food waste research paper outline

Food waste: environmental impact and possible solutions

First published on 5th December 2023

Food waste-induced environmental damage has been a primary concern for environmentalists for decades. Several studies have proven that greenhouse gases emitted by food waste worldwide are causing more damage than coal power plants in some cases. Over the years, many solutions have been proposed, but the problem is yet to be resolved. This mini-review aims to discuss some of the recent solutions proposed by researchers around the world. A discussion about the effective campaigns intended to target specific demographics to encourage sustainable consumer behavior, successful models designed to implement a systemic production process, and sustainable waste management programs is presented. This study emphasizes taking successful small-scale campaigns and models and utilizing them on a larger scale. It will help reduce food waste by consumers and producers in the long term. Biohydrogen and biogas production through anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic food waste sounds very sustainable and interesting. However, the supply chain optimization, economics involved and land for installing AD, and low-value of the end-products are the challenges that need to be addressed.

1. Introduction

As the world population grows and people's purchasing power increases gradually, the demand for quality food is also increasing. However, to battle food scarcity, keep up with the competition, and provide a variety of options, agricultural corporations and farmers are producing and processing more food than needed. Supplying food in sustainable ways is becoming harder every day due to the amount of uncontrolled GHG emissions ( Fig. 1 ) during production and processing. 9

50% of the world's habitable land pollution and 78% of the water pollution by nutrient-rich pollutants are caused by food production. 10 Therefore, to address issues such as water pollution, preserve wildlife, and minimize fossil fuel consumption, food production needs to be sustainable. However, the growing demand for fast production and heavily processed food is creating a major obstacle to preventing environmental damage.

One of the major problems with these emissions is the absence of advanced technology to reduce pollution. For example, to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, renewable energy sources are being introduced, which can significantly lessen carbon dioxide production. However, we are yet to see such alternatives in the food production and supply sectors.

It has been long established that food waste is generating a significant amount of GHG, and it's important to address these issues and find a viable solution. This study aims to (i) identify the causes of the generation of food waste and (ii) explore practical and possible approaches for food waste mitigation. The idea is to provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art literature on food waste causes and possible solutions. It can help in designing the future research agenda. To fulfill these aims, the study collected the literature reported by researchers (mainly within the last decade) and analyzed the published data. Furthermore, the practice-oriented viewpoint offered by existing findings is discussed in this article. Many researchers suggest avoiding excess consumption and following necessary steps such as raising awareness, systemic production, and efficient recycling methods. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. We also address the challenges and future research. Many researchers suggest avoiding excess consumption and following necessary steps such as raising awareness, systemic production, and efficient recycling methods. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. We also address the challenges and future research.

2. Food waste sources

Food waste is generated (at the household and consumer levels) mainly due to irregularities in consumer demand, aesthetic preferences, and unsuitable storage or packaging. A major portion comes from the household level. In the household stage, food waste could be mainly due to over-preparation, over-purchasing, storage problems, date label confusion, large portion sizes, and unsuitable packaging. 11,12 In contrast, at the consumption level food waste is generated by the catering and hospitality (mainly at hotels, restaurants, hospitals, schools, and airplanes) sectors. In this case, food waste can occur either during the preparation phase or during the consumption phase. The preparation phase includes large portion size, bad storage, over-preparation, and expired products, while the consumption phase includes customer leftovers and over-ordering. 13,14

The food service industry also generates a good quantity of food waste, and it is difficult to generate food waste estimates for the service industry. 15 It is due to the diversity of out-of-home environments in which food is consumed. The service industry includes restaurants, hotels, coffee shops, cruises, events, street food vendors, etc. Food waste in the service sector is mainly represented by plate waste. Traditionally, customers are held responsible for this waste; however, service industry administration and employees also contribute to this waste. 16 A study by Filimonau et al. , 17 revealed that plate waste was caused by customer over-ordering and by the large size of food portions offered by restaurant operators. The food service administration used large portions (for almost the same price) to gain a competitive advantage as they claimed large-sized meals were appreciated by customers.

A few reports 18,19 suggest that price promotions (buy one get one free) and low value of food items also trigger food wastage. It might be difficult to assess the relation between consumer behavior and price. The least price-conscious consumers might follow the “buying a lot and wasting a lot” concept. The great abundance of food might be a reason for food waste as the concept of “buying more for less” might prevail. However, Graham-Rowe et al. , 20 revealed that consumer motivation to avoid food waste is mainly driven by disliking the thought of “wasting money”. In general, consumers are not comfortable when food is wasted, or food remains unused. However, it is unclear how this led to either their behavior towards prices or their tendency to show frugality in purchase consumption. Therefore, a clear understanding of the relationship between consumer behavior and food prices needs to be explored.

3. Detailed solutions

3.1. raising awareness.

The service industry is the third-largest source of food waste, and the main cause is plate waste, followed by storage, preparation, and serving losses. 24,25 Another study concludes that increasing consumers' awareness is the key to controlling food waste; factors such as knowledge and skills heavily impact people to make sustainable choices. 26 Foodservice administrations can engage consumers in food waste mitigation by using nudging interventions and monetary (dis)incentives. 27 Another option is to provide plates of leftovers to consumers for takeaway. If plate waste remains, it can be given to farmers for material or energy recovery. 28 This will however require the commitment and willingness of farmers to collect and process food waste. In addition, food service employees should be prepared to separate it in situ .

To influence consumers' behavior on a microlevel, an airtight and engaging campaign should be designed. A recent study conducted by Pinto et al. , 29 proposed a campaign to reduce food waste and encourage sustainable choices in the service industry. The researchers claim that this initiative was able to reduce waste by 15%. More than 70% of the student body and faculty of the college actively participated in the campaign. 29 To ensure a large sample size the study was conducted when the school was in session. Two types of menus were designed: (i) mixed, where larger portions of carbs were served with smaller portions of proteins cooked together and (ii) non-mixed, where both carbs and proteins were served separately with raw or cooked vegetables. The study was conducted in two stages. Stage 1 was to analyze students' waste management skills and motivations; stage 2 was to implement the changes through events such as creating and advertising the downside of food waste and peer advocacy. During the first stage of research, it was found that only 44% of the students believed that the institution should concern itself with sustainable waste management programs. It helped the researchers to conclude that there was a lack of knowledge and enthusiasm. Also, the study found that initially, 11% of the main course was wasted and soup waste was almost 20%. At the beginning of stage 2, handmade posters were placed near the tray slide. The bread and meat waste dropped by 55% and 42%, respectively, after the campaign. This showed that creating specific posters and placing them in “right” spots can help change consumers' behavior leading to addressing more specific aspects researchers were trying to improve ( e.g. , asking people to take what they can eat). Next time, they encouraged the staff to serve smaller portions; however, during rush hours it wasn't efficient. This finding led to concentrating more on consumers and asking them to buy what they can eat without wasting. The result showed a decline in plate waste, and the unacceptable proportion of plate waste decreased by approximately 25% overall within 16 days ( Fig. 2 ).

Food labels can also play a promising role in promoting sustainable food consumption. The current food labels only represent a date the manufacturers think the food will be best to consume; most of the time, the food remains perfectly consumable after the printed expiration date. However, most consumers lack knowledge, and they believe that the food is safe only until the expiration date, which leads to a great amount of food waste in the US. 30 Moreover, to prevent consumers from throwing out food after the expiration date, many states require producers to include multiple dates (“shelf life”, “best buy” etc. ), and the lack of standardized language in food labeling further increases unsustainable consumer behavior. 31 It is important to raise awareness about “how to read a label” and establish a standardized language for the labels.

Web-based methods are very practical solutions because of the accessibility and reach of technology in this century. Most young and middle-aged people would be able to access this training without spending money on transportation or waiting for instructors. 32 However, many raise concerns about such training because of people's decreasing attention span and the gravity of the topic, and thus propose an in-person training system. 33 Another study argues that with time, web-based tools help increase efficiency and accuracy in reading labels, and it is an effortless and more convenient process than the controlled 1–1 learning system.

A recent study conducted by Miller et al. , 34 developed a web-based label learning tool, and they claim that the use of the tool improved the ability to comprehend food labels by approximately 79%. This study involved 140 college students who were divided into two groups: those with prior knowledge about label reading and those without any prior knowledge. 34 The training process was conducted in three steps. The first step was to inform the participants about how to read and navigate information on food labels, the second step required them to identify specific pieces of information on a food label, and the third step was to compare two different food labels and answer any follow-up questions. After completing the training, approximately 85% of the trainees reported the program to be easy to navigate, and 80% thought it was “very, very useful.” Although the sample size was small, most of the participants were relatively young (<25 years). Thus, its effectiveness among the “older” demographic remains questionable. 34 However, such a method can be manipulated to accommodate and engage different age groups. This kind of program can be easily launched at any institution without spending a huge amount of capital on advertising.

3.2. Designing sustainable production models

The amount of produced food waste depends on producers. Hence, it's up to them to design a model that can ensure food security without overproducing. 38 A study shows that one of the reasons behind food waste at the producer level is the desire to choose “aesthetically pleasing” contents to sell. A study shows that approximately 32% of food is wasted in the primary stage mainly because it does not meet the aesthetic scale while being perfectly consumable. 39

A study conducted by Ribeiro et al. , 40 sheds light on the existence of high aesthetic standards and how a sustainable business model can be developed to address the issue and reduce food waste at the production level. During the study, the authors collaborated with a nonprofit organization that buys “ugly” fruits and vegetables and sells them in the market to save resources ( e.g. , land, water, and power) from being wasted. They tried to understand the motivation behind these projects and used the gathered knowledge to design a sustainable business model. They developed a tri-layer business model (presented in Fig. 3 ), taking social, economic, and environmental benefits and concerns into account, and built a system to reduce waste. However, due to the subjectivity of the topic, it was hard to quantify the impact.

The business model is based on a replication scheme that involves taking advantage of fixed structures available in an area ( e.g. , transportation, farmers' network, and stuff). Since this model emphasizes using local sources, the price remains relatively low since the produced food is not up to “aesthetic” standards. However, for this kind of model to be considered successful, there should be enough revenue; the study explores the economic viability of the program and found that although the profit margin is low, this locally driven project can return the investment and generate profit as the delivery point increases. It also helps reduce GHG emissions locally, which would be caused by freshly produced fruits and vegetables otherwise. 40

An impact assessment in CO 2 -eq for the total amount of waste avoided for one year is shown in Table 1 . The results show that the model had a positive impact of 0.14 kg CO 2 -eq per kg considering the balance between transport and materials and avoided landfill scenario. This means for 1 kg of fruit and vegetables 0.14 kg CO 2 -eq emissions can be avoided.

During the social assessment of the proposed model ( Fig. 3 ), it was found that the farmer's salaries were slightly above the average in the region; however, it was rated poorly regarding the working time required of the staff. It was able to create jobs in areas where the fruits were delivered and where the foods were being produced. Community involvement is considered the key factor behind the success of the proposed business model. 40

Another investigation, led by Lindh et al. , 41 found that several changes need to be made in the current packaging system to reduce food waste. Incorrect or inconvenient packaging by producers makes it harder for retailers to handle and more difficult for consumers to use sustainably. They propose using materials that are hard to damage during unloading and handling in retail, easy to open, easy to store, and realistic in size for consumers.

A study conducted by Pauer et al. , 42 claimed that a successful framework must address three important issues regarding food packaging: sustainable packing processes, environmental impact, and food loss due to packaging. A recent study in the UK showed that 20–31% of beef was wasted due to packaging and a notable amount of pork was thrown out in its original packaging. 43 A study led by Rivera et al. , 44 proposes a packaging prototype to preserve meat and fruits. Their proposed framework not only addresses an innovative packaging technique but also takes the environmental and economic sides of the spectrum into account. Their solution contains a double-layer design with an outer sealed quad ( Fig. 4 ). This design allows consumers to preserve food, by sealing it with an air vacuum. The researchers chose raspberries and beef to test out the design due to raspberries' soft texture and beef's direct impact on climate change. They carried out several experiments to test safety, damage reduction, shell-life extension, and environmental and economic viability. Some researchers want to completely transform the food packaging industry and incorporate biodegradable smart food packaging, which can withstand greater stress and provide real-time information about the state of packaged foods. Many suggest using radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags in packaging, which use an electromagnetic field to send real-time information about the product. 45 Others propose using freshness indicators that navigate the state of the product using chemical changes. 46

A study conducted by Medina-Jaramillo et al. , 47 designed a smart biodegradable thermoplastic film using starch and glycerol with 5 wt% of nature extracts ( e.g. , green tea and basil). They claim that the design is highly responsive to pH change and has high thermal stability (<240 °C) while being flexible and biodegradable. The antioxidant coating of the film transfers its properties to fruits and vegetables, and starch-based films are known for their ability to preserve food for a long time. The film containing basil was most sensitive to pH changes. Such a property is crucial because it indicates the change in acidity in packaged food. The color-changing property is mainly useful when detecting the presence of unwanted microbial growth in food. The designed films were fully biodegraded in 12 days after being discarded in soil. The designed films were also hydrophobic mainly due to the presence of tea and basil extracts along with starch. Both films reduced water vapor permeability and improved thermal stability and antioxidant properties making them excellent food packaging materials to preserve food for a longer time leading to decreased loss of food because of “faulty” packaging.

To make commercially viable intelligent and biodegradable packaging, it needs to be low cost, reversible, reusable, and long-lasting. Probably, it might be more difficult to educate consumers about these packaging systems. However, intelligent packaging and the use of sensors have the potential to reduce food waste thereby improving food security. The aim of food safety and security must be aligned in a way to achieve sustainability. We need novel solutions for food security and sustainability without compromising food safety to achieve UN sustainable development goals such as sustainable land use, eradication of hunger and poverty, responsible production and consumption, sustainable life on land and water, and mitigating climate change. The changes in legislation and business behavior towards sustainable food production and consumption will be necessary to reduce food waste.

3.3. Efficient waste management technology

A study led by Jingjing et al. , 51 produced hydrogen gas through anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic food waste in a single-chambered microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) under negative pressure, yielding 96% of hydrogen gas. The food waste used in the study mostly consisted of rice (44%), vegetables (23%), noodles (16%), meat (6%), and tofu (11%) treated in a reactor that had one influent unit, pre-digestion unit, and combined AD-MEC unit. The entire experiment was performed under a negative pressure of 40.52 kPa at 30 °C. 51 A high salt environment was created to boost the rate of electron transfer in the system to increase density and eventually lead to greater hydrogen production. The hydrogen production in the reactor reached up to 511.02 ml H 2 g −1 VS (volatile solid) which is almost ten times the yield of “traditional” AD (49.38 H 2 g −1 VS) ( Fig. 5 ).

The average recovery reached approximately 94% which is 4.7 times higher than the reported recovery rate of <20% in a study conducted by Beegle et al. 51,52 The significant increase in the yield rate is because of the presence of high organic matter (food waste) and salinity. The study also reports that energy recovery by AD-MEC was approximately 239%, which makes AD-MEC an excellent candidate for food waste treatment technology. 51

Other studies suggest that using food waste to produce biogas is a more convenient and economically viable choice. A study conducted by Khoo et al. , 53 found AD to be the most environmentally viable food waste treatment technology available through the life cycle assessment method. An investigation led by Qianqian et al. , 54 studied the efficiency of single-phase anaerobic digestion (SPAD) and two-phase anaerobic digestion (TPAD) while using organic food waste as feedstock. The environmental performances of the two processes are shown in Fig. 6 . In SPAD, food waste is treated in a single anaerobic tank, while in TPAD food waste is treated in two different stages i.e. , acidogenic and methanogenic stages. TPAD can achieve higher treatment efficiency and more stable operation than SPAD. The SPAD plant (S-plant) yielded 8.2% more biogas than TPAD; however, it used 43% more electricity in pre-treatment than the TPAD plant (T-plant), resulting in a production of −158.15 kg CO 2 -eq/t by plant S, whereas plant T emitted −127 kg CO 2 -eq/t. T-plant showed 66% higher elimination of acidic gases compared to S-plant and earned 10% higher revenue while spending less than S-plant. 54

Both plants showed a decrease in carbon dioxide emission, which itself is an indicator of improvement in waste technology. Leaked methane from landfills has been identified as a major reason behind GHG emissions. However, this study claims that TPAD was able to achieve a 34% higher reduction of GHG than SPAD, which is a great achievement to achieve the goal of sustainability. 54

Uen and Rodriguez 55 proposed an integrated model i.e. , a joint operation of AD and co-digestion (CoD) with a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), to optimize the configuration and logistics for food waste valorization in Illinois, USA. The data presented show that installing anaerobic co-digesters at WWTP with a total capacity of 9.3 million metric tons could generate an 8.3% return on investment while reducing CO 2 equivalent by approx. 1 million metric tons annually. For long-term system planning and boosting food waste valorization, supply chain optimization along with land for installing AD are the factors that need attention.

4. Challenges and future research

Although many studies suggest that smart packaging provides solutions to most of the existing complaints about food packaging, these studies fail to acknowledge the challenge from an industrial point of view. These smart packages aren't very cost-effective; their real capabilities on a large scale also haven't been studied; cyber security threats also arise from the “smart” technology. Also, most of the smart packages use artificial anti-bacterial elements, which could potentially lead to contamination, risking the quality of food. Also, the integration of thin film electronics in packaging is a big challenge for industrial production. 60,61

Biohydrogen production sounds very sustainable and interesting; however, the problem lies in controlling the reaction environment while achieving higher efficiency and replicating small-scale production design on a larger scale without spending a significant amount of money. 62 Most studies failed to achieve higher energy conversion rates. A study conducted by Jayabalan found a conversion rate of 2.4–4% using biophotolysis to produce hydrogen. 63,64

Biogas production is an efficient way to treat organic food waste; however, the implementation of biogas technology always suffers because of a lack of infrastructure, capital, and appropriate policy. Production of biogas on a larger scale and transportation of biogas and converting it to energy have been challenges for decades now. There hasn't been a significant advancement in that sector. 65,66

In the future, there should be research to address the challenges mentioned above. There should be a campaign designed to acknowledge the current shortcomings while making the campaign more interactive and relatable. Campaigns should involve people from target demographics to better understand the audience and design programs according to that. 29 Smart packaging is a very time-appropriate solution; a study conducted by Medina-Jaramillo et al. , 47 gives an insight into how biodegradable packaging, using only natural materials, can successfully incorporate smart technology. The use of eco-friendly materials for smart packaging can improve the quality of the products and will also contribute to the nutritional value of food. Also, in recent years, there have been many studies that are investigating the production of biohydrogen and biogas on an industrial scale without being cost-ineffective. 67

