Food Industry Wastes: Assessment and Recuperation of Commodities

By Colin Webb

Food Industry Wastes: Assessment and Recuperation of Commodities, Second Edition presents a multidisciplinary view of the latest scientific and economic approaches to food waste management, novel technologies and treatment, their evaluation and assessment. It evaluates and synthesizes knowledge in the areas of food waste management, processing technologies, environmental assessment, and wastewater cleaning. Containing numerous case studies, this book presents food waste valorization via emerging chemical, physical, and biological methods developed for treatment and product recovery.This new edition addresses not only recycling trends but also innovative strategies for food waste prevention. The economic assessments of food waste prevention efforts in different countries are also explored. This book illustrates the emerging environmental technologies that are suitable for the development of both sustainability of the food systems and a sustainable economy. So, this volume is a valuable resource for students and professionals including food scientists, bio/process engineers, waste managers, environmental scientists, policymakers, and food chain supervisors.

• Provides guidance on current regulations for food process waste and disposal practices
• Highlights novel developments needed in policy making for the reduction of food waste
• Raises awareness of the sustainable food waste management techniques and their appraisal through
• Life Cycle Assessment Explores options for reducing food loss and waste along the entire food supply chain

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Aug 2, 2020
• ISBN: 9780128173770

Book preview

entropy

I

Food industry wastes: Challenges and prospects

Outline

Chapter 1 Definitions, measurement, and drivers of food loss and waste

Chapter 2 Effectiveness and efficiency of food-waste prevention policies, circular economy, and food industry

Chapter 3 Sources, characteristics and treatment of plant-based food waste

Chapter 4 Sources, characteristics, treatment, and analyses of animal-based food wastes

Chapter 1

Definitions, measurement, and drivers of food loss and waste

Ramona Teuber and Jørgen Dejgård Jensen

Abstract

The topic of food loss and waste (FLW) has received increasing attention in recent years by policy makers, nongovernmental organizations and scholars. This chapter provides a summary of the current knowledge on the topic presenting a structured review of the state of the art in defining and measuring FLW, major drivers, and current knowledge with respect to impact assessments of prevention approaches.

Keywords

Food loss and waste; definitions; measurement; food supply chain; impact assessment

Glossary

Blue water footprint Consumption of surface and groundwater resources for producing a certain good.

Carbon footprint Net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (measured in CO2-equivalents) related to the production of a certain good/service.

Economic benefits Saved costs to society due to reduced FLW

Economic costs Accounting costs plus social and environmental costs

External costs These refer to costs that are not included in current market prices of a certain good or service. Examples could be environmental and/or social costs.

FCA Full cost accounting, that is, a method of cost accounting that traces direct costs and allocates indirect costs by collecting and presenting information about the possible environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of a certain intervention.

Green water footprint Consumption of rainwater use for the production of a certain good.

Nitrogen footprint Total amount of nitrogen released into the environment as a result of producing and consuming a certain good.

NPV Net present value, is the value of all future cash flows (positive and negative) over the entire life of an investment discounted to the present.

Rebound effect Refers to the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use because of behavioral or other systemic responses.

1.1 Introduction

The topic of food loss and waste (FLW) has gained increasing attention in recent years ranking high on regional, national and international policy agendas. In Europe, for example, FLW is included in the Circular Economy (CE) package as one of the priority areas (European Commission EC, 2015).¹ At the global level, one of the stated United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is to halve per-capita global FLW at retail and consumer levels and to reduce FLW along production and supply chains, including postharvest FLW, by 2030 (United Nations UN, 2015).

Besides changes in agricultural production systems and dietary patterns, reducing FLW is considered a major aspect of achieving a more sustainable food system that uses limited resources, among others land and water, more efficiently. While in developing countries FLW occurs mainly in the upstream stages of the food supply chain (FSC) due to, for example, inadequate infrastructure, FLW in developed countries is mainly concentrated at the end of the FSC (see, e.g., Van der Werf and Gilliland, 2017; Xue et al., 2017).

A FSC therefore refers to the sectors and stages that are involved in the process from farm to table and usually comprises the following stages: the primary production stage, the handling and storage stage, the food processing industry (i.e., manufacturing stage), the distribution sectors (i.e., wholesalers and retailers), and, finally, the consumers (including at-home and out-of-home consumption). The out-of-home consumption stage is often referred to as the food service sector. Fig. 1.1 illustrates the major sectors of a typical FSC, although it is important to note that not all stages are relevant for all food products.

Figure 1.1 Food supply chain concept.

Given the increasing attention placed on FLW and its prevention, a growing number of scientific studies analyzing different aspects of FLW along the FSC have become available (for a meta-analysis, see Chen et al., 2017). There is a growing body of literature providing estimates of the extent of FLW for: (1) different countries (e.g., Switzerland: Beretta et al., 2013; EU-27: Bräutigam et al., 2014; Germany: Kranert et al., 2012; Denmark: Stenmarck et al., 2011), and (2) different stages of the FSC (e.g., primary production: Beausang et al., 2017; Hartikainen et al., 2018; retail: Cicatiello et al., 2016, 2017; Eriksson et al., 2012; 2014; Lebersorger and Schneider, 2014; food service: Betz et al., 2015; Eriksson et al., 2017; Heikkilä et al., 2016; Silvennoinen et al., 2015; Strotmann et al., 2017; consumers: Edjabou et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2018; Silvennoinen et al., 2014). Furthermore, numerous studies have become available addressing the underlying drivers of FLW, especially at the household level (e.g., Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Hebrok and Boks, 2017; Romani et al., 2018; Stancu et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2012). Most of these latter studies have aimed at identifying and understanding several aspects related to FLW, such as consumers’ knowledge and awareness, attitudes, motivations, and behaviors.

Overall, there has been a shift from purely technological studies focusing on FLW and its potential valorization towards studies addressing FLW and possible solutions to mitigate it via socioeconomic approaches. These studies are definitely needed in order to generate a solid knowledge base on which recommendations to policy makers and other FSC stakeholders can be based.

Given this background, this chapter aims at providing an overview of the current state of the art in defining and measuring FLW, as well as a review of major study results with respect to drivers of FLW and impact assessments of potential mitigation approaches.

