Piloting a Virtual Mindful Eating Program to Improve Eating Behaviors and Reduce Food Waste

Abstract

Introduction: The wellbeing of humans and the planet is negatively impacted by unhealthy eating behaviors and excessive food waste. Mindfulness approaches have the potential to help people modify their behavior to achieve healthier outcomes. Pilot testing methods to sustainably support healthy eating and reduce food waste are essential for identifying effective ways to promote human and planetary health. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test a virtual mindful eating program to improve eating behaviors and reduce food waste among a small sample of U.S. adults. Mixed-methods approaches were used to identify the efficacy of the piloted intervention on mindfulness, eating behaviors, and food waste while identifying participant perspectives of the mindful eating program. Results: Quantitative study outcomes indicated positive intervention effects on hunger/satiety cues and food appreciation. No significant intervention effects were detected on mindfulness or food waste. Qualitative findings highlighted participant reports of experiencing greater self-awareness, an improved relationship with food, and a sense of creativity with meal preparation. Conclusions: This pilot study tested a novel mindful eating program that improved eating behaviors related to hunger/satiety and increased food appreciation. The program was accepted by participants, but it did not increase mindfulness or reduce food waste. Future iterations of this mindful eating program will require modifications to test different approaches for increasing mindfulness and reducing food waste while expanding the positive effects on healthy eating.

1. Introduction

Fruits and vegetables are essential for achieving and maintaining a nutritious, high-quality diet. Increased fruit and vegetable intake has been associated with reductions in chronic diseases and conditions that impact the overall health and lifespan of individuals [1,2]. Approximately 90% of adults in the U.S. fail to consume the recommended number of servings of fruits and vegetables on a daily basis (~4–5 servings of each) [3]. To make matters worse, the dietary patterns of Americans frequently include excessive intake of ultra-processed foods, which are often high in saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars. All of these unhealthy dietary behaviors contribute to poor health outcomes [4].

The complex issue of poor dietary intake is further exacerbated by the ongoing, largely unabated problem of food waste. When foods such as fruits and vegetables are wasted, there is a lost opportunity for humans to eat healthfully [5]. Across the U.S., food waste is a considerable and persistent problem, as roughly 30% of the available food supply at the consumer and retail levels is wasted annually [6]. At the household level, fruits and vegetables are some of the most commonly wasted foods due to their perishability [7]. A recent study showed that fruits and vegetables contribute to 66% of avoidable waste in the home, which may be due to quick spoilage rates and/or improper preparation and storage habits [8]. Similar results have also been shown in K–12 schools, as research on the National School Lunch Program has shown that fruits and vegetables offered during the lunch hour in schools produce the largest quantities of food waste among school children [9]. Food waste is a critical issue that needs to be addressed, as food waste that makes its way to landfills contributes 113 million metric tons of CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalents) to the atmosphere annually [10]. On an individual basis, U.S. consumers waste an average of 422 g of food per person per day, which represents an estimated $800–900 of lost income annually for families with children [8,11]. Food waste therefore represents one of the most important environmental sustainability-related behaviors over which most people can control.

Recent research has shown that food waste at the household level can potentially be reduced through interventions designed to target behaviors that improve how individuals engage with food in the home [12]. The present pilot study represents an initial attempt to test novel methods for improving both eating behaviors and environmental practices through an integrative mindfulness program focused on diet quality, mindful eating, and food waste reduction. Mindfulness has been shown to produce a variety of improvements in psychological, physiological, and behavioral outcomes [13,14,15]. The capability of mindfulness interventions to modify behavioral outcomes may translate to food waste behaviors, but research-based evidence is needed to test such a hypothesis. When applied to eating behaviors through what has been termed “mindful eating,” mindfulness has been associated with improvements in diet quality [16,17,18]. Mindful eating is an approach to food that focuses on attentiveness to and awareness of food-related senses (e.g., taste, touch, and smell) and experiences (e.g., hunger, eating behaviors, and satiety) [19].

