food research paper pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Read our March issue

Debt and hunger, decision support systems, improved rice cultivation, trade-offs in agriculture, food-related health burden, climate and sheep production, fragmented cropland in China… and more!

Hunger, debt and interest rates

Periodic Table of Food Initiative for generating biomolecular knowledge of edible biodiversity

The Periodic Table of Food Initiative addresses food biomolecular composition information gaps through a standardized, accessible and enabling platform based on analytical tools, data and capacity building. Data from 1,650 foods serve as starting point for demonstrating the capacity of this initiative to contribute to nutrition, health and food systems transformations.

• Andy Jarvis
• Jenny Gallo-Franco
• John de la Parra

Health burden from food systems is highly unequal across income groups

High-income groups contribute significantly to air pollution through their food choices, but most of the associated health burden is borne by low-income groups living close to agricultural areas. This study measures this discrepancy along the Chinese food supply chain and examines pathways to reduce it.

• Lianming Zheng
• Wulahati Adalibieke
• Huizhong Shen

Managing fragmented croplands for environmental and economic benefits in China

Using spatial statistics on a detailed land use map, the study highlights the impact of cropland fragmentation in China. Optimizing cropping structures to meet animal food demand or relocating fragmented croplands for large-scale farming can release the potential of the fragmented croplands for increased agricultural productivity and environmental protection.

• Ouping Deng
• Jiangyou Ran

Current issue

On the value of food systems research, decision support tools for agricultural adaptation in africa.

• Todd S. Rosenstock
• Namita Joshi
• Julian Ramirez-Villegas

Heat stress from current and predicted increases in temperature impairs lambing rates and birth weights in the Australian sheep flock

• William H. E. J. Van Wettere
• Seth Westra

A systematic review of the methodology of trade-off analysis in agriculture

• Timo S. Breure
• Natalia Estrada-Carmona
• Jeroen C. J. Groot

Wild fish consumption can balance nutrient retention in farmed fish

• David F. Willer
• Richard Newton
• James P. W. Robinson

Announcements

"How to Save Humanity in 17 Goals"

This podcast series from Nature Careers features researchers whose work addresses the SDG targets. In the second episode, done in partnership with Nature Food, Christopher Golden talks about ‘Blue foods’ and their role in tackling hidden hunger.

'Future of Food' Collection

This collection brings together articles discussing the science and societal implications of engineered food, from genome-edited crops and computer-aided food engineering to cellular agriculture, nanotechnology-enabled plant agriculture and agricultural robotics.

'Food-Water Nexus' Collection

In celebration of the World Food Day 2023, themed “Water is life, water is food”, this Collection brings together research and commentary on water-based food systems, the pressure that food systems exert on the planet’s water resources, and strategies to mitigate these impacts.

Nature Food is a Transformative Journal ; authors can publish using the traditional publishing route OR via immediate gold Open Access.

Our Open Access option complies with funder and institutional requirements .

Advertisement

Latest Research articles

A water-soluble label for food products prevents packaging waste and counterfeiting

Food packaging is an important environmental concern and susceptible to counterfeit-prone labelling. This study presents a newly developed water-soluble food label using nanocomposite ink that addresses these issues.

• Joohoon Kim
• Hongyoon Kim

Agricultural management practices in China enhance nitrogen sustainability and benefit human health

The exact quantification of environmental and human health gains achieved through sustainable nitrogen management is often impaired by real-world data availability. Drawing on an extensive database in China, this study estimates the costs and benefits of combining organic and chemical fertilizers, straw recycling and deep placement of fertilizer.

• Jiakun Duan
• Hongbin Liu

Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products

The transition towards plant-based diets requires supportive market and policy instruments. This study investigates how and the extent to which public funds support animal agriculture by tracking subsidy flows related to the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy across global food supply chains.

• Anniek J. Kortleve
• José M. Mogollón
• Paul Behrens

Phosphorus applications adjusted to optimal crop yields can help sustain global phosphorus reserves

Ongoing depletion rates of phosphorus reserves might pose a challenge to future food security. This Analysis estimates the effects of matching plant-available soil Olsen P concentrations with thresholds for optimal yields of grassland and 28 crops on the longevity of global P reserves.

• R. W. McDowell
• P. Pletnyakov
• P. M. Haygarth

Agri-environmental policies from 1960 to 2022

A lack of systematized information on existing agri-environmental policies poses challenges for research and practice. A new database with more than 6,000 agri-environmental policies implemented over the past six decades around the world helps fill the gap. This information enables the extraction of valuable insights for policymakers, academics and businesses.

