Scope
Food Losses
Food losses refer to edible materials intended for human consumption that are unintentionally lost due to various factors such as agricultural processes, inadequate technology, and poor infrastructure These losses can occur throughout the entire food supply chain, including production, storage, processing, distribution, and retail stages, as well as during meal preparation Contributing factors include insufficient skills, knowledge, and management capabilities among supply chain actors, along with pest consumption.
Food Losses By-products incl animal
Food Residuals
Food residuals consist of inedible and partially avoidable waste, including skins, bones, stalks, shells, and leaves Additionally, they encompass leftovers from restaurants, pubs, coffee shops, and food production facilities that are no longer suitable for human consumption.
By-Products, Including Animal By-Products
By-product is a useful and marketable product or service deriving from a manu- facturing process that is not the primary product or service being produced (EEA
Food by-products are edible materials produced during food processing that are typically redirected from the human food chain to animal feed In contrast, animal by-products refer to entire animal bodies or parts, as well as products of animal origin, that are not meant for human consumption, including ova, embryos, and semen, as defined by European regulations.
Food Waste
Food waste is a significant form of avoidable waste, as discarded food often remains fit for consumption It encompasses items that are spilled, spoiled, bruised, or wilted, including unopened packets and individual food items that go uneaten This waste occurs at various stages of the food supply chain due to the inappropriate actions of stakeholders such as producers, retailers, and consumers, as well as a lack of effective preventative technologies By utilizing the latest available tools, a portion of this food waste could be mitigated, highlighting its potential value.
Based on the analysis presented above and the hierarchy which exists, the current work will center on the‘food waste’sub-type.
BIO Intelligence Service, Umweltbundesamt, & Arcadis (2011) Guidelines on the preparation of food waste prevention programmes Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ prevention/pdf/prevention_guidelines.pdf.
EEA (2013) By-product Environmental Terminology and Discovery Service (ETDS) Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=by- product.
The European Commission's 2011 communication outlines a strategic roadmap aimed at achieving a resource-efficient Europe This document, addressed to key EU institutions, emphasizes the importance of sustainable resource management and outlines necessary actions to enhance efficiency across various sectors The roadmap serves as a foundational framework for promoting economic growth while minimizing environmental impact, thereby fostering a more sustainable future for Europe.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 European Parliament and Council of the European Union Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of 3 October
The 2002 regulation establishes health guidelines for animal by-products that are not meant for human consumption, as published in the Official Journal L 273 on October 10, 2002 For more information, you can access the full document at [EUR-Lex](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:273:0001:0001:EN:PDF).
European Parliament Resolution (2011/2175(INI)) (2012) European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2012 on how to avoid food wastage: strategies for a more ef fi cient food chain in the
The European Union's report (2011/2175(INI)) highlights critical insights into sustainability and environmental impact, emphasizing the need for effective policies to address food waste Additionally, the FAO's 2012 document, "Food Wastage Footprint," provides an environmental accounting of food loss and waste, underscoring the importance of reducing food wastage for ecological preservation Both sources stress the urgency of implementing strategies to mitigate food loss, contributing to a more sustainable future.
FAO (2012b) Global initiative on food losses and waste reduction Retrieved from http://www. fao.org/docrep/015/i2776e/i2776e00.pdf.
FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint Impacts on natural resources Retrieved from http://www. fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf.
The FAO, WFP, and IFAD report from 2012 highlights that while economic growth is essential, it alone is inadequate to effectively reduce hunger and malnutrition globally.
I don't know!
I don't know!
I don't know!
Gustavsson, J., et al (2011) Global food losses and food waste — Extent, causes and prevention, Rome Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf.
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2013) Global food waste not, want not, London Retrieved from http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Reports/Global_Food_Report.s fl b.ashx.
Food waste is increasingly recognized as a valuable resource for producing chemicals, materials, and fuels, highlighting its potential in addressing environmental challenges According to Lin et al (2013), there is a current global perspective on leveraging food waste effectively Additionally, Lipinski et al (2013) emphasize the importance of reducing food loss and waste to enhance sustainability and resource efficiency in food systems.
The environmental food crisis highlights the critical role of the environment in preventing future food shortages, as discussed by Nellemann et al (2009) Additionally, Pfaltzgra et al (2013) emphasize the potential of food waste biomass as a valuable resource for producing high-value chemicals, showcasing innovative approaches to sustainability.