In combination with educational content on nutrition and waste reduction, mindfulness can be tested as a mechanism for increasing the consumption of nutritious foods and reducing consumer food waste. No known research interventions have tested the extent to which the human–food relationship, from purchase to consumption to disposal, can be modified with a virtual mindful eating intervention to improve dietary health and reduce food waste. To address this research gap, the virtual program intervention in the present study was designed to incorporate mindfulness practices that were tailored to increase healthy food intake and decrease food waste. The primary hypotheses for this pilot study were that a novel four-week virtual mindful eating intervention would (1) improve eating behaviors, (2) improve mindfulness, and (3) reduce food waste.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Adult research participants (n = 13) were recruited for a two-month, nationwide pilot study. Participant recruitment took place from January to March 2022 via social media (i.e., Facebook), e-mail, and flyers posted in university buildings and community bulletin boards in an urban downtown area. A target sample of 20 participants was originally recruited for this pilot study. Over the duration of the study, seven participants were either lost to follow up or did not complete the final data collection.

The inclusion criteria were adults aged 18–65 years of age, with regular access to a computer, Wi-Fi, and text-capable phone, who were fluent in English language and were the primary food shopper and/or preparer in their household. Respondents who reported following medically prescribed diets (e.g., DASH), were practicing food composting, and/or had been diagnosed with a clinical eating disorder in the past 20 years were excluded to ensure that any detected changes in the primary study outcomes were not resultant of previously existing conditions and behaviors related to diet and food waste. Eligibility to join the study was assessed with an online screening survey.

Participants were sampled using a convenience sampling approach that enrolled eligible screening survey respondents on a first-come basis. Screening survey respondents who were eligible to join the study then continued to a webpage containing the virtual informed consent form that included information about the research benefits, potential risks, voluntary nature of participation, and how participant data would be anonymously stored and protected in a secure web-based server. Eligible respondents who were interested in joining the study proceeded with electronically signing the informed consent form and transitioned to the baseline research survey. This research study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Arizona State University (STUDY00015413) and was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, revised in 2013).

2.2. Study Intervention

The mindful eating intervention consisted of a four-week education-based online program that combined practices of mindfulness with experiential and educational sessions on healthy nutrition and household food waste reduction. The weekly two-hour sessions were titled as follows: Week 1: Back to Basics: How to increase mindfulness and nutrition while reducing food waste; Week 2: It’s all in the details: from micronutrients to shopping habits; Week 3: Take stock: How to use before you lose; and Week 4: Ready, set, go! Bringing it all together. The program was developed and co-led by two facilitators with a background in mindfulness and nutrition. All remote sessions were conducted entirely over Zoom using both audio and video. Each session followed the following structured format: welcome/check-in, guided mindful meditation practice, nutrition lesson, process/share group discussion, waste reduction lesson, process/share group discussion, mindful eating practice, process/share group discussion, and closing practice invitation.

2.3. Quantitative Measures

All quantitative measures were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and at the one-month follow-up. Quantitative measures included the following self-report surveys.

2.3.1. Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants Scale (REAP-S)

Eating behaviors were assessed using the Rapid Eating Assessment of Participants Scale (REAP-S) [20]. REAP-S contains 16 items and assesses diet quality by measuring intake of foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fat, sugar, and foods containing calcium. REAP-S also includes questions on ability to shop and cook as well as participant’s willingness to change their current diet. Each question is scored 1–3 (e.g., 1 = usually consumed, 2 = sometimes consumed, and 3 = rarely/never consumed), the sum of which yields a total score ranging from 13 to 39 with higher scores indicating higher diet quality (Cronbach’s a = 0.86).

2.3.2. Food Waste

Food waste was measured using a visual scale ranging from 0% to 100%. A definition of food waste was provided to the participants explaining that food waste means any food that could have been eaten but instead got thrown away (e.g., leftovers and spoiled food). Participants were then asked to estimate the amount of food waste in their household every week. The scale’s validity was previously assessed during a food waste intervention where a significant correlation was found between this visual scale and objective food waste measurement [5].

2.3.3. Mindful Eating Behavior Scale (MEBS)

The MEBS [21,22] was used to measure mindful eating habits. MEBS items primarily measure outcomes pertinent to mindful eating. The four domains of the MEBS include the following: Focused Eating (MEBS 1), Hunger and Satiety Cues (MEBS 2), Eating with Awareness (MEBS 3), and Eating without Distraction (MEBS 4). Participants indicated either Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Very Often to MEBS items. Continuous variables for each MEBS domain were created by summing the individual scores from each respective domain.

