Development of a Strategy to Reduce Food Waste in a Preschool Food Service

Abstract

Food loss and waste in school food services generate economic cost, environmental impacts, and social effects. Waste occurs in the final stages of the supply chain. It is particularly critical in educational institutions, leading to low nutrient intake during early stages of development and negatively impacting food security. Aiming to design a waste reduction strategy for the meal service of a preschool serving children aged 0–5 years, a descriptive observational study was conducted over a 6-month period. This study combined the measurement of the primary outcome (proportion of the served portion not consumed by food group) with the assessment of menu acceptability, the children’s food preferences, and the exploration of perceptions of both at-home caregivers and preschool professionals. Overall, the most frequent reasons for rejection were texture, preparation methods, and unfamiliarity with the food. The highest levels of waste were found in fruits and vegetables, with 17% left uneaten; protein-rich foods had a 15% waste rate, and cereals and tubers showed a 10% waste rate. Based on these findings, a family–school strategy is proposed that would increase household exposure to a wider variety of foods and establish periodic menu reviews to identify critical foods and ensure proper use in school food services. These results demonstrate that by enhancing food acceptance, we can decrease food waste, and in early stages, strengthen food security and nutritional use.

1. Introduction

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [1] states that FLW—Food Loss and Waste—occurs when food intended for human consumption is discarded, which can happen at any stage of the food supply chain. However, there is a distinction between food loss and food waste: food loss occurs in the early stages of production, post-harvest, and food processing, whereas food waste takes place during the distribution and consumption stages [2]. FLW also includes imported products that are disposed [3]. The global impact of this problem is valued at 1 trillion dollars, which also affects the environment, generating between 8 and 10% of GHGs—Greenhouse Gases—and using 30% of agricultural land to grow food that will ultimately be discarded. This issue is particularly serious when compared to the 783 million people suffering from hunger and the 150 million children experiencing impaired cognitive and physical development due to chronic malnutrition [4], factors that contribute to inequality.

In 2022, it is estimated that food waste reached 1.050 billion tons globally, originating from the retail sector, food services, and households. This figure translates to 132 kg per capita per year, of which 36 kg per capita per year is attributed to food services, amounting to 290 million tons [3]. In Colombia [4] it was reported that in the same year, the country wasted 70 kg per capita annually, based on measurements taken in food services and retail sectors. Although this figure is lower than in other Latin American countries such as Mexico (105 kg), Ecuador (96 kg), Argentina (91 kg), and Peru (88 kg) per capita annually, it remains a significant problem due to the inefficient use of resources such as water, land, and labor, as well as the environmental impact caused by the decomposition of this wasted food [4].

The specialized literature on food loss and waste can be organized into three main streams: (1) studies that analyze the causes, effects and determinants along the chain and in food services; (2) works that develop, compare, and validate measurement tools and instrumentations; and (3) more recent contributions oriented toward reduction, which design, implement, and evaluate strategies, programs, and policy instruments. In accordance with this classification, this review is structured into three streams.

Authors such as [5] highlight the nutritional approach, pointing out how FLW (Food Loss and Waste) prevents food from fulfilling its nutritional function, increases problems such as hunger and malnutrition, and especially affects people in vulnerable conditions. Thus, they argue that reducing food waste would improve food security. The second approach is environmental, as negative impacts are generated, such as greenhouse gas emissions and inefficiency in the use of finite natural resources.

Ref. [6] describe that the causes of food waste can be found in all areas that are part of the food service system, studying the case of a university. They highlight the need for a system-based analysis to develop strategies that effectively reduce the problem. There are also various studies aimed at identifying the causes of food waste in school food services, monitoring the most discarded food components, training programs, catering company management, among others [7,8]. These studies emphasize the importance of good planning and execution of food service activities, quality of raw materials to improve food acceptance, improvements in the presentation of prepared meals, nutritional education, and adjustments to portion sizes [9].

The second stream synthesizes the multiple tools and methodologies available to measure FLW, which vary depending on the context and the availability of resources. According to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, notable methods include field diaries, used to record the types of food and the causes of waste [10]; direct measurement, which is highly accurate but requires more time and therefore more financial resources to carry out; analysis of containers where plate waste is collected; smart bins that quantify waste by food group and collect detailed information; as well as surveys and interviews with stakeholders involved in the supply chain.

Other authors, such as [11], used mathematical models to optimize food preparation, resulting in a 37% reduction in food costs and a 20% decrease in waste in a hospital setting, considered a large-scale food service operation. Therefore, it is necessary to develop strategies and plans to reduce FLW, focusing on early education, raising awareness, and the proper management of resources.

The final stream reviews interventions and policy instruments aimed at reducing FLW. Authors like [12] compiled 84 initiatives being developed worldwide, which include prevention, recycling, and education through consumer-focused campaigns, as well as collaborative activities between public and private organizations. Likewise, several strategies or initiatives have been promoted across various regional, national, and global geographic contexts, led by multiple organizations such as the European Union, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), national government agencies and private entities and companies to reduce FLW.

There are also initiatives aimed at raising consumer awareness. For example, a plate waste tracker led to a 17% reduction in food waste among students, as it allowed each student to see the volume of food they personally discarded [8]. Additionally, Malaysia has launched campaigns to raise awareness and to show how discarded food can be turned into compost and generate income [13]. Moreover, [14] demonstrated that changing the serving order of dishes—starting with side dishes—resulted in a 33% reduction in vegetable waste.

Unlike aggregate approaches, food services require process-level diagnostics that identify critical waste points in each activity: receiving, storage, preparation, portioning, distribution, consumption, and leftovers management, to guide targeted intervention [15]. However, in early childhood education, gaps persist in systematic operational analyses that connect measurement, causes, and improvement actions, and simultaneously integrate objective indicators and key stakeholders’ perceptions.