U.S EPA (2013) 2011 Municipal solid waste characterization report, Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/MSWcharacterization_fnl_060713_2_ rpt.pdf.
Venkat, K (2011) The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United States. International Journal of Food System Dynamics, 2(4), 431 – 446 Retrieved from http://www. cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf.
Weber, B., Herrlein, S., & Hodge, G (2011) The challenge of food waste, London Retrieved from www.planetretail.net.
World Economic Forum (2009) Driving sustainable consumption value chain waste driving sustainable consumption value chain waste (pp 1 – 8) Retrieved from http://www.weforum. org/pdf/sustainableconsumption/DSCOverviewBrie fi ng-ValueChainWaste.pdf.
WRAP (2008) The food we waste Retrieved from http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we- waste.pdf.
WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK, Banbury Retrieved from http://www. wrap.org.uk/sites/ fi les/wrap/HouseholdfoodanddrinkwasteintheUK-report.pdf.
Every year 11.2 billion tonnes of solid waste are collected worldwide (UNEP
As the global population grows and urbanization accelerates, the accumulation of waste is expected to rise significantly in the coming years This trend is driven by increases in economic growth, production, and changing consumption patterns According to a recent World Bank report, the annual costs of managing solid waste worldwide are projected to surge from USD 205.4 billion to approximately USD 375.5 billion by 2025.
The global waste market, encompassing collection and recycling, is valued at approximately USD 410 billion annually, highlighting its significant economic potential This figure does not account for the substantial informal waste sector present in developing countries, emphasizing the need to recognize the opportunities within waste management.
The European Union generates approximately 3 billion tonnes of waste each year, with projections from the OECD indicating a 45% increase by 2020 compared to 1995 levels This substantial volume and complexity of waste significantly harm the environment, contributing to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while threatening human health Additionally, it results in the considerable waste of material and energy resources.
Europe aims to enhance resource efficiency by minimizing waste generation through recycling and utilizing unavoidable waste as a resource, while also addressing its heavy reliance on imported raw materials (European Commission, 2010).
Waste prevention is a key focus in the EU's Sixth Environment Action Programme and is emphasized in the European Commission's proposal for the Seventh Environment Action Programme, along with the Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe.
The European Union’s approach to waste management is based on the following principles:
• Waste prevention, which is closely linked with improving manufacturing methods and influencing consumers to demand greener products and less packaging. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
W Leal Filho and M Kovaleva, Food Waste and Sustainable Food
Waste Management in the Baltic Sea Region, Environmental Science and Engineering, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10906-0_2
• Recycling and reuse as an alternative to waste prevention in cases when it is not possible.
• Improvement offinal disposal and monitoring as the last option, where waste is safely incinerated or landfilled (European Commission2013b).
Legislation
The European framework of waste legislation encompasses a range of requirements and technical standards for effective waste management across various waste streams, including specific regulations for packaging waste and treatment methods like landfill and incineration These standards are enforced through numerous EU Directives and Regulations, with the EU Waste Framework Directive serving as the foundational legal framework for EU Waste Policy, originally established in 1975 and revised in 2006.
2007) as a result of the 2005 Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling (European Commission2010).
The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste (COM (2005)
The 2005 Communication COM (2005) 666 established a pivotal framework for reforming outdated EU waste legislation, aligning it with contemporary realities This Strategy aims to transform the EU into a recycling society focused on waste prevention and resource utilization It advocates for recycling, re-use, and a life-cycle approach to waste management while establishing minimum EU recycling standards and guiding national policies Additionally, it emphasizes enhancing knowledge about the impacts of resource use and waste management The Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) further recognizes waste as a valuable resource, mandating EU Member States to achieve a 50% recycling rate for municipal waste.
In 2020, the European Commission mandated that countries implement legislation for waste collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal The directive clarifies essential waste management concepts, differentiates between waste and by-products, and outlines criteria for when waste can cease to be classified as such, emphasizing the reduction of environmental impacts from waste generation Additionally, it expands producer responsibilities and requires Member States to develop waste management plans and prevention programs in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC.
However, based on the review of the progress towards achieving the Strategy’s objectives, experts have stated that despite an improvement of legislation, increased
The European Commission's report highlights that after five years, the primary objectives of the Strategy to improve recycling rates and reduce landfill waste and environmental impacts remain relevant Additionally, the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) establishes key requirements for waste disposal practices.