1.2 Defining food loss and waste

To date no uniform definition of FLW exists, a fact often cited as a major drawback for making comparative statements across different studies (e.g., Caldeira et al., 2017; HLPE, 2014; Priefer et al., 2013). Existing definitions differ in their (1) considered system boundaries, (2) the use and destination of food products, and (3) the aspect of edibility versus inedibility of food product parts (e.g., Chaboud and Daviron, 2017; Corrado and Sala, 2018). Moreover, differences in definitions can be traced back to, among others, the specific research questions tackled and the available data sources. Additionally, there are cultural differences in what is considered as waste, for example, intestines of animals may be considered as waste in some countries but not in others (Gjerris and Gaiani, 2013; HLPE, 2014).

With regard to the considered system boundaries, the majority of proposed definitions define FLW from the point of harvest (e.g., Östergren et al., 2014). However, there are also definitions available proposing to include preharvest losses and unrealized potential production, referring to this as potential food loss and waste (PFLW) (IFPRI, 2016).

With respect to the use and destination of food products, the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE, 2014) defined FLW from a food and nutrition perspective as follows:

Food loss and waste (FLW) refers to a decrease, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of the cause (HLPE, 2014).

Furthermore, they defined that food losses occur at all stages of the FSC prior to the consumer level, whereas food waste occurs at the consumer level. According to this definition, inedible fractions of food, such as bones or shells are not considered as FLW. This is in contrast to the definition proposed within the FUSIONS² project, which in 2016 published the Food waste quantification manual to monitor food waste amounts and progression that provides guidelines for EU member states to account for food waste in all sectors of the FSC (FUSIONS, 2016). According to this manual:

Food waste is any food, and inedible parts of food, removed³ from the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed (including composted, crops ploughed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion, bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to sewer, landfill or discarded to sea) (FUSIONS, 2016).

The FUSIONS project stressed that the provided definitional framework goes further than many existing definitions by (1) including fish discarded into the sea and waste of any materials that are ready for harvest, but which are not harvested, as waste, (2) covering both food and drink waste, and hence both solid and liquid disposal routes, and (3) excluding food or inedible parts of food that are sent to animal feed, biomaterial processing or other industrial uses (Östergren et al., 2014). The latter aspect is called valorization or conversion and, according to this definition, is distinct from food waste. Thus contrary to food waste definitions proposed by HLPE (2014) and FAO (2014), the food waste definition by FUSIONS includes inedible parts of food, which would mean, for example, that in case banana peels are not redirected from the food industry to animal feed or biochemical applications, it counts as food waste. The FUSIONS definition is in line with the food waste definition used by the Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP) in the United Kingdom:

Food waste is any food that had the potential to be eaten, together with any unavoidable waste, which is lost from the human food supply chain, at any point along that chain (WRAP, 2015).

This definition covers solid and liquid food waste as well as avoidable and unavoidable food waste. Avoidable food waste refers to edible parts of food, whereas unavoidable food waste refers to the inedible parts (e.g., Monier et al., 2010). It is important to stress that the concepts of avoidable versus unavoidable and edible versus inedible, respectively, are not straightforward and universally agreed upon, since these terms might have different implications at different stages of the FSC and in different cultural contexts (Caldeira et al., 2017; Segrè et al., 2014). Segrè et al. (2014) illustrated this with the example of fish bones and fish eyes that are in most cultures considered inedible. However, they are rich in micronutrients and could be used for human consumption if the appropriate technology is available.⁴ Thus the categories avoidable versus unavoidable and edible versus inedible are not clear-cut but depend on food safety considerations, available technologies, and cultural factors. In the most recent WRAP report on household food waste, avoidable, partly avoidable, and unavoidable food waste were reclassified as wasted food and inedible parts (WRAP, 2018).

Regarding the different stages in the FSC, it has been pointed out that FLW is more apparent and easier to define at the consumer level than at the agricultural producer level where the topic is more complex (e.g., House of Lords European Union Committee, 2014; Xue et al., 2017). For example, there is so far no agreement among scholars whether food not harvested because of adverse weather conditions should be defined as FLW or not. The report by the House of Lords European Union Committee (2014) thus concluded that the idea of a universal FLW definition to be applied across countries and across different stages in the FSC might be rather unrealistic and not in line with the complexities of the problem. This position is also taken in the first version of the FLW Accounting and Reporting Standard report, which explicitly stressed the modular definition of FLW, meaning that what is defined as FLW depends on the specific purpose (WRI, 2016).

To sum up, defining FLW is not straightforward and there are numerous reasons why different definitions exist. Although a generally applicable definition would facilitate reliable cross-country comparisons, such a uniform definition might not be feasible given the complexities of FSC. It might be more realistic to work with different definitions according to the research objectives tackled.

Nevertheless, the following definition will be used in this book unless otherwise specified by the individual authors of the subsequent chapters. FLW refers to a decrease, at any stage in the food chain, from harvest to consumption in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, including the nonedible parts of the food produce, regardless of the cause.

1.3 Extent of food loss and waste

1.3.1 Methodological approaches for quantifying food loss and waste

After having laid down the challenges in defining FLW and thus the question what to measure, this section will address the question how to measure FLW. Existing studies have used different methods to quantify the extent of FLW. Overall these different methods can be categorized into direct measurement methods, that is, bottom-up approaches, and indirect measurement methods, that is, top-down approaches (van der Werf and Gilliland, 2017; Xue et al., 2017).

Direct measurement methods, such as waste composition analysis, waste diaries, and questionnaires, require primary data collection (Caldeira et al., 2017) and are consequently relatively resource-demanding. In contrast, indirect measurement methods refer to calculations of FLW based on available secondary statistics, such as mass balances. These indirect measurement methods are usually less resource-demanding, but often imply higher uncertainties regarding the reliability and accuracy of the FLW estimates. Table 1.1 provides an overview of commonly used direct and indirect measurement methods to quantify FLW with their accordant advantages and disadvantages.

Table 1.1

Based on WRI, 2016. Guidance on flow quantification methods. Supplement to the FLW accounting and reporting standard, version 1.0.

Since each method has advantages and disadvantages with respect to costs, accuracy, and objectivity, coupling direct and indirect measurement methods is often recommended in order to generate more reliable estimates. Given the complexity of measuring FLW, several initiatives have been set up in order to provide guidance on how to measure and quantify FLW. The FLW protocol accounting and reporting standard (in short, the FLW standard) and the FUSIONS quantification manual are the most prominent ones (FUSIONS, 2016; WRI 2016).