To address this gap, we conducted a diagnostic study at a Bogotá City Hall preschool, serving breakfast and lunch to 165 enrolled children, where high waste was observed. The study designed and applied a process-based measurement and analysis methodology, focusing on consumption-related waste with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of the served portion left uneaten by food group and its operational determinants. This was complemented by children’s acceptance and the perceptions of parents, student caregivers, and food service and classroom professionals who supervise mealtimes.

Hard or otherwise unsuitable textures (notably in fruits), unfamiliarity with the food, and unappealing presentations were identified as factors leading to rejection. In general, fruits and vegetables are the food group with the highest level of waste (24%), while 16% of meats, eggs, and legumes—belonging to the protein group—were not consumed. Meanwhile, cereals, roots, tubers, and plantains showed an 11% waste rate.

Drawing on these findings, we developed a comprehensive waste-reduction strategy targeting service management (menu adjustments, portioning and preparation practices, and family–school coordination to increase exposure to diverse foods at home). The objective of this paper is to propose and substantiate this strategy for reducing waste in preschool food services and to outline its implications for program management, staff training, and policy design aimed at improving acceptance, reducing waste, and supporting child nutrition.

2. Materials and Methods

This research employed a mixed-methods design consisting of three phases, integrating quantitative measurement of food waste with qualitative observation of eating behaviors in early childhood education settings. The unit of analysis was defined at the individual plate level, with aggregation later performed by child, meal, food group, and day, allowing comparison across age groups and menu items.

Phase 1: Literature Review and Comparative Framework. The first phase involved a systematic review of existing methodologies for quantifying and reducing food waste, with emphasis on tools applied in educational institutions. Comparative frameworks were drawn from prior studies [16,17], which guided the development of a tailored measurement protocol for preschool food services.

Phase 2: Diagnostic and Measurement Protocol. The diagnostic phase was conducted over one month, covering a complete preschool menu cycle at the institutional food service. The meal services included breakfast and lunch, both provided daily by the preschool, following the national dietary guidelines of the Colombian Family Healthy Plate, developed by the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF) distributed in proportions that ensure adequate energy intake, a balanced macronutrient profile, and sufficient micronutrients. A typical menu consisted of a starch-based dish (e.g., rice, pasta, potatoes, or cereals), a protein source (meat, poultry, fish, or legumes), vegetables, fruit, and a dairy product. Accordingly, foods were categorized into four groups: cereals and legumes, fruits and vegetables, proteins, and dairy, excluding fats and sugars, which were hardly present in the standardized menu [18].

Children were divided into four age groups: 6–8 months, 9–11 months, 1–2 years and 11 months, and 3–5 years, plate waste was assessed using the direct weighing method. A calibrated digital kitchen scale (precision: 1 g; Electronic Scale Capacity 5000 g was employed. Calibration was performed daily with standardized weights, and scales were zeroed (tare) before each measurement.

The measurement protocol was as follows. Pre-service weighing—each meal component was weighed individually according to the portion size specified in the preschool’s standardized recipe before being served. For mixed dishes (e.g., stews), a standardized portion was homogenized and sampled for measurement. Post-consumption weighing—after meals, each plate was collected, and edible leftovers were separated from inedible fractions (bones, peels, seeds).

Waste calculation—percentage plate waste was calculated per component as:

% Waste = (Weight served − Weight consumed) × 100

Weight served

Data were aggregated at multiple levels: by food item (e.g., rice, chicken, banana); by food group (cereals and legumes, proteins, fruits and vegetables, dairy); by meal (breakfast or lunch); by age group and by day of observation. The primary analysis unit was the individual plate per child per meal. Mean values were calculated at the child level, and then aggregated to group comparisons.

For statistical analysis, descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviations, and confidence intervals) were calculated. To account for the nested structure of the data (plates nested within children and across days), a mixed-effects model was specified, with child and day as random effects and age group, meal, and food group as fixed effects.

Qualitative data were collected through structured daily observation logs, documenting children’s eating behaviors (acceptance, rejection, partial consumption, and food-handling behaviors such as spitting out or mixing foods). Additionally, surveys were conducted with 12 participating children, 2 professionals (the kindergarten psychologist and nutritionist), and 196 caregivers or parents of the students.

Moreover, photographic records of post-consumption plates were taken under standardized lighting and angle conditions. These images were later used to validate weighing data and to identify recurrently rejected items. Images with incomplete visibility or poor resolution were excluded based on predefined quality criteria.

Phase 3: Strategy Development. Based on the diagnostic results, a waste-reduction strategy was designed by applying Management by Objectives (Drucker) in combination with a results-oriented, continuous innovation framework [19]. The resulting action plan emphasized portion-size adjustments, menu optimization, and educational interventions to improve children’s food acceptance.

Ethical Considerations. The study was approved by the Fundación Universitaria Los Libertadores Ethics Committee, Approval No. 01092025. Written informed consent was obtained from the preschool authorities. All data were anonymized and treated according to ethical standards for research with minors.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of Food Waste Quantification Methods and Strategies for Its Reduction

There is general agreement that developing training and awareness strategies, along with the quantification and monitoring of food waste, is essential for its reduction in food service operations within educational institutions. For example, at the University of Costa Rica, direct weighing activities were implemented, and awareness and training campaigns were conducted with staff and students, resulting in a 55% reduction in food waste [20]. Similarly [21], conducted talks targeting the educational community and the public, leading to significant behavioral changes regarding food waste. In addition [22], quantified food waste in Swedish food services and later extended the study to hospitals [23] to determine the amount of waste in grams per portion served [24].

3.2. Diagnostic Activity in the Food Service

The menus followed the dietary progression defined by the ICBF: exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months, thick purees between 6 and 8 months, pre-chopped foods from 9 to 11 months, and, starting at 12 months, incorporation into the family diet with varied textures and promotion of dairy products as the main source of calcium and high-quality proteins. The menus consisted of a starch-based dish (e.g., rice, pasta, potatoes, or cereals), a protein source (meat, poultry, fish, or legumes), vegetables, fruit, and a dairy product with an emphasis on a higher proportion of fresh fruits and vegetables for their contribution of fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Complex carbohydrates from cereals and tubers were maintained as the primary energy base, while protein intake was diversified through animal and plant sources.