• David Wuepper
• Ilsabe Wiebecke
• Robert Finger

Latest Reviews & Analysis

Contribution of fragmented croplands

Cropland fragmentation poses a significant threat to agricultural sustainability in China. Rational crop layout is required for different ecological regions to manage the fragmented croplands.

• Xiaolong Wang

Towards a nutritional balance of fish for feed and fish for food

Wild forage fish can provide nutrients essential for human health, yet some nutrients may be lost when forage fish are used as aquafeeds. Reallocating a third of food-grade forage fish towards direct human consumption can optimize seafood systems to deliver dietary nutrients for feed and food at different scales.

• Richard S. Cottrell

Optimizing organic residue management to improve rice yield and reduce carbon emissions

Returning agricultural organic residues to the soil is imperative for food security and carbon neutrality. We scaled up field findings using machine learning and found that the co-benefits of improved rice yield and reduced net carbon emissions can be realized with integrated management of organic residues and water worldwide.

Complex dynamics between food prices, income and dietary quality in sub-Saharan Africa

In sub-Saharan Africa, where the affordability of a healthy diet remains a pressing concern, recent research offers fresh insights into how food prices and income influence dietary quality. These insights provide a roadmap for targeted food and nutrition policy interventions.

• William A. Masters

Australian assessment highlights global risks for sheep production in a warmer climate

Ambient temperature increases occurring under climate change could induce livestock heat stress, resulting in lambing losses and an estimated economic burden of up to Australian $166 million per annum to the Australian sheep industry.

• Dianne Mayberry
• Angela Lees

Global food security threatened by potassium neglect

• Will J. Brownlie
• Peter Alexander
• Bryan M. Spears

Nutri-Score 2023 update

• Benedikt Merz
• Elisabeth Temme
• Chantal Julia

Health–environment interactions across food systems

• Kate R. Schneider

Quantitative food loss in the global supply chain

• Yuanchao Hu

News & Comment

Personalized nutrition as the catalyst for building food-resilient cities

Data-driven personalized nutrition (PN) can address the complexities of food systems in megacities, aiming to enhance food resilience. By integrating individual preferences, health data and environmental factors, PN can optimize food supply chains, promote healthier dietary choices and reduce food waste. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are essential to implement PN effectively.

• Anna Ziolkovska
• Christian Sina

Every study has limitations; the question is whether it moves the field forward and what this entails for each community.

Seafood access in Kiribati

• Annisa Chand

Carbon dioxide removal with basalt

FAO’s 1.5 °C roadmap for food systems falls short

The first instalment of the FAO food systems roadmap is a key step in identifying pathways to achieve zero hunger without breaching the 1.5 °C climate change threshold. But future instalments should be more methodologically transparent, emphasize the need to reduce animal-sourced food consumption and align with a holistic One Health approach.

• Cleo Verkuijl
• Jan Dutkiewicz
• Matthew Hayek

Trending - Altmetric

Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend

Adoption of plant-based diets across Europe can improve food resilience against the Russia–Ukraine conflict

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, insight on current advances in food science and technology for feeding the world population.

• 1 Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
• 2 Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

While the world population is steadily increasing, the capacity of Earth to renew its resources is continuously declining. Consequently, the bioresources required for food production are diminishing and new approaches are needed to feed the current and future global population. In the last decades, scientists have developed novel strategies to reduce food loss and waste, improve food production, and find new ingredients, design and build new food structures, and introduce digitalization in the food system. In this work, we provide a general overview on circular economy, alternative technologies for food production such as cellular agriculture, and new sources of ingredients like microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers. We present a summary of the whole process of food design using creative problem-solving that fosters food innovation, and digitalization in the food sector such as artificial intelligence, augmented and virtual reality, and blockchain technology. Finally, we briefly discuss the effect of COVID-19 on the food system. This review has been written for a broad audience, covering a wide spectrum and giving insights on the most recent advances in the food science and technology area, presenting examples from both academic and industrial sides, in terms of concepts, technologies, and tools which will possibly help the world to achieve food security in the next 30 years.