1.3.2 Existing estimates of food loss and waste in mass

1.3.2.1 Overview

Despite differing definitions and measurement approaches and the associated challenges with regard to the comparability of existing FLW estimates, Corrado and Sala (2018), van der Werf and Gilliland (2017), and Xue et al. (2017) provide systematic literature reviews of existing FLW estimates. While van der Werf and Gilliland (2017) only included estimates from developed countries, Xue et al. (2017) covered data from developed and developing countries. Corrado and Sala (2018) focused on studies reporting FLW estimates at the global and the European level.

Major results from these overview studies can be summarized as follows. First, existing FLW estimates differ substantially. According to Corrado and Sala (2018), current estimates of FLW range between 194 and 389 kg/person/year at the global scale, and between 158 and 298 kg/person/year at the European scale. This high degree of variability in estimates is illustrated in Table 1.2 taken from van der Werf and Gilliland (2017).

Table 1.2

van der Werf, P., Gilliland, J.A., 2017. A systematic review of food losses and food waste generation in developed countries. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Waste and Resource Management. .

The table also highlights that for developed countries (1) most FLW estimates are available for the consumption stage, while only very few estimates exist for the primary production stage, and (2) that FLW estimates are typically highest for the consumption stage. At the same time, especially pronounced differences have been found for the consumption stage with FLW estimates ranging from 18.8 kg/capita/year from an Austrian study (Lebersorger and Schneider, 2011) up to 308 kg/capita/year from a Canadian study (Abdulla et al., 2013). One assumed important reason for these large differences is the use of direct versus indirect measurement methods. Van der Werf and Gilliland (2017) found that estimates derived via indirect measurement approaches were generally higher than direct (bottom-up) FLW estimates. Xue et al. (2017) also pointed out that the majority of currently available FLW estimates are based solely on indirect measurement methods, which implies relatively high uncertainties in the existing global FLW database.

Besides, the existing data also indicate that per-capita FLW at the household level increase with increasing income level (Xue et al., 2017) and that North American estimates are generally higher than European ones (van der Werf and Gilliland, 2017).

In this context, it should be mentioned that FLW amounts are usually measured and reported as actual mass (i.e., wet mass in tonnes). Several authors have proposed to express FLW in dry instead of actual mass, since the moisture content of food and thus its actual mass can change considerably over the FSC, for example, during manufacturing or cooking (Corrado and Sala, 2018). These authors recommended expressing FLW either in actual or dry mass depending on the aim of the estimation.

To sum up, the available evidence indicates that in developed countries FLW expressed in actual mass is most pronounced at the consumption stage, whereas in developing countries the largest share of FLW occurs at the primary production and postharvest handling stages. Moreover, due to different methodologies and data sources being employed, existing FLW estimates differ quite substantially from study to study.

1.3.2.2 Food loss and waste along the food supply chain in middle- and high-income countries

Empirical evidence on the extent of FLW for the primary production stage comprises typically data from studies with a relatively narrow focus typically analyzing only one type of product such as tomatoes or potatoes (e.g., Chaboud, 2017; Willersinn et al., 2015) as well as national studies on FLW in primary production covering several food products (e.g., Beausang et al., 2017; Hartikainen et al., 2018; Redlingshöfer et al., 2017). Given different definitions of FLW and different foci on specific products, drawing general lessons from these studies is a hard task. A common topic across studies is the struggle of what to define as FLW at the early stages of the FSC.

This common topic is also picked up in the studies focusing on the manufacturing stage. Especially the differentiation between FLW and co-products or by-products can be a gray area and is not always clear-cut (Zu Ermgassen et al., 2016). Examples in this context are potato peels and brewing wastes that can be either considered FLW or by-products depending on whether they are traded or not. This is in line with results from in-depth interviews with Danish processors and manufacturers presented by Gregersen and Andersen (2015), which indicated that there is no clear consensus about what should be included in the term FLW. Moreover, available data for this stage is rather scarce. Nevertheless, it is estimated that FLW at the processing stage is to a large extent unavoidable, such as for example bones in meat processing.

At the retail level, the existing evidence implies that the largest share of FLW in tonnage is found for bread and bakery products and for fruits and vegetables, whereas cold cuts, fresh meat, fresh ready meals, and fresh dairy products are most important in monetary terms. The same products seem to dominate in physical as well as economic terms across all European countries (Katajajuuri et al., 2014; Kranert et al., 2012; Stenmarck et al., 2011).

With respect to the food service sector, the available evidence shows that plate waste and serving losses (which is food remaining from the buffet and serving bowls at the counter) make up the largest part of generated avoidable FLW in this sector (e.g., Betz et al., 2015; Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004). In terms of avoidable FLW, starch components (i.e., potatoes, rice, pasta) and vegetables are the most frequently wasted items. Regarding unavoidable FLW, fruit and vegetable peelings seem to make up the largest share in this category (Parry et al., 2015).

Existing studies with regard to households have concluded that it is especially vegetables and leftovers that are thrown away, followed by cold cuts and bread. Fruit and milk products come thereafter, and raw meat is thrown away to a lesser extent (e.g., Zhang et al., 2013). Thus the hierarchy of products discarded at the household level seems to be very similar to the one at the food service and retail levels.

Case study: composition of avoidable food loss and waste along the food supply chain—empirical results for Scandinavian countries

There have been numerous initiatives in Scandinavian countries with a focus on FLW that have resulted in several studies that employed direct measurement methods to collect primary data on FLW (e.g., Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2014; Zhang et al., 2013).

With respect to the primary production stage, Hartikainen et al. (2018) provided estimates of the amount of edible food crops produced for human consumption that did not end up as food (i.e., food that ends up as animal feed was counted as FLW in this study). Selected results are presented in Table 1.3. Overall, the share of vegetables lost in primary production was estimated to be around 15% of gross production.

Table 1.3

Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E., Franke, U., 2018. Food waste quantification in primary production—the Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Manag. 71, 502–511. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.026>.

In another study by Tonini et al. (2017), FLW estimates for Denmark were prepared for different food product categories, and the share of those in total FLW (i.e., the composition of FLW) at the different FSC stages (except primary production), are presented in Fig. 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Composition of avoidable FLW in the Danish FSC, absolute in tonnes/year. From own presentation based on data provided by Tonini, D., Brogaard, L.K.-S., Astrup, T.F., 2017. Food Waste Prevention in Denmark: Identification of Hotspots and Potentials with Life Cycle Assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, København K. Note: This study followed the FUSIONS definition.

Overall, the distribution of FLW across the different stages of the FSC in Denmark is in line with studies for other high-income countries, highlighting that the largest share of FLW is estimated to occur at the consumer/household level, followed by the retail and the primary production sector. With regard to product categories, fruits and vegetables is the most important FLW product category across all FSC stages if expressed in actual mass.