A menu is composed of several preparations, and for each one, a serving quantity is established according to the standard meal plan. For example, breakfast includes a portion of cheese, bread, and apple, while lunch consists of stewed beans, ground beef stew, white rice, salad (lettuce, tomato, avocado, and cilantro), and baked plantain. Each group of students has a different serving weight; for example, for rice: 6–8 months 22 g, 9–11 months 28 g, 1–2 yrs 11 months 35 g, and 3–5 yrs 50 g, respectively. The data corresponding to the serving weight of each menu item are provided in the Supplementary File.

The diagnostic and measurement phase of this study was developed over a one-month period, corresponding to a complete cycle of the institutional menu, in which all meals served (breakfast and lunch) were recorded following the ICBF nutritional guidelines. For this study, twenty menus corresponding to the meal plan cycle for four groups of students at two mealtimes—breakfast and lunch—were analyzed. The observations were recorded by food group, for a total of 457 entries. Each is composed of the established food groups (cereals and legumes, fruits and vegetables, proteins and dairy products), while fats and sugars were excluded due to their minimal presence in the standardized menu. Food waste was quantified through the direct weighing method and photographic records. Likewise, those post-consumer images that did not meet the visibility and resolution criteria defined in the quality protocol were discarded from the analysis base.

It was observed that the highest levels of food waste occurred in the group of children aged 6 to 8 months. This may be due to their difficulty chewing, as they are beginning their teething process, and to instances where fruits are not at their optimal ripeness, highlighting the importance of selecting products that meet maturity standards. Another contributing factor is that students are trying certain foods, especially solids, for the first time, such as granadilla, which leads to increased waste. Additionally, consistent food waste was observed in this group during breakfast, particularly with certain egg preparations.

In Figure 1, it can be observed that children aged 9 to 11 months show the highest levels of food waste in the protein group, while children aged 1 to 2 years and 11 months exhibit greater waste in the fruits and vegetables group, which is consistent with the findings of [25]. Notably, food in the cereals group is most frequently wasted during lunch by two student groups: those aged 6 to 8 months and 9 to 11 months. Overall, the average food waste during both breakfast and lunch is approximately 14%. The data detailing food waste for the entire cycle and for each student group are included in two Supplementary Files.

When analyzing food waste by mealtime, the highest percentage is observed at breakfast among the group of students aged 6 to 8 months. This same group also shows a high level of waste during lunch, generating three times more waste than the average. Similarly, students aged 9 to 11 months exhibit a high percentage of waste, particularly at lunch; however, a significant amount of food also goes uneaten during breakfast. The remaining two student groups show similar waste percentages, with a slightly higher proportion occurring during lunch.

Overall, the most wasted foods belong to the fruit and vegetable group, accounting for 17%, followed by proteins, and cereals. In contrast, dairy products show the highest consumption rates, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 1. Food with the highest percentage of waste by age group.