Introduction

The capacity of Earth to regenerate its own resources is continuously and drastically reducing due to the exponential growth of the human population ( Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971 ; Henderson and Loreau, 2018 ). Over the last 50 years, the global human population has doubled, while the Earth overshoot day—the day on which humanity has exhausted the annual renewable bioresources of the Earth—has continuously become earlier, reaching its earliest date (July 29) in 2018 and 2019. Exceptionally, the Earth overshoot day was delayed to August 22 in 2020, due to the novel Coronavirus pandemic ( Global Footprint Network, 2020a ) ( Figure 1 ). However, this delay is the result of a pandemic disease and it is not the consequence of any long-term planned strategy, which is still required to improve the sustainability of our society. Bioresources are necessary to feed people. However, the production, including loss and waste of food account for 26% of the human ecological footprint ( Global Footprint Network, 2020b ). This is due to low efficiency in food production coupled with non-optimal waste management. By taking action and promoting sustainable behavior in the entire food chain and among consumers, the Earth overshoot day could be delayed, preserving Earth's regenerative capacity ( Moore et al., 2012 ).

Figure 1 . Earth overshoot day (blue) and global population (orange) evolution over the last 50 years.

By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9.7 billion and ensuring global food security will be a priority ( Berners-Lee et al., 2018 ). The first step toward food security is the reduction of waste and loss of food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), ~1.3 billion tons of food are lost/wasted in the food chain from production to retail and by consumers annually ( Wieben, 2017 ), which highlights the importance of the circular economy and consumer education. In addition, economic barriers should be addressed to give access to healthier and sustainable food to low-income consumers ( Hirvonen et al., 2020 ). However, the reduction of waste and economic barriers is not enough to reach global food security. Indeed, to feed the world population of 2050, food production should increase by 70% ( Floros et al., 2010 ). Additionally, diets should change and rely less on animal products, including more plant-, insect-, and microalgae-based products ( van Huis and Oonincx, 2017 ; Caporgno and Mathys, 2018 ; Lynch et al., 2018 ). This change is necessary as animal-based diets are less sustainable comparatively due to their demand for more natural resources, resulting in more environmental degradation ( Sabaté and Soret, 2014 ). Unfortunately, changing food production and consumption habits is not a straightforward process; it has to be efficient, sustainable, and economically feasible. New food products have to be nutritionally adequate, culturally and socially acceptable, economically accessible, as well as palatable. Moreover, new food products should aim to maintain or improve the health of consumers. Food science and technology can help address these problems by improving food production processes, including novel ingredients from more sustainable sources, and designing new highly-accepted food products.

However, the benefits of consuming novel and upgraded food products is not sufficient to obtain an effect on consumers. Indeed, the acceptability of, and demand for food varies around the world, based on, for example, geographic location, society structure, economy, personal income, religious constraints, and available technology. Food safety and nutritionally adequate foods (in terms of both macro- and micronutrients) are most important in low-income countries ( Sasson, 2012 ; Bain et al., 2013 ), whereas medium- and high-income countries prioritize foods to reduce risk of chronic disease, and functional and environmentally friendly food ( Azais-Braesco et al., 2009 ; Cencic and Chingwaru, 2010 ; Govindaraj, 2015 ). The concept of food has evolved from the amount of nutrients needed by a person to survive on a daily basis ( Floros et al., 2010 ) to a tool to prevent nutrition-related diseases (e.g., non-communicable diseases: type 2 diabetes, coronary diseases, cancer, and obesity), and to improve human physical and mental well-being ( Siró et al., 2008 ), and to slow/control aging ( Rockenfeller and Madeo, 2010 ). Therefore, the development of new food products should consider the needs and demands of consumers. In spite of this, across countries, personal income can limit the access to sufficient food for survival, let alone new and improved food products that have extra benefits.

Coupled to this complex scenario, food demand is also constrained, and affected by human psychology ( Wang et al., 2019 ). The naturally-occurring conservative and neophobic behavior of humans toward new food can lead to nutrition-related diseases due to poor dietary patterns already established during childhood ( Perry et al., 2015 ) and can lead to acceptability problems related to food containing novel ingredients such as insects in Western countries ( La Barbera et al., 2018 ). Additionally, the introduction in our diets of new food products obtained by means of novel technologies and ingredients from food waste and by-products can be undermined by low acceptability caused by human psychology ( Bhatt et al., 2018 ; Cattaneo et al., 2018 ; Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020 ). Therefore, to increase the successful integration of the solutions discussed in this paper into the diet, consumer behavior has to be considered. Finally, it should not be forgotten that food consumption is also determined by pleasure rather than just being a merely mechanical process driven by the need for calories ( Mela, 2006 ; Lowe and Butryn, 2007 ). The latter concept is particularly important when consumers are expected to change their eating habits. New food products developed using sustainable ingredients and processes should be designed to take in consideration sensorial attributes and psychological considerations, which will allow a straightforward transition to more sustainable diets.

