Understanding COGS and food costs in food service and why 'food used' is often higher than theoretical

What do COGS and food costs refer to in a food service context?

• A. Food used, which is 2% higher than theoretical
• B. Common area maintenance expenses
• C. The total revenue from food sales
• D. Labor costs and overhead expenses

Answer: (A)

In the context of food service, COGS, or Cost of Goods Sold, and food costs specifically refer to the direct costs associated with producing the food items that are sold to customers. While "food used" is a phrase that can align with understanding COGS and food cost calculations, it is essential to note that these figures are typically quantifiable metrics used to manage and analyze the profitability of a food service operation. When calculated, food costs often reflect the actual cost of the ingredients purchased and utilized during a specific period, which can include factors such as waste, spoilage, and discrepancies in portioning. Therefore, a statement indicating that food used is a specific percentage higher than theoretical makes sense in this context, as it implies that the actual usage is monitored against what is expected (theoretical costs). This comparison helps operators identify areas where efficiencies can be improved or waste minimized. The other choices do not align with the definition of COGS and food costs. They refer to different aspects of operating expenses within a food service business. For instance, common area maintenance expenses are generally related to property management rather than food service metrics, while labor costs and overhead expenses pertain to staffing and operational requirements, not the cost of food sold. Similarly,

Outline (skeleton for flow)

• Hook and definitions: what COGS and food costs really mean in a kitchen

• The key concept: “food used” vs theoretical costs and the 2% difference

• Why that 2% shows up: waste, spoilage, portioning, and tiny slips

• Real-world flavor: how a sandwich shop like Jersey Mike’s handles it

• Practical steps to keep food costs sensible

• Common traps and how to avoid them

• Quick wrap-up

What COGS and food costs mean in a kitchen you can actually use

Let me explain it in plain terms. COGS stands for Cost of Goods Sold. In a food service setting, that means the direct costs tied to making the items you sell—your sandwiches, toppings, breads, sauces, and all the other edible bits that end up on the plate or in a wrap. It’s a metric that tells you how much money you’re laying out to produce what customers are paying for. That’s different from rent, payroll, or utilities, which are overhead. COGS is the heartbeat of profitability on the plate.

When people talk about “food costs,” they’re usually zeroing in on the same thing from a slightly different angle. It’s about the share of revenue that goes toward buying and using the ingredients for your menu items. This isn’t about fancy accounting tricks; it’s about knowing how much you actually spend to deliver the food you’re selling.

Here’s the thing: in the kitchen, numbers aren’t just numbers. They tell a story about how tightly you’re managing portions, how fresh things stay, and how efficiently your team operates. And that story matters when you’re trying to keep sandwiches tasty while still turning a profit.

Food used versus theoretical costs: the 2% difference you’ll hear about

In many food-service operations, folks talk about a concept that sounds a bit abstract at first: food used compared to theoretical cost. In plain language, think of theoretical cost as what you’d expect to spend if every ingredient you bought went straight into food for sale at perfect portion sizes. Food used is the actual amount of each ingredient that ends up in dishes that customers eat.

Why is there often a small gap between the two? Because the real world isn’t a perfectly orderly kitchen. You’ll have waste from trimming vegetables, small spoilage surprises from imperfect storage, and occasional differences in portioning. A common, practical rule of thumb you’ll hear is that the actual food used runs a bit higher than the theoretical blueprint—often around 2% in many operations. That 2% isn't a sign of failure; it’s a signal that helps operators spot where inefficiencies creep in.

So, what does that mean in practice? It means you’re measuring against a plan, then monitoring how reality stacks up. If actual usage drifts consistently higher than theory, it’s a clue to tighten a process, adjust a recipe, or re-train staff on portion control. If it stays close to or below the theoretical line, you’ve likely hit a balance between accuracy and efficiency.

A closer look at the numbers behind the plate

Let’s translate this into a kitchen-friendly mindset. Imagine you’re preparing several subs with similar builds—say, a classic roast beef, a turkey club, and a veggie combo. The recipe cards specify exact weights for meat, cheese, vegetables, and bread. Theoretical cost is what those weights imply when you multiply by your purchase prices. Food used is what you actually pull from stock as you plate items for customers.

During a busy lunch rush, tiny slip-ups can accumulate. Perhaps you trim a little more fat from the roast than planned, or a few extra pickles end up on a sandwich by accident. Over a day, those small deltas add up. The 2% figure is a reminder that, even with precise recipes, the kitchen is a dynamic environment where variance is normal, not a failure.

A Jersey Mike’s-like reality check: how it plays out on the floor

In a fast-casual setting, maintaining a steady food cost is a constant, almost instinctive process. Here’s how it typically shows up:

• Standardized recipes and portioning. The team follows precise grams or ounces for each component. That consistency is the backbone of predictable costs.

• Real-time inventory awareness. Managers do quick checks during and after shifts to see what’s left and what was used. This helps catch waste early.