5. Concluding remarks

Author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• How We Fight Food Waste in the US , Feeding America, https://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/reduce-food-waste  Search PubMed .
• K. Jaglo, S. Kenny and J. Stephenson, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste , EPA, Novemeber 2021, https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste  Search PubMed .
• M. Kummu, H. de Moel, M. Porkka, S. Siebert, O. Varis and P. J. Ward, 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  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• G. Song, M. Li, H. M. Semakula and S. Zhang, Food consumption and waste and the embedded carbon, water and ecological footprints of households in China, Sci. Total Environ. , 2015, 529 , 191–197  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• A. Stenmarck, C. M. Jensen, T. Quested and G. Moates, Estimates of European Food Waste Levels , IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2016  Search PubMed .
• B. Reutter, P. Lant, C. Reynolds and J. Lane, Food waste consequences: environmentally extended input-output as a framework for analysis, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2017, 153 , 506–514  CrossRef .
• “Food Waste: Food by the Numbers.” NYC Food Policy Center (Hunter College) , 24 Feb. 2020  Search PubMed .
• A. Mohammad and M. P. Kenneth, Environmental impact of municipal solid waste landfills in semi-arid climates-case study–Jordan, Open Waste Manage. J. , 2012, 5 (1), 28–29  CrossRef .
• H. Ritchie, P. Rosado and M. Roser, Environmental Impacts of Food Production , Our World in Data, 2022  Search PubMed .
• J. Poore and T. Nemecek, Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science , 2018, 360 (6392), 987–992  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• WRAP, Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom 2012 , 2013, available online, https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/Household-Food-and-Drink-Waste-in-the-United-Kingdom-2012.pdf, (accessed on October 18, 2023)  Search PubMed .
• C. Chauhan, A. Dhir, M. Ul and J. Salo, Food loss and waste in food supply chains. A systematic literature review and framework development approach, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2021, 295 , 126438  CrossRef .
• C. Tostivint, K. Östergren, T. Quested, J. M. Soethoudt, A. Stenmarck, E. Svanes and C. O'Connor, Food Waste Quantification Manual to Monitor Foodwaste Amounts and Progressions , EU Fusion, Fredirkstad, Norway, 2016  Search PubMed .
• A. Dhir, S. Talwar, P. Kaur and A. Malibari, Food waste in hospitality and food services: a systematic literature review and framework development approach, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2020, 270 , 122861  CrossRef .
• UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme, Food Waste Index Report 2021 , Nairobi, 2021  Search PubMed .
• E. Juvan, B. Grun and S. Dolnicar, Biting off more than they can chew: food waste at hotel breakfast buffets, J. Travel Res. , 2018, 57 (2), 232–242  CrossRef .
• V. Filimonau, H. Ailgboory, N. K. Mohanned, H. Kadum, J. M. Qasem and B. J. Muhaildin, Food waste and its management in the food service sector of a developing economy: an exploratory and preliminary study of a sample of restaurants in Iraq, Tour. Manag. Perspect. , 2023, 45 , 101048  Search PubMed .
• WRAP, Helping Consumers Reduce Food Waste – A Retail Survey 2011: Project Code: RHF523-002. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from Helping Consumers Reduce Food Waste – A Retail Survey 2011 , 2012  Search PubMed .
• B. Lyndhurst, Future Trends On Waste Generation and Resource Efficiency in the Food Chain: A Scoping Study. A Report for Defra , 2010, Retrieved October 19, 2016, from, https://www.brooklyndhurst.co.uk/future-trends-in-resource-efficiency-and-waste.generation-in-the-food-chain  Search PubMed .
• E. Graham-Rowe, D. C. Jessop and P. Sparks, Identifying motivations and barriers to minimizing household food waste, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2014, 84 , 15–23  CrossRef .
• B. Derqui, T. Fayos and V. Fernandez, Towards a more sustainable food supply chain: opening up invisible waste in food service, Sustainability , 2016, 8 (7), 693  CrossRef .
• E. G. Rowe, D. C. Jessop and P. Sparks, Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2014, 84 , 15–23  CrossRef .
• H. S. Kessler, Simple interventions to improve healthy eating behaviors in the school cafeteria, Nutr. Rev. , 2016, 74 (3), 198–209  CrossRef   PubMed .
• C. Beretta, F. Stoessel, U. Baier and S. Hellweg, Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland, Waste Manage. , 2013, 33 (3), 764–773  CrossRef   PubMed .
• K. L. Thyberg and D. J. Tonjes, Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2016, 106 , 110–123  CrossRef .
• Z. Irani, M. Amir and T. Papadopoulos, Organizational energy: a behavioral analysis of human and organizational factors in manufacturing, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. , 2015, 62 (2), 193–204  Search PubMed .
• Q. D. Read and M. K. Muth, Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: is food waste reduction a win–win?, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2021, 168 , 105448  CrossRef .
• L. Lang, Y. Wang, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, N. Yang, B. Xue and W. Han, Awareness of food waste recycling in restaurants: evidence from China, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. , 2020, 161 , 104949  CrossRef .
• R. S. Pinto, R. M. dos Santos Pinto, F. F. S. Melo, S. S. Campos and C. M. dos Santos Cordovil, A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction in a university canteen, Waste Manage. , 2018, 76 , 28–38  CrossRef   PubMed .
• T. D. Giudice, F. L. Barbera, R. Vecchio and F. Verneau, Anti-waste labeling and consumer willingness to pay, J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. , 2016, 28 (2), 149–163  CrossRef .
• E. B. Leib, C. Rice, R. Neff, M. Spiker, A. Schklair and S. Greenberg, Consumer perceptions of date labels: national survey, Safety , 2016, 23 (54), 19  Search PubMed .
• T. Burrows, M. Hutchesson, L. K. Chai, M. Rollo, G. Skinner and C. Collins, Nutrition interventions for prevention and management of childhood obesity: what do parents want from an eHealth program?, Nutrients , 2015, 7 (12), 10469–10479  CrossRef   PubMed .
• L. M. Neuenschwander, M. A. Angela Aabott and A. R. Mobley, Comparison of a web-based vs in-person nutrition education program for low-income adults, J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. , 2013, 113 (1), 120–126  CrossRef   PubMed .
• L. M. S. Miller, L. A. Beckett, J. J. Bergman, M. D. Wilson, E. A. Applegate and T. N. Gibson, Developing nutrition label reading skills: a web-based practice approach, J. Med. Internet Res. , 2017, 19 (1), e6583  Search PubMed .
• J. M. Katajajuuri, K. Silvennoinen, H. Hartikainen, L. Heikkila and A. Reinikainen, Food waste in the Finnish food chain, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2014, 73 , 322–329  CrossRef .
• M. Fehr, M. D. R. Calcado and D. C. Romão, The basis of a policy for minimizing and recycling food waste, Environ. Sci. Policy , 2002, 5 (3), 247–253  CrossRef .
• D. N. Warshawsky, The devolution of urban food waste governance: case study of food rescue in Los Angeles, Cities , 2015, 49 , 26–34  CrossRef .
• K. Kok, The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil, Glob. Environ. Change , 2009, 19 (1), 122–133  CrossRef .
• AK2C, ADEME-INCOME Consulting, Food Losses and Waste-Inventory and Management at Each Stage in the Food Chain , Executive Summary, 2016  Search PubMed .
• I. Ribeiro, P. Sobral, P. Pecas and E. Henriques, A sustainable business model to fight food waste, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2018, 77 , 262–275,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.200 .
• H. Lindh, H. Williams, A. Olsson and F. Wikstrom, Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a terminology of packaging functions and features, Packag. Technol. Sci. , 2016, 29 (4–5), 225–246  CrossRef .
• E. Pauer, B. Wohner, V. Krauter and M. Tacker, Assessing the environmental sustainability of food packaging: an extended life cycle assessment including packaging-related food losses and waste and circularity assessment, Sustainability , 2019, 11 (3), 925  CrossRef .
• T. Quested and L. Murphy, Household Food and Drink Waste: A Product Focus , Waste and Resources Action Programme, United Kingdom: Banbury (UK), 2014  Search PubMed .
• X. C. S. Rivera, C. Leadley, L. Potter and A. Azapagic, Aiding the design of innovative and sustainable food packaging: integrating techno-environmental and circular economy criteria, Energy Procedia , 2019, 161 , 190–197  CrossRef .
• S. J. Lee and A. T. M. M. Rahman, Intelligent packaging for food products, Innovations in Food Packaging , Academic Press, 2014, pp. 171–209  Search PubMed .
• C. E. Realini and B. Marcos, Active and intelligent packaging systems for a modern society, Meat Sci. , 2014, 98 (3), 404–419  CrossRef   PubMed .
• C. M. Jaramillo, O. O. Yepes, C. Bernal and L. Fama, Active and smart biodegradable packaging based on starch and natural extracts, Carbohydr. Polym. , 2017, 176 , 187–194  CrossRef   PubMed .
• P. Sharma, V. K. Gaur, S. H. Kim and A. Pandey, Microbial strategies for bio-transforming food waste into resources, Bioresour. Technol. , 2020, 299 , 122580  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• X. Feng, H. Wang, Y. Wang, X. Wang and J. Huang, Biohydrogen production from apple pomace by anaerobic fermentation with river sludge, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy , 2010, 35 (7), 3058–3064  CrossRef   CAS .
• I. Dincer and A. Canan, Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability, ISJAEE , 2016, 2495 , 14–36  Search PubMed .
• H. Jingjing, F. Huajun, H. Lijie, Y. Xianbin, S. Dongsheng, C. Ting, S. Xiajuan, Z. Yuyang and X. Yingfeng, Continuous hydrogen production from food waste by anaerobic digestion (AD) coupled single-chamber microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) under negative pressure, Waste Manage. , 2020, 103 , 61–66  CrossRef   PubMed .
• J. R. Beegle and A. P. Borole, An integrated microbial electrolysis-anaerobic digestion process combined with pretreatment of wastewater solids to improve hydrogen production, Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. , 2017, 3 (6), 1073–1085  RSC .
• H. H. Khoo, T. Z. Lim and R. B. H. Tan, Food waste conversion options in Singapore: environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective, Sci. Total Environ. , 2010, 408 (6), 1367–1373  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• Y. Qianqian, H. Li, Z. Deng, X. Liao, S. Liu and J. Liu, Comparative assessment on two full-scale food waste treatment plants with different anaerobic digestion processes, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2020, 263 , 121625  CrossRef .
• T. S. Uen and L. F. Rodriguez, An integrated approach for sustainable food waste management towards renewable resource production and GHG reduction, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2023, 412 , 137251  CrossRef .
• M. Bada, A. M. Sasse and J. R. C. Nurse, Cyber security awareness campaigns: why do they fail to change behaviour?, arXiv , 2019, preprint, arXiv:1901.02672,  DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1901.02672 .
• Y. C. Dai, Z. Y. Lin, C. J. Li, D. Y. Xu, W. F. Huang and M. K. Harder, Information strategy failure: personal interaction success, in urban residential food waste segregation, J. Cleaner Prod. , 2016, 134 , 298–309  CrossRef .
• H. G. Bilgic and H. Tuzun, Issues and challenges with web-based distance education programs in Turkish higher education institutes, Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. , 2020, 21 (1), 143–164  CrossRef .
• W. Doherty, An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in web-based community college courses, Internet. High. Educ. , 2006, 9 (4), 245–255  CrossRef .
• D. Schaefer and W. M. Cheung, Smart packaging: opportunities and challenges, Procedia CIRP , 2018, 72 , 1022–1027  CrossRef .
• A. U. Alam, P. Rathi, H. Beshai, G. K. Sarabha and M. J. Deen, Fruit quality monitoring with smart packaging, Sensors , 2021, 21 (4), 1509  CrossRef   PubMed .
• F. R. Hawkes, R. Dinsdale, D. L. Hawkes and I. Hussy, Sustainable fermentative hydrogen production: challenges for process optimisation, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy , 2002, 27 (11–12), 1339–1347  CrossRef   CAS .
• A. Osman, T. J. Deka, D. C. Baruah and D. W. Rooney, Critical Challenges in Biohydrogen Production Processes from Organic Feedstocks , Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2020, pp. 1–19  Search PubMed .
• T. Jayabalan, M. Manickam, P. Vijayarengan and N. Samsudeen, Enhancing biohydrogen production from sugar industry wastewater using metal oxide/graphene nanocomposite catalysts in microbial electrolysis cell, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy , 2020, 45 (13), 7647–7655  CrossRef   CAS .
• R. J. Patinvoh and M. J. Taherzadeh, Challenges of biogas implementation in developing countries, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health , 2019, 12 , 30–37  CrossRef .
• A. Mishra, M. Kumar, N. S. Bolan, A. Kapley, R. Kumar and L. Singh, Multidimensional approaches of biogas production and up-gradation: opportunities and challenges, Bioresour. Technol. , 2021, 338 , 125514  CrossRef   CAS   PubMed .
• L. Jianbo and X. Gao, Biogas: potential, challenges, and perspectives in a changing China, Biomass Bioenergy , 2021, 150 , 106127  CrossRef .

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Factors affecting food waste: A bibliometric review on the household behaviors

Contributed equally to this work with: Vittoria Pilone, Naomi di Santo, Roberta Sisto

Roles Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Economics, Management and Territory, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

• Vittoria Pilone, 
• Naomi di Santo, 
• Roberta Sisto

• Published: July 28, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323
• Reader Comments

Sustainability issues such as food insecurity, climate change, land degradation, economic development and food waste are the actual most important challenges at the global level. Among them, the food waste (FW) challenge has a great magnitude, emphasizing the importance of examining this issue. Specifically, there is a need to focus on the household level. Thus, this study aims to investigate and identify the main factors influencing FW household behaviors on which policymakers and stakeholders could outline specific and sustainable strategies. Starting from a large number of published studies on this subject with a similar aim but focusing on specific Countries or contexts, the goal of our study is achieved through the implementation of a systematic literature review followed by a bibliometric review using the VOSviewer software. The selected query generated a total of 235 matching papers from which only 111 papers were collected for the bibliometric review because of the inclusion criteria. The analysis showed the existence of four major research strands: the largest one analyses the antecedents of behavior during food management, including the implementation of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Other detected topics are the economic impact of FW, the effects generated by the Covid-19 pandemic on consumer behaviors, and finally, the environmental and social effects of FW. The objective of this study is to investigate and identify the main factors influencing FW household behaviors. The obtained output represents useful information for policymakers and stakeholders to outline specific and sustainable strategies to reduce FW.

Citation: Pilone V, di Santo N, Sisto R (2023) Factors affecting food waste: A bibliometric review on the household behaviors. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0289323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323

Editor: Agnieszka Konys, West Pomeranian University of Technology, POLAND

Received: February 22, 2023; Accepted: July 17, 2023; Published: July 28, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Pilone et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The project was supported by the Fund for University Research Projects - Horizon Europe (PRA-HE 2021), titled "Policy mix for the sustainability transition in the “Daunia Rurale” LAG area" (CUP D79J21011870001) awarded by the Department of Economics, Management and Territory, University of Foggia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Food Waste (FW) reduction, for its economic, social and environmental impacts represents a relevant issue either for the international scientific research or the political and social agenda in developed and modern societies [ 1 – 4 ]. Indeed, together with the growing relevance of the food-related issues in the collective consciousness [ 5 ], it is considered an emergency and a priority not only for local and national governments, but also for the European Union and the United Nations that, starting from 2015, included FW reduction among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

More specifically, among them, the main challenges are related to Goal 2 “Zero Hunger” and Goal 12 “Responsible Consumption and Production”, with reference to Target 12.3, which requires, by 2030, to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce Food Loss (FL) along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”. To this aim, to accelerate the achievement of the 17 SDGs, the European Commission has published the “Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” that contains a monitoring framework for the circular economy [ 6 ].

The great attention reserved to FW depends on its double bound to natural resources because, like food production, it depends on natural resources endowment and creates pressures on the environment. More specifically, it produces negative impacts on the landscape and ecosystem services, contributes extensively to biodiversity and water loss, greenhouse gas emissions and land degradation [ 7 – 9 ].

These consideration s , make FW a hot topic at global level, strictly linked to other global key challenges such as food security and malnourishment [ 10 – 12 ], climate change, and sustainable economic development [ 3 ].

Notwithstanding its global and concordant relevance, it important to highlight that, from a nomenclature point of view, there is still confusion between the two different expressions of "food waste" and "food loss", mainly by media and policy makers who in many cases use them indiscriminately. For this reason, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), commissioned by FAO, proposed a clear distinction between these two expressions. More specifically, with FL are meant losses occurring upstream in the food supply chain, mainly during planting, cultivation, harvesting, processing, storage and first agricultural processing, losses usually caused by inefficiencies in the supply chain. On the other hand, FW refers to any wholesome, edible substance that is wasted, lost, degraded, or consumed by pests at any stage of the agrifood supply chain, instead of being intended for human consumption [ 13 ].

The need to analysing this issue arises if we consider the very high levels of FW in the World. In fact, in 2021, was evaluated that approximately 1.3 billion tonnes were lost or wasted: one third of food produced for human consumption was wasted and households contributed to the largest share of food waste (42%) [ 14 ]. And these data are supposed to increase considering the growth of the world population. FAO [ 15 ] estimates the world population will grow to 9.6 billion by 2050. This phenomenon will have key global impacts by causing significant rise in food demand, determining pressure on supply chains to reach higher levels of food production. Continued growth in population and consumption worldwide will increase the global demand for food for at least another 40 years, thus causing an ever more intensive use of natural resources, particularly soil, water and energy [ 4 , 16 ]. Moreover, this would boost environmental concerns due to greenhouse gas emissions and probable high level of food waste generation [ 17 – 19 ]. Finally, FAO [ 20 ] has indicated that almost 14% of the generated food degrades before it is sold, and approximately 17% of the entire food volume is wasted at the household level.

Therefore, in this framework it is important to structure and implement adequate and responsive strategies to minimize FW production, involving not only governments and policy makers but also retailers, food producers, households at each stage of the supply chain. Going into more detail, considering that households are the most impactful players in this phenomenon, it is important to identify what are the factors influencing FW levels and consequently, to outline the most appropriate strategies for a more sustainable food system [ 21 – 24 ].

The objective of this study is to investigate and identify the main factors influencing FW household behaviours. The so obtained output could be useful for policy makers and stakeholders in outlining specific and sustainable strategies aiming to FW reduction. Starting from the large number of published studies on this subject [ 25 – 28 ], with a similar aim but focusing on specific Countries or contexts [ 29 – 32 ], the goal of our study is achieved through the implementation of a systematic literature review followed by a bibliometric review through the use of VOSviewer software that will allow to implement an objective and replicable bibliometric analysis. Though VOSviewer is a software for the analysis of complex phenomena in many fields [ 33 – 35 ], to the best of our knowledge it was never applied in the FW topic. The key feature of this software is the management of a large number of papers that are classified into clusters allowing a better analysis and summary of the results of the literature review.

The paper is structured as follow: methodology is described in Section 2, results are presented in Section 3, while the discussion is reported in Section 3. Concluding remarks about the main findings are provided in Section 4, with also some insights for future research.

2. Methodology

According to [ 36 ] there are 14 types of paper review methodologies. They have some steps in common, but can also differ in some features. The most common is the "narrative" literature review. It is based on less objective choices and lacks rigor and reproducibility if compared to the systematic review which, conversely, represents a more structured and reproducible methodology. The wide use of systematic reviews has been boosted by the continued growth of research. Indeed, the features of this methodology make it appropriate for evaluating and analysing a large number of documents. Mainly, its strengths are i) to be able to summarize the current state of the art ii) to highlight research gaps and lastly iii) to highlight methodological weaknesses in those studies in order to improve future research [ 37 ]. Although systematic reviews have many advantages, such reviews are susceptible to some biases (i.e. broader and less objective results). Therefore, in this study, a mixed approach was chosen to limit the effect of bias through the merging of a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Indeed, bibliometric analysis uses a set of quantitative methods to measure, map and investigate the academic literature, enhancing the review with quantitative data and indicators of bibliometric activity [ 38 ].

In particular, a keyword analysis and searching was used for the literature review, while VOSviewer software was applied for following bibliometric analysis.

The above mentioned tool separates data into clusters and assigns different colours to each cluster. Other advantages for choosing VOSviewer software are the ease of use and the possibility to manage a significant number of publications.

More specifically, the first step was creating a research query with principal and ancillary keywords. Principal keywords such as "households food waste" OR “domestic food waste” were used to limit the search to papers clearly focused on this specific topic, while a set of ancillary keywords such as “attitudes”, “determinants”, “behaviour” was chosen to identify specific studies on household behaviours.

The query was developed in Scopus with the “TITLE-ABS-KEY” operator.

The reasons for choosing the Scopus database were mainly represented by the following considerations: i ) Scopus gives relevant and reliable information on publications (also with bibliographic data), because great importance it assigned to peer review procedure [ 33 ]; ii ) compared to Web of Science (another search engine very frequently used in bibliometric analyses), Scopus makes possible the evolution and citation analysis because it has a 20% wider coverage in time [ 39 ]; iii ) Scopus allows direct export of data in a format supported by most of the bibliometric analysis software [ 33 ].

With the aim of evaluating the complete evolution of the research topic over time, no limitations to specific years were applied.

Considering the multidisciplinarity and cross-disciplinarity of this research issue, all subject areas were considered.

As shown in Fig 1 , the Scopus research generated a total of 235 matching papers.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Source: our elaboration base on PRISMA flow.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.g001

Considering the other inclusion screening criteria, such as open access sources, papers written in English language and documents published in scientific journals, at the time of the papers’ selection (22th August 2022), the useful studies were 112. Finally, after abstracts reading, as only one paper diverged from the research question, 111 papers were collected for the systematic review. Fig 1 depicts the selection route employed in this study, adhering to the PRISMA approach. This decision facilitated comprehensive monitoring of the entire paper selection process for analysis.

During the second step of the research the selected papers by means of bibliometric analysis were analysed using VOSviewer software, a powerful instrument to map and visualize network structure with bibliographic results coming from several search engines [ 40 ]. The results from bibliometric analysis and systematic review are reported in the following section.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 results by bibliometric analysis.

As shown in Fig 2 , reporting the distribution of 111 papers on the timeline, the selected papers were published between 2005 and 2022 (year 2022 was included, although still in progress, due to the large number of papers published).

Source: our elaboration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.g002

Moreover, results show that only one paper was published in 2005 and three papers in 2014, with a publication gap of 9 years. However, this could be due to a limitation of the query or to the chosen methodology. To overcome this gap, efforts were made to include additional keywords such as ’urban food waste,’ ’city food waste,’ and ’resident food waste’ in the search criteria. However, these keywords yielded insignificant additions to the paper selection. Moreover, including these keywords could lead to papers that were not directly related to the topic, such as waste generated in restaurants, shops, or offices [ 41 ]. Therefore, these additional keywords were excluded from the search process. In this scenario, the hypothesis is that choosing only open-access papers influences the outcome. While this choice may impose certain limitations on the selection of documents, it also enhances the replicability of the study’s process and results. Given the nature of the topic and its relevance to diverse stakeholders with varying levels of interest in analysing this issue, it was deemed appropriate to focus solely on open-access papers.

Fig 2 also highlights an increase of publications starting from 2015, the year in which the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was signed, emphasizing the worldwide relevance recognized to these issues.

Regarding the editorial collocation of papers dealing with FW topics, Table 1 shows the main journals in which at least two documents of the selected 111 were published.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.t001

The journal with the highest number of publications is “Sustainability” (Switzerland), probably because the research criteria included only open sources papers. It is followed by “Resources, Conservation and Recycling” having 10 papers, “Journal of Cleaner Production” with 8 studies and “Socio-Economic Planning Sciences” with 6 scientific articles.

The other journals, having 5 or less published paper on FW topic, address mainly sustainability, food and social issues, highlighting the relevance of FW at economic, social, and environmental level.

A co-occurrence analysis of keywords used by scholars was developed. This analysis focuses on the knowledge structure of a specified field exploring the links among the keywords used in the literature [ 42 ]. The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set to three, so considering keywords that appear at least three times together in different clusters was generated.

Results show that 29 keywords out of 344 fitted the chosen criteria, so five clusters were formed. The keywords with the highest number of matches are: "food waste"; "household food waste," and "Covid-19", while words such as "intervention", "theory of planned behavior," and "environmental impact" though included, have minimal importance ( Fig 3 ). In addition, Fig 4 shows “density visualization”, where the deep yellow indicates a higher frequency of keyword usage [ 43 ].

Source: VOSviewer elaboration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.g004

3.2 Results by VOSviewer analysis

Fig 5 shows the graphic output of the VOS analysis. It reveals the presence of four clusters representing the streams of research within the field of FW.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.g005

From a first visual examination, it emerges that the clusters are not very distinct. Specifically, it is evident that the Red Cluster is the largest one and that it is also interconnected and overlapping with all the others, implying that some themes included in this cluster are reflected also in the other three.

The descriptive statistics related to the detected clusters are presented in Table 2 , while the bibliographical data for each article are reported in Table A in S1 Appendix .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.t002

This analysis highlighted that some of the 111 selected documents are not connected to each other. Thus, the largest set of connected items is based on 109 documents because two documents were not linked in terms of shared references.

In general, the Red and Green clusters include the largest number of articles (respectively 48 and 33). Specifically, the Red cluster has also the largest number of total citations (No. 1828) and is the most relevant considering the Total Citations/Number of Articles ratio (48 papers received 1828 citations).

These results highlight that FW is a cited and significant field of research.

Different topics emerge from the reading of the four detected clusters, that can be summarized as follows:

• The Red cluster, titled “ Household attitudes towards FW generation” , focuses on the analysis of items that can influence the household behaviour during food management.
• The Green cluster, titled “Economic impacts and different types of interventions” , focuses on the economic impact of FW.
• The Blue cluster, titled “The impact of Covid-19” , analyses FW during the pandemic period.
• The Yellow cluster, titled “The environmental and social aspect” , investigates the reduction both of food purchased and FW production.

The specific characteristics of each cluster are described below.

3.2.1. Red cluster: “Household attitudes towards FW generation” .

The red cluster contains most of the papers (n. 48) analysing behavioural factors, intentions and attitudes that may influence household FW.

Fig 5 shows that the most linked paper deals, through the use of a questionnaire, with the antecedents of FW at the household level during Covid-19 time [ 44 – 47 ].

This cluster analysis highlights that the most wasted products are fruits, vegetables and dairy products, because of their perishability and low perceived value [ 28 , 48 , 49 ].

Nevertheless the literature does not agree with the influence of variables such as gender, age, education, and income [ 4 , 44 , 50 ]. Probably, this discrepancy could be explained by the data collection on consumer behaviours and FW through questionnaires or interviews (23 out of 49 items) although for this topic the use of these tools is not recommended. Indeed, according to [ 7 , 51 ], asking consumers to self-fill out a questionnaire could lead to significant biases, self-reported data may not agree with reality and declared attitudes may not reflect the true respondents’ behaviours.

Table 3 shows the factors that may influence the level of FW. Many of these studies highlighted behaviours that can increase or decrease FW. Meal planning and shopping lists can reduce FW [ 52 – 60 ], cooking or serving too much food can increase this phenomenon [ 26 , 53 , 54 , 61 – 63 ] as well as frequency purchase could increase FW [ 22 , 58 , 64 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.t003

In addition, other motivations supporting policy makers to develop specific interventions could be detected. Among these, the most significant are: i ) a good level of social capital of the territories allows FW to be reduced [ 58 ]; ii ) good stock organization of the kitchen or fridge can help consumers to better manage their food stocks so avoiding wastes [ 74 , 77 ]; iii ) packaging size can influence consumer purchasing behaviour and support efficient food use [ 78 , 79 ].

Regarding methodology, many papers in the red cluster used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as a scale to assess respondents’ intentions and behaviours [ 80 – 82 ]. The analysis revealed that the intention to reduce FW is predicted by the individuals’ attitudes, in fact people who have a higher intention to reduce FW reports lower levels of waste [ 73 ]. These analyses show that perceived behavioural control, rather than intention, are the most important factors. In addition, some authors have tried to add other specific items, such as i ) meal planning; ii ) food storage behaviours; iii ) attitude or iv ) food management behaviours, to the TPB to better investigate the household FW phenomenon [ 83 , 84 ].