2.3.4. Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS)

The MAAS [23] was used to evaluate mindfulness. The 15-item MAAS measures awareness regarding the present moment. Participants indicated either Almost Never, Very Infrequently, Somewhat Infrequently, Somewhat Frequently, Very Frequently, or Almost Always to MAAS items. A continuous variable for MAAS was created by computing the mean average of all items.

2.3.5. Food Appreciation Scale (FAS)

The 29-item FAS [24] was used to measure individuals’ general appreciation of and relationship with food. Participants indicated Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree on a 7-point Likert scale. A continuous variable for FAS was created by summing the score of all items, where a higher score indicated greater food appreciation.

2.4. Qualitative Measures

At the end of the four-week study, participants were asked to respond in an anonymous format to open ended questions via a Qualtrics online survey link. Participants were asked to answer the following 10 questions: (1) “What did you like about the program?”; (2) “What suggestions for improvement do you have for the program?”; (3) “Was there program content that you wanted more of? Less of? If so, please describe.”; (4) “Were there program practices that you wanted more of? Less of? If so, please describe.”; (5) “Has participating in this program changed your relationship with food? If yes, please explain how.”; (6) “Has participating in this program changed your ability to eat mindfully? If yes, please explain how.”; (7) “Has participating in this program changed your food waste reduction practices? If yes, please explain how.”; (8) “Did you find the virtual format to support or hinder your experiential learning? How about for group cohesion?”; (9) “Please rate the program on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent).”; and (10) “Anything else you’d like to share with us?”. These questions were previously developed by the study team and included as a part of the final follow-up survey, and they took approximately five minutes to complete.

2.5. Quantitative Analysis

IBM SPSS 28 was used to conduct statistical analyses with the quantitative study data [25]. Means and standard deviations for the primary outcomes were calculated across the three study time points. Paired samples t-tests were then performed to examine the extent to which primary outcomes changed among participants in the study sample from baseline through the course of the intervention. Statistical significance for t-scores was set at p < 0.05. Cohen’s d was also calculated to determine the effect size of the intervention on each primary study outcome. Cohen’s parameter values were followed to determine whether the size of the effect was small (0.14), medium (0.39), or large (0.59) [26].

2.6. Qualitative Analysis

A qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify themes from the “Qualitative Open-Ended Exit Questions” following the four-week virtual intervention. Data were analyzed manually by two independent coders (A.K. and D.L.J.). The content analysis was conducted using a systematic, iterative approach to identify themes within the interview data. Transcripts were reviewed by the coders to develop an initial coding framework based on inductive and deductive coding strategies. Coders independently coded the interview data and then compared their qualitative content analysis results to check for discrepancies and similarities. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and refinement of the coding scheme, and the finalized qualitative content analysis framework was applied to the full qualitative dataset. Emerging qualitative themes were then organized and synthesized for interpretation of the findings.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

The current study included a participant sample of adults between the ages of 18–65 (n = 13). The average age of study participants was 37.6 (SD = 11.7) years. Most participants were female (76.9%), White (46.2%), and had a Graduate/Professional degree (53.8%). Baseline demographics are presented in

Table 1. Characteristics of Mindful Eating Program Participants (n = 13).

Characteristic	Total (%)
Sample Size	13
Age (Years)	Mean = 37.6, SD = 11.7
Sex
Male	3 (23.1)
Female	10 (76.9)
Race/Ethnicity
White	6 (46.2)
American Indian or Alaska Native	1 (7.7)
Hispanic	1 (7.7)
Asian	3 (23.1)
Multi-race	1 (7.7)
Other Education	1 (7.7)
2-year degree	1 (7.7)
4-year degree	5 (38.5)
Professional degree	7 (53.8)

.

3.2. Quantitative Outcomes

The study findings (

Table 2. Mean Averages and Standard Deviations of Primary Outcome Variables among Intervention Program Participants (n = 13) Across the Three Study Time Points.