1.3.2.3 Food loss and waste along the food supply chain in low-income countries

A meta-analysis conducted by Affognon et al. (2015) on the magnitude of FLW in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) pointed out that as in the case of developed countries existing estimates differ tremendously. Grains are an illustrative example where estimated FLW rates range from 4% up to 40%. Despite these large differences in existing estimates some stylized facts can be summarized. First, most grains and cereals are lost during postharvest handling and storage on-farm in SSA, while loss of fresh produce, meat, and seafood is concentrated at later stages in the FSC (Sheahan and Barrett, 2017). This pattern also seems to be valid in other developing and emerging countries as it was, for example, reported that cereals had the highest postharvest FLW out of all food commodities in South and Southeast Asia (Xue et al., 2017). Second, FLW at the consumer level does not appear to be of significance in SSA. In this context, it is important to point out that in many developing countries rural households are both producers and consumers.

1.3.3 Costs associated with food loss and waste

It has been criticized that expressing FLW in mass might not be very informative, given the fact that one kilogram of lettuce not only has a very different energy and nutrient content than, for example, 1 kg of beef, but also that the environmental and monetary costs of these two products on a per-unit basis differ quite tremendously (e.g., Koester, 2014; Kummu et al., 2012).

Hence, besides measuring the extent of FLW in mass, several other measures have been proposed, such as expressing FLW in terms of energy (i.e., in kcal), environmental impacts (e.g., in CO2-eq. kg), or in monetary terms (i.e., monetary value/kg FLW). These measures are considered to depict the social, environmental, and economic impacts (costs) of FLW.

1.3.3.1 Economic costs

With regard to the monetary value of FLW, Bellemare et al. (2017) proposed to define the costs of FLW as the total value of the food that goes to the landfill at each stage of the FSC. Thus at each stage the price of FLW is equal to its average cost (e.g., at the grower level the cost of FLW is equal to the grower’s average cost of production). According to these authors, existing estimates of the costs of FLW are often overestimated due to the fact that studies use transaction prices to monetarize the value of FLW. For example, using retail prices to evaluate FLW at the retailer stage overestimates the cost of FLW by the per-unit mark up.

For industrialized countries several estimates of the cost associated with FLW quantities are available. For Denmark, Kjær and Kiørboe (2012) estimated that the share of food that is bought but ends up as waste, ranges between 11% (fruits and vegetables) and 17% (bread), amounting to a monetary annual value of FLW of approximately €425 per household. These numbers are in line with results from the United Kingdom where it was estimated that an average British household in 2011 purchased around 27 kg of food and drink per week, from which 19% was not consumed. Expressed in monetary terms this means that avoidable food and drink waste accounted for approximately 14% of the shopping budget (WRAP, 2013), corresponding to €565 annually per household. In contrast, Katajajuuri et al. (2014) reported that for their Finnish sample, food wasted accounted only for around 5% of the food budget (€460/household/year).

This approach focuses on the monetary value of FLW in terms of accounting costs (i.e., the market value of the foods that are wasted). However, it should be noted that economic costs in addition to accounting costs also include social and environmental costs (often referred to as external costs) such as landfill-related costs of FLW and environmental impacts of production of food that in the end is wasted (Bellemare et al., 2017). Along these lines, FAO (2014) proposed a full-cost-accounting (FCA) framework to address the external costs associated with the social and environmental impacts of FSC, including FLW in monetary terms. Theoretically, such an approach allows determining an optimal level of FLW reduction by comparing the economic benefits (defined as the saved costs to society due to FLW) with the costs of undertaking FLW prevention efforts.⁵ However, given the complexity of such an approach, we are not aware of any empirical study so far that has addressed the valuation of social and environmental costs and benefits of FLW prevention in monetary terms, although there are several studies calculating the environmental impact of FLW (see Section 1.3.3.2).

1.3.3.2 Environmental resource use related to food loss and waste

Besides quantifying FLW levels in physical weight and economic value, several studies are available quantifying the environmental costs related to FLW by means of environmental footprint indicators. Bernstad Saraiva Schott and Cánovas (2015) provided a review on the topic and pointed out that environmental benefits related to FLW prevention stem primarily from the avoided environmental footprints from production and handling of food rather than from avoided waste management. This means that the calculated environmental benefits from FLW prevention largely depend on the assumptions made about which food and related services are not produced, in case of successful FLW prevention. This might explain the rather large heterogeneity in existing estimates of avoided greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) ranging from 0.8 to 4.4 kg CO2/kg of prevented FLW (Bernstad Saraiva Schott and Cánovas, 2015).

For Scandinavian countries, several studies have provided estimates of the environmental impacts related to avoidable FLW by households. Mogensen et al. (2011) estimated that the CO2 emissions related to avoidable FLW amount to around 155 kg/capita/year. Kjær and Kiørboe (2012) estimated that for each household, the annual FLW is connected with around 230 kg CO2 emissions. With respect to differences across different food product categories, the results moreover highlight that the food categories with the largest environmental impact are beef, followed by bread and cereal products. These results are in line with results presented by Katajajuuri et al. (2014) for the Finnish FSC. They conclude that even though pork and beef products amounted to only 4% of all discarded food at household level, their climate impacts were among the highest, compared with other food categories. Moreover, even though the amount of discarded cheese was less than 2% of total household FLW, its climate impact was higher than that of discarded vegetables.

A similar picture was drawn by Vanham et al. (2015), who quantified consumer FLW and the associated natural resources required for its production at the EU level. These authors specifically focused on the water and nitrogen footprint (i.e., loss of nitrogen to the environment⁶) of avoidable FLW. According to these estimates, total EU consumer FLW averages 123 kg/capita annually, with an uncertainty interval ranging from 55 to 190 kg/capita/year. Thus FLW represents around 16% of all food reaching consumers. The largest share in total FLW is avoidable consumer FLW, averaging 97 kg/capita/year (12% of all food reaching consumers) or in total 47 Mt/year. The associated blue water footprint (i.e., the consumption of surface and groundwater resources) associated with this amount of avoidable FLW averages 27 L/capita/day. The associated average green water footprint (consumptive rainwater use) is 294 L/capita/day and the nitrogen contained in avoidable FLW averages 0.68 kg/capita/year.

These results also indicate that among all the food product groups wasted, meat accounts for the highest amounts of water and nitrogen resources, followed by wasted cereals. In contrast, wasted resources associated with fruit and vegetables, the two product groups with highest FLW level in mass, are relatively low compared to other food product groups. Thus there seems to be a clear discrepancy between FLW quantity in wet mass and the associated environmental footprint.