3.2.2. Green cluster: “Economic impacts and different types of interventions” .

The green cluster includes 33 papers. The paper with the most normalized citations was written by [ 85 ]. Already reading this study, a different approach to FW analysis clearly appears in this cluster. In general, the green cluster papers argue that different levels of governance have to cooperate to manage the issue [ 86 ]. The “profitability”, is one of the terms introduced in this group of papers, it is expression that the economic sphere is the main as one field of investigation [ 87 ]. The economic aspects are also underlined by new suggestions for FW management, such as financial penalties or economic incentives, whereas in previous papers the focus was on behaviours to be attempted at home or in stores, without economic repercussions [ 88 – 91 ].

According to [ 92 ], for many consumers, financial reasons are the key motivations keys for minimizing FW, so, the focus shifts to the waste of money, unlike the red cluster, where the FW was analysed as a behavioural issue [ 93 – 96 ].

Another difference from red cluster is based on several suggested interventions. Some papers emphasize the need to develop not only informative activities, but linked to real actions, e.g., suggestions or demonstrations of desirable behaviours [ 97 , 98 ].

Educational and awareness-raising interventions, mainly student-oriented at school, are considered successful in reducing FW, because developing awareness at young age has positive impacts on future attitudes [ 99 , 100 ]. Others good practices suggested in green cluster, as alternatives to more traditional actions, are ‘nudge interventions’ . Essentially, this approach is based on the idea of adjusting the way in which options are offered to consumers. The goal then is to make the best choice more attractive. The use of this technique aims to help consumers adopt the best choice for themselves [ 101 , 102 ].

From a policy perspective, the cost-effectiveness of developing these actions and the ease of use and adaptation in different contexts make the nudge a useful tool for policy makers. Indeed, this approach can also have significant results if used as a supplement to other implemented policies [ 103 ].

As seen in Fig 5 the different clusters are overlapped, hence in this group there are some factors regarding household FW. Specifically, consumer’s habits [ 104 – 106 ]; wrong interpretation of the expiry date increases the FW [ 27 , 107 ]; low cooking skills negatively affect the reduction of FW [ 108 , 109 ]; purchasing and preparing correct portions of food can decrease FW [ 27 , 110 ]; the weight given to social behaviours and reputation can influence food management at the household level [ 86 , 111 – 114 ].

3.2.3. Blue cluster: “The impact of Covid-19” .

The third cluster includes 20 items analysing the impacts of Covid-19 on FW. Many authors focused on pandemic and health restrictions effects to investigate consumers’ food management behaviour [ 115 – 121 ].

Results of the literature analysis are conflicting: some lifestyle attitudes (e.g., diet quality) received positive changes during the pandemic period [ 30 , 122 ]; while other behaviours (e.g., impulsive shopping or panic buying) had a negative influence on FW reduction [ 123 , 124 ].

To better summarize the findings, Table 4 shows the behaviours that affected the level of household FW during the pandemic.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.t004

Results show that the increase in available time [ 125 , 127 , 129 ] and a more careful organization of food shopping (such as developing a shopping list) can reduce the FW [ 25 , 32 , 42 , 124 ]. On the other hand, some behaviours can rise it as, for example, the increase in panic buying due to the difficult health situation [ 123 , 124 , 126 ] and emotional overeating, as food was one tool to counteract stress and anxiety management [ 128 ].

It should be noted that the different degree of virus diffusion is important in the analysis of this cluster. Many attitudes and behaviours developed differently among countries, in fact, where the pandemic was more widespread, more concern for food and food safety was developed [ 118 , 129 ].

Finally, the analysis of consumer behaviour during the Covid-19 period leads to two important questions. The first one is whether the new lifestyles and related changes in food management will be permanent or not; while the second, highlighted by [ 125 ], relates the decrease in FW during the pandemic period that could be only an apparent results, but it will return as a consequence of accumulated food.

3.2.4. Yellow cluster: “ The environmental and social aspect” .

Although the FW is one of the Goals within the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, in this analysis issues related to social and environmental aspects emerged only in a few selected papers. Considering that the 2030 Agenda aims to increase sustainability and life quality it is surprising that only eight papers focus on environmental or social issues.

As can be seen in Fig 5 this cluster analyses some previously discussed topics, in particular the Covid-19 effects [ 31 ] and the TPB methodology to analyse consumer behaviours [ 130 ].

Focusing on the environmental side, from the reading of the yellow cluster papers, a first result rises. More precisely, it relates the huge environmental impact of FW and the consequent idea that it is more efficient to prevent FW formation rather than to develop strategies to manage FW [ 131 ]. Specifically, to this aim, European Parliament (EU, 2008/98/EC) also promotes prevention actions as the first strategy for waste management, but unfortunately, this step does not receive sufficient attention [ 132 ]. Another important output is related to the use of FW recycling devices, technologies or stations in the home gardens, because benefits of home recycling and food composting are highlighted in many papers. Strategies oriented to implement these solutions could improve not only waste management, but could promote positive economic impacts arising from the FW collection and the reduction of disposal costs by local authorities [ 133 – 135 ]. In this regard, according to [ 133 ] the main hindrances to household collection are: i ) lack of awareness of the food collection program; ii ) lack of time or space for recycling; iii ) lack of belief in benefits for FW resulting from self-recycling; iv ) concerns about pests, pollution, and service implementation.

The second aspect of yellow cluster papers concerns social impact: it is pointed out that FW can create social pressure lead to attitudes that reduce FW.

Specifically, according to [ 136 ], if consumers feel emotionally guilty about FW, they will adopt behaviours such as recycling or reusing. In addition, a greater sense of community leads to improved FW reduction behaviours. In contrast, if consumers do not feel community pressure to engage in the reduction of FW, they will change their behaviours. Indeed, when consumers perceive target groups that generate an amount of FW, they adapt their behaviour based on a common moral norms [ 130 , 131 ].

In conclusion, the most relevant environmental and social factors in FW reduction for a true collective change as highlighted by [ 136 , 137 ] are represented by the creation of social consciousness and environmental awareness. Moreover, given the importance of society and community, cooperation among stakeholders along the full path of food should be considered [ 138 ].

4. Concluding remarks

As widely highlighted in literature [ 139 – 141 ], food waste reduction, connected to other sustainability issues such as food insecurity, climate change, land degradation and economic development are identified as the most important global current challenges.

The magnitude of food waste challenge, emphasizes the importance of examining this issue, focusing, in particular, on household level [ 20 ]. Thus, the aim of this study has been to investigate and identify the main factors influencing FW household behaviours on which policy makers and stakeholders could outline specific and sustainable strategies for addressing this issue.

The bibliometric analysis allowed to look into and to cluster over 100 papers that resulted from the Scopus search to summarize the main factors and antecedents influencing household behaviours on FW generation.

The VOSviewer analysis showed the existence of four major research strands: the largest strand analyses the antecedents of behaviour during food management, including the implementation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Other detected topics are the economic impact of FW, the effects generated by Covid-19 pandemic in consumer behaviours, and finally, the environmental and social effects.

The review begins just from the intention to summarize the different factors that may influence FW generation at the household behaviors. Since the past Century, a wide range of factors influencing this phenomenon was identified [ 142 , 143 ]. However, starting from 2015, new factors affecting household FW production and management are emerging, such as the use of QR codes and technological appliances.

Results of this study highlight that an over or inappropriate purchasing, bad storage conditions, over-preparation, portioning and cooking as well as confusion between the terms ‘‘best before” or ‘‘use by” dates are still some of the main factors affecting FW. This behaviour depends on a series of interconnected factors, mainly consumption behaviour and food patterns. Moreover, the barriers to overcome in achieving FW minimization at household level may also involve emotional or psychological aspects [ 144 , 145 ]. Even the absence of economic incentives or financial sanctions may affect consumer behaviours [ 89 , 146 ]. In addition, as emerged during the pandemic period, panic buying or emotional overeating can also promote FW generation [ 123 , 128 ]. Moreover, the literature has shown how limited knowledge of food collection programs and limited space for adequate recycling can positively influence FW management [ 133 ].

Results of this study offer several implications and the possibility to support stakeholders and policy makers in defining more specific strategies for household FW reduction.

One possible action could be the diffusion, through the media or social networks, of motivational messages based on environmental respect to improve consumers awareness on this issue. However, to reduce the ineffectiveness of such strategy highlighted by [ 92 ], due to the " global warming fatigue ", this communication strategy should be combined with the indication of real example behaviours that consumers could adopt or follow [ 146 ].

This overall strategy could contribute to maximize the positive impacts on FW reduction experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic best practices such as a more careful food shopping organisation, the improved cooking and food preparation skills.

In addition, as highlighted by [ 5 , 135 ], FW reduction is a complex issue whose management requires the involvement of many stakeholders capable to support policymakers in defining an effective and long-running strategy at the local level. In this regard [ 67 ] argue that a systemic view is needed for the issue management so that consumers can be involved and develop long-lasting behavioural changes.

From the environmental side, a successful vision for this challenge could be represented by the systemic approach of circular economy [ 147 ] based on the idea of regenerating and producing value even by the reuse and readmission of biological nutrients into the supply chain, just as indicated by the butterfly graph proposed by Boulding (1966).

Finally, to guarantee a real effectiveness of the different actions and strategies, the harmonization of the multifaceted and fragmented policy framework developed by several global organizations (such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and SDGs of the United Nations, European Commission, and the World Health Organization) would be desirable.

However, some potential limitations of the study depend on the query keywords or the choice to analyse only Scopus results that may have created biases.

Future research could expand and improve the search indicators and the use of multiple search engines and, given the complex nature of the issue, a multidisciplinary approach would be recommended.

Supporting information

S1 file. the file provides the whole dataset as an excel file derived from vosviewer elaboration..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.s001

S1 Appendix.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289323.s002

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 92. Brook Lyndhurst. Food Behaviour Consumer Research–Findings from the Quantitative Survey. Briefing Paper. WRAP, UK. 2007.
• 103. Thaler R.; Sunstein C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2008.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Food Waste Research

On this page:

Why research food waste?

• From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste
• From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways

Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

Emerging issues in food waste management, food waste prevention and reduction, food waste processing, food waste management.

Wasted food is a major global environmental, social, and economic challenge. According to scientific research, approximately one-third of the food produced in the U.S. is never eaten. When food is produced but unnecessarily wasted, all the resources used to grow the food – water, energy, fertilizers – and the resources used to transport it from farms to our tables, are wasted as well. Most of the resource inputs and environmental impacts of food waste occur during production, processing, and delivery to our kitchens. When food is deposited in a landfill and decomposes, the byproducts of that decomposition process are methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat and contributes to climate change. EPA estimated that in the United States in 2018, more food was sent to landfills than any other single material in our everyday trash ( EPA Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures ).

• EPA Sustainable Management of Food
• Composting Resources
• Funding Opportunities and EPA Programs Related to the Food System
• EPA Anaerobic Digestion
• U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal

In 2015, EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a national goal to halve food loss and waste by 2030. Through the sustainable management of food, we can help businesses and consumers save money, provide a bridge in our communities for those who do not have enough to eat, prevent pollution, and conserve resources. Research and development of new science-based solutions are essential to meeting these goals. Below are examples of EPA research to reduce food waste and improve its management.

From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste (Part 1)

EPA prepared the report, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste, to inform domestic policymakers, researchers, and the public about the environmental footprint of food loss and waste in the U.S. and the environmental benefits that can be achieved by reducing U.S. food loss and waste. It focuses primarily on five inputs to the U.S. cradle-to-consumer food supply chain -- agricultural land use, water use, application of pesticides and fertilizers, and energy use -- plus one environmental impact -- green house gas emissions.

Read the report:  From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste .

From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways (Part 2)

EPA prepared the report, From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Pathways, to investigate the environmental impacts and contributions to a circular economy of eleven common pathways to manage wasted food – from source reduction to composting to landfill.   The report presents a new ranking of the wasted food pathways, from most to least environmentally preferable. Wasted food is generated all along the food supply chain, and thus the audience for this report includes a broad range of stakeholders from farms to food businesses to households to waste managers, as well as policymakers seeking advice on how to reduce the environmental impacts of wasted food.  This report completes the analysis that began in the Part 1 report, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. Together, these two reports provide a better understanding of the net environmental footprint of U.S. food waste.

Read the report: From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that affects the earth’s temperature and climate system. Municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest source of methane emissions in the United States. Methane emitted from landfills results from the decaying of organic waste over time under anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen) conditions. To understand the impact of landfilled food waste, a portion of organic waste, has on these emissions, EPA developed the report, Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste. The analysis estimates the amount of methane emissions released into the atmosphere from decaying food waste in landfills from 1990 to 2020. This is the first published modeled estimates of annual methane emissions from landfilled food waste. Results of the analysis can inform actions to reduce the amount of wasted food being disposed of in landfills and consequently, the methane emitted.

Read the report: Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

EPA encourages the recycling of food waste for several reasons. Recycling food waste can reduce methane emissions from landfills, and it can recover valuable nutrients and energy from food waste. However, there are concerns about the levels of plastic and persistent chemical contaminants, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in food waste streams. Food waste streams consist of food and other items (such as compostable food packaging) that get collected – intentionally and unintentionally – for composting or anaerobic digestion.

EPA recently developed two reports summarizing published science about contamination in food waste streams, the effects of this contamination on composting and anaerobic digestion (two common ways to recycle food waste), and potential risks to human health and the environment of applying compost or digestate (the product from anaerobic digestion) made from food waste streams to land as soil amendments. 

Another EPA report summarized the available data on food waste technologies, such as grinders and biodigesters, used by businesses and institutions to pre-process food waste on-site. The report evaluates whether these technologies encourage food waste recycling or reduce the environmental impact of food waste. These reports are available at the links below.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Persistent Chemical Contaminants

The purpose of this issue paper is to inform policymakers, producers of food waste compost, and potential buyers of compost and digestate about the contribution of food waste streams to persistent chemical contamination in compost and digestate, relative to other common feedstocks, and the potential health and environmental risks posed by land applying compost and digestate made from food waste.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Persistent Chemical Contaminants (pdf) (3.2 MB, August 18, 2021, EPA/600/R-21/115)

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Plastic Contamination

The purpose of this issue paper is to inform federal, state, and local policymakers of the latest science related to plastic contamination in food waste streams and its impacts on food waste recycling, the environment, and human health, and to prioritize research needs in this area.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Plastic Contamination (pdf) (2.7 MB, August 18, 2021, EPA/600/R-21/116)

Overview: Emerging Issue in Food Waste Persistent Chemical and Plastic Contamination (pdf) (317.1 KB, August 18, 2021)

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies

The purpose of this issue paper is to assess the environmental value of food waste pre-processing technologies (e.g., biodigesters, grinders, and pulpers) used on-site by businesses and institutions that generate food waste.

Emerging Issues in Food Waste Management: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies (pdf) (3.5 MB, September 13, 2021, 600-R-21-114)

Overview: Commercial Pre-Processing Technologies (pdf) (252.3 KB, September 13, 2021)

Research Highlights

U.s. epa excess food opportunities map.

This map displays the locations of about 950,000 potential industrial, commercial and institutional excess food generators, about 6,500 potential excess food recipient locations, and about 275 communities with residential source separated organics programs. The map enables users to learn about potential sources of excess food in their region and potential non-landfill recipients, such as food banks as well as composting and anaerobic digestion facilities. As part of EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Regional Sustainable Environmental Science (RESES) program, EPA researchers from Region 9, ORD, and the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) collaborated to develop the map. OLEM currently manages and updates the map. Version 3.0 was released in August 2023.  Read a story about the map here .

​Food Waste Reduction in Military Kitchens, A Tracking Technology Demonstration at Fort Jackson

EPA researchers, in partnership with the U.S. Army as part of the Net Zero initiative, conducted a demonstration with the Leanpath food waste characterization technology to assess how overproduction and food preparation practices contribute to food waste in U.S. Army-operated dining facilities. As a result of the project, the Army was better able to understands the drivers of food waste in Army kitchens (primarily over-production), and over five tons of unused food identified in the project was donated to local food banks. This project was part of EPA ORD’s Net Zero Partnerships .

Organic Waste Diversion Feasibility Study in Columbia, South Carolina

EPA scientists identified and analyzed major food waste generators and opportunities to divert food waste from landfills. The study helped inform local and state efforts.

Evaluating Processed Food Waste from Kitchen Digester Use and the Downstream Impacts/Benefits

Growing demand for handling food waste in environmentally friendly ways have led to aggressive marketing for and purchasing of a variety of on-site food waste processing systems. EPA researchers are studying pre-processing technologies in use in commercial kitchens in New York City. The results of this research will assess and evaluate food waste pre-processing systems in real-world settings with respect to factors such as performance, capital costs, existing infrastructure, quantity and quality of waste and water streams, and its overall potential to enable organic waste reduction and diversion.

Evaluating De-packaging Technologies

EPA researchers will test the performance of food de-packaging equipment available on the market. Contamination from packaging (including film plastics) in food waste feedstock may complicate composting and anaerobic digestion operations and decrease the market desirability and safety of land application of finished compost and digestate. EPA researchers are characterizing plastics in food waste streams after the use of de-packaging technologies to determine if their use increases plastic contamination in compost and digestate. 

Effect of Nutrient Removal and Resource Recovery on Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Small-Scale Water Resource Recovery Facility

Scientists conducted a scenario analysis of upgrading a small community water resource recovery facility to include anaerobic digestion with co-digestion of high strength organic waste. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment were used to evaluate the net impact of the potential conversion.  The upgraded water resource recovery facility reduced eutrophication impacts by 40 percent compared to the legacy system. 

Feasibility Study of Food Waste Co-Digestion at U.S. Army Installations

EPA researchers worked with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center to assess the feasibility of rebuilding the sewage treatment system at Fort Huachuca, Arizona to include anaerobic digestion to accept food waste and other organics. The research team concluded that co-digestion of food and biosolids would be a win-win scenario for Fort Huachuca because it would help eliminate the largest part of the waste stream (food), reduce biosolids disposal costs, and generate power for operating the installation’s wastewater treatment plant.

Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Water and Wastewater Treatment Options for Sustainability: Upgrade of Bath, New York Wastewater Treatment Plant

EPA scientists investigated the potential trade-offs within the context of a Southwestern New York community of upgrading a one million gallon per day conventional activated sludge system to incorporate advanced biological treatment and anaerobic digestion, including co-digesting an increased quantity of the community’s high strength organic waste. The life cycle assessment explored methods to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant, while simultaneously transforming it to recover useful energy for heat and electricity, nutrients for compost, and water for irrigation. The research provides guidance for small communities considering upgrades and demonstrates the positive potential of resource recovery strategies to increase effluent quality while reducing other environmental impacts.

Food Waste to Energy: How Six Water Resource Recovery Facilities are Boosting Biogas Production and the Bottom Line

EPA researchers evaluated the co-digestion practices, performance, and the experiences of six water resource recovery facilities accepting food waste. The report describes the types of food waste co-digested and the strategies--specifically, the tools, timing, and partnerships--employed to manage the material. Additionally, the report describes how the facilities manage wastewater solids, providing information about power production, biosolids use, and program costs.

Impact of Food Waste Diversion on Gas and Leachate from Simulated Landfills

EPA researchers evaluated the quality and quantity of liquid and gas emissions from lab-scale landfills (lysimeters) with varying amounts of food waste. In the simulations, those with the least amount of food waste began generating methane the fastest, contradictory to how current models predict landfill methane generation. This finding showed that food waste contributes volatile fatty acids to municipal solid waste, which in turn lowers pH and delays microbial methanogen dominance.

• Land Research Home
• Contaminated Sites Research
• Lead (Pb) Research
• Material & Waste Management Research
• Underground Storage Tank Research
• Vapor Intrusion Research
• Funding, Tools, & Other Resources

Food losses and wastage within food supply chain: a critical review of its generation, impact, and conversion techniques

• Published: 23 May 2024

Cite this article

• Sriram Marimuthu 1 ,
• Akuleti Saikumar 1 &
• Laxmikant S. Badwaik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6709-3462 1  

90 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize previous literature with a focus on food loss or waste measurement, generation, causes, and impacts, including sustainable solutions. It has been estimated that the volume of food lost or wasted in five different food classes varies from production to consumption and differs greatly between low- and high-income countries. This study suggested certain mitigations to reduce food loss or waste in developed and developing countries. In the effective management of food loss or waste, a succession of solutions may be adopted and prioritized in a manner comparable to the waste management hierarchy. According to the food loss or waste hierarchy, the first and most desired action to prevent food waste is to minimize food surplus and unnecessary food waste. Food donation to low-income populations through food bank organizations or social sectors is the second most appealing alternative, and turning food waste into animal feed is the third most appealing option. The authors described accessing the environment, economic and social impact, and intervention to prevent or reduce food loss or waste. Reduced food loss or waste prevents the waste of land, water, energy, and other resources incorporated in food and is thus critical to enhancing food system sustainability. The sustainable approaches for food waste management were then discussed with detailed elaboration on the most commonly practiced disposal and recycling methods for product recovery, as well as industrial applications via thermal and chemical treatment. In conclusion, this paper presents the outlook of the overall framework and suggests an outline of future directions in this field.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Value-Chain Wide Food Waste Management: A Systematic Literature Review

New insights in food security and environmental sustainability through waste food management

Sustainable Food Value Chains and Circular Economy

Availability of data and materials.

No data were used for the research described in the article.

Ishangulyyev, R., Kim, S., and Lee, S. 2019. understanding food loss and waste—Why are we losing and wasting food? Foods 8: 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080297 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Nicastro, R., and Carillo, P. 2021. Food loss and waste prevention strategies from farm to fork. Sustainability 13: 5443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105443 .

Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., and Mattila, M. 2020. Introduction: A framework for managing food waste. In Food waste management , ed. E. Närvänen, N. Mesiranta, M. Mattila, et al., 1–24. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_1 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

FAO. 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 43, Rome. Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/S8620E/S8620E00.htm . Assessed 11 May 2024.

Garcia-Herrero, I., Hoehn, D., Margallo, M., et al. 2018. On the estimation of potential food waste reduction to support sustainable production and consumption policies. Food Policy 80: 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.007 .

Derqui, B., Fayos, T., and Fernandez, V. 2016. Towards a more sustainable food supply chain: Opening up invisible waste in food service. Sustainability 8: 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070693 .

Wani, N.R., Rather, R.A., Farooq, A., et al. 2023. New insights in food security and environmental sustainability through waste food management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 31: 17835–17857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26462-y .

Lemaire, A., and Limbourg, S. 2019. How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals? Journal of Cleaner Production 234: 1221–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.226 .

Wilson, N.L., Miao, R., and Weis, C. 2018. Seeing is not believing: Perceptions of date labels over food and attributes. Journal of Food Products Marketing 24: 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2018.1472700 .

Sinha, S., and Tripathi, P. 2021. Trends and challenges in valorisation of food waste in developing economies: A case study of India. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 4: 100162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100162 .

Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., and Cossu, R. 2015. Food waste generation and industrial uses A review. Waste Management 45: 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.008 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mak, T.M., Xiong, X., Tsang, D.C., et al. 2020. Sustainable food waste management towards circular bioeconomy: Policy review, limitations and opportunities. Bioresource Technology 297: 122497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122497 .