Food Group	Age Group	Meal Time	% Critical Waste	Preparation	Food Group	Age Group	Meal Time	% High Waste	Preparation
FRUITS & VEGGIES	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Apple	FRUITS & VEGGIES	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	17%	Salad (spinach, papaya, mango, and cream)
	9–11 months	Breakfast	0%	Apple		1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	18%	Apple
	9–11 months	Breakfast	0%	Mango		9–11 months	Lunch	18%	Vegetables with mayonnaise
	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Papaya		3–5 yrs	Lunch	19%	Stew cucumber
	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Pear		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	20%	Chard with egg
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Pumpkin with green peas		1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	20%	Pear
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Salad (lettuce, tomato, avocado, cilantro)		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	21%	Beetroot salad
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Salad (spinach, papaya, mango, and cream)		3–5 yrs	Lunch	21%	Vegetable (carrot, pumpkin)
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Vegetable (carrot, pumpkin)		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	22%	Pumpkin with green peas
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	1%	Watermelon		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	23%	Salad (cucumber, tomato, and cilantro)
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	1%	Papaya		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	23%	Pumpkin with green peas
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	1%	Salad (spinach and mango)		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	23%	Vegetable (carrot, pumpkin)
	9–11 months	Lunch	2%	Avocado		3–5 yrs	Lunch	27%	Pumpkin with green peas
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	2%	Salad (lettuce, tomato and carrot)		3–5 yrs	Lunch	28%	Chard with egg
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	2%	Watermelon		9–11 months	Lunch	29%	Beetroot salad
	9–11 months	Breakfast	3%	Watermelon		3–5 yrs	Lunch	33%	Pumpkin with green peas
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	4%	Mango		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	36%	Salad (grated carrot and tomato)
	9–11 months	Lunch	4%	Salad (spinach and mango)		9–11 months	Lunch	39%	Salad (spinach, papaya, mango, and cream)
	9–11 months	Lunch	4%	Salad (spinach, papaya, mango, and cream)		9–11 months	Lunch	41%	Salad (lettuce and tomato)
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Avocado		9–11 months	Lunch	43%	Salad (cucumber, tomato, and cilantro)
	9–11 months	Breakfast	5%	Pear		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	50%	Salad (spinach, apple, and cream)
	9–11 months	Lunch	5%	Salad (lettuce, tomato, avocado, cilantro)		3–5 yrs	Lunch	53%	Salad (spinach and mango)
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	5%	Vegetables with mayonnaise		9–11 months	Lunch	69%	Salad (grated carrot and tomato)
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	6%	Apple		3–5 yrs	Lunch	88%	Salad (spinach, apple, and cream)
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	6%	Papaya		6–8 months	Breakfast	100%	Granadilla
	9–11 months	Breakfast	6%	Papaya
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	9%	Mango
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	9%	Salad (cucumber, tomato, and cilantro)
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	10%	Avocado
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	10%	Pear
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	10%	Stew cucumber
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	12%	Salad (lettuce, tomato, avocado, cilantro)
	6–8 months	Lunch	13%	Chard with egg
	9–11 months	Lunch	13%	Chard with egg
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	13%	Mango
	6–8 months	Breakfast	13%	Mango
	9–11 months	Lunch	13%	Stew cucumber
	6–8 months	Breakfast	14%	Watermelon
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	14%	Beetroot salad
	9–11 months	Breakfast	14%	Granadilla
	6–8 months	Breakfast	15%	papaya
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	15%	Salad (lettuce, tomato and carrot)
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	15%	Salad (grated carrot and tomato)
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	15%	Vegetables with mayonnaise
CEREAL	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Corn arepa	CEREAL	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	11%	Steamed potato
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Flavored cookie		9–11 months	Lunch	12%	Conchiglie
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Flavored cookie		3–5 yrs	Breakfast	13%	Corn bread
	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Flavored cookie		3–5 yrs	Lunch	13%	Plantain with guava paste
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Soda crackers		9–11 months	Lunch	13%	Cassava (yuca)
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Soda crackers		9–11 months	Lunch	14%	Rice with carrot
	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Wholemeal bread roll		9–11 months	Lunch	14%	Arracacha sticks
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Sliced bread		3–5 yrs	Lunch	14%	Steamed creole potato
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Sliced bread		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	15%	Arracacha sticks
	9–11 months	Breakfast	0%	Sliced bread		9–11 months	Breakfast	15%	Puff pastry bread
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Steamed potato		3–5 yrs	Lunch	15%	Steamed potato
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Potato chips		6–8 months	Lunch	15%	Steamed creole potato
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	0%	Roasted ripe plantain		9–11 months	Breakfast	16%	Flavored cookie
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Roasted ripe plantain		3–5 yrs	Lunch	16%	Ripe plantain boiled with cinnamon
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Roasted ripe plantain		9–11 months	Breakfast	17%	Soft bread
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Fried ripe plantain slices		9–11 months	Lunch	17%	Potato chips
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Toast		1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	18%	Wholemeal bread roll
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Toast		9–11 months	Lunch	19%	Plantain with guava paste
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	1%	Soft bread		3–5 yrs	Breakfast	20%	Wholemeal bread roll
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	1%	Rice with cilantro		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	21%	Pasta shells
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	1%	Rice with cilantro		6–8 months	Lunch	24%	Pasta shells
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	2%	Fried ripe plantain slices		9–11 months	Breakfast	25%	Wholemeal bread roll
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	2%	White rice		3–5 yrs	Lunch	25%	Pasta shells
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	2%	Rice with noodles		6–8 months	Breakfast	26%	Soft bread
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	2%	Rice with noodles		3–5 yrs	Lunch	28%	Arracacha sticks
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	2%	Rice with carrot		9–11 months	Breakfast	28%	Corn bread
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	3%	Corn arepa		6–8 months	Lunch	33%	Rice with carrot
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	3%	Ripe plantain boiled with cinnamon		9–11 months	Lunch	33%	Ripe plantain boiled with cinnamon
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	4%	White rice		6–8 months	Lunch	34%	Spaghetti
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	4%	Potato chips		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	40%	Cassava (yuca)
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	4%	Crispy potato		9–11 months	Lunch	43%	Crispy potato
	9–11 months	Lunch	5%	White rice		6–8 months	Breakfast	48%	Puff pastry bread
	6–8 months	Lunch	5%	Rice with noodles		3–5 yrs	Lunch	49%	Cassava (yuca)
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	5%	Rice with carrot
	6–8 months	Breakfast	5%	Soda crackers
	9–11 months	Breakfast	5%	Soda crackers
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	5%	Corn bread
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Steamed creole potato
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Crispy potato
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Plantain with guava paste
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Spaghetti
	6–8 months	Lunch	6%	White rice
	9–11 months	Lunch	6%	Rice with cilantro
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	6%	Puff pastry bread
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	7%	Puff pastry bread
	9–11 months	Lunch	7%	Steamed creole potato
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	7%	Spaghetti
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	8%	Fried ripe plantain slices
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	8%	Soft bread
	9–11 months	Breakfast	9%	Corn arepa
	9–11 months	Lunch	9%	Rice with noodles
	9–11 months	Lunch	10%	Spaghetti
PROTEINS	6–8 months	Lunch	0%	Grilled pork	PROTEINS	6–8 months	Lunch	16%	Ground pork
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Beef goulash		9–11 months	Lunch	16%	Tuna with vegetables
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Stewed ground beef		9–11 months	Lunch	18%	Meatball in sauce
	6–8 months	Lunch	0%	Stewed ground beef		9–11 months	Lunch	18%	Beans
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Chicken hearts		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	18%	Tuna with vegetables
	9–11 months	Lunch	0%	Chicken hearts		3–5 yrs	Lunch	19%	Grilled pork
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Beans		3–5 yrs	Lunch	19%	Tuna with vegetables
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Chickpeas		9–11 months	Lunch	22%	Grilled chicken breast
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Egg with corn		6–8 months	Lunch	23%	Grilled chicken breast
	6–8 months	Breakfast	0%	Blended egg		3–5 yrs	Lunch	24%	Grilled beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Scrambled eggs with tomatoes and onions		9–11 months	Breakfast	25%	Boiled egg
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Scrambled eggs with tomatoes and onions		1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	25%	Beef liver
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Scrambled egg		9–11 months	Lunch	26%	Chickpeas
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Cheese omelet		9–11 months	Lunch	27%	Roasted pork
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	0%	Cheese omelet		9–11 months	Lunch	27%	Lentils
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	0%	Grilled chicken breast		6–8 months	Lunch	28%	Beef
	6–8 months	Lunch	0%	Stewed chicken breast		9–11 months	Lunch	29%	Stewed pork
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	1%	Grilled beef		9–11 months	Lunch	29%	Chicken breast
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	1%	Scrambled egg		9–11 months	Lunch	34%	Grilled beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	1%	Chicken breast		9–11 months	Lunch	36%	Beef liver
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	2%	Beef goulash		6–8 months	Lunch	37%	Chicken hearts
	9–11 months	Lunch	3%	Beef goulash		3–5 yrs	Lunch	37%	Beef liver
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	3%	Ground beef		3–5 yrs	Breakfast	39%	Boiled egg
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	3%	Roasted pork		6–8 months	Lunch	54%	Ground beef
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	3%	Lentils		6–8 months	Breakfast	55%	Boiled egg
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	3%	Grilled chicken breast		6–8 months	Lunch	88%	Bolognese ground beef
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	3%	Stewed chicken breast		6–8 months	Lunch	100%	Roasted pork
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	4%	Stewed pork
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	4%	Stewed ground beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	5%	Meatball in sauce
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	5%	Meatball in sauce
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	5%	Hamburger patty
	6–8 months	Breakfast	5%	Scrambled egg
	9–11 months	Breakfast	5%	Scrambled egg
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	6%	Ground beef
	9–11 months	Lunch	6%	Ground beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	7%	Hamburger patty
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	7%	Pork in pineapple sauce
	6–8 months	Lunch	7%	Pork in pineapple sauce
	9–11 months	Lunch	7%	Pork in pineapple sauce
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	7%	Chicken hearts
	9–11 months	Breakfast	7%	Scrambled eggs with tomatoes and onions
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	8%	Grilled pork
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	8%	Roasted pork
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	8%	Beans
	9–11 months	Lunch	10%	Grilled pork
	9–11 months	Lunch	10%	Stewed ground beef
	9–11 months	Lunch	10%	Hamburger patty
	6–8 months	Breakfast	10%	Scrambled eggs with tomatoes and onions
	9–11 months	Breakfast	10%	Cheese omelet
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	10%	Lentils
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	11%	Egg with corn
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	12%	Beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	13%	Chickpeas
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Lunch	14%	Stewed pork
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	14%	Beef
	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	15%	Boiled egg
	3–5 yrs	Lunch	15%	Pork in pineapple sauce
	6–8 months	Breakfast	15%	Egg with corn
	9–11 months	Breakfast	15%	Egg with corn
DAIRY PRODUCTS	1–2 yrs 11 months	Breakfast	0%	Cheese	DAIRY PRODUCTS	9–11 months	Breakfast	11%	Cheese
	3–5 yrs	Breakfast	1%	Cheese