Outcome	Time Point 1	Time Point 2	Time Point 3
REAP-S	M = 14.62 SD = 4.89	M = 16.46 SD = 4.14	M = 16.31 SD = 3.95
Food Waste	M = 14.08 SD = 2.78	M = 25.31 SD = 19.69	M = 32.38 SD = 30.57
MEBS 1	M = 14.08 SD = 2.78	M = 15.00 SD = 2.68	M = 15.15 SD = 3.36
MEBS 2	M = 11.38 SD = 3.31	M = 13.38 SD = 4.09	M = 12.69 SD = 3.47
MEBS 3	M = 7.77 SD = 3.00	M = 7.84 SD = 2.08	M = 7.92 SD = 3.04
MEBS 4	M = 4.92 SD = 4.33	M = 6.08 SD = 3.35	M = 6.46 SD = 3.55
MAAS	M = 2.92 SD = 0.70	M = 3.22 SD = 0.82	M = 3.01 SD = 0.81
FAS	M = 95.62 SD = 19.73	M = 101.38 SD = 15.21	M = 105.08 SD = 16.63

FAS = Food Appreciation Scale; MAAS = Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale; MEBS = Mindful Eating Behavior Scale; REAP-S = Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants—Shortened Version. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. Time Point 1 = Baseline; Time Point 2 = Post-Intervention; Time Point 3 = One-Month Follow-Up.

and

Table 3. Results for Paired Samples t-Tests and Effect Size Calculations of the Intervention Effect on Primary Study Outcomes Among Program Participants (n = 13).

Outcome	t-Value	Effect Size (d)	p-Value
REAPS
T1 -> T2	t = 1.91	d = 0.41	p = 0.08
T1 -> T3	t = 1.52	d = 0.38	p = 0.15
Food Waste
T1 -> T2	t = −0.62	d = 0.22	p = 0.54
T1 -> T3	t = 0.30	d = 0.08	p = 0.77
MEBS 1
T1 -> T2	t = 1.41	d = 0.34	p = 0.18
T1 -> T3	t = 1.34	d = 0.35	p = 0.21
MEBS 2
T1 -> T2	t = 2.58	d = 0.54	p = 0.02 *
T1 -> T3	t = 1.68	d = 0.39	p = 0.12
MEBS 3
T1 -> T2	t = 0.16	d = 0.03	p = 0.88
T1 -> T3	t = 0.22	d = 0.05	p = 0.83
MEBS 4
T1 -> T2	t = 1.52	d = 0.30	p = 0.15
T1 -> T3	t = 1.65	d = 0.39	p = 0.12
MAAS
T1 -> T2	t = 1.41	d = 0.39	p = 0.19
T1 -> T3	t = 0.40	d = 0.12	p = 0.69
FAS
T1 -> T2	t = 1.86	d = 0.33	p = 0.09
T1 -> T3	t = 2.86	d = 0.52	p = 0.01 *

* = p < 0.05. d = Cohen’s d; FAS = Food Appreciation Scale; MAAS = Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale; MEBS = Mindful Eating Behavior Scale; REAP-S = Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants—Shortened Version. MEBS 1 = Focused Eating; MEBS 2 = Hunger and Satiety Cues; MEBS 3 = Eating and Awareness; MEBS 4 = Eating without Distraction. T1 = Time Point 1 baseline data; T2 = Time Point 2 program exit data; T3 = Time Point 3 one-month follow-up data.

) for diet quality (REAPS) suggested that no significant changes occurred from baseline (M = 14.62, SD = 4.89) to post-intervention (M = 16.46, SD = 4.14) (t = 1.91, p = 0.08). These non-significant diet quality results remained consistent from baseline (M = 14.62, SD = 4.89) to the one-month follow-up (M = 16.31, SD = 3.95) (t = 1.52, p = 0.15). A medium intervention effect on diet quality was detected at post-intervention (d = 0.41) and the one-month follow-up (d = 0.38).

Findings for hunger and satiety cues (MEBS 2) highlighted a significant change from baseline (M = 11.38, SD = 3.31) to post-intervention (M = 13.38, SD = 4.09) (t = 2.58, p = 0.02). However, meaningful differences in hunger and satiety cues did not persist when the outcomes at baseline (M = 11.38, SD = 3.31) and the one-month follow-up (M = 12.69, SD = 3.47) were analyzed (t = 1.68, p = 0.12). A large intervention effect on hunger and satiety cues was detected at program exit (d = 0.54), but this effect was attenuated to a medium effect at the one-month follow-up (d = 0.39).