This discrepancy has also been highlighted by Scholz et al. (2015) in their study on the carbon footprint of supermarket FLW. Their results indicate that even though fruits and vegetables FLW was most important in terms of mass, the carbon footprint was rather low in comparison to meat and dairy products. Moreover, within the meat category beef products, even if not wasted in large quantities, had the highest carbon footprint, while poultry, which had rather high FLW levels, had a rather low carbon footprint. Within the fruits and vegetables category, tomatoes, peppers, and bananas accounted for almost half of the carbon footprint of wasted fruits and vegetables. In contrast, apples, carrots, and potatoes, all products with rather high FLW levels in mass, contributed only little to the carbon footprint due to relatively low production-related emissions (Scholz et al., 2015).

To sum up, the product hierarchy of wasted food groups is not uniform but depends on the chosen indicator. In terms of mass, fruits and vegetables are clearly the most important FLW product category. However, expressed in monetary value or environmental resource use meat, especially beef, and cereal products (including bread) are most relevant.

1.4 Drivers of food loss and waste

Several studies have investigated the underlying causes and drivers of FLW (e.g., Canali et al., 2017; HLPE, 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010; Priefer et al., 2013; Segrè et al., 2014). These reports all presented different approaches and addressed various classifications of the large number of drivers and causes of FLW.

Canali et al. (2017) classified causes and drivers of FLW according to three different contexts into technological, institutional, and social drivers. Drivers classified as technological refer to misuse, failures, and limits of existing FSC technologies, whereas social drivers refer to factors related to consumer behavior and lifestyles. Institutional drivers refer to organizational aspects of FSCs, such as the business management as well as existing legislation and policies. Within each context the drivers were further classified according to their intervention potential for FLW reduction as illustrated in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4

Modified from Canali, M., Amani, P., Aramyan, L., Gheoldus, M., Moates, G., Östergren, K., et al., 2017. Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability 9 (1), 37. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010037>.

Inherent characteristics of food, such as perishability or limited predictability of supply due to climatic conditions, are important technological drivers of FLW. Yet they are considered almost unchangeable, meaning that the intervention potential is low. In contrast, nonuse or suboptimal use of available technologies and organizational inefficiencies are also important technological drivers, but with a much higher intervention potential.

Overall, all these studies pointed out that FLW and the prevention of it is a wide and multifaceted problem that needs to be addressed and tackled from different angles, applying various disciplines. This implies that there will be no easy or one-size-fits-all solutions to reduce FLW levels.

1.5 Potential prevention approaches and impact assessment

1.5.1 Theoretical considerations

Carrying out impact assessments of FLW prevention strategies is extremely challenging due to the fact that FLW is not a single variable to optimize, such as for example farmers’ profits. FLW occurs at different stages of the FSC for different products. Moreover, many benefits of FLW prevention are positive externalities, such as reduced pressure on the land resource, or reduced GHG emissions. These benefits are hard to quantify in monetary terms since there is no pricing system in force. Nevertheless a few studies are available that have carried out impact assessments of different FLW prevention approaches.

In this context, the so-called waste hierarchy is often considered as a guiding principle (see, e.g., Cristóbal et al., 2018; Eriksson and Spångberg, 2017). The waste hierarchy has been introduced in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (EC, 2008) as the key legally binding principle upon which European waste management should be based. More specifically it introduced a priority order for waste management with the aim to ensure that the most environmentally sound waste management options are chosen. According to this waste hierarchy, prevention is the preferred option, followed by reuse, recycling, recovery, and the least preferred option, disposal.⁷ The waste hierarchy applied to the case of FLW is illustrated in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1

The waste management hierarchy

Source: 1. Kosseva, M.R. Recent European legislation and management of wastes in the food industry. In: Kosseva, M.R., Webb, C. (Eds.) Food Industry Wastes: Assessment and Recuperation of Commodities. First Edition, 2013, Academic Press Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam. pp. 3–15.

1.5.2 Empirical evidence

There is a large and growing body of literature available investigating FLW management options (Chen et al., 2017). These studies typically analyze and compare FLW mitigation options such as landfill, incineration, composting, and anaerobic digestion with respect to the associated global warming potential, using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach (for a review, see Bernstad and La Cour Jansen, 2012). Some studies also addressed recycling options such as animal feed (e.g., Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017). Hence when referring to the FLW hierarchy, there seems to be a tendency to study mitigation options at the bottom of the FLW hierarchy, while only few studies are available analyzing and comparing mitigation options at the top of the FLW hierarchy (i.e., prevention and reuse strategies).

Overall, studies investigating the environmental impacts of FLW typically highlight that the environmental benefits of FLW prevention would mainly stem from avoided food production and would be highest for the food category of beef, followed by bread and cereal products (e.g., Birney et al., 2017; Hall et al., 2009; Kummu et al., 2012; Vanham et al., 2015). Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2016) and Salemdeeb et al. (2017) analyzed further the impacts of FLW mitigation approaches using LCAs for Denmark and the United Kingdom, respectively. The major conclusions derived in these studies are that: (1) given the international scope of FSC, trade effects need to be taken into account to derive a complete picture of potential FLW prevention impacts, and (2) rebound effects might be substantial and important to consider when assessing the potential environmental benefits from FLW prevention scenarios. Rebound effects refer to the way potential economic savings generated by preventing FLW may induce new negative environmental impacts via spending the saved money on other goods (Binswanger, 2001). The rebound effect has been widely discussed and analyzed in energy economics. It is defined as the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use, because of behavioral or other systemic responses. Usually one distinguishes between direct and indirect rebound effects. An example of a direct rebound effect is if households who replaced traditional light-bulbs with compact fluorescents may choose to use higher levels of illumination or not switch lights off in unoccupied rooms due to the fact that lighting became cheaper. In contrast, indirect rebound effects refer to an increased consumption of other goods and services (e.g., clothing) due to the cost savings from more energy-efficient lighting (Chitnis et al., 2014).

Fig. 1.3 illustrates the large range of existing estimates with respect to GHG savings related to FLW prevention. One of the reasons for these differences in generated estimates across studies is presumed to be the inclusion of rebound effects (e.g., Salemdeeb et al., 2017) versus exclusion of rebound effects (e.g., Chapagain and James, 2011; Gentil et al., 2011) (Fig. 1.3).