Wang, Y., Yuan, Z., and Tang, Y. 2021. Enhancing food security and environmental sustainability: A critical review of food loss and waste management. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4: 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100023 .

Hajer, M.A., Westhoek, H., Ingram, J., et al. 2016. Food systems and natural resources. United Nations Environmental Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7592

Read, Q.D., Brown, S., Cuéllar, A.D., et al. 2020. Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment 712: 136255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136255 .

Mangla, S.K., Sharma, Y.K., Patil, P.P., et al. 2019. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: Study on leading Indian diary organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 238: 117620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117620 .

FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture—trends and challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf . Accessed 22 Jan 2024.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., et al. 2013. The methodology of the FAO study: Global food losses and food waste-extent, causes and prevention—FAO 2011. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:944159/FULLTEXT01.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Poe, N.E., Yu, D., Jin, Q., et al. 2020. Compositional variability of food wastes and its effects on acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation. Waste Management 107: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.035 .

Teigiserova, D.A., Hamelin, L., and Thomsen, M. 2019. Review of high-value food waste and food residues biorefineries with focus on unavoidable wastes from processing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149: 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.003 .

Wainaina, S., Parchami, M., Mahboubi, A., et al. 2019. Food waste-derived volatile fatty acids platform using an immersed membrane bioreactor. Bioresource Technology 274: 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.104 .

Carrasco-Cabrera, C.P., Bell, T.L., and Kertesz, M.A. 2019. Caffeine metabolism during cultivation of oyster mushroom ( Pleurotus ostreatus ) with spent coffee grounds. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 103: 5831–5841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09883-z .

Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). 2012. Food waste: Tier 1 assessment. Available at: http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FWRA_BSR_Tier1_FINAL.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Spang, E.S., Moreno, L.C., Pace, S.A., et al. 2019. Food loss and waste: Measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 117–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033228 .

Sakaguchi, L., Pak, N., and Potts, M.D. 2018. Tackling the issue of food waste in restaurants: Options for measurement method, reduction and behavioral change. Journal of Cleaner Production 180: 430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.136 .

European Commission. 2010. Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27. European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eussd/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Vittuari, M., Azzurro, P., Gaiani, S., et al. 2016. Recommendations and guidelines for a common European food waste policy framework. Fusions. Available at: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/392296 . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., and Hansson, P.A. 2014. Waste of organic and conventional meat and dairy products—A case study from Swedish retail. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83: 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.011 .

Whitehair, K.J., Shanklin, C.W., and Brannon, L.A. 2013. Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 113: 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015 .

Schneider, F. 2013. Review of food waste prevention on an international level. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management 166: 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1680/warm.13.00016 .

Schneider, F. 2013. The evolution of food donation with respect to waste prevention. Waste Management 33: 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.025 .

Muth, M.K., Birney, C., Cuéllar, A., et al. 2019. A systems approach to assessing environmental and economic effects of food loss and waste interventions in the United States. Science of the Total Environment 685: 1240–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.230 .

Boehm, R., Wilde, P.E., Ver Ploeg, M., et al. 2018. A comprehensive life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from US household food choices. Food Policy 79: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.05.004 .

Malits, A., Boras, J.A., Balagué, V., et al. 2021. Viral-mediated microbe mortality modulated by ocean acidification and eutrophication: Consequences for the carbon fluxes through the microbial food web. Frontiers in Microbiology 12: 635821. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.635821 .

Tuncer, B., and Schroeder, P. 2011. A key solution to climate change: Sustainable consumption and production. In Making the link , ed. A. Eades. Wuppertal: SWITCH-Asia Network Facility UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP).

Google Scholar  

Pearson, P., McBride, M., Prezkop L. 2018. No food left behind: Part one: Underutilized produce ripe for alternative markets. World Wildlife Fund. Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/no-food-left-behind-part-1-underutilized-produce-ripe-for-alternative-markets . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., and Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554): 3065–3081.

Xu, F., Li, Y., Ge, X., et al. 2018. Anaerobic digestion of food waste—Challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology 247: 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.020 .

Jones, R.E., Renouf, M.A., Speight, R.E., et al. 2023. SeqFLoW: A systematic approach to identify and select food waste valorisation opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 189: 106732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106732 .

ReFED. 2016. A roadmap to reduce U.S. food waste by 20 percent. Available at: https://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf . Accessed 22 Jan 2024.

Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., et al. 2013. Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 79: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011 .

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., et al. 2014. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 76: 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020 .

Edwards, F. 2023. Food waste activism in Australia. In Food resistance movements: Journeying through alternative food networks , 29–48. Singapore: Springer Nature.

Cooney, R., de Sousa, D.B., Fernández-Ríos, A., et al. 2023. A circular economy framework for seafood waste valorisation to meet challenges and opportunities for intensive sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 392: 136283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136283 .

Nath, P.C., Ojha, A., Debnath, S., et al. 2023. Valorization of food waste as animal feed: A step towards sustainable food waste management and circular bioeconomy. Animals 13: 1366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13081366 .

Zu Ermgassen, E.K., Phalan, B., Green, R.E., et al. 2016. Reducing the land use of EU pork production: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Food Policy 58: 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.11.001 .

Dou, Z., Toth, J.D., and Westendorf, M.L. 2018. Food waste for livestock feeding: Feasibility, safety, and sustainability implications. Global Food Security 17: 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.12.003 .

Georganas, A., Giamouri, E., Pappas, A.C., et al. 2020. Bioactive compounds in food waste: A review on the transformation of food waste to animal feed. Foods 9: 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030291 .

Amuah, E.E.Y., Fei-Baffoe, B., Sackey, L.N.A., et al. 2022. A review of the principles of composting: Understanding the processes, methods, merits, and demerits. Organic Agriculture 12: 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00408-z .

Onwosi, C.O., Igbokwe, V.C., Odimba, J.N., et al. 2017. Composting technology in waste stabilization: On the methods, challenges and future prospects. Journal of Environmental Management 190: 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.051 .

Bernstad, A., Wenzel, H., and la Cour Jansen, J. 2016. Identification of decisive factors for greenhouse gas emissions in comparative life cycle assessments of food waste management–an analytical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 119: 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.079 .

Sharma, P., Bano, A., Singh, S.P., et al. 2022. Different stages of microbial community during the anaerobic digestion of food waste. Journal of Food Science and Technology 60: 2079–2091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-022-05477-2 .

Xu, S., Jia, K., Zheng, Y., et al. 2023. Phosphorus transformation behavior and phosphorus cycling genes expression in food waste composting with hydroxyapatite enhanced by phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Bioresource Technology 376: 128882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128882 .

Ge, M., Shen, Y., Ding, J., et al. 2022. New insight into the impact of moisture content and pH on dissolved organic matter and microbial dynamics during cattle manure composting. Bioresource Technology 344: 126236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126236 .

Lelicińska-Serafin, K., Manczarski, P., and Rolewicz-Kalińska, A. 2023. An insight into post-consumer food waste characteristics as the key to an organic recycling method selection in a circular economy. Energies 16: 1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041735 .

Ezeah, C., Osuagwu, J.C., and Adesiyan, I.M. 2023. Design principles of sustainable composting and recovery of value from compost. In Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering , 143–168. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91874-9.00008-5 .

Oliva, G., Galang, M.G., Zarra, T., et al. 2023. Advanced technologies for a smart and integrated control of odour emissions from wastewater treatment plant. In Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering , 315–332. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99920-5.00004-4 .

Bazrafshan, E., Zarei, A., Mostafapour, F.K., et al. 2016. Maturity and stability evaluation of composted municipal solid wastes. Health Scope 5: e33202. https://doi.org/10.17795/jhealthscope-33202 .

Wojnowska-Baryła, I., Kulikowska, D., and Bernat, K. 2020. Effect of bio-based products on waste management. Sustainability 12: 2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052088 .

Abbas, Y., Yun, S., Wang, Z., et al. 2021. Recent advances in bio-based carbon materials for anaerobic digestion: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 135: 110378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110378 .

Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., et al. 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 45: 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032 .

Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., et al. 2013. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresource Technology 129: 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.138 .

Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., et al. 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38: 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038 .

Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M.S., et al. 2014. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 36: 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.039 .

Zhang, W., Kong, T., Xing, W., et al. 2022. Links between carbon/nitrogen ratio, synergy and microbial characteristics of long-term semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, cattle manure and corn straw. Bioresource Technology 343: 126094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126094 .

Wan, C., Zhou, Q., Fu, G., et al. 2011. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of thickened waste activated sludge and fat, oil and grease. Waste Management 31: 1752–1758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.025 .

Grimberg, S.J., Hilderbrandt, D., Kinnunen, M., et al. 2015. Anaerobic digestion of food waste through the operation of a mesophilic two-phase pilot scale digester—Assessment of variable loadings on system performance. Bioresource Technology 178: 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.001 .

Zhang, J., Loh, K.C., Li, W., et al. 2017. Three-stage anaerobic digester for food waste. Applied Energy 194: 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.116 .

Boonrod, K., Towprayoon, S., Bonnet, S., et al. 2015. Enhancing organic waste separation at the source behavior: A case study of the application of motivation mechanisms in communities in Thailand. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95: 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.002 .

Pham, T.P.T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G.K., et al. 2015. Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: Current status and future directions. Waste Management 38: 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.004 .

Liu, H., Ma, X., Li, L., et al. 2014. The catalytic pyrolysis of food waste by microwave heating. Bioresource Technology 166: 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.020 .

Opatokun, S.A., Strezov, V., and Kan, T. 2015. Product based evaluation of pyrolysis of food waste and its digestate. Energy 92: 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.098 .

Dincer, I., and Acar, C. 2015. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 40: 11094–11111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.035 .

Feng, H., Sun, C., Zhang, C., et al. 2022. Bioconversion of mature landfill leachate into biohydrogen and volatile fatty acids via microalgal photosynthesis together with dark fermentation. Energy Conversion and Management 252: 115035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115035 .

Alibardi, L., Muntoni, A., and Polettini, A. 2014. Hydrogen and waste: Illusions, challenges and perspectives. Waste Management 34: 2425–2426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.001 .

De Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A., Polettini, A., et al. 2013. A review of dark fermentative hydrogen production from biodegradable municipal waste fractions. Waste Management 33: 1345–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.02.019 .

Cappai, G., De Gioannis, G., Friargiu, M., et al. 2014. An experimental study on fermentative H 2 production from food waste as affected by pH. Waste Management 34: 1510–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.04.014 .

Alibardi, L., and Cossu, R. 2015. Composition variability of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and effects on hydrogen and methane production potentials. Waste Management 36: 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.019 .

De Gioannis, G., Friargiu, M., Massi, E., et al. 2014. Biohydrogen production from dark fermentation of cheese whey: Influence of pH. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39: 20930–20941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.10.046 .

Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., et al. 2014. Bioconversion of food waste to energy: A review. Fuel 134: 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.074 .

Cekmecelioglu, D., and Uncu, O.N. 2013. Kinetic modeling of enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated kitchen wastes for enhancing bioethanol production. Waste Management 33: 735–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.08.003 .

Kim, J.H., Lee, J.C., and Pak, D. 2011. Feasibility of producing ethanol from food waste. Waste Management 31: 2121–2125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.011 .

Bello, R.H., Linzmeyer, P., Franco, C.M.B., et al. 2014. Pervaporation of ethanol produced from banana waste. Waste Management 34: 1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.04.013 .

Stoeberl, M., Werkmeister, R., Faulstich, M., et al. 2011. Biobutanol from food wastes—Fermentative production, use as biofuel the influence on the emissions. Procedia Food Science 1: 1867–1874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.274 .

Ujor, V., Bharathidasan, A.K., Cornish, K., et al. 2014. Feasibility of producing butanol from industrial starchy food wastes. Applied Energy 136: 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.040 .

Kumar, A., and Samadder, S.R. 2017. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 69: 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046 .

Melikoglu, M. 2013. Vision 2023: Assessing the feasibility of electricity and biogas production from municipal solid waste in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 19: 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.017 .

Yong, Z.J., Bashir, M.J., and Hassan, M.S. 2021. Biogas and biofertilizer production from organic fraction municipal solid waste for sustainable circular economy and environmental protection in Malaysia. Science of the Total Environment 776: 145961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145961 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express gratitude to Tezpur University (A Central University) as well as the Department of Food Engineering and Technology, School of Engineering for their kind support of this study.

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Food Engineering and Technology, School of Engineering, Tezpur University, Napaam, Tezpur, 784028, Assam, India

Sriram Marimuthu, Akuleti Saikumar & Laxmikant S. Badwaik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Sriram Marimuthu: conceptualized the study and wrote the original draft of the manuscript; Akuleti Saikumar: wrote, edited and improved the manuscript; Laxmikant S. Badwaik: reviewed, edited and supervised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laxmikant S. Badwaik .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that this declaration is not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Marimuthu, S., Saikumar, A. & Badwaik, L.S. Food losses and wastage within food supply chain: a critical review of its generation, impact, and conversion techniques. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-024-00200-7

Download citation

Received : 22 November 2023

Revised : 23 January 2024

Accepted : 02 March 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-024-00200-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Food loss and waste
• Food supply chain
• Sustainable approaches
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Sustainability assessment of food waste prevention measures: review of existing evaluation practices.

• Thünen Institute of Rural Studies, Braunschweig, Germany

The last few years, a lot of measures addressing food waste have been proposed and implemented. Recent literature reviews call for more evidence on the effectiveness or food waste reduction potential of these measures. Furthermore, very few information is available on the extent to which food waste measures have been evaluated based on their economic, environmental and social performance. This review closes this knowledge gap by looking at the methodologies currently used in literature to evaluate food waste prevention measures, using a pre-defined assessment framework with quantitative evaluation criteria. In total, evaluations were examined for 25 implemented measures with measured outcomes and 23 proposed measures with projected outcomes. The paper concludes that there is a great variety in how an evaluation is performed. Additionally, in many cases, economic, environmental, or social assessments are incomplete or missing, and efficiency is only seldom calculated. This is particularly true for implemented measures whereas proposed measures with projected outcomes tend to have a more thorough evaluation. This hampers practitioners and decision-makers to see which measures have worked in the past, and which ones to prioritize in the future. Moreover, more complete information on the effectiveness and efficiency of measures would make incentives for reducing food waste at various levels along the food chain more visible. At European level, work is ongoing on the development of a reporting framework to evaluate food waste actions. This paper complements these efforts by providing an overview of the current gaps in evaluation methodologies found in literature regarding food waste prevention measures within EU and beyond.

Introduction

Urgency of tackling food waste.

Food losses and wastes are generated throughout the food chain, from cultivation, over harvest, processing, storage and distribution up until the final consumption by private households and the food service sector. In 2011, the FAO provided a comprehensive overview of the amount of food losses and waste generated at global level ( Gustavvson et al., 2011 ). Globally, about 1.3 billion tons of edible food, or about one third of the mass of edible food produced for human consumption, is annually lost or wasted. At EU level, 88 million tons of edible and inedible food was lost or wasted in 2012. This equals about 20% of the total food produced in the EU and up to 173 kg of food waste per person per year ( FUSIONS, 2016 ).

Based on the 2011 Food Balance Sheets, the FAO estimates that the annual global volume of food wastage generated has a carbon footprint of 3.6 Gt of CO 2 eq (excluding land use change). If food wastage were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world, after USA and China ( FAO, 2015 ). Furthermore, 24% of freshwater resources and 23% of the cropland used to produce food in 2011, was lost throughout the food supply chain ( Kummu et al., 2012 ). At EU level, food waste has an annual climate change impact of 186 Mt CO 2 eq., representing almost 16% of the carbon footprint of the total food chain ( Scherhaufer et al., 2018 ).

Based on 2009 commodity prices at producer level, the FAO estimates the economic costs of global wastage of agricultural food products, thus excluding fish and seafood, at $750 billion ( FAO, 2013a ). In 2014, FAO adapted the figures to 2012 prices and replaced the producer prices for post-agricultural wastage with import/export market prices. This leads to a final monetary value of $936 billion for global food wastage ( FAO, 2014 ). At European level, costs of edible waste are estimated to be at around €143 billion for EU-28 in 2012, based on the value of the edible food at each specific stage along the food chain where it is lost ( FUSIONS, 2016 ). Two-thirds of these costs, or €98 billion, relates to food waste from households whereas the second largest contributor is the food service sector, with a food wastage cost of €20 billion.

Finding the Most Promising Measures to Tackle Food Waste

In order to reduce or prevent food waste, many measures have been put forward of which a great deal of them has been implemented. To know which measures provide the best opportunities and what actions are the most promising, a thorough evaluation of food waste interventions is needed.

For businesses, applying food waste prevention measures only makes sense if there is an economic incentive to do so. As preventing food waste comes at a cost, actors along the food chain could be expected to only implement a certain measure if the benefits resulting from saving food gone wasted outweigh the costs associated with the implementation of the measure ( HLPE, 2014 ; WRAP, 2015 ). At production level, not harvesting all crops may be a strategic decision in case of low market prices or in case these leftover crops positively affect the yield of the next season. At business level, transaction costs associated with food waste prevention may be so high that it becomes “rational” to let food go wasted. This could be the case for correctly matching food supply and demand or for increasing delivery frequency and buying smaller quantities. At household level as well, consumers might prefer buying more products at once to going shopping on a more frequent basis, with the risk of a part of them not being consumed in time ( FAO, 2014 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ). In these cases, one might say there is an “optimal” amount of food waste ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ).

To overcome these challenges, players along the food chain need an economic incentive for tackling food waste. Other than economic concerns, there may be ethical, social, or ecological benefits resulting from food waste prevention measures that could for example contribute to a company's positive image or corporate social responsibility ( FAO, 2014 ; WRAP, 2015 ). For private consumers as well, ethical, social, or ecological concerns, next to economic ones, may results in generating less food waste.

A clear understanding of the net economic benefits associated with each measure, as well as its associated environmental and social effects, increases transparency, and could create incentives for (further) reducing food waste by the various players along the food chain.

The Knowledge Gap Regarding the Performance of Food Waste Measures

In its review on food waste literature, Schneider (2013) stated that “papers introducing evaluation methodology or presenting reliable results of evaluating implemented food waste prevention measures are lacking.” Rutten et al. (2013) further concluded that literature on the quantification of food waste reduction potential is scarce and that impacts of food waste prevention initiatives are often not quantified.

Since 2013, a couple of reviews were published looking into the extent to which reports or studies consider the food waste diversion potential of food waste measures. Pirani and Arafat (2014) reviewed solid waste management in the hospitality sector. For many of the food waste initiatives they collected, information on the associated food waste reduction potential is missing. Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) collected information on the key characteristics and success factors of 26 supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste. It is however, from this review, not clear whether these initiatives actually led to measurable food waste reduction, as “success was not defined as an actual reduction of food waste, given it was expected that few initiatives can actually measure this.” As such, actual proof of success might as well be “the extent to which information or supportive items had been distributed to consumers” (e.g., measuring cups for preparing the right amount of rice or pasta) as this is assumed to lead to food waste reduction on the long run. Stöckli et al. (2018b) and Reynolds et al. (2019) both looked at the effectiveness of food waste interventions at consumption level. Interestingly, informational interventions were found to be the most commonly used intervention type while at the same time they are seldom evaluated, resulting in a lack of proof of their effectiveness ( Stöckli et al., 2018b ). Furthermore, for some initiatives that are often reported to be effective and promising, such as cooking classes, food sharing apps, advertising and information sharing, no actual evidence could be found on whether or not they were effective ( Reynolds et al., 2019 ). From these reviews, it can be concluded that the potential of food waste measures to reduce food waste is only being evaluated to a limited extent. Stöckli et al. (2018b) and Reynolds et al. (2019) therefore specifically call for more information on the actual effectiveness of food waste measures.

Given the fact that the amount of food waste prevented by a measure is seldom taken into account, neither the ecological impacts nor monetary costs associated with food waste measures can be assessed. To our best knowledge, no reviews currently exist assessing the extent to which ecological impacts, monetary costs or savings, and efficiency of food waste measures are considered. Several authors have however stressed that, in case monetary aspects are taken into account, these tend to be restricted to the costs embodied in the food itself (based on for example retail prices), whereas disposal related costs are neglected ( Rutten et al., 2013 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ; Koester et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, Koester et al. (2018) concluded that costs incurred by the measure itself, namely the costs for implementing a measure, are rarely considered. Cristóbal et al. (2018) further conclude there is only “limited knowledge on the evaluation of food waste prevention and management strategies including both economic and environmental dimensions” and that data on performance of measures is scarce.

To close this knowledge gap on the evaluation of measures, the present paper reviews the methodologies applied in literature for evaluating food waste prevention measures, focussing on a wide range of factors beyond food waste diversion potential. This is done through a three-step literature search and analysis. Firstly, information is gathered on the range of prevention measures currently being proposed in literature to tackle food waste. Secondly, the search is narrowed to those sources containing an evaluation of the proposed food waste measure(s). Finally, an assessment is made on how the evaluation has been performed in the respective studies. This paper thereto proposes an assessment framework with quantitative criteria against which the evaluation methodologies are assessed.

This paper hereby builds on and complements ongoing work of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste 1 , and more particularly the framework for evaluating food waste prevention measures that is currently being developed by the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra ( EU FLW, 2017 ). The innovation in this paper therefore does not lay in the assessment framework proposed, but rather in providing an overview of recent advancements in literature and the state of art of the extent to which measures have been evaluated so far.

This paper was written within the context of the German ELoFoS research project on “Efficient Lowering of Food waste in the Out-of-home Sector” 2 . As such, focus is given to the food service or out-of-home (OoH) sector whereas other sectors along the food chain are investigated to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, as the paper focusses on methodologies for evaluating food waste prevention measures rather than the measures itself, the findings of this paper apply to all sectors along the chain.

Materials and Methods

Food waste definition and categorization of food waste measures.

The definition of food waste used within this paper follows the definition proposed by the European FUSIONS project: “Food waste is any food, and inedible parts of food, removed from the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed (including composted, crops plowed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion, bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to sewer, landfill or discarded to sea)” ( Östergren et al., 2014 ). The food supply chain hereby consists of a “connected series of activities used to produce, process, distribute and consume food,” starting with raw materials and products ready for harvest or slaughter ( Östergren et al., 2014 ), thus including those products that are in the end not harvested/slaughtered and for example left on the field.

Using this definition, food (or inedible parts of food) that is removed from the food supply chain and sent to animal feed, bio-material processing or other industrial uses is not considered as “food waste,” but as “valorization and conversion.”

Based on the definitional framework set out by Östergren et al. (2014) and the management hierarchy from Huber-Humer et al. (2017) , food waste measures are categorized as follows:

- Measures preventing food from becoming food waste:

° Category 1: Avoidance measures aimed at reduction of food surplus at source, such as avoiding food overproduction and avoiding purchasing more than what is needed;

° Category 2: Redistribution or donation measures such as redirecting food surplus to people in need;

° Category 3: Valorization or conversion of food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain, such as redirecting food waste to the bio-based industry or to animal feed;

- Measures managing food waste:

° Category 4: Recycling (anaerobic digestion or composting) and recovery (energy recovery) of food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain in order to avoid landfilling.

Literature Search

The literature search was conducted between September 2018 and February 2019 and comprised both searching gray literature as well as academic literature. The search was done using Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Directory of Open Access Journals and Google (Scholar) search engines. For practical reasons, the academic literature search was conducted in English whereas the search for gray literature entailed publications in English and in German. No date restrictions were set.