The actions needed in the area of food to develop a sustainable society allowing the regeneration of Earth's bio-resources are several. They include changing our eating habits and dietary choices, reducing food waste and loss, preserving biodiversity, reducing the prevalence of food-related diseases, and balancing the distribution of food worldwide. To promote these actions, new ingredients and technologies are necessary ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Challenges/solutions matrix for the development of the food of the future using the most recent advances in food science and technology.

This review discusses the most recent advances in food science and technology that aim to ensure food security for the growing human population by developing the food of the future. We discuss (i) the circular economy, where food waste is valorized and enters back into the food production chain improving the sustainability of the food system and reduces Earth's biodiversity and resources loss; (ii) alternative technologies and sources for food production like cellular agriculture, algae, microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers, which use Earth's bioresources more efficiently; (iii) the design of food in terms of creative problem-solving that fosters food innovation allowing transition to more sustainable and nutritionally adequate diets without undermining their consumer acceptability; and (iv) digitalization in which artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and blockchain technology are used to better control and manage the food chain, and assist the development of novel ingredients and food, boosting the technological shift in the whole food system; (v) we also briefly discuss the effect of COVID-19 on the food supply chain, showing the need to develop a resilient food system.

Food Science and Technology Solutions for Global Food Security

The circular economy.

The unsustainable practice of producing and consuming materials based on the linear (take-make-dispose) economic model calls for a shift toward innovative and sustainable approaches embodied in the principles of the circular economy ( Jørgensen and Pedersen, 2018 ). In contrast to a linear economic model, where materials are produced linearly from a presumably infinite source of raw materials, the circular economy is based on closing the loop of materials and substances in the supply chain. In this model, the value of products, materials, and resources is preserved in the economy for as long as possible ( Merli et al., 2018 ).

Integrated into the food system, the circular economy offers solutions to achieve global food sustainability by minimizing food loss and waste, promoting efficient use of natural resources and mitigating biodiversity loss ( Jurgilevich et al., 2016 ), by retaining the resources within a loop, i.e., the resources are used in a cyclic process, reducing the demand for fresh raw materials in food production. This efficient use of natural resources for food in a circular economy, in turn, helps to rebuild biodiversity by preventing further conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land, which is one of the greatest contributors to biodiversity loss ( Dudley and Alexander, 2017 ).

This measure is highlighted by the fact that an enormous amount of waste is generated at various stages of the food supply chain. Food loss and waste accounts for 30% of the food produced for human consumption globally, translating into an estimated economic loss of USD 1 trillion annually ( FAO, 2019 ). Food loss and waste also takes its toll on the environment in relation to the emission of greenhouse gases associated with disposal of food waste in landfills, as well as in activities associated with the production of food such as agriculture, processing, manufacturing, transportation, storage, refrigeration, distribution, and retail ( Papargyropoulou et al., 2014 ). The various steps in the food supply chain have an embedded greenhouse gas impact, which is exacerbated when food is wasted and lost.

Addressing the challenge of minimizing food loss and waste requires proper identification of what constitutes food loss and waste. The FAO defines food loss and waste as a decrease in the quantity or quality of food along the food supply chain ( FAO, 2019 ). Food loss occurs along the food supply chain from harvest, slaughter, and up to, but not including, the retail level. Food waste, on the other hand, occurs at the retail and consumption level. From the FAO's definition, food that is converted for other uses such as animal feed, and inedible parts of foods, for example, bones, feathers, and peel, are not considered food loss or waste. The Waste and Resources Action Programme ( Quested and Johnson, 2009 ), a charity based in the UK, has defined and categorized food waste as both avoidable and unavoidable. Avoidable food waste includes food that is still considered edible but was thrown away, such as vegetables or fruits that do not pass certain standards, leftover food, and damaged stock that has not been used. Unavoidable food waste arises from food preparation or production and includes those by-products that are not edible in normal circumstances, such as vegetable and fruit peels, bones, fat, and feathers. Despite the lack of consensus on the definition of food loss and waste, the reduction in food loss and waste points in one direction and that is securing global food sustainability.