Figure 1.3 A comparison of different estimates of GHG savings from avoiding 1 tonne of FLW.

Even though these LCA studies provide important knowledge on the potential environmental impacts of FLW prevention measures, they do not provide any knowledge on how this reduction might be achieved and at which costs. Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness studies with respect to FLW prevention hardly exist. Exceptions are the studies by DEFRA (2012), ReFED⁸ (2016), and Cristóbal et al. (2018). ReFED (2016) identified and analyzed in more detail 27 possible FLW mitigation strategies comprising prevention, recovery (i.e., reuse for human consumption) and recycling (e.g., feeding animals, creating energy) options. For each of these strategies the economic value per tonne of FLW avoided was calculated as an annualized net present value (NPV) that sums all costs and benefits for each strategy over 10 years, using a social discount rate of 4%. The costs associated with each strategy include the initial investment capital, ongoing implementation and operating costs, advocacy costs, and other expenses. Financial benefits from prevention solutions include direct cost savings to food business and consumers, and additional revenues generated by food businesses.

Moreover, in order to take into account real-world constraints for each strategy, the FLW diversion potential was calculated based on assumptions about net and addressable FLW. The net FLW (also called the net opportunity) represents the estimated quantity of FLW currently sent to landfill. Addressable FLW is the assumed maximum amount of FLW that potentially can be diverted from landfill based on the characteristics of the strategy. The FLW diversion potential is calculated based on the addressable FLW reflecting what a certain FLW mitigation strategy can feasibly achieve if appropriate resources are provided.

Based on these calculations, the different FLW mitigation strategies were ranked according to their cost-effectiveness and FLW diversion potential. According to these results, FLW prevention strategies targeted at consumers (i.e., standardized date labeling, awareness and information campaigns, packaging adjustments) can be considered the most cost-effective, that is, they possess the highest economic value per tonne FLW prevented. Recycling strategies, however, possess the highest potential for reducing FLW.

To sum up, the existing empirical evidence suggests that in most cases the waste hierarchy seems to be a valid guiding principle for FLW mitigating strategies by showing that prevention measures should be prioritized. Moreover, prevention interventions targeting at the last stage of the FSC (i.e., consumers) seem to be most cost-effective. However, it needs to be pointed out that these studies do not model dynamic market effects. This is very important from an economic point of view, since FLW prevention measures will most likely have market effects that in turn need to be taken into account while assessing the middle- and long-term costs and benefits of FLW prevention measures. To the best of our knowledge no dynamic market models analyzing FLW prevention measures exist.

1.6 Conclusion

The review of the literature demonstrates that no uniform and generally adopted definition of FLW exists. Rather, a number of different definitions are applied in different contexts. Although a generally agreed definition might support establishing a common understanding of the extent and scope of the problems associated with FLW, the variation in these definitions and their applications underlines the difficulty in agreeing on such a generally accepted definition. One major reason is that one definition does not adequately serves the multitude of aspects related to FLW, including food security, environmental and climate impacts, waste management, and ethics.

Despite substantial differences in definitions and measurement approaches of FLW, some common facts can be summarized. First, the available empirical evidence indicates that in high-income countries, the largest share of FLW is estimated to occur at the consumer/household level, followed by the retail and the primary production sector. Thus from an environmental and GHG reduction perspective, preventing FLW more downstream in the FSC chain seems to be particularly impactful because at that point food includes all the embodied energy used in harvesting, processing, distribution, and preparation.

Second, the composition of FLW targeted for reduction is quite important to consider, if different environmental goals are pursued. Existing results have highlighted that the environmental impact in terms of GHG emissions from FLW in the food category fruits and vegetables is rather minor compared to meat and dairy items on a per unit basis, because of the significantly lower environmental impact of fruit and vegetable production. Overall, pork, beef, and cheese products have by far the highest environmental footprint on a per unit basis (kg). However, it has also been pointed out that production of fruits and vegetables wasted in high proportions carries environmental burdens as well, particularly due to relatively high rates of pesticide use and irrigation (e.g., Cristóbal et al., 2018). GHG emissions are not a proxy for the full range of environmental impacts associated with food production and thus the priority list of FLW prevention strategies might change with different environmental goals.

Third, multiple, often interrelated drivers lead to the generation of FLW. Substantial FLW reduction will require a varied menu of prevention measures, comprising technological, economic, institutional, and social elements.

At the same time it is also important to point out that a zero FLW level as sometimes promoted does not seem like a feasible goal. From an economic perspective there is an optimal FLW level which most likely will not be zero because eliminating all FLW will be prohibitively expensive even with the best imaginable technologies and institutional arrangements (e.g., Ellison et al., 2019; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017; Teuber and Jensen, 2016). Thus the challenge is to determine this optimal level of FLW and set up appropriate measures that will achieve this target without invoking other negative side effects such as rebound effects. Realizing that the optimal amount of FLW is most likely not zero is an essential aspect that might also advance the current political discussion surrounding FLW. This implies that not each intervention aimed at reducing FLW levels will have a net benefit.

References

1. Abdulla M, Martin RC, Gooch M, Jovel E. The importance of quantifying food waste in Canada. J Agr Food Syst Community Dev. 2013;3(2):137–151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.013.

2. Affognon H, Mutungi C, Sanginga P, Borgemeister C. Unpacking postharvest losses in Sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis. World Dev. 2015;66:49–68.

3. Aschemann-Witzel J, de Hooge I, Amani P, Bech-Larsen T, Oostindjer M. Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability. 2015;7(6):6457–6477 https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066457.

4. Beausang C, Hall C, Toma L. Food waste and losses in primary production: qualitative insights from horticulture. Resour Conserv Recy. 2017;126(January):177–185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.042.

5. Bellemare MF, Çakir M, Peterson HH, Novak L, Rudi J. On the measurement of food waste. Am J Agric Econ. 2017;99(5):1148–1158 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax034.

6. Beretta C, Stoessel F, Baier U, Hellweg S. Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag. 2013;33(3):764–773 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.007.

7. Bernstad A, La Cour Jansen J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems–current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag. 2012;32(12):2439–2455 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023.

8. Bernstad Saraiva Schott A, Cánovas A. Current practice, challenges and potential methodological improvements in environmental evaluations of food waste prevention—a discussion paper. Resour Conserv Recy. 2015;101:132–142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.004.

9. Betz A, Buchli J, Göbel C, Müller C. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry: magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Manag. 2015;35:218–226 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015.

10. Binswanger M. Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect?. Ecol Econ. 2001;36(1):119–132 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00214-7.