The term 'waste' is defined in the context of the Council Directive on waste (75/442/EC) from 1975 This directive outlines various waste types but does not reference the waste list established in Commission Decision 2000/532/EC This lack of alignment may lead to confusion and highlights the need for a revision of the Directive to address potential conflicts.
The Directive establishes maximum capacities for landfill sites and sets targets for reducing biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) sent to landfills, while prohibiting specific waste streams from disposal in these sites Member states are mandated to develop national strategies focused on reducing BMW through methods such as recycling, composting, recovery, and biogas production Additionally, it outlines requirements for the operation and maintenance of landfills during both their active and post-closure phases (Council Directive 1999/31/EC).
However, the results of the assessment of achievements in this area show that in
2010 despite significant successes in increasing material recycling the majority of the European countries still send more than half of their municipal waste to landfill (EEA2013a).
The Directive (94/62/EC, amended by 2004/12/EC) on packaging and packaging waste is a crucial regulatory framework that supersedes the Waste Framework Directive in matters related to packaging This directive, established by the European Parliament and Council, provides clear definitions and guidelines regarding packaging and its associated waste, ensuring effective management and reduction of environmental impact.
The article outlines the definition of 'waste' and introduces criteria for operations such as recovery, recycling, energy recovery, organic recycling, and disposal It mandates member states to establish systems for return, collection, and energy recovery while promoting the use of materials from recycled packaging waste To prevent packaging waste, it emphasizes reducing the overall volume of packaging Additionally, it highlights the need for a harmonized reporting technique and clear data provision guidelines, along with the implementation of preventive measures to minimize environmental impact (Directive 2004/12/EC).
Waste Management Hierarchy
Differences and Similarities in the Waste
Users within waste management hierarchies universally recognize waste prevention, avoidance, and reduction as the most effective strategies This consensus highlights the importance of prioritizing these methods in waste management practices, as emphasized by key organizations such as the U.S EPA, ISWA, UNEP, WRAP, and the EU Directive 2008/98/EC.
Fig 2.3 The waste management hierarchy
Fig 2.4 The EU waste hierarchy (WRAP 2012)
14 2 Literature Review stage differently The WFD defines ‘prevention’ as “measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste that reduces:
• The quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life span of products;
• The adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or
• The content of harmful substances in materials and products”.
The EPA emphasizes waste prevention methods such as donating items, purchasing in bulk, and minimizing packaging (U.S EPA 2012b) Additionally, the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) approach differentiates between the stages of 'prevention' and 'reduction' (UNEP 2011).
Achieving results at this stage of the hierarchy is crucial for resource conservation, as it helps eliminate the need for disposal of non-produced items (WRAP, 2012) However, this concept poses challenges, particularly in measuring outcomes that, by their nature, never existed (European Commission, 2010).
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a hierarchy that includes 'preparing for re-use,' which involves checking, cleaning, or repairing waste products to make them suitable for reuse without additional processing This differs from 're-use,' where products or components are employed again for their original intended purpose This distinction highlights a key difference between the WFD's waste management hierarchy and other institutional frameworks Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) integrates these concepts into its waste management strategies.
The waste management hierarchy in the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) approach typically does not recognize 're-use' as a distinct stage, unlike the 'source reduction' and 're-use' stages highlighted in Figure 2.1 (UNEP 2011).
Recycling involves a series of processes aimed at collecting materials that would typically be discarded as waste, sorting them, and reprocessing them into new products or substances for either their original use or alternative applications, as defined by Directive 2008/98/EC.
The EPA merges 'recycling' and 'composting' in its hierarchy, recognizing composting of food scraps and organic materials as part of recycling options This highlights the crucial role of consumers in supporting recycling by purchasing products made from recycled content Following this, the hierarchy emphasizes 'energy recovery' from waste, defined by the EPA as the conversion of non-recyclable materials into usable heat, electricity, or fuel through processes like combustion, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas recovery.
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) recognizes 'energy recovery' as one of several waste recovery options, defining recovery as any process where waste serves a useful purpose by replacing materials that would otherwise be used for a specific function This includes various operations such as the recycling of metals, regeneration of acids or bases, oil re-refining, and land treatment that benefits agriculture or ecological improvement (Directive 2008/98/EC).