In a circular food system, the strategies for reducing food waste vary with the type of waste ( Figure 2 ). The best measure to reduce avoidable food waste is prevention, which can be integrated in the various stages of the food supply chain. Preventing overproduction, improving packaging and storage facilities, reducing food surplus by ensuring balanced food distribution, and educating consumers about proper meal planning, better understanding of best before dates, and buying food that may not pass quality control standards based on aesthetics are some preventive measures to reduce avoidable food waste ( Papargyropoulou et al., 2014 ). For unavoidable food waste, reduction can be achieved by utilizing side-stream products as raw materials for the production of new food or non-food materials. The residual waste generated, both from the processing of avoidable and unavoidable food waste, can still be treated through composting, which returns nutrients back to the soil, and used for another cycle of food production ( Jurgilevich et al., 2016 ). Indeed, in a circular food system, waste is ideally non-existent because it is used as a feedstock for another cycle, creating a system that mimics natural regeneration ( Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019 ).

Figure 2 . Strategies to reduce food waste in the food supply chain in a circular food system: prevention for avoidable food waste (yellow curve) and valorization for unavoidable food waste (orange curve).

The valorization of unavoidable food waste, which mostly includes by-products or side-stream materials from the food processing industries, has resulted in novel food technologies that harness the most out of food waste and add value to food waste. These novel food technologies serve as new routes to achieving a circular food system by converting food waste into new food ingredients or non-food materials. Several ongoing examples of side-stream valorization have been explored and some of the most recent technologies are presented herein and summarized in Table 2 .

Table 2 . Summary of potentially functional and nutritional food components from cheese production, meat processing, seafood processing, and plant-based food production by-products.

One of the most famous success stories of side-stream valorization is the processing of whey, the leftover liquid from cheese production. It is an environmental hazard when disposed of without treatment, having a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) value of >35,000 ppm as well as a high chemical oxygen demand (COD) value of >60,000 ppm ( Smithers, 2008 ). These high BOD and COD values can be detrimental to aquatic life where the untreated whey is disposed of, reducing the available dissolved oxygen for fish and other aquatic animals. However, whey is loaded with both lactose and proteins, and therefore in the early days cheese producers sent their whey for use as pig feed, as still occurs in some areas today. As dairy science advanced, it was discovered that lactose and whey protein have great nutritional and technological potential. Lactose and its derivatives can be separated by various filtration and crystallization methods, which can then be used in infant formula or as a feedstock for glucose and galactose production ( Smithers, 2008 ; de Souza et al., 2010 ). Whey protein has also gained popularity for use in sports performance nutrition and as an enhancer of the functional properties of food, and so has experienced a significant increase in demand, both as isolate and concentrate products ( Lagrange et al., 2015 ).

The meat-processing industry produces various by-products that can also be further processed to obtain food ingredients. The plasma fraction of animal blood, which can easily be obtained by centrifugation, contains various plasma proteins, some of which can stabilize colloidal food systems, just like whey proteins. Others, like fibrinogen and thrombin, can act as meat glue and are therefore useful to make restructured meat product. Leftover skin, bones, and connective tissues can be processed to produce gelatin, an important gelling agent, as well as short peptides that impart an umami taste and are used in flavor enhancers. However, the use of non-muscle tissue from farm animals, especially from cows, would require strict toxicology assessment to ensure safety. There is a risk of spreading transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, a deadly disease caused by prion proteins which might spread to humans through the consumption of materials derived from non-meat tissues ( Toldrá et al., 2012 ).

The by-products of the seafood industry also provide great opportunities for valorization, with several known products and many other yet to be discovered. Fish-derived gelatin from leftover fish skin and bones can be presented as a gelatin alternative for several religious groups, for whom cattle- and swine-derived gelatin products are unacceptable ( Karayannakidis and Zotos, 2016 ). Rich in carotenoid and chitin, shells of common seafood such as crabs, lobster, and prawns can be further processed to extract functional ingredients. The extracted chitin from the shells can be treated to produce chitosan, a well-known biopolymer with the potential to be used as food packaging. One can also extract the red carotenoids present in the shells, most prominently astaxanthin, which can then be used as a nutritional and technological food additive ( Kandra et al., 2012 ). The liquid side stream of the fish-canning industry also has potential as a source of bioactive lipids, such as polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids ( Monteiro et al., 2018 ).