11. Birney CI, Franklin KF, Davidson FT, Webber ME. An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12(2017):105008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8494.

12. Bräutigam KR, Jörissen J, Priefer C. The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results. Waste Manag Res. 2014;32(8):683–694 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14545374.

13. Caldeira, C., Corrado, S., Sala, S. (2017). Food Waste Accounting Methodologies, Challenges and Opportunities, EUR 28988 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC109202. https://doi.org/10.2760/54845.

14. Canali M, Amani P, Aramyan L, et al. Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability. 2017;9(1):37 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010037.

15. Chaboud G. Resources, conservation & recycling assessing food losses and waste with a methodological framework: insights from a case study. Resour Conserv Recy. 2017;125(June):188–197 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.008.

16. Chaboud G, Daviron B. Food losses and waste: navigating the inconsistencies. Glob Food Secur. 2017;12(June 2016):1–7 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.11.004.

17. Chapagain, A., James, K. (2011). The Water and Carbon Footprint of Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. WRAP & WWF, London.

18. Chen H, Jiang W, Yang Y, Yang Y, Man X. State of the art on food waste research: a bibliometrics study from 1997 to 2014. J Clean Prod. 2017;140:840–846 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.085.

19. Chitnis M, Sorrell S, Druckman A, Firth SK, Jackson T. Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups. Ecol Econ. 2014;106:12–32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.003.

20. Cicatiello C, Franco S, Pancino B, Blasi E. The value of food waste: an exploratory study on retailing. J Retail Consum Serv. 2016;30:96–104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004.

21. Cicatiello C, Franco S, Pancino B, Blasi E, Falasconi L. The dark side of retail food waste: evidences from in-store data. Resour Conserv Recy. 2017;125(February):273–281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.010.

22. Corrado S, Sala S. Food waste accounting along global and European food supply chains: state of the art and outlook. Waste Manag. 2018;79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.032.

23. Cristóbal J, Castellani V, Manfredi S, Sala S. Prioritizing and optimizing sustainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manag. 2018;72:3–16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.007.

24. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Kortlægning af dagrenovation i Danmark – med fokus på etageboliger og madspild (Mapping of Waste Collection in Denmark – With Focus on Households in Flats and Food Waste) (in Danish), ISBN 978-87-93178-52-6 <https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2014/05/978-87-93178-52-6.pdf>.

25. DEFRA (2012). Waste Prevention Actions for Priority Wastes. Economic Assessment through Marginal Abatement Cost Curves. Executive Summary, December 2012.

26. EC (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Online available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 (accessed 12.07.2020).

27. Edjabou ME, Petersen C, Scheutz C, Astrup TF. Food waste from Danish households: generation and composition. Waste Manag. 2016;52:256–268 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.032.

28. Ellison B, Muth MK, Golan E. Opportunities and challenges in conducting economic research on food loss and waste. Appl Econ Perspect P. 2019;41(1):1–19 https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppy035.

29. Engström R, Carlsson-Kanyama A. Food losses in food service institutions: examples from Sweden. Food Policy. 2004;29(3):203–213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.03.004.

30. Eriksson M, et al. Quantification of food waste in public catering services – A case study from a Swedish municipality. J Waste Manag. 2017;61:415–422 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.035.

31. Eriksson M, Spångberg J. Carbon footprint and energy use of food waste management options for fresh fruit and vegetables from supermarkets. Waste Manag. 2017;60:786–799 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.008.

32. Eriksson M, Strid I, Hansson PA. Food losses in six Swedish retail stores: wastage of fruit and vegetables in relation to quantities delivered. Resour Conserv Recy. 2012;68:14–20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.001.

33. Eriksson M, Strid I, Hansson PA. Waste of organic and conventional meat and dairy products – a case study from Swedish retail. Resour Conserv Recy. 2014;83:44–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.011.

34. Erisman, J.W., Galloway, J., Seitzinger, S., Bleeker, A., Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2011). Reactive nitrogen in the environment and its effect on climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3 (5), 281–290. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.012.

35. European Commission (EC) (2015). Closing the loop—an EU action plan for the circular economy. COM (2015), 0614.

36. FAO (2014). Food Wastage Footprint. Full-cost accounting. Full Report. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf (accessed 18.05.2019.).

37. FUSIONS (2016). Food waste quantification manual to monitor food waste amounts and progression. Final Report. Available from: <https://www.ostfoldforskning.no/media/1705/fusions-food-waste-quantification-manual.pdf> (accessed 18.02.19).

38. Gentil EC, Gallo D, Christensen TH. Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste Manage. 2011;31:2371–2379 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.030.

39. Gjerris M, Gaiani S. Household food waste in Nordic countries: estimations and ethical implications Nordic. J Appl Ethics. 2013;7(1):6–23 https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v7i1.1786.

40. Graham-Rowe E, Jessop DC, Sparks P. Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resour Conserv Recy. 2014;84:15–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005.

41. Gregersen, M., Andersen, N.A. (2015). MINDRE MADSPILD – LØSNINGER PÅ TVÆRS AF VÆRDIKÆDEN. Analyse af producent- og detailled. Study prepared for Føtex in collaboration with Arla and AP Grønland.

42. Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC. The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS One. 2009;4(11):9–14 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007940.

43. Hartikainen H, Mogensen L, Svanes E, Franke U. Food waste quantification in primary production—the Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Manag. 2018;71:502–511 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.026.

44. Hebrok M, Boks C. Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention points for design—an extensive review. J Clean Prod. 2017;151:380–392 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.069.

45. Heikkilä L, Reinikainen A, Katajajuuri JM, Silvennoinen K, Hartikainen H. Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Manag. 2016;56:446–453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.019.

46. HLPE (2014). Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). Rome.

47. House of Lords European Union Committee (2014). Counting the cost of food waste: EU food waste prevention. HL Paper 154. London. Available from: <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-sub-com-d/food-waste-prevention/154.pdf> (accessed 20.10.15.).

48. IFPRI (2016). Global food policy report. Available from: <http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2016-global-food-policy-report>.

49. Katajajuuri JM, Silvennoinen K, Hartikainen H, Heikkilä L, Reinikainen A. Food waste in the Finnish food chain. J Clean Prod. 2014;73:322–329 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.057.

50. Kjær, B., Kiørboe N. (2012). Baggrundsmateriale til Miljøstyrelsens affaldsforebyggelseskampagne 2012. Brug mere—spild mindre Fase 1: Madspild. Copenhagen Resource Institute Available from: <http://brugmerespildmindre.dk/sites/brugmerespildmindre.dk/files/Notat%20madspild_%20brug%20mere%20-spild%20mindre_2012.pdf> (accessed 09.11.16.).