Disposal is the least preferred option for waste management, as agreed upon by all stakeholders It encompasses methods such as landfilling and incineration without energy recovery, which are defined by the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) as operations that do not qualify as recovery, even if they incidentally reclaim substances or energy The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expands on this by suggesting the collection and utilization of methane as fuel for electricity generation, and also envisions future uses for capped landfills, transforming them into recreational spaces like parks, golf courses, and ski slopes.
It's important to note that the absence of emphasis on certain options as distinct stages does not imply that experts have overlooked them This approach may actually be intended to allow for greater flexibility and consideration in the decision-making process.
flexibility for their activities in the frame of this concept.
The EU waste legislation aims to enhance the waste management hierarchy, as highlighted by the European Commission in 2010 Despite this goal, Eurostat data from 2010 reveals that the predominant waste treatment methods in the EU-28 included 'recovery other than energy recovery,' 'disposal,' and 'deposit onto or into land.' Notably, landfill disposal remains a widely used method for managing municipal solid waste (MSW) in the EU, despite being recognized as the least favorable option for waste management (Commission of the European Communities Green Paper COM (2008) 8112008; European Commission 2010, 2012).
Tagore 2011 has been changed to Tagore 2010 so that this citation matches the list.
Recovery other than Energy Recovery- Backfilling
Recovery other than Energy Recovery- except Backfilling
Disposal Deposit onto or into land
Land treatment and release into water bodies
Fig 2.5 Treatment of waste in EU-28 in 2010, in million tonnes (Eurostat 2013a, b)
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) mandates countries to create national waste management plans that include a baseline analysis of their current waste management practices By the end of 2013, Member States (MS) must establish National Waste Prevention Programmes that outline specific waste prevention measures and objectives To assist MS in this process, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Environment has developed a guidance document that details the waste hierarchy stages, relevant EU waste prevention strategies, and key waste streams and stakeholders This document also provides a framework for planning and implementing national waste prevention programmes, highlighting the most effective measures to achieve waste reduction.
Bio-Waste
Bio-waste is a significant focus in waste management policies due to the environmental risks linked to its decomposition in landfills In the European Union, bio-waste constitutes approximately one-third of household waste, with Europe generating between 118 and 138 million tonnes annually Out of this, around 88 million tonnes is classified as municipal waste, highlighting the urgent need for effective bio-waste management strategies.
In 2010, approximately 40% of organic waste was sent to landfills, according to the European Commission This organic waste decay is responsible for about 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions each year, as reported by UNEP.
Experts emphasize the urgent need for enhanced bio-waste recycling, aligning with the waste hierarchy principles (EEA 2013a) A study by Arcadis et al (2010) identified bio-waste as one of the top four priority materials and waste flows requiring targeted waste prevention strategies Furthermore, projections indicate that the proportion of bio-waste in total municipal solid waste (MSW) across the EU-27 is expected to rise to approximately 35.6% by 2020.
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) classifies 'bio-waste' as biodegradable waste from gardens, parks, households, restaurants, caterers, retail establishments, and similar sources from food processing plants, excluding forestry or agricultural residues It is important to distinguish 'bio-waste' from the broader category of 'biodegradable waste,' as outlined in the European Commission Communication (COM (2010) 235).
“any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard”(Council Directive 1999/31/
EC1999) Thus bio-waste excludes paper and paperboard waste.
The current techniques for bio-waste treatment encompass prevention at the source, separate collection, biological methods like anaerobic digestion and composting, as well as incineration and landfill disposal Landfill and incineration are the predominant methods utilized, primarily due to their perceived ease and cost-effectiveness In response to these practices, the European Commission is actively working to enhance the waste hierarchy through various initiatives outlined in EU waste policy and legislation.
To minimize bio-waste in landfills, the Landfill Directive establishes strict targets for municipal biodegradable waste disposal, aiming to cut landfill levels to 35% of those recorded in 1995 by the year 2016.
% Share of Bio-waste in total MSW
Fig 2.6 The projection of % share of Bio-waste in total MSW generation at the EU-27 level (Arcadis 2010)
Extension of Waste management options for biowaste, EU-27
AD Home composting Composting MBT Incineration Landfill
Fig 2.7 The projection of extension of Bio-waste management options at the EU-27 level (Arcadis 2010)
A literature review indicates that there has been a significant reduction in methane production (European Commission, 2010) Countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have had their deadlines extended to 2020 for addressing this issue (European Commission Directorate-General Environment, 2012).