Following the focus of the ELoFoS project, the literature search concentrates on developed regions and the OoH sector. Furthermore, this paper concentrates on those measures aimed at preventing food from leaving the food supply chain, namely avoidance measures (Category 1) and redistribution or donation measures (Category 2).

The methodology used for the literature search is based on the rapid review approach as a less time-consuming alternative to a systematic review. The search and subsequent analysis followed a three-step approach as illustrated in Figure 1 . Step 1 aimed at collecting measures dealing with food waste throughout the food chain, in order to get an insight in the measures that have been proposed in literature. In total, the search resulted in a collection of 88 sources (academic and gray literature) listing in total over 200 food waste prevention measures, with the majority of sources proposing or describing more than one measure. All found sources (with the exception of two studies) were published after 2010.

Figure 1 . Flowchart and outline of the literature search methodology.

Step 2 of the search narrowed the sources to those studies or reports containing an evaluation of implemented or proposed measures to prevent food waste. In total, 39 sources were retained containing some sort of evaluation of one single measure or of combined measures. Combined measures hereby refer to measures applied and evaluated simultaneously or grouped into for example a voluntary agreement or a large-scale campaign.

Of the 39 retained sources, 15 were peer reviewed journal articles, 2 referred to proceedings or presentations at a scientific congress, whereas the remainder are gray literature or reports (see also Supplementary Table S3 ). These 39 sources included the evaluation of in total 48 single and combined measures. For the evaluated (combined) measure(s), the following metadata was collected: life cycle stage or sector in focus, country and scale of application, and nature of evaluation results (measured vs. projected outcomes).

During Step 3 of the process, the methodologies and criteria used for evaluating food waste measures were put against a predefined framework for evaluating measures (as described in section Assessment Framework: Evaluation Criteria for Food Waste Measures). The assessment done hereby focussed on the methodologies used in literature, rather than on identifying the best performing measure. Additionally, no attempt was made to evaluate the measures ourselves; only readily available information on the performance of the food waste measures was collected. The evaluation assessment itself comprised looking at the extent to which each of the evaluation criteria was taken into account. A distinction is hereby made into (sets of combined) measures that have been implemented and for which outcomes were measured, and measures that have not been implemented but for which projected outcomes are given. In case the information available online did not allow for a conclusive answer on whether or not a certain criterion was assessed, this is indicated with a question mark (“?”). For practical reasons, these were later on in the analysis treated as “criterion not considered.”

Assessment Framework: Evaluation Criteria for Food Waste Measures

The assessment framework proposed within the context of this paper builds on publicly available information on the ongoing work within the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b , 2019 ). The framework is based on three overarching quantitative criteria that need to be considered when evaluating food waste measures. The first criterion refers to the potential of a measure to reduce food waste: its effectiveness. Secondly the extent to which all three dimensions of sustainability have been taken into account is assessed: environmental impacts or savings brought about by the measure (such as emission savings), economic costs and benefits, and resulting social effects. Lastly, we look at how the efficiency of a measure is calculated.

Figure 2 provides for a schematic overview of the criteria and their sub-criteria; a detailed description of the framework is presented in the following sections.

Figure 2 . Assessment framework—Quantitative evaluation criteria for food waste prevention measures, inspired by the reporting template developed by the EU JRC within the context of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste.

Effectiveness or Food Waste Reduction Potential

The effectiveness of a measure or its potential to decrease food waste requires a quantification on a mass basis of food waste prevented ( Cristóbal et al., 2018 ). An assessment of methodologies for quantifying food waste is out of scope of this paper. Guidance on how to measure food waste can be found in the global Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard developed by the Food Loss and Waste Protocol, which is a multi-stakeholder initiative ( WRI, 2016 ). A recent overview of existing methodologies for food waste accounting, as well as an identification of current challenges and opportunities can further be found in the studies from Caldeira et al. (2017) , Corrado and Sala (2018) , and Corrado et al. (2019) .

Sustainability Assessment

Secondly, the sustainability of a measure needs to be analyzed. This involves looking at the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension).

Environmental dimension

Environmental impacts or savings arising from the implementation of a food waste prevention measure can be calculated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. As food waste is being prevented, the embodied impacts associated with the food that is now no longer being wasted are avoided. These include all the impacts generated along the different stages of a product's life cycle. The further along the chain food is wasted, the higher its associated embodied impacts as these accumulate along the chain.

The prevention of food waste further means that the end-of-life (EoL) stage is being eliminated. The associated avoided disposal impact hereby depends on the formerly chosen waste management option ( FAO, 2013b ). These avoided impacts relate to both the waste collection as well as the waste treatment.

Note that for measures belonging to Category 3 (valorization/conversion) or Category 4 (recycling/recovery), the avoided disposal impacts would need to be complemented with other impacts related to what happens with food leaving the food chain. These measures are however out of scope of this paper.

Both the avoided embodied impacts as well as the avoided disposal impacts directly refer to the amount of food waste that is prevented or reduced. An additional source of environmental impacts relates to the implementation of the measure itself. This could refer to changes in logistics or transport (related to for example food redistribution to charities), changes in electricity or water usage, changes in use of packaging or additional use of paper for leaflets and brochures.

Economic dimension

In line with the approach taken in the environmental dimension, food waste prevention measures need to be assessed based on the avoided economic embodied costs, the avoided disposal costs and the implementation costs or savings.

The avoided economic value or embodied cost of food can be determined using the commodity price of a product. Commodity or market prices incorporate the (overhead) costs borne by several actors along the food chain up until the moment of sale, complemented with a certain percentage of profit gain (mark-up) between each of the actors along the chain. In the case of restaurants for example, menu prices are based on the procurement price of each ingredient complemented with operational costs (such as energy and water use, waste management, and cleaning) and personnel costs for preparing and cooking the food. Along the same lines, retail prices incorporate operational and personnel costs borne by a supermarket. As each stage adds up to the cost of food, commodity prices go up as the product moves further along the food supply chain with lowest prices at grower level and highest prices at the end of the supply chain ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Bellemare et al., 2017 ). Both menu prices and retail prices however also include a mark-up charged by the restaurant or seller in order to make profit. As a result, using menu and retail prices to estimate the value of food gone wasted, leads to an overestimation of its value ( Bellemare et al., 2017 ).

The avoided costs for food waste disposal include costs for waste sorting (such as removing bad and spoiled produce in supermarkets), waste collection and treatment, as well as all related administrative costs.

In 2013, WRAP (2013d) calculated “the true cost of food waste” in the UK hospitality sector. Food purchasing prices were found to contribute 52.2% to the total cost of food waste. The second largest contributors were labor costs for kitchen staff associated with preparation and cooking of meals (37.4%). Other cost elements referred to energy and water use for preparation and cooking of meals (excl. fixed costs such as energy costs for lighting, water costs for cleaning the restaurant), waste management, and transport costs associated with the collection of food supplies.

Another approach to calculate the costs associated with the food that is no longer being wasted (and its avoided disposal), is the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach which takes into account all costs associated with a product or service over its entire life cycle. Next to the obvious costs related to raw materials acquisition, manufacturing and distribution, LCC considers operating and labor costs, research expenditures and waste collection and disposal costs as well, thereby also including foreseeable costs in the future ( Hunkeler et al., 2008 ; Kim et al., 2011 ; Swarr et al., 2011 ; Asselin-Balençon and Jolliet, 2014 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015 ; De Menna et al., 2016 , 2018 ). This approach is particularly important in case of Category 3 and 4 measures to fully account for by-products such as animal feed, compost, and electricity.

The third cost item refers to the implementation costs and savings associated with the food waste measure itself, covering both fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs for example include investments in new technologies or materials, investments in new logistics, expenses for printing leaflets and brochures at the start of a campaign, or expenses for personnel training. Variable costs or savings on the other hand refer to changes in daily or continuous activities such as time spent for food production, time spent for waste administration, personnel hours, daily campaign costs, or changes in electricity and water usage.

Social dimension

Next to the environmental and economic effects, there may also be social effects. Redistribution of food waste to food charities for example results in a number of meals given to people. As such, the number of meals saved and subsequently donated can serve as a social indicator.

Another indicator relates to the opportunities for job creation brought about by food waste measures. New jobs may be created in the life cycle stage where food waste is being prevented, as well as in other sectors or stages along the food chain where the food is being reused, recovered, or recycled, such as in food charities or food recycling.

Finally, the efficiency of a measure needs to be calculated using the indicators mentioned above. Evaluating the efficiency of a measure can be done by putting the costs of a measure against its economic benefits, against its waste diversion potential (the amount of food waste that was reduced or prevented), or against the resulting ecological savings such as avoided emissions ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ).

Economic or monetary efficiency

The most common methods to calculate the efficiency of a measure are the benefit-cost ratio and the net benefits. The benefit-cost ratio is obtained through division of the benefits resulting from the implementation of a measure by the costs it took to get there ( Investopedia, 2018 ). The net benefits on the other hand are obtained by subtracting the costs from the benefits.

The investment payback period refers to the amount of time it takes to recover the cost of an investment. The return on investment (ROI) can be calculated by dividing the net benefits by the costs, and expressing this ratio as a percentage ( Investopedia, 2019a , b ).

For these calculations, only monetary data is taken into account. As such, there are no clear linkages to the food waste reduction volumes or to the ecological savings resulting from food waste reductions. However, if these reduced food waste volumes or ecological savings are expressed in monetary values (such as the economic retail value of food no longer gone wasted or the economic value of the avoided emissions), these could be included in the benefits obtained through the implementation of a food waste measure.

Food waste efficiency, ecological efficiency and social efficiency

The cost for reducing 1 ton of food waste or for abating 1 ton of carbon emissions (CO 2 eq.) through a specific measure is calculated through the ratio of the costs of this measure to its food waste reduction potential or emission savings. The most preferable measures would then be those with the lowest per unit cost for food waste reduction or for emission abatement.

A marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve facilitates the visualization of the efficiency of different measures and, more specifically, of these measures with the greatest cost efficiency in terms of reducing food waste volumes or abating carbon emissions. It is based on the costs for reducing 1 ton of food waste or 1 ton of carbon emissions as it plots the cost of each of the measures against the cumulative amount of waste saved by the various measures. The waste diversion or emissions abatement potential of each measure is hereby visualized ( Defra, 2012 ; ReFED, 2016a ).

Along the same lines as ecological or food waste efficiency, social efficiency of for example a donation measure can be calculated as the cost for donating 1 meal.

In line with the benefit-cost ratio for monetary efficiency, one could also calculate how much food waste can be reduced, how much emissions can be abated or how many meals can be donated for each euro or dollar put in.

Food Waste Measures and Their Evaluation in Literature

During Step 1 of the literature search, a wide range of measures was found, covering the various players and actors along the food chain from primary production, over storage and processing, retail and wholesale to private consumers and OoH consumption. Supplementary Table S1 gives an overview of over 200 collected measures. To deal with the multitude of measures and/or descriptions of measures found, measures were organized and grouped based on the main theme or aspect the measures focus on. The “Food service—Portion sizes and side dishes” group for example (see group 61 in Supplementary Table S1 ) contains measures related to adapting portion sizes to target groups, offering smaller portion sizes, offering customers to choose their side dishes, and providing bread or butter on demand. The grouping of the many measures found in literature resulted in 75 groups of measures: 73 groups of avoidance measures and 2 groups of redistribution/donation measures.

Supplementary Table S1 further lists which actors or sectors are, according to their literature sources, involved in each measure. Since this paper focusses on methodologies for evaluating measures rather than on evaluating the measures itself, no further analysis of the measures obtained through this exercise is done.

Step 2 of the literature search resulted in a list of 48 measures for which an evaluation could be found, as shown in Table 1 . Following the focus of this paper, those measures identified in Step 1 of the literature search for which no evaluation could be found, are not considered any further. The practical and academic interventions included in Table 1 widely differ in scale: whereas some measures were applied at society level, others were applied within one single company. Furthermore, some of the measures listed in the table, refer to a combined measures applied and evaluated simultaneously or grouped into for example a voluntary agreement or a large-scale campaign, whereas others refer to a single intervention.

Table 1 . Use of evaluation criteria in literature—Summarizing table: Degree to which effectiveness (food waste reduction), sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension), and efficiency are considered or calculated when evaluating food waste prevention measures.

Out of the 48 (combined) measures, 25 refer to implemented single and combined measures. The other 23 cases concern single interventions that have been proposed but have not necessarily been implemented and for which the evaluation data refers to projected (not measured) food waste reductions, complemented with foreseen (not measured) environmental, economic, and social impacts where applicable.

The last few years have seen a wide range of (proposed) food waste measures, especially in the UK. Many interventions were part of (or followed from) the UK “Love Food hate Waste” campaign set up by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) or from voluntary agreements with the retail sector (“the Courtauld Commitment”) or with the hospitality and food service (HaFS) sector (“HaFS Agreement”). Many of these measures have been evaluated and a wide range of case studies can be found on the WRAP website. In the US, the multi-stakeholder group ReFED (“Rethink Food Waste through Economics and Data”) was set up in 2015 to tackle food waste. In 2016, they presented “A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20%” entailing 27 single solutions (12 avoidance, 7 redistribution, and 8 recycling/recovery) together with their projected outcomes for each individual proposed measure ( ReFED, 2016a ).

It can be noted that many of the evaluations found, concern interventions taking place in the UK and in the US. One important reason being the fact that the literature search was conducted in English. This does however not mean that non-English speaking countries have not evaluated food waste measures. It may merely be that these are to a lesser extent documented in English.

Assessment of Use of Evaluation Criteria in Literature

Step 3 of the literature search involved looking at the extent to which the various evaluation criteria contained in the assessment framework as visualized in Figure 2 are considered and calculated in literature.

Figure 3 summarizes the number of single and combined measures for which effectiveness, sustainability across the three dimensions and efficiency have been evaluated. Results are given for both the implemented measures with measured outcomes as well as for proposed measures with projected outcomes.

Figure 3 . Number of (combined) measures for which effectiveness, sustainability across the three dimensions and efficiency has been evaluated. Overall, 25 implemented single and combined measures, and 23 single proposed measures with projected outcomes are assessed.

Table 1 provides for a schematic summary of the findings for each (combined) measure assessed. These findings are discussed in the next sections; more details on the actual methodology applied in literature for evaluating each (combined) measure, as well as the associated results, can be found in Supplementary Table S2 .

It should be noted that all 12 avoidance measures and all 7 donation measures proposed within the ReFED Roadmap are evaluated according to the same methodology when it comes to foreseen food waste reductions, and foreseen environmental, economic, and social effects. As such, the avoidance and donation are taken up together in two single lines in Table 1 , whereas in the analysis they count as 19 separate measures with different projected outcomes.

Effectiveness

For 47 out of 48 (combined) measures listed in Table 1 , an assessment was made of the effectiveness of an intervention, thereby quantifying (projected) food waste reductions. The only measure for which no actual data on food waste reductions was given (even though it seems it was monitored), is the implemented measure using a so-called “Bin-Cam” which captures and shares images of waste on an online platform ( Thieme et al., 2012 ; Comber and Thieme, 2013 ). Focus of this measure was assessing impacts on awareness and self-reflection, as well as analyzing social influences rather than actual food waste accounting.

Sustainability Across Three Dimensions

Figures 4 , 5 show the number of single and combined measures for which environmental aspects are considered during the evaluation. Figure 4 hereby focusses on each sub-criterion on itself, whereas Figure 5 focusses on the combination of sub-criteria assessed simultaneously.

Figure 4 . Consideration of environmental aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related impacts (p), avoided disposal impacts (d), and implementation impacts (i) are assessed.

Figure 5 . Consideration of environmental aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related impacts (p), avoided disposal impacts (d), and implementation impacts (i) are simultaneously assessed.

The literature search has shown that for 16 out of 25 (combined) implemented measures, and for 1 out of 23 proposed measures, no environmental assessment whatsoever was conducted. The (expected) embodied impacts of the food that no longer goes wasted was calculated for the other 9 implemented and 22 proposed measures. For four implemented measures, the environmental savings related to avoided disposal were also taken into account, next to the embodied impacts. For the proposed measures, this was the case for 20 measures.

Only four cases consider environmental impacts directly or indirectly resulting from the implementation of measures. In three cases, implementation impacts related to electricity use from fridges or freezers were considered next to the embodied emissions of food no longer wasted. This concerns foreseen changes in electricity use from reducing storage temperature of refrigerated items and placing additional items in household fridges ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014b ), foreseen changes from freezing food by households to be consumed later on ( Brown et al., 2014a ), or changes in electricity use from reducing storage temperature at retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ). Avoided disposal was not assessed in these cases.

Only one case, the “Fruta Feia” co-op in Lisbon (Portugal) which buys “ugly” produce form farmers and sells it to consumers, takes into account all three impact elements. The implementation impacts hereby consider additional transport for bringing the ugly produce from the farm to a consumer delivery point, as well as the production of bags and baskets used for distribution ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ).

Economic costs or benefits

The literature search has shown that 9 out of 25 implemented measures did not take into account any economic aspect in their evaluation; the proposed measures with projected outcomes all performed some kind of economic evaluation ( Figure 6 ).

Figure 6 . Consideration of economic aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related costs (p), avoided disposal costs (d), and implementation costs (i) are assessed.

In 37 of the (combined) implemented and proposed measures, the cost or value of the food that no longer ends up in the bin has been calculated. This is mainly done based on market prices at producer or retail level; the exception being the proposed donation solution from the ReFED Roadmap for which the expected value of saved and donated food is based on data from the US food banks network “Feeding America.”

For six implemented (combined) measures and one proposed measure with projected outcomes, the (expected) avoided costs for waste disposal were also taken into account next to avoided embodied costs ( Figure 7 ). Note that the ReFED roadmap only considers expected avoided disposal costs for recycling/recovery solutions, not for avoidance or donation measures ( ReFED, 2016a ); hence the “–” in Table 1 .

Figure 7 . Consideration of economic aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related costs (p), avoided disposal costs (d), and implementation costs (i) are simultaneously assessed.

Costs or benefits directly or indirectly resulting from the implementation of measures have been considered in in total 33 (combined) measures. These refer to investments in logistics, website and computer hardware and recurring costs for transport and personnel ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ); (expected) additional costs for electricity use from better use of fridges at household ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014b ) or retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ); expected additional costs for electricity resulting from freezing food in households to be consumed later on ( Brown et al., 2014a ); campaign costs for the “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign in the UK ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ) and for the “Food: Too Good to Waste” campaign in the US ( EPA, 2016 ); expected packaging costs for novel portion packs for fresh meat ( WRAP, 2015 ); time spent for trimming second grade vegetables in commercial kitchens ( Lynnerup, 2016 ); time spent for weighting food waste using a smart scale in a business cafeteria ( City of Hillsboro, 2010 ); cost for using smart scales for measuring food waste in restaurants, hotels and catering businesses, as well as other equipment costs, costs for staff training and consulting, and costs associated with menu redesign ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ); personnel savings from mobile catering in hospitals ( Snels and Wassenaar, 2011 ); costs for recovery of food fit for consumption from supermarkets and redistribution to charity ( Cicatiello et al., 2016 ); and projected initial capital expenditures and annual operating expenses throughout the US society and businesses for all 19 prevention interventions proposed within the ReFED Roadmap ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Only in a limited number of cases all three cost elements of a (combined) measure were considered. This is the case for the evaluation of the UK “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ) and the three Champions 12.3 publications entailing various measures and stressing the financial business case for reducing food waste and losses in restaurants, catering, and hotels ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ).

Social impacts

Social effects have been considered in only nine cases.

When it comes to implemented measures, a social life cycle assessment was performed for the Portuguese “Fruta Feia” project that commercializes imperfect produce. The assessment includes the project's contribution to local employment and community engagement, revenue for local farmers, staff working hours, and the possibility for consumers to buy produce at low prices. Finally, its awareness raising effect is mentioned, resulting in project replication in other regions ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ). Cicatiello et al. (2016) recovered food waste in supermarkets by redistributing food that is still perfectly fit for consumption to charity. Based on the amounts of food recovered, the authors calculated the number of full meals and dessert and bread portions that could be prepared on a daily basis.

When it comes to proposed measures with projected outcomes, the ReFED roadmap calculates the projected number of meals to be recovered for each of the seven donation measures proposed in the roadmap. Additionally, the Roadmap lists the expected number of jobs that will be created for three out of seven donation measures ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Efficiency calculations were only performed for 8 out of 25 implemented (combined) measures ( Figure 8 ), even though in some cases the data needed to perform such calculations was available. For proposed measures with projected outcomes, efficiency was calculated in all but two cases.

Figure 8 . Consideration of efficiency in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which economic or monetary (m), food waste (fw), ecological (e) or social (s) efficiency are simultaneously assessed.

The investment pay-back period for the Portuguese “Fruta feia” project has been calculated, and this for two scenarios, namely in case of one or three consumer delivery points ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ). Additionally, the authors calculated the Social Return on Investment (SROI) to assess the project's contribution to society by monetizing the economic, environmental and social value created. Carbon emissions were hereby assigned a value of €52.7 per ton CO 2 . The SROI was found to be positive at all times. Thus, for every €1 invested, the social value generation is higher than €1.

Net (expected) benefits resulting from the value of foods no longer being wasted and additional costs from electricity use by fridges or freezers were calculated at household ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014a , b ) and retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ). Net benefits were further also calculated for use of second grade vegetables in commercial kitchens, based on the price of the raw products and the time spent for trimming these second grade vegetables ( Lynnerup, 2016 ).

The benefit-cost ratio was applied for evaluating the Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign in the UK ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ). Benefits hereby referred to avoided disposal costs for local authorities and savings for households in terms of avoiding throwing away food (embodied economic retail value of food that is no longer wasted). Costs on the other hand, referred to the costs of the campaign itself, namely all expenditures by WRAP, local authorities, Courtauld Commitment signatories, and community groups. Based on this approach, they concluded that every £1 spent by the public and private sector contributed to over £250 of savings. Ecological efficiency was not calculated even though environmental impact savings calculations were made.

The benefit-cost ratio was also applied in the Champions 12.3 publications on the business case for reducing food waste and loss by hotels, catering and restaurants ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ). On average, every $1 spent in hotels and restaurants, realized a return of $7. In the catering business, the average return was found to be $6. Based on these data, the Return on Investment (ROI) was calculated as well as the investment payback period. Within 2 years, 95% of the hotels, 80% of the catering companies and 89% of the restaurants had their investments paid back. Since the ecological savings brought about by the food waste measures were not calculated in the first place, no linkage could be made to the ecological efficiency of the measures in each sector.

In its case study to recover food waste from an Italian supermarket and redistribute it to charity, Cicatiello et al. (2016) calculated the efficiency of the intervention by putting the investment costs against the value of the food recovered. For each € 1 invested in the project, about € 4.6 worth of food could be donated.

Based on the upfront and operating expenses (costs) and the cost savings and revenues (benefits) associated with each solution, ReFED (2016a) calculated the expected annual net economic value associated with each of the 19 proposed avoidance and donation solutions put forward. Combining these 19 prevention solutions with the 8 proposed recycling/recovery solutions, ReFED states that with a $18 billion investment, the Roadmap is expected to yield $100 billion in societal Economic Value over a decade ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Food waste efficiency, ecological efficiency, and social efficiency

Specific calculations indicating food waste efficiency in terms of costs per kilogram of food waste prevented tend to be missing even though the needed data was often available. The only exception is the ReFED roadmap which, based on per unit costs, visualizes the waste diversion potential of all solutions under study (including recycling/recovery solutions) using a MAC curve. The curve “ranks all 27 solutions based on their cost-effectiveness, or societal Economic Value generated per ton of waste reduced, while also visualizing the total diversion potential of each solution” ( ReFED, 2016a ).