Study findings for mindful attention and awareness (MAAS) demonstrated no significant changes from baseline (M = 2.92, SD = 0.70) to post-intervention (M = 3.22, SD = 0.82) (t = 1.41, p = 0.19). These non-significant outcomes for mindful attention and awareness endured from baseline (M = 2.92, SD = 0.70) to the one-month follow-up (M = 3.01, SD = 0.81) (t = 0.40, p = 0.69). A medium intervention effect on mindful attention and awareness was detected at program exit (d = 0.39), but it was reduced to a small intervention effect at the one-month follow-up (d = 0.12).

Results for food appreciation initially revealed a non-significant change from baseline (M = 95.62, SD = 19.73) to post-intervention (M = 101.38, SD = 15.21) (t = 1.86, p = 0.09). A significant difference in food appreciation was then detected when comparing the outcomes at baseline (M = 95.62, SD = 19.73) to the one-month follow-up (M = 105.08, SD = 16.63) (t = 2.86, p = 0.01). A medium intervention effect on food appreciation was detected at post-intervention (d = 0.33) and decreased to a small intervention effect at the one-month follow-up (d = 0.12). All other results were non-significant and showed small intervention effects.

3.3. Qualitative Outcomes

Study participants rated the overall program a mean 8 out of 10 (i.e., higher score was better). Analysis of the qualitative data yielded the following themes supported by written exemplar quotes from study participants. The responses to the qualitative interview questions were grouped into three categories: (1) Program Evaluation; (2) Food Behaviors; and (3) Sustainability. These categories are listed and detailed in the following section and in

Table 4. Exit Interview Categories, Themes, and Example Quotations.

Category and Theme	Example Quotation
Program Evaluation
(a) Greater development of self-awareness and mindfulness	“I enjoyed the experience of being in the moment and really focusing on my food while eating. Being fully aware of the entire process of obtaining the food I eat.” “It helped me be more aware of the sensations and associations I had with eating.”
(b) Virtual community connection	“The virtual format worked with my schedule. I feel like everyone had an opportunity to contribute equally. This supported group cohesion.” “I loved the group discussion and activities. I mainly enjoyed having a regular group meeting online.”
Food Behaviors
(a) Improved relationship with food and food knowledge	“I do think about my food and try to consider the taste/texture/chewing of each bite slower than rushed meals.” “I appreciate food I have access to more.”
(b) More intentional eating and less autopilot eating	“I am a more mindful eater so I appreciate food’s existence and their taste.” “By using the mindfulness techniques and slowing down when I eat. I have become more connected with eating and food.”
Sustainability
(a) Creativity with meal preparation and modified purchasing behaviors	“I definitely purchase less. I make more meals out of what I purchase. And I freeze fruits and vegetables to make smoothies.” “I am now cooking more with leftovers, creating more recipes and combining my foods.”
(b) Desire for more knowledge and program content	“I wanted more of a tie to our choices and sustainably and how to do that.” “I’d like to believe I will make a conscious effort to purchase locally grown food to avoid contributing to the negative impact on the earth.”

.

3.3.1. Program Evaluation: Themes and Exemplar Quotations

The first category encapsulated the following themes from the data: (1) greater development of self-awareness and mindfulness, and (2) virtual community connection. From the intervention experience, one participant shared, “I enjoyed the experience of being in the moment and really focusing on my food while eating. Being fully aware of the entire process of obtaining the food I eat.” Another participant noted increased awareness of eating-related sensations: “It helped me be more aware of the sensations and associations I had with eating.” Awareness is a fundamental component of mindfulness and mindful eating, as was demonstrated in the enhancement of awareness from pre intervention to post intervention. The second theme within this category was respective of the community connection via virtual modality, which allowed for flexibility and routine intervention sessions. A participant noted, “The virtual format worked with my schedule. I feel like everyone had an opportunity to contribute equally. This supported group cohesion.” Secondly, a participant shared the following, “I loved the group discussion and activities. I mainly enjoyed having a regular group meeting online.”