Note: Prepared by the authors.

presents the foods with the highest percentage of waste. Waste was classified as critical when they exceeded the average level for its respective food group (>15% for proteins, >10% for cereals, >17% for fruits and vegetables and >1% for dairy products). Waste was considered high when it was above the group average but within 6% points of critical threshold. The consolidation of food waste percentages and their organization by food group are included in the Supplementary File.

Differences can be observed between age groups. Children aged 6 to 8 months exhibited the highest percentage of waste. Within this group, roasted pork was not consumed, while Bolognese ground beef, boiled eggs, and ground beef showed rates of 88%, 55%, and 54%, respectively, all exceeding the average waste for the protein group. These low acceptance rates may be due to the texture or inadequate presentation of these foods. In the 9 to 11-month-old group, although food consumption improves, there are still high waste rates for beef liver (36%) and grilled beef (34%). Students aged 1 to 2 years and 11 months, as well as those aged 3 to 5 years, exhibit lower food waste percentages and show a greater overall acceptance of various foods. However, beef liver and boiled eggs remain significant sources of waste, with a waste rate of 25% for children aged 1 to 2 years and 11 months, and 37% and 39% for children aged 3 to 5 years (see Table 1). This suggests that the methods used to prepare these foods are crucial for improving acceptance. Changing the preparation, such as serving them scrambled instead, could increase consumption.

Food waste decreases as children grow older, which correlates with the development of their motor skills, digestive processes, and eating habits. In general, small-sized meats, legumes, and scrambled eggs are better accepted. Conversely, foods that are mixed, such as tuna with vegetables, and solid preparations tend to be rejected by younger children. Therefore, adapting the texture and presentation of high-protein foods, particularly meats, is essential during the introduction of solid foods. This perspective is supported by [26], who emphasize the importance of sensory processing in children’s acceptance of food. It is also essential to prioritize the most accepted preparations and to identify rejection patterns, such as boiled eggs, which persist among preschool-aged children.

In contrast to the previously reported trends, foods such as blended egg, beef goulash and scrambled egg demonstrated higher acceptance and, consequently, very low waste levels. Chicken breast was well accepted by older children, whereas ground beef was frequently rejected by younger ones, especially those in the 6 to 8-month age group. Regarding dairy products, both milk and cheese showed consistently high acceptance by children, with virtually no waste observed in most cases.

As suggested by [27], there is low acceptance among children regarding the fruit and vegetable group. In the present study, this was particularly evident among the youngest children with regard to the sweet granadilla. Salads also showed a high level of rejection, especially among the 9 to 11-month and a 1 to 2 years and 11 months groups, indicating a generally low acceptance of raw vegetables. In contrast, fruits such as papaya were well accepted across all groups, showing minimal waste. Pears showed variable acceptance, depending on factors such as ripeness and presentation. Meanwhile, mango and cucumber registered moderate levels of waste, while avocado, despite being included in several preparations, displayed relatively stable acceptance levels. There are multiple possible explanations for these findings. One, described by [25], identifies a link between unfamiliar odors, specifically negative olfactory awareness, and the rejection of vegetables.

In the cereal food group, waste levels above 11% were observed (see Table 1). Specifically, cassava, puff pastry bread and crispy potato were more frequently rejected by children, which may be attributed to their dry or dense textures. For items such as white rice, creole potato, and rice with pasta, the level of waste varied depending on the age group and time of consumption, although these foods tended to generate less waste compared to baked cereal products. Cereals incorporated into mixed preparations, such as flavored cookies or cassava, also showed moderate levels of rejection. Notably, there were zero-waste records for foods like rice and potatoes in certain groups, indicating higher acceptance depending on age or preparation method.