In none of the cases, ecological efficiency was calculated. Following monetization of the emission savings, the study on the Fruta Feia project did however incorporate ecological impacts into its monetary efficiency calculations ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ).

Similarly, none of the cases calculated social efficiency even though it is implicitly taken on board by Cicatiello et al. (2016) through its monetary efficiency calculations stating that each euro invested resulted in €4.6 worth of food being donated.

Multi-objective or pareto optimization

Cristóbal et al. (2018) propose a novel methodology, based on LCA and mathematical programming, to visualize efficiency and help decision makers identify the most preferable measure. The model involves multi-objective optimization (or Pareto optimization) of environmental and economic objectives. Taken into consideration are the economic costs associated with each measure, the total budget available for reducing food waste, and the total environmental impacts that can be avoided by implementing the measure (and thus by reducing food waste). The model aims at maximizing environmental savings while constraining the costs of the measures within the limited budget available. Afterwards, a Pareto front can be obtained whereby each point in the Pareto front or graph corresponds to a different combination of measures that for each budget maximizes the total environmental impact avoided.

Using a selection of the 27 solutions mentioned in the ReFED roadmap, Cristóbal et al. (2018) performed a multi-objective optimization of the total environmental impact avoided (TEIA) by each measure within the constraints of a specific budget. Doing so, the authors identified which actions to prioritize for obtaining the highest TEIA, and this for 16 scenarios with each a specific budget available.

Main Findings

The present paper has shown that a wide range of measures and activities is being proposed, both at scientific as well as at practical level, and this for all stages and actors along the food chain. In total, over 200 measures were identified through the first step of the literature search.

The second step of the second literature search showed that only for a limited number of measures, an evaluation was conducted. The measures for which an evaluation was available refer to both single measures (such as monitoring of food waste in a commercial kitchen) as well as combined actions (such as voluntary agreements or large-scale campaigns). Based on the analysis made, it seems that not all measures found during Step 1 of the literature search have been evaluated. However, this paper is based on the rapid review approach as a less time-consuming alternative to a systematic review. This resulted in non-exhaustive lists of proposed and/or evaluated food waste measures which may not capture the full spectrum of measures (and their evaluations) being available in literature. Additionally, due to language restrictions in the literature search, the results are biased toward measures and their evaluations published in English (and German). As such, no statements can be made at this point on the percentage of measures for which an evaluation has been conducted.

In total, evaluations were found for 48 (combined) measures with 25 of them referring to implemented measures and 23 to proposed measures with projected outcomes. The collected evaluations all include information on the food waste reductions achieved by the measure applied or proposed, with the exception of one measure for which monitoring of food waste reductions seemed to be present but for which no data was published.

For the purpose of this paper, no analysis was made whether or not targets were set for each (combined) measure and to what extent these targets were (or will be) achieved.

Sustainability: Environmental Dimension

When it comes to environmental evaluation of measures, avoided embodied impacts associated with food waste reductions were considered in 65% of the cases and avoided disposal impacts were calculated in 50% of the cases. Implementation impacts on the other hand were only regarded in 8% of the cases. There are however differences in how implemented and proposed measures are evaluated. In case of implemented measures, avoided embodied impacts are only assessed in 36% of the (combined) measures whereas this percentage goes up to 96% in the case of proposed measures. Similarly, avoided disposal impacts are assessed in 16% of the implemented measures and 87% of the proposed measures. Consideration of implementation impacts is comparable with 8% for implemented measures and 9% for proposed measures.

In total, only four cases considered environmental implementation impacts. We could however expect (minor) changes in environmental impacts for other measures as well in case for example operational parameters such as water and electricity use change, in case more or other packaging is applied to increase shelf life or improve portioning, or in case food is donated to charity requiring additional transport.

The lower share of implemented measures having received an environmental evaluation as compared to the proposed measures may indicate that making projections for foreseen impact reductions is easier than actually measuring and calculating impact savings for implemented measures in practice.

Looking at the combinations of environmental evaluation criteria simultaneously considered and thus at the completeness of the environmental evaluation performed, only one study had a complete environmental evaluation whereby all three environmental impact elements (product-related, avoided disposal and implementation impacts) were assessed. For 30 (combined) measures, only one or two out of the three environmental impact elements were considered (incomplete evaluation), whereas for 17 (combined) measures, the environmental assessment was missing as a whole (evaluation missing).

Sustainability: Economic Dimension

More information was found for economic costs and benefits associated with food waste measures. In 77% of the cases, the economic value of the food that is no longer being thrown away is calculated; avoided disposal costs are calculated in 15% of the cases. Specific costs associated with the implementation of measure(s) are assessed in 69% of the collected (combined) measures. We hereby note that for two of these cases, these were the only costs provided as embodied cost savings or savings from avoided waste disposal were not taken up.

Here as well, discrepancies are found in how implemented measures are evaluated as compared to proposed measures with projected outcomes. For both avoided embodied costs and implementation costs, a lower share of the implemented measures take into account these sub-criteria in their evaluation (respectively 77 and 69% as compared to twice 96% for the proposed measures). The avoided disposal costs on the other hand are more frequently addressed in the evaluation of implemented measures (24% as compared to only 4% for proposed measures) as none of the 19 prevention solutions in the ReFED roadmap takes this into consideration.

Looking at the completeness of each economic evaluation, four implemented measures were evaluated using all three economic cost elements (product-related, avoided disposal, and implementation costs), resulting in a complete evaluation. For 12 implemented and all 23 proposed measures, one or two out of three cost elements were taken into account (incomplete evaluation), whereas for nine implemented measures, the economic evaluation was missing as a whole.

In general, the “implementation costs and impacts” sub-criterion is more frequently considered in the economic evaluation than it is in the environmental evaluation. Unfortunately, our literature search did not allow for drawing conclusions on the reason behind this. One explanation may be that the (expected) environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a specific measure are harder to calculate than the economic ones. It may however also be that practitioners are less aware of the importance of including this factor in their evaluation.

Sustainability: Social Dimension

Only nine measures considered social effects, reporting job creation, number of meals saved through donation, or a combination of both.

Many studies omitted efficiency calculations even though the necessary data was available. Economic or monetary efficiency was calculated in 60% of the collected (combined) measures, mostly by calculating net benefits or the benefit-cost ratio. Again, the share of implemented measures for which monetary efficiency was calculated (32%) was lower than the share of proposed measures (91%).

None of the studies under research calculated ecological or social efficiency.

Food waste efficiency on the other hand was calculated in the ReFED roadmap, with results for all solutions being visualized in a MAC curve. This results in 40% of all measures considering this criterion, or 83% of the proposed measures (and 0% of the implemented measures).

One study provided for a novel approach in optimizing avoided environmental impacts and measure implementation costs within budget constraints using Pareto optimization.

Framework for Evaluating Food Waste Actions and Selection of Evaluation Criteria

Quantitative criteria.

The evaluation criteria considered in the present paper are limited to quantitative criteria such as effectiveness, sustainability across three dimensions, and efficiency. Both effectiveness and sustainability across three dimensions are also taken up in the JRC reporting template for evaluating food waste prevention measures under the overarching heading of the evaluation criterion “efficiency” ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b ). It is not clear if specific efficiency calculations as considered within the context of the present paper are also to be reported within the JRC reporting template. The JRC template further includes the additional aspect of “outreach impact” as one of the sub-criteria for assessing efficiency of measures ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b ).

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Complementing Quantitative Criteria

The JRC reporting template further includes the following qualitative and descriptive criteria: quality of the action design (problem identification; setting of aims, objectives, and key performance indicators; implementation plan), sustainability over time (continuity of the action; long term strategic plans), transferability and scalability (ability to be transferred from one place/situation to another; ability to grow or to be made larger), and inter-sectorial cooperation ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b , 2019 ).

The assessment performed in the context of this paper focussed on quantitative criteria for evaluating food waste prevention measures. Some evaluations found in literature however also included qualitative aspects complementing or replacing quantitative data. In their evaluation of measures addressing food waste in schools for example, Schmidt et al. (2018) indicated the estimated time, labor, and costs that go with a selection of measures as well as staff willingness to implement these measures. Expenses, costs, or willingness to implement the measure are hereby expressed as “low,” “average,” or “high.” In 2018, ReFED published a food waste action guide specifically targeted to the restaurant sector ( ReFED, 2018 ). The guide includes a “Restaurant Solution Matrix” helping restaurants prioritize solutions based on a combination of profit potential and feasibility of each measure. Profit potential refers to the net annual business benefits and/or cost savings of a given solution, thereby excluding initial investments. Feasibility combines the level of effort (e.g., the behavior, systems, and process changes required) with the initial financial capital needed to implement a solution ( ReFED, 2018 ). The resulting feasibility matrix thus links quantitative data to qualitative data.

Such qualitative data sheds light on existing barriers for implementation and thus provides valuable information for transferring and upscaling measures addressing food waste.

Singling Out Effects

The evaluation of food waste measures is often hampered by the fact that it can be hard to single out the effects of one specific measure, as also pointed out in literature ( Stöckli et al., 2018a , b ). Multiple interventions are often ongoing at the same time, making it hard to say how much of the food waste reduction is attributable to each specific measure. This paper also identified various combined measures (with some of them being implemented together as a package), for which evaluations were done for all measures together as a whole.

The 19 promising prevention measures proposed within the ReFED Roadmap are evaluated on an individual basis, and projected outcomes are given for each measure. In practice however, it may be harder to isolate the effects of each individual measure as other (possibly less promising) measures may be applied at the same time.

Additionally, there might be societal influences. For its evaluation of the Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign for example, WRAP (2015) stressed that, next to the campaign, also deep recession and rapidly rising food prices contributed to lowering food waste during the period of evaluation.

Rebound Effect and Market Feedback Links

Next to the direct impacts and costs, some less visible or indirect feedback mechanisms take place when implementing food waste prevention measures. The first one is “the rebound effect.” The prevention of food waste in households for example, might result in less money being spent on purchasing food. The money that becomes available can then be spent on other goods or services. The way it is spent, will greatly affect the environmental benefits from preventing the food ending up as waste. In case the money is spent on more environmentally damaging food and non-food products and/or services, the final benefits from food waste reduction are offset, which is called the rebound effect ( Rutten et al., 2013 ; Bernstad Saraiva Schott and Cánovas, 2015 ; WRAP, 2015 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Beretta et al., 2017 ; Salemdeeb et al., 2017 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ; Wunder et al., 2019 ).

A second issue relates to market feedback links: as food waste prevention measures affect the demand side for food, also the interactions between demand and supply will be affected, thereby having its repercussions on the entire food market system ( Britz et al., 2014 ). These aspects could also be considered when evaluating measures. The present paper did however not look into whether existing evaluations of food waste measures included rebound effects or market feedback links. The JRC reporting template does not consider these criteria either.

Way Forward

To get an insight in ongoing measures, the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste (see above) asked its members and other relevant stakeholders to provide information on existing food waste prevention activities ( EU FLW, 2017 ). Using its reporting template for evaluating food waste measures, the EU JRC is currently evaluating the collected information ( EU FLW, 2017 ; EC-JRC, 2018a ). The present paper complements ongoing work at EU level by providing information on the quantitative evaluation of food waste measures (applied within the EU and beyond) available in literature, and more specifically by providing information on the evaluation methodologies applied hitherto.

This paper concludes that there is a great variety in how measures are evaluated in literature. Additionally, in many cases, economic, environmental, or social assessments are incomplete or missing, and efficiency is only seldom calculated. This hampers practitioners and decision-makers to compare food waste interventions, identify trade-offs and prioritize actions. A more aligned approach on which evaluation criteria to consider and how to calculate the associated indicators would give more insight in which actions are most promising. Moreover, more complete information on the effectiveness and efficiency of measures would make incentives for reducing food waste at various levels along the food chain more visible.

To facilitate the evaluation of food waste measures in the future, it is important to determine essential evaluation criteria and how these should be assessed, ideally before the implementation of a measure. This is exactly what the JRC reporting template is working toward to ensure that, from the early start on, the right data can be gathered at the right time, thereby avoiding data gaps.

A reflection on the various evaluation criteria across the different dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency, scalability…) at the very beginning of the development of food waste actions may create greater awareness by those in charge of defining and implementing measures. This in turn might already result in more effective and efficient measures as practitioners might pursue to perform well in all domains, whereas before, they might have only focused on for example the economic benefits of a measure.

This paper therefore calls for a thorough evaluation of proposed and implemented measures tackling food waste, using a harmonized approach based on an agreed set of evaluation criteria. The authors welcome the developments at EU level, in particular the JRC reporting template, and hope both practitioners and researchers will follow or be inspired by this approach to successfully contribute to a reduction of food waste along the entire chain.

Author Contributions

YG performed the literature search and subsequent analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AW and TS contributed to conception and design of the study, as well as to redrafting the manuscript during the review process. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

This paper was written within the context of the German ELoFoS research project on Efficient Lowering of Food waste in the Out-of-home Sector. The project ELoFoS was supported by funds of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) based on a decision of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany via the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) under the innovation support programme (funding number 281A103416).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/action-implementation_en

2. ^ https://elofos.de

Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hooge, I. E., de Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Grønhøj, A., et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – A multiple case study. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Asselin-Balençon, A. C., and Jolliet, O. (2014). Metrics and indices to assess the life cycle costs and greenhouse gas impacts of a dairy digester. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 98–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.024

Bellemare, M. F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H. H., Novak, L., and Rudi, J. (2017). On the measurement of food waste. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99, 1148–1158. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aax034

Beretta, C., Stucki, M., and Hellweg, S. (2017). Environmental impacts and hotspots of food losses: value chain analysis of swiss food consumption. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 11165–11173. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06179

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Britz, W., Dudu, H., and Ferrari, E. (2014). “Economy-wide impacts of food waste reduction: a general equilibrium approach,” in Agri-Food and Rural Innovations for Healthier Societies: EAAE 2014 Congress (Ljubljana).

Google Scholar

Brown, T., Hipps, N. A., Easteal, S., Parry, A., and Evans, J. A. (2014a). Reducing domestic food waste by freezing at home. Int. J. Refrig. 40, 362–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.12.009

Brown, T., Hipps, N. A., Easteal, S., Parry, A., and Evans, J. A. (2014b). Reducing domestic food waste by lowering home refrigerator temperatures. Int. J. Refrig. 40, 246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.11.021

Caldeira, C., Corrado, S., and Sala, S. (2017). Food Waste Accounting: Methodologies, Challenges and Opportunities: JRC Technical Reports . Ispra: EC-JRC, European Commission Joint Research Centre.

Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., and Blasi, E. (2016). The value of food waste: an exploratory study on retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Services 30, 96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004

City of Hillsboro (2010). Food Waste Prevention Case Study: Intel Corporation's Cafés. City of Hillsboro.

Clowes, A., Hanson, C., and Swannell, R. (2019). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Restaurants . Champions 12.3.

Clowes, A., Mitchell, P., and Hanson, C. (2018a). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Catering . Champions 12.3.

Clowes, A., Mitchell, P., and Hanson, C. (2018b). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Hotels . Champions 12.3.

Comber, R., and Thieme, A. (2013). Designing beyond habit: opening space for improved recycling and food waste behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence and aversive affect. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 17, 1197–1210. doi: 10.1007/s00779-012-0587-1

Corrado, S., Caldeira, C., Eriksson, M., Hanssen, O. J., Hauser, H.-E., van Holsteijn, F., et al. (2019). Food waste accounting methodologies: challenges, opportunities, and further advancements. Glob. Food Secur. 20, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.002

Corrado, S., and Sala, S. (2018). Food waste accounting along global and European food supply chains: state of the art and outlook. Waste Manage. 79, 120–131. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.032

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

De Menna, F., Dietershagen, J., Loubiere, M., and Vittuari, M. (2018). Life cycle costing of food waste: a review of methodological approaches. Waste Manage. 73, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032

De Menna, F., Loubiere, M., Dietershagen, J., Unger, N., and Vittuari, M. (2016). Methodology for Evaluating LCC. Deliverable 5.2, REFRESH.

Defra (2012). Waste Prevention Actions for Priority Wastes. Economic Assessment Through Marginal Abatement Cost Curves . Final report, Defra.

Dias-Ferreira, C., Santos, T., and Oliveira, V. (2015). Hospital food waste and environmental and economic indicators–A Portuguese case study. Waste Manage. 46, 146–154. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.025

EC-JRC (2018a). “Collection and assessment of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation, 19.03.2018,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2018 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20180319_sub-ai_pres-04.pdf (accessed May 08, 2019).

EC-JRC (2018b). “Framework for the assessment of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2018 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20181001_sub-ai_pres-05.pdf

EC-JRC (2019). “Collection and evaluation of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2019 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20190318_sub-ai_pres-01.pdf (accessed May 08, 2019).

Ellison, B., Nehrling, E. W., Nikolaus, C. J., and Duff, B. R. L. (2017). Evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a University Dining Hall. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49, S9–S10. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.05.032

EPA (2016). Food: Too Good To Waste. An Evaluation Report for the Consumption Workgroup of the West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum, EPA.

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., and Hansson, P.-A. (2016). Food waste reduction in supermarkets – net costs and benefits of reduced storage temperature. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 107, 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.022

EU FLW (2017). Roadmap for the ‘Action and Implementation' Sub-Group: Key Milestones and Deliverables . EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste (FLW).

FAO (2013a). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources . Summary Report, FAO.

FAO (2013b). Toolkit - Reducing the Food Wastage Footprint . FAO.

FAO (2014). Food Wastage Footprint: Full-Cost Accounting . Final Report, FAO.

FAO (2015). Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change . FAO.

FUSIONS (2016). Estimates of European Food Waste Levels . FUSIONS.

Gustavvson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., and Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention . Rome: FAO.

Hanson, C., and Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste . Champions 12.3.

HLPE (2014). Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems . HLPE.

Huber-Humer, M., Scherhaufer, S., Obersteiner, G., and Unger, N. (2017). “Selected material stocks and flows: food waste (Section 3.9),” in Circular Economy - A Fact Book on the Circular Economy , ed C. Scharff (Vienna: Circular Economy Coalition for Europe (CEC4Europe)).

Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., and Rebitzer, G. (2008). Environmental Life Cycle Costing . Hoboken, NJ: CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/9781420054736

Investopedia (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-benefitanalysis.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Investopedia (2019a). Pay-Back Period . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paybackperiod.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Investopedia (2019b). Return on Investment (ROI) . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Kallbekken, S., and Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging' hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Econ. Lett. 119, 325–327. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019

Kim, M.-H., Song, Y.-E., Song, H.-B., Kim, J.-W., and Hwang, S.-J. (2011). Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: jungnang case, South Korea. Waste Manage. 31, 2112–2120. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.019

Koester, U., Loy, J.-P., and Ren, Y. (2018). Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste – Reconsidered . IAMO Policy Brief, 34.

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: Projektförderung . Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE).

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

Leverenz, D., Pilsl, P., and Hafner, G. (2016). “Entwicklung einer Anwendung zur Erfassung, Bewertung und Vermeidung von Lebensmittelabfällen in gastronomischen Einrichtungen,” in 6. Wissenschaftskongress “Abfall- und Ressourcenwirtschaft” 2016 (Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Abfallwirtschaft DGAW).

Lynnerup, D. (2016). Mindre Madspild ved Anvendelse af 2. Sorterings Grøntsager i Storkøkkener: Less Food Waste by Using 2nd Grade Vegetables in Industrial Kitchens . Copenhagen: Ministry of Evironment (Miljøstyrelsen).

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M. A., and Astrup, T. F. (2015). Life cycle costing of waste management systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Manage. 36, 343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., and Astrup, T. F. (2016). Life-cycle costing of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4513–4523. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03536

Navarro, D. A., Boaz, M., Krause, I., Elis, A., Chernov, K., Giabra, M., et al. (2016). Improved meal presentation increases food intake and decreases readmission rate in hospitalized patients. Clin. Nutr. 35, 1153–1158. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.09.012

Östergren, K., Gustavvson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hanssen, O. J., Møller, H., et al. (2014). FUSIONS Definitional Framework for Food Waste: Full Report . FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies), EU FP7 Project.

Pirani, S. I., and Arafat, H. A. (2014). Solid waste management in the hospitality industry: a review. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 320–336. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.038

ReFED (2016a). A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20%. ReFED.

ReFED (2016b). A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20% . Technical Appendix, ReFED.

ReFED (2018). Restaurant Food Waste Action Guide . ReFED.

Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., et al. (2019). Review: consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions - What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 83, 7–27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009

Ribeiro, I., Sobral, P., Peças, P., and Henriques, E. (2018). A sustainable business model to fight food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 262–275. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.200

Rutten, M., Nowicki, P., Bogaardt, M.-J., and Aramyan, L. (2013). Reducing Food Waste by Households and in Retail in the EU – A Prioritisation Using Economic, Land Use and Food Security Impacts . LEI Wageningen UR.

Salemdeeb, R., Font Vivanco, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., and Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. (2017). A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manage. 59, 442–450. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.042

Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., and Obersteiner, G. (2018). Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe . New York, NY: Waste Management.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Schmidt, T., Baumgartd, S., Blumenthal, A., Burdick, B., Claupein, E., Dirksmeyer, W., et al. (2018). Wege zur Reduzierung von Lebensmittelabfällen - Pathways to Reduce Food Waste (REFOWAS). Dritter Zwischenbericht zu Nr. 3.1 BNBest-BMBF 98 . Thünen Institute/REFOWAS Project.

Schneider, F. (2013). Review of food waste prevention on an international level. Proc. Instit. Civil Eng. 166, 187–203. doi: 10.1680/warm.13.00016

Snels, J., and Wassenaar, N. (2011). Maaltijdservice Máx à la Carte. Effecten van een Nieuw Maaltijdconcept Binnen Máxima Medisch Centrum . Wageningen: UR Food & Biobased Research.

Stöckli, S., Dorn, M., and Liechti, S. (2018a). Normative prompts reduce consumer food waste in restaurants. Waste Manage. 77, 532–536. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.047

Stöckli, S., Niklaus, E., and Dorn, M. (2018b). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136, 445–462. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.029

Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klopffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., et al. (2011). Environmental Life Cycle Costing: A Code of Practice . Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology (SETAC).

Teuber, R., and Jensen, J. D. (2016). Food Losses and Food Waste - Extent, Underlying Drivers and Impact Assessment: IFRO Report . Copenhagen: Institute of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO).

Thiagarajah, K., and Getty, V. M. (2013). Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113, 141–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004

Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Kraemer, N., Lawson, S., et al. (2012). ““We've bin watching you”-designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles,” in Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12 , eds J. A. Konstan, E. H. Chi, and K. Höök (New York, NY: ACM Press), 2337–2346. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208394

Wansink, B., and van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J. Exp. Psychol. 19, 320–332. doi: 10.1037/a0035053

Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., and Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015

Williamson, S., Block, L. G., and Keller, P. A. (2016). Of waste and waists: the effect of plate material on food consumption and waste. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1, 147–160. doi: 10.1086/684287

Winnow (2018a). Case Study: Food is Precious for IKEA Gent Which Plans to Halve Food Waste by August 2020. Winnow.