3.3.2. Food Behaviors: Themes and Exemplar Quotations

Food behaviors was an intentionally broad theme to allow for the inclusion of varied and related behaviors. Two specific food behavior themes emerged from the data. Participants expressed that, over the course of the program, they (1) improved their relationship with food and food knowledge, and (2) experienced more intentional eating and less autopilot eating. In support of the first theme, one participant stated, “I do think about my food and try to consider the taste/texture/chewing of each bite slower than rushed meals.” Similarly, another participant noted, “I appreciate food I have access to more.” Building out the second theme related to more intentional/less autopilot eating, one participant noted, “I am a more mindful eater so I appreciate food’s existence and their taste.” Another participant shared about mindfulness and connection to food: “By using the mindfulness techniques and slowing down when I eat I have become more connected with eating and food.”

3.3.3. Sustainability: Themes and Exemplar Quotations

In the category of sustainability, the following themes emerged: (1) creativity with meal preparation and modified purchasing behaviors, and (2) a desire for more knowledge and program content. Supporting the first theme in this category, one participant shared the following, “I definitely purchase less. I make more meals out of what I purchase. And I freeze fruits and vegetables to make smoothies.” Additionally, another participant noted, “I am now cooking more with leftovers, creating more recipes and combining my foods.” With respect to the sustainability component of the intervention, one participant detailed the following for themself, “I wanted more of a tie to our choices and sustainably and how to do that.” Lastly, one participant shared, “I’d like to believe I will make a conscious effort to purchase locally grown food to avoid contributing to the negative impact on the earth.”

4. Discussion

This mixed-methods pilot study aimed to impart nutrition knowledge toward the adoption and/or improvement of both mindful eating practices and food waste behaviors over the course of a virtual four-week mindful eating program. To the extent permitted in a small-sample pilot study, two of the three research hypotheses were achieved. Over the duration of the mindful eating program, certain eating behaviors (e.g., hunger/satiety cues) improved, but no significant improvements in mindfulness nor reductions in food waste were detected. Participants reported enjoying the virtual program format, and improvements were demonstrated in the outcomes of hunger/satiety cues, food appreciation, and mindful eating. The pilot study produced preliminary evidence suggesting that the mindful eating program was acceptable to participants while demonstrating limited efficacy in changing certain targeted eating behavior and food waste outcomes. While these pilot study findings should be interpreted with caution, the outcomes of this program provide a glimpse into the potential of implementing mindful eating interventions for promoting both human and planetary health.

The mindful eating intervention yielded a significant effect on hunger and satiety cues at program exit. This outcome aligns with a prior mindfulness intervention that demonstrated how even a brief, one-time mindfulness practice can improve hunger signal perceptions [27]. However, the intervention effect in the present study was attenuated from large to medium at the one-month follow-up, which may indicate that mindfulness practices require habitual integration into daily routines to sustain the benefits related to nutrition and food waste. Future research should examine whether a brief mindfulness practice before meals and/or snacks may improve connection with one’s internal cues that precede eating behaviors.

Separately, the mindful eating intervention significantly increased food appreciation from baseline to one month following the end of the intervention. In demonstrating limited efficacy in improving food appreciation, the mindful eating intervention could be applied in future studies to test whether targeting food appreciation can improve diet quality and reduce food waste. Given that past research has found food appreciation to be associated with better health [28], future studies should also assess whether the mindful eating intervention can improve diet-related health outcomes (e.g., blood pressure, cholesterol, and metabolism). With food appreciation being a key component to mindful eating, it is plausible that participants could develop skills to support sustained dietary improvement and food waste reduction if this short, four-week mindful eating program was scaled for longer-term duration.