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) aims to discourage the incineration of low calorific value bio-waste by defining energy efficiency levels below which municipal solid waste incineration is not considered recovery Regulated by the Waste Incineration Directive, this process sets emission limits and monitoring requirements for air pollutants The WFD also mandates that Member States promote the use of materials derived from bio-waste and explore future composting and digestion options through separate collection Benefits of separate collection include diverting biodegradable waste from landfills, enhancing the calorific value of remaining municipal solid waste, and producing high-quality compost and biogas An EC study indicated that some Member States have initiated programs for separate collection and bio-waste diversion, although no specific national prevention targets for bio-waste have been identified Furthermore, a 2008 Green Paper highlighted the complexity of bio-waste prevention, emphasizing the need for changes in consumer behavior and retail policies.
Experts have identified several challenges in implementing alternative bio-waste management methods beyond landfilling These methods are influenced by factors such as collection systems, waste composition and quality, climate, population density, and the potential for utilizing waste-derived products like electricity, heat, methane-rich gas, or compost Consequently, EU legislation allows Member States flexibility in choosing their bio-waste treatment options, which must be justified in national or regional Waste Management Plans and Prevention Programs Additionally, the European Commission's assessment highlighted barriers to establishing bio-waste recycling targets, particularly in terms of separate collection and recycling efforts.
Many individuals lack the necessary experience and understanding of the advantages of recycling and separate collection This includes knowledge about how to establish effective collection systems, the associated cost structures, and methods to guarantee the quality of compost and digestate Additionally, there is a gap in awareness regarding the applications of compost and digestate, as well as the market dynamics of waste-derived products like compost.
• The costs linked to separate collection and recycling;
• Political barriers, logistical and social issues, mainly in rural areas and city centres.
To effectively manage biodegradable waste and align with the waste hierarchy, the European Commission recommends utilizing the Life Cycle Assessment tool and Life Cycle Thinking approach This strategy ensures the identification of the best overall environmental options for bio-waste management The Green Paper advocates for enhanced measures to support energy-efficient incineration, anaerobic digestion for biogas production, and bio-waste recycling Producing high-quality compost and biogas not only improves soil quality and resource efficiency but also boosts energy self-sufficiency Despite existing challenges, the Commission's legal measures and support programs are positively influencing bio-waste management Experts anticipate that by 2020, there will be a significant increase in the adoption of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and other methods, leading to a notable reduction in landfill use.
Aligning bio-waste management with the waste hierarchy and the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) can yield significant financial and environmental advantages According to the European Commission's communication to the Council and the European Parliament, the financial gains from improved bio-waste management could range from EUR 1.5 to EUR 7 billion, depending on recycling levels Additionally, environmental benefits are projected to include a reduction of approximately 34 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions, with 80-90% of this reduction attributed to waste prevention measures.
Food Waste
Food waste is a significant bio-waste concern, as it directly impacts the depletion of natural resources This study emphasizes the critical nature of addressing food waste issues.
Environmental pollution and climate change are critical issues intertwined with the ethical and social implications of food waste The FAO estimated that 870 million people worldwide faced chronic undernourishment between 2010 and 2012 Alarmingly, approximately one-third of food intended for human consumption, equating to around 1.3 billion tonnes, is wasted globally In Europe alone, about 90 million tonnes of food are discarded each year.
16 million citizens receive food aid from charitable institutions (European Parlia- ment Resolution (2011/2175 (INI))2012).
Food waste significantly contributes to environmental degradation and incurs high costs, impacting global climate change through unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and inefficient use of water and land resources This ultimately results in the deterioration of natural ecosystems and the essential services they provide.
Economically, food loss and waste amounts to roughly USD 680 billion in industrialized countries and USD 310 billion in developing countries (FAO2013b).
Food loss and waste not only diminish producers' incomes and elevate consumer costs but also represent a significant ethical issue by missing the chance to nourish the expanding global population According to the FAO, approximately 25% of food wasted worldwide could be salvaged, potentially providing enough sustenance for the 870 million people suffering from hunger.
The European Commission recognizes food waste as the most critical household waste stream that needs prevention, highlighting the necessity of reducing food waste as a fundamental aspect of any biodegradable waste or bio-waste prevention initiative.
2012), and the support of such activities on the EU level, would have the biggest impact (Reisinger et al.2011).
The term "food waste" is often defined differently across various discussions, highlighting the complexity of its generation Each research group interprets the concept based on their specific focus and objectives, leading to varied understandings of what constitutes food waste.
