduled teleconference, which will occur approximately once 
every month or every other month.
Compensation for Research-Related Injury
No form of compensation for medical treatment or for other damages (i.e., lost wages, time lost 
from work, etc.) is available from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center.  In the event of 
injury or medical illness resulting from the research the participant will be referred to a treatment 
facility.  Medical treatment may be provided at their expense or at the expense of their health 
care insurer (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Dental Insurer, etc.) which may 
or may not provide coverage.  PBRC is a research facility and provides medical treatment only 
as part of research protocols.  Should the participant require ongoing medical treatments, they 
must be provided by community physicians and hospitals.  
Economic Burden to Subjects
There will be no study related costs to the participant with the exception of traveling to the 
PBRC for the study visits. However, use of the FoodImage app will use data from the 
participant’s cellular data plan.  Hence, it is possible that the participant would incur cost for this 
data and this is clearly disclosed in the consent form. 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 13 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
Consent Process
All subjects participating in the study will provide written informed consent. The consenting 
process will take place in private rooms at Pennington Biomedical Research Center and will be 
conducted according to Pennington Biomedical consenting guidelines and practices. Participants 
can take the consent form home to review prior to deciding if they wish to enroll. All participants 
are free to withdraw from the study at any time.
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 14 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
References
1.
InnovationSeeds, South Korea’s food waste reduction policies, A.f. 
http://www.innovationseeds.eu/Policy-Library/Core-Articles/South-KoreaS-Food-Waste-
Reduction-Policies.kl., Editor. 2016.
2.
Okawa, K., Market and Trade Impacts of Food Loss and Waste Reduction. OECD 
Publishing.
3.
Parfitt, J., M. Barthel, and S. Macnaughton, Food waste within food supply chains: 
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 
Society B: Biological Sciences, 2010. 365(1554): p. 3065-3081.
4.
Quested, T., R. Ingle, and A. Parry, Household Food and Drink Waste in the United 
Kingdom 2012, in WRAP. 2013: London.
5.
Secondi, L., L. Principato, and T. Laureti, Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 
countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 2015. 56: p. 25-40.
6.
Quested, T. and P. Luzecka, Household food and drink waste: A people focus, WRAP, 
Editor. 2014.
7.
Gustavsson, J., et al., Food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention, FAO, 
Editor. 2011: Rome.
8.
FAO, Food wastage footprint-Impacts on natural resources: summary report:, 
F.a.A.O.o.t.U. Nations, Editor. 2013.
9.
Bagherzadeh, M., M. Inamura and H. Jeong, Food Waste Along the Food Chain. OECD 
Publishing.
10.
Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, and J. Huymann, The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of 
Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States, EIB-
121. USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin, 2014. 121.
11.
EPA, U.S., Advancing sustainable materials management: 2013 Fact Sheet United States 
E.P. Agency, Editor. 2015.
12.
Godfray, H.C.J., et al., Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. 
Science, 2010. 327(5967): p. 812-818.
13.
Grizzetti, B., et al., The contribution of food waste to global and European nitrogen 
pollution. Environmental Science and Policy, 2013. 33: p. 186-195.
14.
Tilman, D., et al., Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011. 108(50): p. 20260-20264.
15.
ReFED, Rethinking Food Waste through Economics and Data: A roadmap to reduce U.S 
food waste by 20 percent. 2016: Boston, MA.
16.
Porpino, G., Household Food Waste Behavior: Avenues for Future Research. Journal of 
the Association for Consumer Research, 2016. 1(1): p. 41-51.
17.
Wansink, B. and K. van Ittersum, Portion size me: plate-size induced consumption norms 
and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J Exp Psychol Appl, 2013. 
19(4): p. 320-32.
18.
Just, D.R. and B. Wansink, The Flat-Rate Pricing Paradox: Conflicting Effects of “All-
You-Can-Eat” Buffet Pricing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2010. 93(1): p. 193-
200.
19.
Lewis, J.R., Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of 
usability studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2002. 14(3&4): 
p. 463-488.
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018

Page 15 of 15
v. 6_3 15 18
20.
Martin, C.K., et al., A novel method to remotely measure food intake of free-living 
individuals in real time: the remote food photography method. The British journal of 
nutrition, 2009. 101(3): p. 446-56.
 
Pennington Biomedical IRB FWA 00006218
 
Approved March 23, 2018