The photographs used in this research were intended to visually document the stages of the food waste measurement process through the direct weighing method. These images complemented the direct observation recorded in the field log, providing visual evidence of consumption behaviors by age group, and serving as visual support for the analysis and interpretation of the results. Also the photographs serve as an educational and awareness-raising resource, facilitating the understanding of the findings by the educational community and promoting a culture of food waste reduction in early childhood.

Figure 3 makes it possible to identify patterns of rejection associated with the texture and consistency of the food, especially in the case of the ground beef, which appears partially uneaten. This coincides with the observation recorded in the logbook, where it is mentioned that the participant had difficulty chewing due to the absence of teeth. Therefore, the photograph illustrates the weighing results and supports the interpretation of the causes of food waste, linking the sensory aspects of the food with children’s eating behavior.

3.3. Perception of Food Consumption and Waste

The teachers who accompany the children and are part of the preschool staff reported that the most frequently wasted foods include tough meats, unripe fruits such as pears, cold pasta dishes like shell pasta with mayonnaise, and foods with dry or gritty textures. They also noted that vegetables or salads cut into large pieces and oversized portions, such as wholemeal bread rolls, are commonly rejected. These observations were supported by the nutritionist, who emphasized that unfamiliar or visually unappealing foods tend to be refused. The institution’s psychologist explained that the lack of exposure at home to foods such as beef liver or vegetables directly affects their acceptance in the school setting. She also highlighted the importance of food texture and the need for consistency between eating habits at home and preschool. Additionally, it was noted that poor presentation and disproportionate portion sizes contribute to food rejection, an issue also discussed by [9]. In contrast, [28] emphasizes the importance of involving children with food preparers and engaging them in kitchen activities to build a more positive relationship with food and cooking.

3.3.1. Children’s Perception

In the evaluation of four menus, children’s food perceptions were assessed through logbook recordings and the interpretation of facial expressions. It was found that children preferred familiar foods such as rice, plantain, and soft-textured proteins like ground beef, these items consistently elicited positive reactions across all evaluations. In contrast, vegetables, salads, and certain tubers like cassava were frequently rejected. It was common for children to separate out specific ingredients, such as spinach or apple slices in salads, during meals. However, in a complementary evaluation conducted with twelve participants, five of them expressed dislike for salad through nonverbal cues. Interestingly, this dish was consumed when strategies were used, such as adult accompaniment, the sequencing of food presentation, and seating arrangements that grouped children with peers who had similar food preferences.

Beef cubes, offered on one of the menus, were also rejected, this was attributed to their texture. These findings are consistent with perceptions reported by families, staff, and nutritionists, who all emphasized that children are more likely to accept familiar foods with soft textures. Such results suggest that specific textures can lead to food rejection among children, creating a significant barrier to the development of healthy eating habits [29], as well as contributing to increased food waste.

3.3.2. Caregivers’ Interviews

The responses from families of students in the two youngest groups, 6 to 8 months and 9 to 11 months, revealed differing opinions regarding the children’s food selectivity, which may be linked to unfamiliarity with certain foods and their textures. In contrast, caregivers of the older groups identified a moderately selective attitude, as reported by the families. This is likely related to the children’s longer time spent at the preschool and the gradual development of their eating habits.

According to family members’ perceptions, children most commonly reject foods such as squash, vegetables, and salads, which account for nearly half of the mentions (49.7%). In contrast, fruits showed the highest level of acceptance, with only 9.2% rejection reported. Legumes and tubers had moderate rejection rates (25.6%), while meats, eggs, and dairy products were generally accepted at intermediate levels. Childcare workers noted that children tend to prefer mild, familiar flavors and consistently reject vegetables, an observation that aligns closely with previous findings.

In general, children’s attitudes toward food were predominantly moderately selective (55.90%), especially among the 1–2 years and 11 months and 3–5 years age groups. Younger children (6–8 and 9–11 months) display behaviors at both ends of the spectrum. This contrast may be attributed to individual factors such as the stage of solid food introduction and eating habits at home. Overall, these findings highlight the need for age-specific strategies that promote the gradual acceptance of foods and reduce food selectivity from the early years of life, which is consistent with the observations of [30]. The verbatim responses from the parents and guardians of the students participating in this study are provided in the Supplementary File.

3.3.3. Staff Interviews

Responses from preschool staff, complemented by interviews with the nutritionist and psychologist, revealed that the foods most frequently wasted included tough cuts of meat, unripe fruits such as pears, and certain pasta dishes (e.g., shell pasta with mayonnaise). Additional factors contributing to rejection were identified as dry or gritty textures, excessively large pieces of vegetables or salad, and portion sizes poorly aligned with children’s appetites, particularly in the case of wholemeal bread rolls. Staff members consistently noted that unfamiliar foods, or those seldom consumed at home, such as beef liver or specific vegetables, were among the items most frequently rejected by children. This behavior has been described by [25] as food neophobia, or unfamiliarity with foods. Furthermore, children tend to separate and discard foods they dislike. Texture emerged as one of the main factors contributing to waste: hard or difficult-to-chew foods are consistently refused by children. Lastly, unappealing presentations and inappropriate portion sizes were noted as harming food acceptance.

The preschool’s psychologists and nutritionists also noted that food waste was closely linked to emotional, family [31], and cultural factors that directly influence children’s eating behavior. Children transitioning to solid foods, particularly those from families with unstructured eating routines or from migrant households with dietary habits different from those of the local community, tend to reject foods more frequently. Negative emotions such as anxiety or stress during mealtimes were also identified as triggers for food refusal. These factors have also been described by [32] as indicators of children’s rejection responses toward food. Additionally, the professionals highlighted that unappealing presentation or unfamiliar tastes and textures lead to high levels of food waste. Both experts agreed on the importance of creating a participatory, playful, and emotionally safe environment around food. However, they emphasized that reducing food rejection and waste requires collaboration between families and institutions, which are key to supporting positive eating behaviors.