In 1981, the FAO defined 'food' as the weight of wholesome edible material typically consumed by humans, as outlined in "Food Loss Prevention in Perishable Crops." This definition excluded inedible portions like skins, stalks, leaves, and seeds, as well as potential foods such as leaf protein and animal feed Additionally, 'loss' was characterized as any alteration in the availability, edibility, wholesomeness, or quality of food that hinders its consumption by people (FAO 1983).
Food loss or waste is defined as "edible material intended for human consumption that is discarded, lost, degraded, or consumed by pests at any point in the food supply chain, from harvest to consumer" (Escaler and Teng, 2011) Additionally, the FAO describes food losses as occurring at the end of the food chain, specifically related to the behavior of retailers and consumers (Parfitt et al., 2010).
Experts, as noted by Gustavsson et al (2011), do not distinctly differentiate between food losses and food waste They define both as the quantities of food that are lost or wasted within the food supply chain before reaching human consumption.
At the beginning of 2012 the European Parliament released a resolution on“how to avoid food wastage: strategies for a more efficient food chain in the EU”, where
Food waste refers to edible food that is discarded from the supply chain for reasons related to economics or aesthetics, particularly when approaching its 'use by' date This food, while still fit for human consumption, is ultimately disposed of, leading to environmental harm, economic costs, and revenue loss for businesses According to Lipinski et al (2013), food waste is defined as quality food that, despite being suitable for consumption, is thrown away either before or after it spoils.
Such variety of different views requires inclusion of additional criteria to char- acterize food waste Thefirst one is food waste classification.
WRAP classified food waste into three types due to an availability rating:
Avoidable food waste refers to food items that are discarded because they are no longer desired or have exceeded their optimal freshness, such as apples, partially consumed cheese, milk, or fruit juice.
Possibly avoidable food waste refers to food items that are edible for some individuals but not for others, or that can be consumed when prepared in certain ways but not in others, such as bread crusts.
Unavoidable food waste is generated during food preparation and includes items like meat bones and tough vegetable or fruit peelings, such as melon rind According to the FAO, these materials were not classified as food as early as 1981 (WRAP 2008).
Avoidable food waste is a significant issue, as it consists of food that could have been consumed with better management or storage Often, this food is discarded due to spoilage or mold, highlighting the need for improved food handling practices to reduce waste.
The 2011 European Parliament Resolution on "How to Avoid Food Wastage: Strategies for a More Efficient Food Chain in the EU" highlights key issues surrounding food waste It identifies major causes, including overproduction, unsuitable product targeting due to size or shape, product deterioration, and marketing challenges related to appearance or defective packaging Additionally, it points out the impact of inadequate stock management and marketing strategies on food waste.
Consumer Behaviour
Consumer behavior significantly contributes to food waste in medium- and high-income countries, with studies indicating that consumers are the largest waste contributors throughout the food chain In the UK, food waste accounts for 60% of all discarded food, with over a quarter remaining in its original packaging.
EU has also indicated that food waste constitutes a significant proportion of the household and municipal waste streams (Arcadis2010).
In 1997, Kantor et al identified several key factors contributing to household food waste in the USA, including overpreparation, preparation discard, plate waste, spoiled leftovers, breakage, spillage, and package failure during transportation or at home Additionally, a 1987 study highlighted that insufficient consumer education on food safety and a lack of understanding regarding package dating information further exacerbate the issue of food waste.
W Leal Filho and M Kovaleva, Food Waste and Sustainable Food
Waste Management in the Baltic Sea Region, Environmental Science and Engineering, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10906-0_3
Households often discard food due to 31 expiration codes and confusion regarding the impact of quality defects on edibility (Kantor et al 1997) Additional factors contributing to food waste include excess purchases stemming from inadequate planning, failure to consume food before expiration, improper storage practices, neglecting leftovers, and a diminishing understanding of how to utilize them effectively (UK Government 2010; Foresight 2011; Value Chain Management Centre 2012; FAO 2012).
The 2008 WRAP study identified key reasons for food waste that could have been avoided with better management, highlighting the most common causes of edible food being discarded.
• Food that has been prepared and served but not eaten—accounts for more than 1.2 million tonnes of food waste annually, mainly attributable to pre-prepared food (48 %).
• Food which has past its date—accounts for more than 800 thousand tonnes of food waste annually, mainly attributable to bread (15 %) and salads (14 %).