Despite the programmatic emphasis on increasing mindfulness and reducing food waste in the intervention, neither mindfulness nor food waste outcomes improved throughout the study. One explanation could be that the short, two-month duration of the pilot study did not provide sufficient time for significant changes in mindfulness and food waste to occur from study start to finish. Future iterations of the mindful eating intervention could be modified to increase and diversify the type of mindfulness practices that are promoted during the virtual sessions so as to better improve mindfulness and reduce food waste. A previously successful mindfulness program emphasized five separate intervention components that included mindful eating, awareness of physical sensations, awareness of eating-related thoughts and feelings, acceptance of eating-related thoughts and feelings, and awareness and step-by-step changes in routines and eating habits [29]. These components could be modified in future intervention iterations to place a greater focus on food waste thoughts, feelings, habits, and routines. Separately, a comprehensive review of the literature discovered that mindful eating interventions often integrate mindfulness components involving sensory aspects (e.g., taste, texture, and smell), speed of eating, meditations on hunger and satiety, meditations on eating triggers (e.g., emotional, environmental, and social), and meditations to manage food cravings [30]. Adapting such meditations and related mindfulness approaches could be key for achieving desired change in mindfulness and food waste using this mindful eating intervention in the future. The mindful eating intervention that was piloted in this study shares similarities with past mindful eating interventions in measuring a range of eating- and food-related attitudes and behaviors [30]. This pilot study was unique in being the first research study to target and measure food waste with a mindful eating intervention.

Qualitative exit surveys gathered responses from participants that suggested the mindful eating intervention was an overall feasible and acceptable program. Participants reported positive program experiences and an appreciation for the virtual community connection. The creation of health promotion and disease prevention programs that are low cost, low burden, and broad reaching has become increasingly relevant and useful due to the commonplace nature of virtual connectivity [31]. Participants in the present study reported in their interview responses how they perceived that the mindful eating program helped them with the following: achieve greater self-awareness of their food and eating behaviors, develop a better relationship with food, increase creativity around meal preparation, and reduce purchasing behaviors. Future application of this mindful eating intervention could quantitatively evaluate whether the program (1) improves self-awareness, (2) promotes the daily recommended intake of certain foods, and/or (3) reduces unnecessary purchases that contribute to food waste.

The initial testing of this novel pilot intervention contained a moderate number of strengths. First, the virtual aspect of the mindful eating intervention offered greater accessibility for participants to attend each program session. Second, the research hypothesis that tested whether the mindful eating intervention improved eating behaviors was accepted due to the limited efficacy shown in the results. Third, participants responded positively to the mindful eating program in their exit interviews while providing actionable insights into how the program might be improved for future use.

There were also several limitations in this study. First, due to the small sample size, the study results must be interpreted with caution as no causal inference can be suggested for the intervention effects. Second, a non-random convenience sampling approach was used to recruit study participants. Such sampling approaches present biases, including a lack of randomization and overrepresentation of certain groups due to self-selection. Specifically, the sample being predominantly female, White, and highly educated makes it non-representative of the U.S. public and therefore limits the generalizability of these study findings to broader populations. Third, the virtual nature of the study may have prevented individuals of lower socioeconomic status, rural residence, and/or inadequate digital literacy from joining the study due to the technological resources (e.g., internet and computer) required to receive the intervention. Fourth, the novel food waste item and the FAS were used to estimate primary study outcomes prior to scale validation and publication [24], despite the novel food waste item previously demonstrating accuracy in a prior study when compared to objective food waste data [5]. To reduce participant burden during data collection, since this was a virtual intervention, the FAS was selected to measure food waste instead of an objective measure that otherwise could have presented participants with difficulties pertaining to correct use of food waste measurement resources and accurate measurement of their own food waste. Fifth, the study outcomes were all measured using self-report, which placed the onus of accurate measurement on the participants when measuring outcomes, like food waste, that could have otherwise been objectively measured. Sixth, the quantitative results were produced by t-tests that did not statistically adjust for potential confounding variables so the results should therefore be interpreted as preliminary findings derived from a pilot study. Seventh, the qualitative content analysis process did not check for inter-coder reliability, which may have introduced subjective bias and inconsistency in the coding process.

5. Conclusions

This pilot study implemented a novel mindful eating program that provided limited benefits to eating behaviors and increased food appreciation. The virtual mindful eating program was widely accepted by participants. The program was not successful in improving mindfulness or reducing food waste, so modifications should be made to the program to successfully improve mindfulness and reduce food waste. Future quasi-experimental applications of this mindful eating program that use objective outcome measures among a larger, more diverse participant sample would be a meaningful step in the process of scaling the intervention to eventually achieve large-scale improvements in mindfulness, eating behaviors, and food waste.