Winnow (2018b). Case Study: See How an IKEA Store in Netherlands Is Saving Over €100,000 Annually by Reducing Food Waste . Winnow.

WRAP (2010). Courtauld Commitment 1 (2005-2010) . Case studies. WRAP.

WRAP (2013a). Courtauld Commitment 2 - Household Food Waste . Technical report, WRAP.

WRAP (2013b). Impact of More Effective Use of the Fridge and Freezer . WRAP.

WRAP (2013c). The Courtauld Commitment, Phase 2. Final Results. WRAP.

WRAP (2013d). The True Cost of Food Waste within Hospitality and Food Service . WRAP.

WRAP (2014). The Hospitality and Food Service Agreement. Signatory Pack Sept . 2014. WRAP.

WRAP (2015). Strategies to Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food Waste. WRAP.

WRAP (2017). The Hospitality and Food Service Agreement . Taking action on waste. WRAP.

WRI (2016). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (Version 1.0). WRAP.

Wunder, S., van Herpen, E., McFarland, K., Ritter, A., van Geffen, L., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2019). Policies Against Consumer Food Waste. Policy Options for Behaviour Change Including Public Campaigns. Background Report, REFRESH Policy Brief, Reducing consumer food waste, D3.4.

Keywords: food waste, prevention, measure, evaluation, performance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability

Citation: Goossens Y, Wegner A and Schmidt T (2019) Sustainability Assessment of Food Waste Prevention Measures: Review of Existing Evaluation Practices. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:90. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090

Received: 04 July 2019; Accepted: 23 September 2019; Published: 10 October 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Goossens, Wegner and Schmidt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yanne Goossens, yanne.goossens@thuenen.de

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Topmost menu

• University of Illinois
• College of ACES

Food Waste: An Introduction to the Issue and Questions that Remain

Food waste is a problem throughout the supply chain and across the globe that is increasingly capturing the attention of policymakers. Gustavsson et al. (2011) estimated that one-third of the food produced for consumption globally is lost or wasted. Within the U.S., Buzby et al. (2014) estimated that 31% of food available at the retail and consumer levels was wasted, which translates to a loss of $161 billion and 141 trillion calories per year (enough calories to feed ~ 193,000,000 people a daily diet of 2,000 calories for a year!) – not to mention the loss of the (scarce) resource inputs like land, water, and energy that went into food production.

How is food waste defined?

Discussions on food waste may also reference the term “food loss”; the terms sound synonymous, but there are distinctions between the two. An ERS report by Buzby et al. (2014) uses the following definitions for food loss and food waste:

• “ Food loss represents the amount of edible food, postharvest, that is available for human consumption but is not consumed for any reason. It includes cooking loss and natural shrinkage; loss from mold, pests, or inadequate climate control; and plate waste.”
• “ Food waste is a component of food loss and occurs when an edible item goes unconsumed, such as food discarded by retailers due to undesirable color or blemishes and plate waste discarded by consumers.”

Efforts to address food loss have been ongoing in developing countries, such as improvements in harvesting and storage technology, biological controls, etc. For more on research addressing food loss (postharvest loss), see Affognon et al. (2015) and Hodges et al. (2011). Conversely, efforts to address food waste have been more recent. The remainder of this article focuses on the more narrowly defined issue of food waste.

What is being done to reduce food waste?

The costs of food waste (economic and otherwise) have driven efforts in both the public and private sectors to reduce food waste along the supply chain. In the public sector, there are national and international initiatives ( U.S. Food Waste Challenge and SAVE FOOD Initiative , respectively) that set waste reduction goals and are designed to facilitate knowledge sharing and best practices for waste reduction across the supply chain. Further, there has been an increase in legislation related to food waste. In the U.S., legislation was introduced to clarify date labeling (“sell by”, “use by”, “best by”, etc.) on food products. In France, a new law was passed that bans supermarkets from throwing away unsold food; instead, they will be required to donate it (Chrisafis, 2016). Although less recent, the South Korean government implemented a volume-based food waste fee system in 2010 where households are forced to pay based on the weight of their waste.

In the private sector, we have also seen the formation of knowledge-sharing groups (e.g., Food Waste Reduction Alliance ). In addition, many technological solutions have been introduced that are designed to help track waste (e.g., LeanPath ), more optimally plan, shop and cook, donate leftovers, and so on (Hutcherson, 2013). Finally, there has been an increase in the selling of “ugly” fruits and vegetables (those fruits and vegetables that would not normally comply with the cosmetic standards required by retailers). The movement is credited to a grocery retailer in France (Intermarche) but has quickly expanded.  Major U.S. retailers such as Walmart and Whole Foods are offering “ugly” fruits and vegetables in their produce sections.  Both efforts are currently in pilot phase, but with the intention to expand (see Godoy, 2016 for more information).

Questions that remain about food waste

While many reports and food waste reduction initiatives in the public and private sectors identify households (consumers) as one of the biggest sources of food waste, there has been little research to understand how households actually make decisions on throwing out food. Further, this decision is rarely framed as an economic decision, with costs and benefits. There are most certainly cases where the decision to waste may be optimal, depending on one’s preferences, incentives, and resource constraints. For instance, an individual may prefer to throw out milk that is several days past the expiration date rather than run the risk of becoming ill. In discussing his household production model, Becker (1965) suggests that Americans should be more wasteful than people in developing countries because the opportunity cost of their time exceeds the market prices of food and other goods. Thus, it will be critical for future research to account for the different factors that play a role in the keep/waste decision to determine the tradeoffs consumers make in this process.

In addition to examining the waste decision in economic terms, it will be important to explore the heterogeneity across consumers when making these decisions. In other words, we may be able to identify that, in general, consumers will be more averse to wasting food when the cost of that food was high or when there is a replacement readily available; however, some types of people may be even more or less responsive to such factors than the average person. Research has already suggested that income may impact a household’s likelihood of wasting food (Becker, 1965; Daniel, 2016; Qi and Roe, 2016); however, other factors such as age, education, SNAP participation, etc. should also be examined. Understanding these differences may enable policymakers or advocacy groups to better tailor educational efforts to high-waste households.

A final question related to household food waste is: how do we motivate households to change their behavior? Though many ideas come to mind (e.g., education campaigns, waste taxes or waste reduction subsidies, changes in portion sizes or packaging), the answer to this question will likely depend on the household waste decision process, so it is imperative to understand this first before making policy recommendations.

Future articles on food waste will provide insight on some of my own research in this area, including preliminary results from an online survey where we attempt to learn more about the household waste decision process. Additionally, I will share information on my ongoing plate waste study in the University of Illinois dining halls.

References:

Affognon, Hippolyte, Christopher Mutungi, Pascal Sanginga, and Christian Borgemeister. 2015. “Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis.” World Development , 66:49-68.

Becker, Gary S. 1965. “A Theory on the Allocation of Time.” The Economic Journal , 75(299):493-517.

Buzby, Jean C., Hodan F. Wells, and Jeffrey Hyman. 2014. “The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States.” USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.

Chrisafis, Angelique. 2016. “French Law Forbids Food Waste by Supermarkets.” The Guardian , Available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/20/486664266/walmart-world-s-largest-grocer-is-now-selling-ugly-fruit-and-veg .

Daniel, Caitlin. 2016. “Economic Constraints on Taste Formation and the True Cost of Healthy Eating.” Social Science & Medicine , 148:34-41.

Godoy, Maria. 2016. “Wal-Mart, America’s Largest Grocer, Is Now Selling Ugly Fruit and Vegetables.” NPR The Salt , Available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/20/486664266/walmart-world-s-largest-grocer-is-now-selling-ugly-fruit-and-veg .

Gustavsson, Jenny, Christel Cederberg, Ulf Sonesson, Robert van Otterdijk, and Alexandre Meybeck. 2011. “Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention.” Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.

Hodges, R. J., J. C. Buzby, and B. Bennett. 2011. “Postharvest Losses and Waste in Developed and Less Developed Countries: Opportunities to Improve Resource Use.” Journal of Agricultural Science , 149:37-45.

Hutcherson, Aaron. 2013. “Waste Not, Want Not: 6 Technologies to Reduce Food Waste.” Food+Tech Connect. Available at https://foodtechconnect.com/2013/10/02/waste-not-want-not-6-technologies-to-reduce-food-waste/ .

Qi, Danyi, and Brian E. Roe. 2016. “Household Food Waste: Multivariate Regression and Principal Components Analyses of Awareness and Attitudes among U.S. Consumers.” PLoS ONE , 11(7): e0159250.

food loss , food waste , SNAP

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Resources for You (Food)

Food Loss and Waste

Social Media Toolkit Help spread the word to your followers and subscribers about the federal joint agency initiative to reduce food waste.

Food Waste Animations Check out animated videos that can help you take action to reduce food waste.

New FDA Food Code Reduces Barriers to Food Donations The FDA recently released 2022 Food Code helps reduce barriers to food donations by clarifying for the first time that food donations from retail food establishments are acceptable as long as proper food safety practices are followed.

Key Steps for Donating Food – For Retail Food Establishments

In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30–40 percent of the food supply. This figure, based on estimates from USDA’s Economic Research Service of food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010. Food is the single largest category of material placed in municipal landfills and represents wasted nourishment that could have helped feed families in need. Additionally, water, energy, and labor used to produce wasted food could have been employed for other purposes. Effectively reducing food waste will require cooperation among federal, state, tribal and local governments, faith-based institutions, environmental organizations, communities, consumers, and the entire supply chain.

New Step in Federal Interagency Collaboration

In May 2024, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) signed the formal agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to renew their Federal Interagency Collaboration to Reduce Food Loss and Waste (FIFLAW). Additionally, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) joined the collaboration as an important federal partner that has an international reach in reducing food loss and waste, marking a significant expansion of the federal collaboration.

This 2024 agreement updates a series of agreements and national strategies that began in 2018, all aimed at improving coordination and communication across federal agencies attempting to better educate Americans on the impacts and importance of reducing food loss and waste.

“The FDA is committed to achieving the goal of a 50% reduction of food loss and waste by 2030 through a whole-of-government approach in collaboration with the USDA, EPA and USAID,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “We also recognize the role that empowered U.S. consumers can play in helping to reach the national food waste reduction goal. We encourage consumers and retailers to use the FDA’s food loss and waste reduction resources including the 2022 Food Code, Tips to Reduce Food Waste and the Food Loss and Waste Social Media Toolkit to bolster their efforts.”

On June 12, 2024 , the FDA, USDA and EPA FDA announced the “ National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics ” as part of President Biden’s whole-of-government approach to tackle climate change, feed people, address environmental justice, and promote a circular economy.

The draft strategy featured four objectives:

• Prevent food loss.
• Prevent food waste.
• Increase the recycling rate for all organic waste.
• Support policies that incentivize and encourage food loss and waste prevention and organics recycling.

Additional Activities

On April 9, 2019, USDA, EPA, and FDA signed a formal agreement with ReFED , Inc. to collaborate on efforts to reduce food waste in the United States. The agencies and ReFED agreed to develop approaches for measuring the success of food waste strategies, advance data collection and measurement efforts, and to participate as appropriate in the Further with Food: Center for Food Loss and Waste partnership, among other activities. The agreement was renewed in September 2021 and will remain in effect for three years.

USDA, EPA and FDA renewed the interagency agreement on June 1, 2024 with the Food Waste Reduction Alliance , representing three major sectors of the supply chain - food manufacturing, retail, and restaurant and food service. Through this partnership, the three agencies formalized industry education and outreach efforts with the Consumer Brands Association, FMI - The Food Industry Association, and the National Restaurant Association, the three founding partners of FWRA. The Alliance pursues three goals: reducing the amount of food waste generated; increasing the amount of safe, nutritious food donated to those in need; and diverting food waste from landfills.

The following are resources to help you do your part to reduce food loss and waste. You play a part in reaching the national food waste reduction goal – to reduce food waste by 50% by the year 2030.

Start using these tips today to reduce food waste, save money, and protect the environment.

Key Steps for Donating Food Information retail food establishments should keep in mind when donating food.

How to Cut Food Waste and Maintain Food Safety Learn how food waste and food safety are connected.

Tips to Reduce Food Waste Learn to reduce food waste at the grocery store or when eating out; in the kitchen while storing and preparing; at home while cooking, serving, and enjoying food with family and friends.

Food Waste Animated Videos Check out animated videos that can help you take action to reduce food waste.

Food Loss and Waste Social Media Toolkit Resources to help you spread the word about reducing food waste. Includes sample social media posts.

Infographics View infographics on a variety of food loss and waste related topics in the "Reducing Food Waste" tab.

Wasted food is a growing problem in our modern society and an untapped opportunity. In 2018 alone, over 63 million tons of food waste were generated in the commercial, institutional, and residential sectors, with only 4 percent managed via composting. EPA estimates that more food reaches landfills than any other single material in our everyday trash, constituting 24 percent of municipal solid waste. EPA works with stakeholders throughout the food system to reduce waste through partnership, leadership and action.

Learn more about Sustainable Management of Food from EPA .

USDA is doing its part to help make preventing food waste the first-best option for farmers, businesses, organizations, and consumers. A large number of USDA programs contribute to this objective, ranging from those supporting market and distributional efficiencies to those educating consumers about safe food storage. Selected new and ongoing activities directly contributing to the reduction of food loss and waste are listed below.

Download the FoodKeeper App – The FoodKeeper app provides guidance on safe handling, preparation, and storage of more than 650 food and beverage items.

Watch USDA Food Loss and Waste Videos – USDA has a food loss and waste playlist in YouTube with Videos in English and Spanish.

Learn about USDA's Food Waste Activities .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Reducing food waste at retail stores—an explorative study.

1. Introduction

2. research methodology, 2.1. sampling, 2.2. interviews, 2.3. data analysis, 3. empirical findings, 3.1. leveraging a comprehensive database and information technology to reduce food waste, 3.2. tailoring demand forecasts to reduce food waste, 3.3. enhancing assortment selection processes to reduce food waste, 3.4. implementing differentiated service levels to ensure on-shelf availability and reduce overstock.

“Returns signal availability ” (B1)

3.5. Tailoring Ordering and Replenishment Process to Reduce Food Waste

3.6. using salvaging and secondary channels to mitigate economic and environmental impact.

“ I wonder why a loaf is only worth half within a space of five minutes? If it is from the day before, okay, but the same day? ” (B4)

4. Discussion of Findings and Managerial Insights

4.1. impact on planning approaches, 4.2. impact on empirical findings, 4.3. impact on retail operations, 5. conclusions and future areas of research, 5.1. summary, 5.2. limitations and future areas of research, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, appendix a. guiding questions for semi-structured interview.

• What is the role and value of the planning system to reduce overstock?
• How do you plan order sizes in the stores? Please explain the procedure of your ordering process for the individual stores (including forecasting, determination of service levels, and replenishment policies).
• Which data are used to determine order sizes (or to make a forecast, respectively)? Which data are helpful?
• Are products prepared or baked directly in the stores? If yes, does this follow a particular strategy? How often are products shipped to the store? Is there a subsequent delivery throughout the day, when specific products are found to be running low?
• How does the assortment policy impact food waste?
• Is there a requirement for certain products to be available by closing time? Which products are these, and why?
• Are products classified, e.g., according to ABC, and do you use it to steer availability?
• Is the assortment regularly streamlined? If yes, why and how?
• Which strategies to counteract excessive returns are you currently pursuing?
• Have you implemented reduction measures in the past? To what extent have these been successful?
• Do you record your availability and return rate and if so, are measures derived from this?
• What is your average return rate (breakdown by product category and/or store, if applicable)?
• What is your view on a “Happy Hour” (sales at a reduced price in a certain timeframe before closing time)?
• Where do you see the biggest challenges in terms of an appropriate return level?
• Are there production-related restrictions that lead to overstocking?
• What happens with the returns currently?
• Do you have any other measures in mind or already in place to proactively reduce food waste? Can you think of any other factors that you believe have a negative impact on the returns rate?
• Number of stores.
• Total annual sales, if not available or confidential processed flour per year.
• Daily assortment (measured in number of products without commodities).
• Food waste level (or return rate, respectively).
• FAO. Food Wastage Footprint—Impacts on Natural Resources: Summary Report ; Food Wastage Footprint; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention ; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World: Safeguarding against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns ; State of the World; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO. Food Wastage Footprint—Full Cost Accounting ; Food Wastage Footprint; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenmarck, Å.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels ; EU-FUSIONS: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klingler, R.; Hübner, A.; Kempcke, T. End-to-End Supply Chain Management in Grocery Retailing ; European Retail Institute: Köln, Germany, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glatzel, C.; Großpietsch, J.; Hübner, A. Higher margins through efficient supply chains. Akzente 2012 , 2 , 16–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broekmeulen, R.A.; van Donselaar, K.H. Managing Retail Food Waste & Markdowns—Increasing Sales and Reducing Waste in the Fresh Supply Chain ; ECR Retail Loss Group: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisend, M. Shelf space elasticity: A meta-analysis. J. Retail. 2014 , 90 , 168–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hübner, A.; Schäfer, F.; Schaal, K. Maximizing Profit via Assortment and Shelf–Space Optimization for Two–Dimensional Shelves. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2020 , 37 , 765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gaur, V.; Honhon, D. Assortment Planning and Inventory Decisions Under a Locational Choice Model. Manag. Sci. 2006 , 52 , 1528–1543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Honhon, D.; Gaur, V.; Seshadri, S. Assortment Planning and Inventory Decisions Under Stockout-Based Substitution. Oper. Res. 2010 , 58 , 1364–1379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Honhon, D.; Seshadri, S. Fixed vs. Random Proportions Demand Models for the Assortment Planning Problem Under Stockout-Based Substitution. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2013 , 15 , 378–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kök, A.G.; Fisher, M.L.; Vaidyanathan, R. Assortment Planning: Review of Literature and Industry Practice. In Retail Supply Chain Management ; International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Agrawal, N., Smith, S.A., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; Volume 223, pp. 175–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canali, M.; Amani, P.; Aramyan, L.; Gheoldus, M.; Moates, G.; Östergren, K.; Silvennoinen, K.; Waldron, K.; Vittuari, M. Food Waste Drivers in Europe, from Identification to Possible Interventions. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mena, C.; Adenso-Diaz, B.; Yurt, O. The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011 , 55 , 648–658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teller, C.; Holweg, C.; Reiner, G.; Kotzab, H. Retail store operations and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 185 , 981–997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lebersorger, S.; Schneider, F. Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures. Waste Manag. 2014 , 34 , 1911–1919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Goodman-Smith, F.; Mirosa, M.; Skeaff, S. A mixed-methods study of retail food waste in New Zealand. Food Policy 2020 , 92 , 101845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cicatiello, C.; Blasi, E.; Giordano, C.; Martella, A.; Franco, S. “If only I Could Decide”: Opinions of Food Category Managers on in-Store Food Waste. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gruber, V.; Holweg, C.; Teller, C. What a Waste! Exploring the Human Reality of Food Waste from the Store Manager’s Perspective. J. Public Policy Mark. 2016 , 35 , 3–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Filimonau, V.; Gherbin, A. An exploratory study of food waste management practices in the UK grocery retail sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 167 , 1184–1194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Buisman, M.; Haijema, R.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. Discounting and dynamic shelf life to reduce fresh food waste at retailers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 209 , 274–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buisman, M.E.; Haijema, R.; Akkerman, R.; Bloemhof, J.M. Donation management for menu planning at soup kitchens. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019 , 272 , 324–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horoś, I.K.; Ruppenthal, T. Avoidance of Food Waste from a Grocery Retail Store Owner’s Perspective. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; Ujang, Z.B. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 76 , 106–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Donselaar, K.; van Woensel, T.; Broekmeulen, R.; Fransoo, J. Inventory control of perishables in supermarkets. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006 , 104 , 462–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. National Strategy for Food Waste Reduction ; German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture: Bonn/Berlin, Germany, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akkaş, A.; Gaur, V. OM Forum—Reducing Food Waste: An Operations Management Research Agenda. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2021; (forthcoming) . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akkaş, A. Shelf Space Selection to Control Product Expiration. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2019 , 28 , 2184–2201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Minner, S.; Transchel, S. Periodic review inventory-control for perishable products under service-level constraints. OR Spectr. 2010 , 32 , 765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Donselaar, K.H.; Broekmeulen, R.A. Approximations for the relative outdating of perishable products by combining stochastic modeling, simulation and regression modeling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012 , 140 , 660–669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Transchel, S. Inventory management under price-based and stockout-based substitution. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017 , 262 , 996–1008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haijema, R.; Minner, S. Improved ordering of perishables: The value of stock-age information. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 209 , 316–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bixler, M.J.; Honhon, D. Exploring the Connections between Backrooms, Inventory Record Inaccuracies, and Waste. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches , 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flynn, B.B.; Sakakibara, S.; Schroeder, R.G.; Bates, K.A.; Flynn, E. Empirical research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 1990 , 9 , 250–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DeHoratius, N.; Rabinovich, E. Field research in operations and supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 2011 , 29 , 371–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bryman, A.; Bell, E. Business Research Methods , 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seuring, S.A. Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2008 , 13 , 128–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brancoli, P.; Lundin, M.; Bolton, K.; Eriksson, M. Bread loss rates at the supplier-retailer interface—Analysis of risk factors to support waste prevention measures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 147 , 128–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goryńska-Goldmann, E.; Gazdecki, M.; Rejman, K.; Łaba, S.; Kobus-Cisowska, J.; Szczepański, K. Magnitude, Causes and Scope for Reducing Food Losses in the Baking and Confectionery Industry—A Multi-Method Approach. Agriculture 2021 , 11 , 936. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pagell, M.; LePine, J.A. Multiple case studies of team effectiveness in manufacturing organizations. J. Oper. Manag. 2002 , 20 , 619–639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trautrims, A.; Grant, D.B.; Cunliffe, A.L.; Wong, C. Using the “documentary method” to analyse qualitative data in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012 , 42 , 828–842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellram, L.M. The use of the case study method in logistics research. J. Bus. Logist. 1996 , 17 , 93–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989 , 14 , 532–550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research ; Observations; Aldine de Gruyter: Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest, G. How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods 2006 , 18 , 59–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jick, T.D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979 , 24 , 602–611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Broekmeulen, R.A.; van Donselaar, K.H. A heuristic to manage perishable inventory with batch ordering, positive lead-times, and time-varying demand. Comput. Oper. Res. 2009 , 36 , 3013–3018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peacock, C. 65 Retail Practices to Sell More, and Waste Less. 2021. Available online: https://www.ecrloss.com/blog/food-waste-and-markdowns/65-practices-to-reduce-waste-and-grow-sales (accessed on 30 November 2021).
• Gläser, J.; Laudel, G. Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente Rekonstruierender Untersuchungen , 3rd ed.; Lehrbuch, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software ; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook ; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990 , 13 , 3–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry , SAGE Focus ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Maanen, J. Qualitative Methodology ; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teigiserova, D.A.; Hamelin, L.; Thomsen, M. Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 706 , 136033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brusset, X.; Bertrand, J.L. Hedging weather risk and coordinating supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 2018 , 64 , 41–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Badorf, F.; Hoberg, K. The impact of daily weather on retail sales: An empirical study in brick-and-mortar stores. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020 , 52 , 101921. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agnew, M.D.; Thornes, J.E. The weather sensitivity of the UK food retail and distribution industry. Meteorol. Appl. 1995 , 2 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hübner, A.H.; Kuhn, H. Retail category management: State-of-the-art review of quantitative research and software applications in assortment and shelf space management. Omega 2012 , 40 , 199–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broekmeulen, R.A.; van Donselaar, K.H. Quantifying the potential to improve on food waste, freshness and sales for perishables in supermarkets. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 209 , 265–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haijema, R.; Minner, S. Stock-level dependent ordering of perishables: A comparison of hybrid base-stock and constant order policies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 , 181 , 215–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aastrup, J.; Kotzab, H. Analyzing out-of-stock in independent grocery stores: An empirical study. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2009 , 37 , 765–789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Donselaar, K.H.; Gaur, V.; van Woensel, T.; Broekmeulen, R.A.; Fransoo, J.C. Ordering Behavior in Retail Stores and Implications for Automated Replenishment. Manag. Sci. 2010 , 56 , 766–784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Federgruen, A.; Heching, A. Combined Pricing and Inventory Control Under Uncertainty. Oper. Res. 1999 , 47 , 454–475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Transchel, S.; Minner, S. The impact of dynamic pricing on the economic order decision. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009 , 198 , 773–789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, D.; Tongarlak, M.H. Converting retail food waste into by-product. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017 , 257 , 944–956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Moraes, C.C.; de Oliveira Costa, F.H.; Roberta Pereira, C.; da Silva, A.L.; Delai, I. Retail food waste: Mapping causes and reduction practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 256 , 12012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Rodrigues, V.S.; Demir, E. Managing Your Supply Chain Pantry: Food Waste Mitigation Through Inventory Control. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2019 , 47 , 97–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raife Meltem, Y.; Coşkun, A. Factors affecting food waste at the downstream entities of the supply chain: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 244 , 118628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liljestrand, K. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017 , 47 , 318–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fisher, M.; Raman, A. The New Science of Retailing: How Analytics Are Transforming the Supply Chain and Improving Performance ; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hübner, A.; Kuhn, H.; Sternbeck, M.G. Demand and supply chain planning in grocery retail: An operations planning framework. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2013 , 41 , 512–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mou, S.; Robb, D.J.; DeHoratius, N. Retail store operations: Literature review and research directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018 , 265 , 399–422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Riesenegger, L.; Hübner, A. Reducing Food Waste at Retail Stores—An Explorative Study. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052494

Riesenegger L, Hübner A. Reducing Food Waste at Retail Stores—An Explorative Study. Sustainability . 2022; 14(5):2494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052494

Riesenegger, Lena, and Alexander Hübner. 2022. "Reducing Food Waste at Retail Stores—An Explorative Study" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052494

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Food Waste Management Research Paper

Abstract Food wastage across the entire food supply chain is an important problem especially when there is growing population pressure as well as endemic poverty across many regions of the world. Surveys reveal that developed nations in general waste greater quantities of food than developing nations or economically weaker sections of society. This implies that public awareness campaigns should be conducted to educate consumers about the issues involve and to illustrate the wastage of resources and energy, as well as adverse environmental impacts, that such wastage causes. A literature review was conducted to critically analyze the extent to which these issues have been addressed by researchers. It was found that cultural and social habits are an important determinant in food wastage, especially for countries such as UAE, where a la carte services result in lower wastage than buffet services due to prevailing social norms. Based on the review a few recommendations were made.