• Waste and spoilage tracking. At close of day, leaders review what didn’t make it onto a sandwich and why—mis-cuts, prep leftovers, or items reaching their sell-by.

• Controls on prep methods. If a sauce is thickened a certain way or vegetables are prepped in a way that saves yield, that impact gets reflected in the cost picture.

• Staff training. Consistent training on scoops, scales, and portioning reduces drift between what’s planned and what’s plated.

The practical steps to keep food costs in check

If you’re aiming for a lean, sustainable food cost, here are kitchen-smart moves that actually make a difference:

• Lock in precise recipes and portions. Use digital scales and measuring tools so a spread isn’t an accidental extra layer of cheese or a slightly heavier scoop of sauce.

• Audit waste and waste again. Schedule quick, daily checks on prep waste. Track what’s thrown away and why—trim loss, spoilage, or miscounts.

• Tighten inventory discipline. Do regular, short-cycle counts so you know where the shrink is hiding. Reconcile counts with what you purchased and what you used.

• Train with practical drills. Short hands-on sessions on portion control and proper storage can shave off a surprising amount of waste.

• Optimize storage conditions. Temperature control, proper labeling, and FIFO (first in, first out) practices keep ingredients fresh longer.

• Use costing tools that fit your rhythm. A good POS with built-in inventory and recipe costing can spotlight drift quickly. If you’re working with simpler tools, a well-structured Excel sheet can do the job—just keep it updated.

• Monitor supplier costs and substitutions. If a supplier raises prices or a substitute item behaves differently, adjust the recipe cost and communicate the change quickly to the kitchen team.

• Separate recipe validation from selling price. Ensure you’re counting food costs separately from how you price items. The goal is to protect margins, not chase revenue in a vacuum.

Practical language for the kitchen: what to watch day to day

• Check the scale every shift. A quick test with a known weight helps verify accuracy.

• Compare today’s actual food used to yesterday’s. If today’s usage jumps, ask why—new prep methods, more waste, or a change in supplier quality?

• Flag unusual waste patterns. If meat trim is consistently higher on certain days, that points to a prep stage that needs adjustment.

• Review end-of-day inventory notes. If a bunch of perishables are touching the sell-by, that’s a signal to adjust orders tomorrow.

Common traps to dodge (and how to dodge them gracefully)

• Counting only the grocery bill. COGS isn’t just what your vendor invoice shows; it’s how you translate that cost into what actually gets used for meals.

• Forgetting spoilage. Spoilage is real. It’s not theft; it’s mismanaged storage, moisture intrusion, or poor rotation. Track it separately so you can fix the root causes.

• Mixing up food cost with menu price. Food cost is a percentage of sales, but price setting should reflect that reality. A price that ignores cost drift can erode margins over time.

• Treating one-off blips as the norm. A single late shipment or a miscount isn’t a trend. Look for patterns across a few weeks before changing processes.

A few real-world touches you’ll recognize

Think of the everyday operations you’ve seen in a fast-casual chain that serves simple, craveable items. The characters are the line cooks who know to pull a precise 85 grams of roast beef for a signature sub, the inventory clerk who methodically rotates stock, and the shift supervisor who runs a tight post-shift audit. It’s not glamorous, but it’s practical. Small differences—whether it’s a slightly heavier sauce pour or a batch of vegetables trimmed a touch more—compound into meaningful shifts in profitability. When teams align around consistent portions and clear waste data, the numbers start to behave the way you want: predictable costs, steadier margins, and plates that still feel premium.

A friendly reminder about the bigger picture

Food costs sit at the intersection of quality, customer satisfaction, and profit. You don’t want to turn out bland, under-portion portions just to save a dime. On the flip side, you don’t want waste and sloppy portioning eating into profits. The sweet spot is achieved through deliberate systems, steady routines, and a culture that values accuracy without draining the energy of the team.

If you’re curious about the mechanics, think of it this way: the kitchen is a tiny economy. Resources flow in, work happens, and outcomes—on the plate and in the ledger—matter. The 2% delta between food used and theoretical costs is a practical cue, a nudge to look closer at the processes that connect purchases to plates. It’s not a verdict on your team; it’s a compass pointing toward smarter prep, smarter inventory, and smarter menu design.

Wrap-up: what it all means for daily kitchen life

COGS and food costs aren’t abstract accounting. They’re the daily dial you turn to keep a menu both tasty and sustainable. The idea that food used might run a notch higher than what theory predicts isn’t a flaw—it’s a reality check that helps you spot waste, tighten controls, and protect margins. When you pair precise portioning with mindful inventory and a little workflow discipline, that 2% gap doesn’t expand into a leak; it becomes a data point you learn from and improve upon.

So the next time you weigh out a topping or seal a bag of lettuce, you’re not just handling ingredients—you’re shaping the kitchen’s financial heartbeat. It’s about balance: great flavor, real costs, and smarter choices that keep the business healthy without losing the human touch that makes a sandwich shop feel like a local favorite.