In a previous study conducted by the preschool’s administration on the nutritional classification of children, based on weight and height measurements, it was found that 69% have an appropriate weight for their age, suggesting that their food intake meets basic nutritional needs. However, 27% of participants are at risk of being overweight, indicating the presence of inadequate dietary practices that could compromise their health in the medium and long term [33]. Additionally, 4% are at risk of malnutrition requiring urgent attention due to its impact on physical, cognitive, and emotional development.

The distribution described above aligns with the nutritionist’s observation, who emphasizes that food rejection is linked to a lack of familiarity with certain foods, unappealing presentation, and inadequate alignment between institutional menus and eating habits at home. The psychologist, in turn, associated food waste with family dynamics and the developmental challenges children experience during the transition to solid foods. This perspective is also supported by [30], who highlight the essential role of parents in helping their children develop healthy dietary patterns and become familiar with new foods and textures.

4. Discussion

The analysis of food waste in the preschool food service revealed that rejection patterns are strongly associated with the sensory characteristics of foods and the developmental stage of the children. Quantitative data indicated that the youngest groups (6–8 and 9–11 months) generated the highest levels of waste, particularly in foods with fibrous or dry textures, such as roasted pork and boiled eggs. These results suggest that limited chewing ability and early exposure to solids are major determinants of food acceptance. This finding aligns with the qualitative observations of caregivers and teachers, who reported that hard, dry, or grainy foods are often refused due to difficulties in chewing or swallowing. Similar relationships between oral-motor development and food rejection have been reported by [34], who emphasized the importance of texture adaptation in early feeding.

The direct weighing results also showed that visual presentation and portion size significantly influenced consumption. Oversized portions and visually unappealing dishes tended to generate greater waste, while foods with attractive color and proportionate serving sizes were better accepted. For instance, breakfast waste peaked among the 6–8-month group, coinciding with larger portions relative to their appetite. This finding is consistent with observations by [9], who noted that presentation and portion control are decisive factors in improving food acceptance and minimizing waste in institutional contexts.

Fruits and vegetables accounted for the highest percentage of waste (17%), largely due to unfamiliarity and sensory rejection. Foods like sweet granadilla were consistently refused, while papaya, softer and sweeter, was well accepted. Salads, however, presented the highest rejection rates, which qualitative data linked to the large size of vegetable pieces and their uncommon consumption at home. This pattern underscores the influence of food familiarity on children’s preferences and supports the need for gradual sensory exposure from early childhood. Comparable trends have been observed by [27], who found that children show low acceptance of vegetables due to limited exposure and negative sensory associations.

Cereal-based foods exhibited variable levels of waste depending on texture and preparation. Children often rejected cassava, puff pastry bread, and wholemeal bread rolls due to their dry or dense textures, while they widely accepted rice and creole potato, which were softer and more familiar. These results indicate that texture and familiarity are key factors shaping children’s eating behavior. In contrast with findings among older students, where rice and pasta are often the most wasted foods [7], this study shows that familiarity and softness reduce waste during early feeding stages.

Protein sources displayed significant differences in acceptance according to preparation. Fibrous meats, such as pork and beef cubes, and boiled eggs showed the highest waste rates, while ground beef, shredded chicken, and scrambled eggs had the lowest. These findings confirm that the cooking method and texture adaptation directly affect children’s willingness to eat protein-rich foods. [26] similarly emphasize that improving texture and cooking techniques enhances children’s acceptance of meats and reduces plate waste. In contrast, cheese and milk showed nearly full consumption across all groups, reflecting their mild flavor, soft texture, and consistent presence in household diets. This aspect was previously highlighted by [35] as beneficial for both nutrition and cognitive development.

The integration of qualitative evidence allowed the interpretation of specific waste peaks. For example, both teachers and the preschool nutritionist identified emotional factors, such as anxiety or discomfort during mealtime, as triggers for food rejection. The psychologist added that differences in home feeding practices and cultural backgrounds influence food acceptance at the preschool, particularly during the transition to solid foods. These findings align with [32], who associate food refusal with emotional and contextual variables. Additionally, children from families with irregular eating routines or limited exposure to diverse foods tended to reject institutional meals more frequently, a behavior comparable to food neophobia, as described by [25].

A progressive improvement in food acceptance was observed among children who had been enrolled at the preschool for longer periods. The combination of structured eating routines, peer influence, and adult accompaniment appeared to encourage the tasting and eventual acceptance of previously rejected foods. Staff reported that strategies such as sequencing food presentation, adjusting textures, and grouping children with similar preferences facilitated positive eating experiences. This evidence reinforces the preschool as a formative environment for developing healthy and sustainable eating habits, consistent with the pedagogical approaches advocated by [28].

Overall, the findings indicate that food waste in early childhood results primarily from four interrelated factors: inadequate texture, unfamiliarity, poor visual presentation, and inappropriate portion size. These causes are age-dependent and influenced by both sensory and cultural elements. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data revealed that modifying cooking techniques (e.g., replacing boiled with scrambled eggs), ensuring optimal fruit ripeness, and serving visually appealing portions can significantly reduce waste. Furthermore, aligning institutional menus with children’s developmental stages and home eating habits could enhance acceptance and sustainability.

The study also highlights the critical role of family participation in reinforcing positive eating behavior. Caregivers’ testimonies showed that at-home exposure to a variety of foods increases acceptance in the preschool setting. This observation supports the perspective of [30], who emphasize the need for parental involvement in the formation of healthy food preferences. Hence, collaboration between families and educational institutions emerges as a necessary condition for sustaining long-term reductions in food waste and promoting balanced nutrition.