• Food that looked bad—accounts for nearly 470 thousand tonnes of food waste annually and mainly attributable to fresh fruit (29 %) and bread (28 %) (WRAP 2008).
A study in Australia identified key factors contributing to food waste, including leaving food in the fridge or freezer for too long and not finishing meals by household members Additional causes include the safe storage duration for various food types, lack of time, and inadequate organization and storage containers (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Australia, 2011) The main findings of this research are summarized in Table 3.1.
Annual weight of FW by reason for disposal, UK, tonnes
Fig 3.1 The estimated annual weight (tonnes) of food waste by a reason for disposal (WRAP2008)
Table 3.1 Causes of household food waste in Australia (NSW Of fi ce of Environment and Heritage Australia 2011)
Main causes of household food waste
Causes of Buying too much food
Food is left too long in the fridge and freezer
We think we need more than we actu- ally do
Preferable to serve too much rather than not enough
I am unsure about the best way to store differ- ent food types
Forget about leftovers in the fridge and/or freezer
Some house- hold members do not always
We are tempted by supermarket specials e.g 2 for 1 deals
Find it dif fi cult to estimate how much to cook per person
Tend to leave food products in the original packaging
Do not like eating leftovers
Food goes off before the ‘ use by ’ or ‘ best before ’ date
We do not check the cup- board or fridge before shopping
Find it dif fi cult to know how to cook the right portion sizes
Lack of time and organisation
I am unsure about how to use leftover individual/ assorted ingredients Food bought on sale does not always last long enough
Size of food portions and packages is too large
One or more household mem- bers have different food preferences or special dietary needs
Food goes off before the ‘ use buy ’ or ‘ best before ’ date
Health con- cerns about eating leftovers
We cook too much food
We like to have more food or ingre- dients avail- able than not enough
Not sure how many people will be home for meals
Do not have appropriate storage containers
Family mem- bers change their plans (e.g. they do not turn up for dinner)
We do not write a list
Lack of time or organisation to plan ahead e.g no meal plan
Do not read storage instructions
We do not tend to use leftover ingredients in other meals
We forget to take our list
I am unsure about what visitor ’ s food preference will be
We do not check the fridge, freezer and cupboard before going shopping
Lack of time or organisa- tion to plan ahead e.g no list, no meal
Consumer preferences significantly impact food waste accumulation, as purchasing behaviors are influenced by promotions and an increasing variety of products available Offers like "buy two, get one free" encourage excessive buying, leading to waste (Schneider 2008; Viel 2011; Lin et al 2013) Consumers desire a wide selection of products, expecting stores to have ample choices even just before closing time (Gustavsson et al 2011) Additionally, at home, people often prepare more food than necessary, driven by a preference to serve larger portions Cultural factors, such as the desire to display wealth through uneaten food or the selective consumption of certain food parts, further contribute to the generation of food waste (Foresight 2011).
Lack of Awareness
Despite increasing environmental awareness in the EU, food waste has not been prioritized in recent years Many individuals remain unaware of the quantity and type of food they discard, often engaging in wasteful behaviors unconsciously A Eurobarometer study revealed that only 11% of EU citizens recognize the significance of resource efficiency, highlighting a gap in awareness regarding food waste issues.
Main causes of household food waste
Causes of Buying too much food
We buy too much food
We like fresh ingredients and do not keep older ingredients
We like to eat the freshest food possible
We tend not to plan meals in advance
Many people lead busy lives that hinder their ability to prepare planned meals, resulting in minimal food waste A survey reveals that 71% of respondents believe they discard only 15% or less of their purchased food, with a mere 1% admitting to wasting more than 50%.
In the UK, 84% of households believe they do not waste food, a sentiment echoed in studies from the Netherlands, Australia, the USA, and Brazil, where consumers show a lack of awareness regarding their food waste contributions This behavior is often seen as 'natural' within a 'culture of abundance.' Additionally, research indicates that consumers are less concerned about food waste compared to issues like wasted electricity or credit card interest The problem extends beyond mere awareness, as many individuals are also uninformed about the environmental and economic repercussions of food waste, including the financial advantages of more efficient food purchasing Furthermore, there is a general lack of personal responsibility among consumers regarding food waste.
Companies often seek to minimize the perception of food waste by rebranding it as by-products or losses Additionally, they may not classify food sent for recycling, composting, or donation as waste This reclassification can distort waste reporting, allowing companies to evade accountability for the growing issue of food waste.