We can write a research on Food Waste Management for you!

Introduction Increasing population across the world and limited resources have made wastage in the food production and consumption supply chain an important issue. Okazaki, Tum, & Flachsbart (2008) defined food waste as “any by-product or waste product from the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food”. On the one hand there is focus on the idea of circular economy, which many economists and planners are advocating, and its role in the minimization and prevention of waste generation. On the other hand every step in the food supply chain, and especially in the hotel, restaurant, and café (HORECA) segment is being closely inspected so that wastage can be reduced at various levels and sustainable levels of consumption can be created (Genovese, et al. 2017). This literature review analyzes some of these issues, including the circular economy, wastage in the food supply chain, and social and economic factors in the UAE leading to such wastage.

Circular Economy The concept of a circular economy refers to a regenerative system which emphasizes recycling of resources through various means. It stands in contrast with the current linear approach to the economy (take, make, dispose) which relies on resource extraction, manufacturing, and consumption with only minimal recycling of used products. The idea of a circular economy is becoming popular because it is evident that resources are not infinite, and that current models of manufacturing or consumption are not sustainable. In its ideal form, the circular economy results in zero-waste value chains and the use of renewable energy so that natural resources are utilized in connected loops rather than being consumed and continually discarded in a linear pattern of flow (Lacy & Rutqvist, 2015). It is expected to lead to the use of goods with natural components, or “nutriments”, which are reabsorbed into the biosphere instead of harming it, while technical components that are not suitable can be repurposed through their reuse and recycle.

One of the critical principles of circular economy is waste management, and for this it has adopted the “waste hierarchy” model originally proposed by the European Union in 1975 (Williams, 2015). It can be described as a ladder with landfills at the bottom and waste prevention at the top, so that an economy progressing from the linear to the circular design climbs the ladder step by step as it gradually becomes more efficient and creates less waste. The model not only conserves resources but also protects the environment by attempting to recover and recycle materials and energy. Implementing the model has several challenges, such as the implementation of waste management strategies, creating appropriate treatment facilities, and applying legal frameworks. According to Singh & Ordonez (2015), this model can be used to complement several categories of “circular” products that help recirculate materials and provide a resource recovery route. They observed that product development from waste, as envisaged in the circular economy, can be a significant challenge especially if the composition of the waste stream cannot be predicted. Another issue identified was that variations in the waste stream, which are often unavoidable, may affect the quality of products manufactured from them and this may adversely affect the competitiveness of the product.

Supply Chain Food supply chain in HoReCa The food supply chain plays an important role in meeting food demand across the world. It has become increasingly longer and more complicated with the progress of technology and caters to consumer segments that often demand local food as well as food grown in and delivered from distant geographical locations. An important part of developing and managing the food supply chain in the hotel, restaurant, and café (HoReCa) segment is food traceability. A series of food scandals over many years involving animal disease, food contamination and poisoning, sustainable production, fraud, and issues regarding production methods including labor issues, have resulted in the implementation of food product traceability measures in this segment, with most food production and supply businesses required to have the expertise to retrieve product history information.

According to Engelseth (2009) developing these capabilities have proven to be challenging both technically and economically. They involve intra- and inter-organizational efforts because products need to be traced form raw-material to finished product; from “sea-to-plate” or “farm-to-fork”. Food supply is the collective responsibility of a network of global business actors supplying foods through managing flows of foods, who also share the collective responsibility for providing information about food products and the relevant features of its supply. To investigate these issues the author conducted a case study involving wholesale supply and distribution of strawberries. He observed that customers are found at two tiers in the supply chains for its various products from the wholesaler’s perspective, with the wholesaler treating distribution centers as its customers representing the first tier. Each distribution center, in turn, has its own customers, such as retailers, kiosks or HORECA business units, representing the second tier of customers. He concluded that for perishable items the aim of the supply chain is to seek to protect the product through rapid transformation. Lehtinen (2012) also suggested that managing food supply chains in this segment represents a unique adaptation of technical product supply and providing information about this supply in a business context and this involves developing competence in product transactions and logistical supply.

Food Supply chain in UAE HoReCa One of the distinguishing characteristics of the HORECA food supply chain in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the demand for halal food or food products that comply with Islamic law – for example, food products that do not contain pork or that contain ritually slaughtered meat. Halal dietary laws determine which foods are permitted or prohibited for Muslims so that it is important to ensure the halal status of the food products in Islamic countries such as the UAE. Spiegel et al. (2012) observed that the UAE apply rules concerning slaughtering and accreditation of Islamic associations and has created the GSM Decree No. 5/1985 which describes hygiene requirements and slaughtering procedures for livestock and poultry. Since meeting all prescribed religious criteria is a complicated task, a combination of audits and laboratory tests is required for verification – for example, the application of a ritual slaughter method is usually evaluated by audits and the use of halal ingredients by laboratory analyses.

According to Laeequddin et al. (2009) some of the key factors that are attributed to the successful supply chain relationship are trust, the level of interaction and commitment of the parties to the relationship, and bargaining power and contracts. Out of these factors trust may be identified as a critical one because building partnership trust is crucial for managing risk. The authors analyzed trust and risk perspectives of supply chain members in the UAE and conducted an empirical study of packaged food products supply chain in the nation. They found that trust is significantly influenced by institutional risk perspectives and suggested that the supply chain members should strive to reduce the partnership risk levels to build trust rather than striving to build trust to reduce the risk. They also found that trust can be considered as a risk coping mechanism as long as risk levels of members are within their bearable limits; when the risk levels exceed their bearable limits the subject of trust turns into risk management/security management. However, the authors cautioned that these findings may be specifically applicable only to the business environment of the packaged food industry in the UAE.

Food Waste phase (as the last phase of food supply Chain) Wastage of food at various stages of the supply chain is a key improvement area because not only does it result in inefficient use of a critically required resources, but also results in unnecessary emission of greenhouse gases and wastage of water and energy. Approximately one third of the food produced on a global basis has been estimated to be lost between the farm and the fork at the same time that there is increased food demand from a growing population. Food wastes affect the health of the population, and have ecological, social and economic effects, making minimization of this waste a key imperative. According to Gobel et al. (2015) this can be achieved through increased levels of cooperation at the various stages of the food supply chain, and especially at its last stage which caters to distribution and consumption of processed and prepared food items. They identified a number of reasons in different categories of food items, including plant based foods (the main cause of wastage was found to be compliance with standards), bread and bakery (the main cause was loss of freshness), milk and dairy foods (the main cause was the production process), and meats (the main cause was compliance with health measures).

According to Parfitt, Barthel, & McNaughton (2010), wastage of food in the last stage of the supply chain, which occurs principally at the consumption stage, has increased over time due to greater consumer choice and an increase in the proportion of disposable income that is spent on acquiring or consuming food. In addition current estimates of food waste at this stage tend to be unreliable because they do not include food fed to pets or sink wastage – according to them as much as 30% of food may be considered to be wasted by being fed to household pets. They also observed that kitchen waste can be divided into avoidable, possibly avoidable and unavoidable types while edible waste can be divided into avoidable and possibly avoidable types. Avoidable food waste was defined as that thrown into bins which was edible prior to disposal; possibly avoidable food waste was defined as food and drink that is consumed by some people and not by others; while unavoidable waste was defined as wastes resulting from the preparation process that is not edible. The authors noted that approximately 150 to 300 kg of food is wasted annually by each household, which amounts to a significantly high quantity at national levels.

Food Waste Preparation waste Food is wasted by households as well as in the HORECA segment both during preparation and after consumption. Quested et al. (2013) stated that reducing this wastage is one of the principal means of alleviating concerns about food and water security in developing nations as well as reducing environmental impacts. They provided the example of the UK, where 30% of the general residual waste steam from households comprises food items, out of which a large proportion is generated during the preparation stage. The authors observed that the wastage levels are significantly lower for residents who are 65 years or older when compared to all other age categories (at least 25% less), which suggests that behavioral models can be applied to households to achieve overall reduction of wastage. For example the Interpersonal Behavior model can be applied to influence waste creating behavior by examining social factors and attitudes of residents, and thereby influencing their intentions and habits. The authors also suggested that changes can be brought in to the retail environment so that customers are induced to buy the right amounts of food and take precautions so that the food items remain at optimal quality during the preparation stage.

Griffin, Sobal, & Lyson (2009) analyzed the food waste stream of a community and found that highest quantities of waste occur during the preparation stage, with improper or prolonged storage being a key contributing factor. They noted that cooks may discard the indelible or partially perished parts of the food item but they may also sometimes discard some of the edible parts (such as skins or seeds) in order to improve sensory attributes during preparations of the food items. This behavior is exacerbated by the availability of cheap food as well as by the tendency among many customers to hoard food items; inadequate knowledge of appropriate storage of different types of food also contributes to wastage during preparation of food. The authors observed that wastage of food at any stage during its preparation or consumption leads to a wastage of the energy spent to produce and distribute it, while wasted food may potentially harm the biophysical environment. In addition landfills may cause air and water pollution or contamination through runoffs or leaching.

Leftover waste While large amounts of food are wasted during preparation, some amounts are also wasted after consumption as leftovers are often thrown out. Leftover food is also sometimes consumed by pets which decreases the potential quantities that could have been consumed by human beings. Like preparation waste, leftover waste is also increased by the wide variety of food items available to consumers in the industrialized nations which often leads to buying in excessive quantities (Lebersorger & Schneider, 2011). A study of food waste in the hospitality sector by Papargyropoulou et al. (2016) revealed that buffet and customer plate leftover in a large restaurant can be as high as 40-45% of the total amount of food served on average, although the amount of waste decreased with an increase in the number of customers due to economies of scale. Buffet service was found to be more wasteful than a la carte service (although buffet had lower amounts of preparation waste), which according to the authors revealed that food waste was determined by the type of service offered, eating habits and cultural values of consumers. In addition buffet service was observed to contain much higher proportion of leftover waste compared to other types of services offered.

Similar wastes in other phases of food supply chain Waste during food manufacturing According to Mirabella, Castellani, & Sala (2014), approximately 39% of food wastage occurs during the manufacturing process in the EU 27 countries. This leads to management problems because it represents loss of valuable resources for the manufacturing industry and also contributes towards increased operations costs because most of the wastes in effluent streams have to be treated before they can be released to the environment or sent for recycling. Some of these wastes, according to the authors, can be reduced by industrial symbiosis, or using wastes from one food industry sector as raw materials for another food sector. Similarly, Priefer, Jorissen, & Brautigam (2016) observed that manufacturing and processing wastes may occur if there is no proper sorting of the input streams or if there are process interruptions, but closer integration between producers, manufacturers and retailers can help minimize some of these losses.

Waste in food retailing The food retail industry has traditionally been acknowledged as one of the main contributors of food waste in the food supply chain (Mena, Adenso-Diaz, & Yurt, 2011). One of the reasons is that the logistic processes in storage, packaging and distribution are geared to standardized products and cannot handle goods with irregular sizes and shapes (Waarts et al., 2011). Lebersorger & Schneider (2014) carried out a survey of food retailing of various sizes during one year to quantify the losses of different categories of food. The authors reported that characteristics of the sales outlets, such as overall sales (individual as well as assorted items), area, and number of purchases made are significantly correlated with food losses. Returned bread was in general found to contribute the most towards wastage, followed by fruits and vegetables, and then by pastry items; the authors, however, cautioned that loss amounts are often divergent across different sized of retail outlets.

Social, economic and technical factors in UAE that lead to food waste in UAE Several social, economic and technological (SET) factors applicable to the hospitality sector in the UAE were examined by Pirani & Arafat (2015). Among social factors, they found that the type of service greatly affects amount of waste generated – for example local culture dictates that it is impolite to finish all food on one’s plate, therefore, a la carte service with its larger portion sizes leads to more wastage than buffet service in the UAE. The type of food served was also found to be a factor, with fresh and raw produce generating more wastes than prepared food. Meat dishes generated the lowest amount of wastage, perhaps reflecting the dietary habits of UAE citizens. Among economic factors, the authors found that more wastes were generated at lavish events such as weddings than at smaller scale events and outlets, which indicated that the economically disadvantaged sections of society tend to waste less food than more advantaged sections. According to Lin et al. (436) some of the technical factors leading to food wastage include mechanization and malfunction of equipment at food processing plants.

Prevention and minimizing strategies in other countries Studies indicate that 40% of all food in the US is wasted, which is a substantially high amount (Pearson & McBride, 2016). Some of the strategies that have been suggested to minimize this wastage include: standardization of waste measurement through a series of steps including goal defining, data gathering, calculating inventory, and reporting the results; increasing the experiential and transactional values of the food served to customers; and create a positive work culture so that employees feel empowered to minimize food wastage. The authors also suggested that food is generally undervalued in the hospitality sector in the US, and there is a need for increasing the awareness of everyone in the sector about the value of food.

Food wastage is an endemic problem at all stages of the food supply chain, from preparation to consumption, and addressing this problem requires diverse approaches and multiple strategies to be implemented. Moreover, industrialized and developed nations waste more food per capita than developing nations. Therefore, strategies for closing the supply chain loop in developed nations should include changing consumer behavior and attitudes towards food. Policies and initiatives should be undertaken to raise awareness of the general public towards food wastage and the consequent impacts on croplands and freshwater bodies, as well as the increase in fertilizer usage to grow more food (Kummu et al., 2012). In addition to public and private initiatives to raise awareness and educate consumers, another strategy is to create precise, optimized legislation for individual food types instead of the broad, one-size-fits-all legislation that many countries have adopted (Halloran et al. 2014). Yet another strategy is to create better infrastructure and improve cooperation between various stakeholder and components of the supply chain so that a more efficient supply process can be created. For example warehouses and storage depots can be improved so that wastage is minimized at the intermediate stages while packaging and storage can be improved to minimize wastage at retail points of sale (Hodges, Buzby, & Bennett, 2011).

Verghese et al. (2051) studied the role that proper packaging can play in reducing food waste, as well as ways of improvement of the present packaging system. They observed that creating appropriate proportion sizes and reducing the confusion over date labels is an important factor, while increased use of retail-ready packaging in stores should also minimize wastage at different stages of the supply chain. They recommended that packaging developers should consider the food and the package in unison and should also develop standardized methods that are easier to implement across the supply chain. An example of closing the loop in the supply chain is the treatment of the waste that has been generated and further recycling into animal feed or compost. A study was conducted by Salemdeeb et al. (871) to examine the benefits of preparing pig feed from recycled food waste in the UK. The authors found that this practice may offer some benefits in terms of public health and the environment, although it would require support from the policy makers and the public.

Adoption and implementation in UAE One of the strategies that may be adopted to minimize food wastage in the UAE is to donate untouched leftover food. For example the Red Crescent Society in the UAE conducts the “Hefth Al Ne’ma” (looking after blessings) program, whereby it picks up such food from a large gathering, such as wedding, when called upon by the participants (Aburawa, 2012). In addition public awareness campaigns should also be conducted, especially among economically stronger sections of the population, which highlights the wastage of resources and negative impact on the environment that food wastage causes. Local cultures and food consumption habits should be utilized to create more effective strategies, for example switching to a la carte events and minimizing buffet events. Marthinsen & Sundt (2012) suggested that this can be achieved through internal dialogues and effective communications between restaurants and hotels and their guests.

It may be possible to recycle food wastes for preparing compost or manure and implement such a solution in the UAE. This can be achieved by adding capacity to the municipal solid waste systems for treatment of food wastes. Using a closed loop heating system and elevated temperatures for pathogen inactivation is likely to be economical and technically feasible, as well as socially acceptable (Pandey et al., 2016).

Recommendation and Conclusion Wastage of food is an important problem in modern society because it leads to wastage of precious resources and energy that could have been better utilized elsewhere. The review of literature revealed that more food is wasted in the developed nations than in the developing ones, while economically stronger sections of the population waste more food than those who are economically weaker. It was also observed that more food is wasted during the preparatory process than after consumption (the leftover phase), while manufacturing and retail phases also lead to considerable wastage. In order to prevent this, it is recommended that appropriate private and public initiatives should be taken to raise public awareness about the issues involved. In addition social factors of the UAE, such as consumption habits and economic criteria, should also be considered. Organizations that collect untouched leftover food should be encouraged and publicized so that customers can reach out to them more often. Hotels, restaurants and eateries should be encouraged to communicate with their customers and carry out private dialogues, and establishments should try to encourage customers to opt for a la carte services more often compared to buffet services. To minimize food waste at various stages of the supply chain, package manufacturers should standardize their packages and should try to optimize food portions. In conclusion, it may be stated that minimizing food wastage requires cooperation from all stakeholders, whether public or private, as well as greater awareness from consumers.

EffectivePapers.com is a professional academic paper writing service committed to writing non-plagiarized custom research papers of top quality. All academic papers are written from scratch by highly qualified research paper writers you can hire online. Just proceed with your order, and we will find the best expert for you!

References Aburawa, A. (2012). Ramadan Food Waste and Green Tips for Cutting it Down. Green Prophet. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hassan_Arafat/publication/282186237_Reduction_of_Food_Waste_Generation_in_the_Hospitality_Industry/links/59e4af570f7e9b97fbf08a41/Reduction-of-Food-Waste-Generation-in-the-Hospitality-Industry.pdf Engelseth, P. (2009). Food product traceability and supply network integration. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 421-430. Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, 344-357. Griffin, M., Sobal, J., & Lyson, T. A. (2009). An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agriculture and Human Values, 26(1-2), 67-81. Gobel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., & Ritter, G. (2015). Cutting food waste through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability, 7(2), 1429-1445. Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294-301. Hodges, R. J., Buzby, J. C., & Bennett, B. (2011). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: opportunities to improve resource use. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1), 37-45. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the total environment, 438, 477-489. Lacy, P. & Rutqvist, J. (2015). Waste to Wealth. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Laeequddin, M., Sardana, G. D., Sahay, B. S., Abdul Waheed, K., & Sahay, V. (2009). Supply chain partners’ trust building process through risk evaluation: the perspectives of UAE packaged food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 280-290. Lebersorger, S., & Schneider, F. (2011). Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Management, 31(9-10), 1924-1933. Lehtinen, U. (2012). Sustainability and local food procurement: a case study of Finnish public catering. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1053-1071. Lin, C. S. K., Pfaltzgraff, L. A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E. B., Abderrahim, S., Clark, J. H., … & Thankappan, S. (2013). Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy & Environmental Science, 6(2), 426-464. Marthinsen, J. & Sundt, P. (2014). Prevention of food waste in restaurants, hotels, canteens and catering. Nordic Council of Ministers. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 648-658. Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2014). Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 28-41. Okazaki, W. K., Turn, S. Q., & Flachsbart, P. G. (2008). Characterization of food waste generators: A Hawaii case study. Waste management, 28(12), 2483-2494. Pandey, P. K., Cao, W., Biswas, S., & Vaddella, V. (2016). A new closed loop heating system for composting of green and food wastes. Journal of cleaner production, 133, 1252-1259. Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., & Ujang, Z. (2016). Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste management, 49, 326-336. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065-3081. Pearson, P. & McBride, M. (2016). Reducing Food Waste in Hospitality through Measurement Programs. WWF. Pirani, S. I., & Arafat, H. A. (2016). Reduction of food waste generation in the hospitality industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 129-145. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43-51. Salemdeeb, R., zu Ermgassen, E. K., Kim, M. H., Balmford, A., & Al-Tabbaa, A. (2017). Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options. Journal of cleaner production, 140, 871-880. Singh, J., & Ordonez, I. (2016). Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 342-353. Spiegel, Van der M., Van der Fels-Klerx, H. J., Sterrenburg, P., Van Ruth, S. M., Scholtens-Toma, I. M. J., & Kok, E. J. (2012). Halal assurance in food supply chains: Verification of halal certificates using audits and laboratory analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 27(2), 109-119. Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S., & Williams, H. (2015). Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packaging Technology and Science, 28(7), 603-620. Waarts, Y. R., et al. (2011). Reducing food waste; obstacles experienced in legislation and regulations (No. 2011-059). LEI, part of Wageningen UR. Williams, I. D. (2015). Forty years of the waste hierarchy. Waste Management, 40, 1–2.

Related Posts:

• The Risk Management Plan
• Article Summary Essay Sample
• Republican Party in Texas Essay