The main strength of this study lies in the direct weighing method combined with photographic records, which provided objective and precise quantification of food waste by age group and food type. Additionally, the integration of qualitative insights from children, caregivers, and staff enriched the interpretation of sensory and behavioral causes behind waste peaks. This mixed-methods approach enabled the identification of both physical and emotional drivers of food rejection. However, the research was conducted in a single preschool and covered one complete menu cycle, which limits the generalizability of results. Future studies should extend the observation period and include multiple institutions to evaluate the long-term effects of menu adjustments, sensory education, and participatory feeding strategies on food waste reduction in early childhood settings.

Strategy and Action Plan

Based on the findings of this study, a comprehensive strategy (Figure 4) and action plan (

Table 2. Action plan for reducing food waste.

Stage	Activity	Objective	Resources
1. Data collection (evaluate menu)	1.1 Review and adjust menus based on waste data. Modify food preparations and portion sizes according to waste patterns (e.g., replace boiled eggs with scrambled, serve ripe fruits, reduce dry foods).	Improve acceptance of critical items (proteins, salads, cereals) by adapting texture, portion size, and presentation to each age group.	Direct weighing matrix, portion size charts, observation logs, staff meetings.
2. Adjust menu	1.2 Implement pilot menu trials. Introduce small-scale menu tests to assess the impact of changes in preparation and presentation	Evaluate improvements in acceptance and texture adaptation	Kitchen staff collaboration, child-friendly utensils, feedback forms.
3. Education and awareness program	Conduct food education workshops for families and staff. Quarterly sessions focusing on food diversity, persistence in introducing new foods, and techniques to make meals more appealing.	Align home and institutional practices to reduce food neophobia and reinforce consistent exposure.	Educational materials, facilitators, workshop spaces.
	Involve children in food preparation. Monthly pedagogical activities to encourage tasting and sensory exploration.	Promote familiarity with foods and positive emotional engagement during meals.	Safe kitchen tools, ingredients, supervision.
4. Improvement of the eating environment	Implement structured and supportive mealtime routines. Include pre-meal rituals (handwashing, table setting, food introduction).	Reduce anxiety and distraction; promote autonomy and positive mealtime behavior.	Visual routine materials, staff training.
	Enhance presentation and dining area aesthetics. Use colorful plating and child-appropriate serving materials.	Increase sensory appeal and stimulate appetite.	Institutional kitchen equipment, tableware for children.
5. Continuous monitoring and evaluation	Weekly weighing and record keeping. Continue direct weighing and visual documentation of leftovers.	Quantify progress and identify emerging waste trends.	Scales, logbooks, trained staff.
	Quarterly review of implementation impact. Evaluate behavioral changes and menu acceptance.	Ensure continuous improvement and evidence-based adjustments.	Evaluation tools (surveys, checklists), team meetings.

Note: Prepared by the authors.

) are proposed to reduce food waste in the preschool setting. The design of this plan is grounded in the quantitative evidence obtained through direct weighing and in the qualitative insights gathered from teachers, caregivers, and children. The results revealed that food waste in this context is primarily explained by four interrelated factors: inadequate texture, unfamiliarity with certain foods, unappealing presentation, and inappropriate portion sizes, in addition to emotional and environmental aspects influencing children’s acceptance during meals. Therefore, each stage of the strategy directly addresses these determinants through context-specific actions.

Unlike generic food waste reduction frameworks, this model was tailored to the specific findings of the preschool under study. For example, the diagnostic phase showed that fibrous meats (e.g., pork and beef cubes) and hard-boiled eggs were frequently rejected due to texture and chewing difficulty, while raw vegetables and salads were largely wasted due to unfamiliarity and presentation issues. Thus, the first stage focuses on menu reformulation to adjust the texture, presentation, and portion size of these foods. Similarly, qualitative data indicated that limited exposure to certain foods at home and emotional discomfort during mealtimes contributed to rejection, highlighting the need for educational and environmental interventions addressed in the second and third stages.

This strategy aims to strengthen food acceptance, promote healthy habits from early childhood, and foster a culture of responsible consumption through coordination among families, staff, and institutional management. These components have also been emphasized by authors such as [9,24,32,35]. As suggested by [36], such integrative approaches enhance both the sustainability of food services and children’s nutritional well-being.

5. Conclusions

This study identified that the main drivers of food waste in the preschool food service are related to the sensory properties of the meals, particularly texture, presentation, and familiarity, as well as the alignment between institutional menus and family eating habits. Quantitative results showed an average food waste of approximately 14%, with the highest levels occurring among children aged 6–8 months, who generated up to three times more waste than the overall mean. This was mainly attributed to difficulties in chewing fibrous meats and the rejection of unripe or unfamiliar fruits and vegetables. Food waste decreased progressively with age, reflecting improvements in developmental and motor skills, as well as greater exposure to a variety of foods within the food service environment.

Based on these findings, four targeted recommendations are proposed to reduce food waste and improve food acceptance in early childhood. First, cooking methods and food textures should be adapted for protein-rich foods. Replacing fibrous or hard preparations, such as roasted pork or boiled eggs, with softer alternatives like shredded meats or scrambled eggs is expected to reduce protein waste by 20–30% in the 6–11-month age groups. Second, improvements should be made to the presentation and portion size of fruits, vegetables, and cereals. Serving ripe fruits, cutting vegetables into smaller pieces, and providing age-appropriate portions could lower fruit and vegetable waste by approximately 10 percentage points, particularly among children aged 1–3 years.

It is recommended to promote food familiarity through educational and sensory activities. Implementing monthly cooking and tasting sessions with children’s participation could increase the acceptance of previously rejected foods and reduce overall waste by 5–8 percentage points across a complete menu cycle. Likewise, continuous monitoring and active family involvement are essential to sustain progress. The regular application of the direct weighing method, combined with participatory workshops for caregivers, can consolidate the reductions achieved and strengthen alignment between eating practices at home and in the preschool environment, keeping total food waste below 10% of the portions served.