51. Koester U. Food loss and waste as an economic and policy problem. Intereconomics. 2014;49(6):348–354 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-014-0518-7.

52. Kosseva, M.R. Recent European legislation and management of wastes in the food industry. In: Kosseva, M.R., Webb, C. (Eds.) Food Industry Wastes: Assessment and Recuperation of Commodities. First Edition, 2013, Academic Press Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam. pp. 3–15.

53. Kranert, M., Hafner, G., Barabosz, J., Schuller, H., Leverenz, D., Kölbig, A., et al. (2012). Ermittlung der weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der Wegwerfrate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Studie der Universität Stuttgart (gefördert vom BMELV) Stuttgart. Available from: <http://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ernaehrung/WvL/Studie_Lebensmittelabfaelle_Langfassung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile> (accessed 15.8.18.).

54. Kummu M, de Moel H, Porkka M, Siebert S, Varis O, Ward PJ. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci Total Environ. 2012;438:477–489 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092.

55. Lebersorger S, Schneider F. Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manag. 2011;31(9–10):1924–1933 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.023.

56. Lebersorger S, Schneider F. Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures. J Waste Manag. 2014;34(11):1911–1919.

57. Martinez-Sanchez V, Tonini D, Møller F, Astrup TF. Life-cycle costing of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;2016:4513–4523 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03536.

58. Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J., Knudsen, M.T. (2011). Notat vedrørende: Madspild i fødevareproduktionen—fra primærproduktion til detailled, pp. 1–37.

59. Monier, V., Mudgal, S., Escalon, V., O’Connor, C., Gibon, T., Anderson, G., et al. (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27. Report for the European Commission [DG ENV—Directorate C].

60. Östergren et al. (2014). FUSIONS definitional framework for food waste, full report. Available from: <http://www.eu-fusions.org/> (accessed 10.08.18.).

61. Parfitt J, Barthel M, MacNaughton S. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2010;365:3065–3081.

62. Parry, A., Bleazard, P., Okawa, K. (2015). Preventing food waste: case studies of Japan and the United Kingdom. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 76. OECD Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1787/5js4w29cf0f7-en>.

63. Priefer, C., Jörissen, J., Bräutigam, K.-R. (2013). Technology options for feeding 10 billion people. Options for cutting food waste. IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/Lot7/C1/SC2/SC4. Available from: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513515/IPOL-JOIN_ET%282013%29513515_EN.pdf> (accessed 07.09.15.).

64. Redlingshöfer B, Coudurier B, Georget M. Quantifying food loss during primary production and processing in France. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:703–714 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.173.

65. ReFED (2016). Technical appendix Available from: <http://www.refed.com/content-hub/#active_tab=resources> (accessed 20.05.18.).

66. Romani S, et al. Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite. 2018;121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.093.

67. Salemdeeb R, Font Vivanco D, Al-Tabbaa A, Zu Ermgassen EKHJ. A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manag. 2017;59:442–450 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.042.

68. Schmidt, T., Schneider, F., Claupein, E. (2018). Lebensmittelabfälle in privaten Haushalten in Deutschland – Analyse der Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Erhebung. 2016/2017 von GFK SE. Thünen Working Paper 82. Online available at https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/177842 (accessed 12.07.2020).

69. Scholz K, Eriksson M, Strid I. Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour Conserv Recy. 2015;94(2015):56–65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.016.

70. Segrè A, Falasconi L, Politano A, Vittuari M. Background Paper on the Economics of Food Loss and Waste (Unedited Working Paper) Rome: FAO; 2014; <http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/save-food/PDF/WorkingPaper/Background_Paper_2014.pdf> (accessed 10.10.15).

71. Sheahan M, Barrett CB. Review: food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy. 2017;70:1–12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.012.

72. Silvennoinen K, Heikkilä L, Katajajuuri JM, Reinikainen A. Food waste volume and origin: case studies in the Finnish food service sector. Waste Manag. 2015;46:140–145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.010.

73. Silvennoinen K, Katajajuuri J-M, Hartikainen H, Heikkilä L, Reinikainen A. Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. Brit Food J. 2014;116(6):1058e1068 https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2012-0311.

74. Stancu V, Haugaard P, Lähteenmäki L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite. 2016;96:7–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025.

75. Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen, O.J., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Werge, M. (2011). Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades, 1, 90. Available from: <http://www.refreshcoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/B1988.pdf> (accessed 05.01.18.).

76. Strotmann C, Friedrich S, Kreyenschmidt J, Teitscheid P, Ritter G. Comparing food provided and wasted before and after implementing measures against food waste in three healthcare food service facilities. Sustainability (Switz.). 2017;9 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081409.

77. Tonini D, Brogaard LK-S, Astrup TF. Food Waste Prevention in Denmark: Identification of Hotspots and Potentials with Life Cycle Assessment København K: Danish Environmental Protection Agency; 2017.

78. Teuber, R., Jensen, J.D. (2016). Food losses and food waste: extent, underlying drivers and impact assessment of prevention approaches. In: Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen. IFRO Report, Nr. 254. Available at http://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/169753425/IFRO_Report_254.pdf.

79. United Nations (UN) (2015). Sustainable development goals. 17 goals to transform our world. <www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals> (accessed 06.01.18.).

80. Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga RAF, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv Recy. 2014;87:57–64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.008.

81. van der Werf, P., Gilliland, J.A. (2017). A systematic review of food losses and food waste generation in developed countries. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Waste and Resource Management. <https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00026>.

82. Van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA. Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute reductions in material throughput. J Clean Prod. 2016;132:122–128.

83. Vanham D, Bouraoui F, Leip A, Grizzetti B, Bidoglio G. Lost water and nitrogen resources due to EU consumer food waste. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10(8):84008.

84. Waste and Resources Action Programme, WRAP (2015). Strategies to Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food Waste. WRAP, Banbury.

85. Willersinn C, Mack G, Mouron P, Keiser A, Siegrist M. Quantity and quality of food losses along the Swiss potato supply chain: stepwise investigation and the influence of quality standards on losses. Waste Manag. 2015;46:120–132 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.033.

86. Williams H, Wikström F, Otterbring T, Löfgren M, Gustafsson A. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J Clean Prod. 2012;24:141–148 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044.

87. WRAP (2013). Household food & drink waste in the