The increasing demand for plant-derived functional ingredients to cater for the vegetarian and vegan market can also be complemented with ingredients isolated from plant food processing side streams. Nixtamalization, the alkaline processing of maize, produces wastewater that is highly alkaline with a high COD of 10 200–20,000 ppm but is rich in carbohydrates and polyphenols ( Gutiérrez-Uribe et al., 2010 ). Microfiltration and ultrafiltration methods are used to isolate enriched fractions of carbohydrates and polyphenols from nixtamalization wastewater, which can later be integrated into various subsequent processes ( Castro-Muñoz and Yáñez-Fernández, 2015 ). Waste from the cereal, fruit, and vegetable industry can also be fermented by microbial means to produce various pigments for food production ( Panesar et al., 2015 ). Pigment extraction can also be performed on the leftover waste of the fresh-cut salad industry, which includes leafy vegetables and fruits that are deemed to be too blemished to be sold to the customer. Aside from pigments, such waste can also be a source of natural gelling agents and bioactive compounds that can be refined for further use in the food industry ( Plazzotta et al., 2017 ). Extraction of carotenoids, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds from fruits and vegetables waste as well as from wastewater (e.g., from olive mill) can be achieved using green technologies such as supercritical carbon dioxide, ultrasound, microwave, pulsed electric fields, enzymes, membrane techniques, and resin adsorption ( Rahmanian et al., 2014 ; Saini et al., 2019 ). Additionally, waste from potato processing, such as potato peel and potato fruit juice (a by-product of potato starch production), can yield various polyphenols, alkaloids, and even protein extracts by using different refining methods ( Fritsch et al., 2017 ).

In addition to food waste, there are also other, often unexpected, sources of food ingredients. For example, while wood cannot be considered part of the food industry by itself, the extraction of emulsifier from sawdust can serve as an example of how the waste of one industrial cycle can be used as a feedstock for another industrial cycle and in effect reduce the overall wasted material ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). Straw from grain production, such as barley and wheat, can also be processed to extract oligosaccharides to be used as prebiotic additives into other food matrices ( Huang et al., 2017 ; Alvarez et al., 2020 ). While young bamboo shoots have been commonly used in various Asian cuisines, older bamboo leaves can also act as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants, which can be used to fortify food with bioactive compounds ( Ni et al., 2012 ; Nirmala et al., 2018 ).

Alternative Technologies and Sources for Food Production

To feed the growing population, the circular economy concept must be combined with increasing food production. However, food production has been impaired by depletion of resources, such as water and arable land, and by climate change. Projections indicate that 529,000 climate-related deaths will occur worldwide in 2050, corresponding with the predicted 3.2% reduction in global food availability (including fruits, vegetables, and red meat) caused by climate change ( Springmann et al., 2016 ). Strategies to overcome food production issues have been developed and implemented that aim to improve agricultural productivity and resource use (vertical farming and genetic modification), increase and/or tailor the nutritional value of food (genetic engineering), produce new alternatives to food and/or food ingredients (cellular cultures, insects, algae, and dietary fibers), and protect biodiversity. Such solutions have been designed to supply current and future food demand by sustainably optimizing the use of natural resources and boosting the restructuration of the food industry models ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . A view of future food based on current prospects for optimizing the use of novel techniques, food sources, and nutritional ingredients.

Cellular agriculture is an emerging field with the potential to increase food productivity locally using fewer resources and optimizing the use of land. Cellular agriculture has the potential to produce various types of food with a high content of protein, lipids, and fibers. This technique can be performed with minimal or no animal involvement following two routes: tissue engineering and fermentation ( Stephens et al., 2018 ). In the tissue engineering process, cells collected from living animals are cultured using mechanical and enzymatic techniques to produce muscles to be consumed as food. In the case of the fermentation process, organic molecules are biofabricated by genetically modified bacteria, algae, or yeasts, eliminating the need for animal cells. The Solar Foods company uses the fermentation process to produce Solein, a single-cell pure protein ( https://solarfoods.fi/solein/ ). This bioprocess combines the use of water, vitamins, nutrients, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from air, and solar energy to grow microorganisms. After that, the protein is obtained in powder form and can be used as a food ingredient. Most of the production in cellular agriculture has been focused on animal-derived products such as beef, chicken, fish, lobster, and proteins for the production of milk and eggs ( Post, 2014 ; Stephens et al., 2018 ). Compared with traditional meat, the production of cultured meat can (i) reduce the demand for livestock products, (ii) create a novel nutrition variant for people with dietary restrictions, (iii) favor the control and design of the composition, quality, and flavor of the product, and (iv) reduce the need for land, transportation costs (it can be produced locally), waste production, and greenhouse gas emissions ( Bhat and Fayaz, 2011 ). Moreover, the controlled production of cultured meat can eliminate the presence of unwanted elements, such as saturated fat, microorganisms, hormones, and antibiotics ( Bhat and Fayaz, 2011 ). One of the most important events for cultured meat took place in a 2013 press conference in London, when cultured beef burger meat was tasted by the public for the first time ( O'Riordan et al., 2017 ). After this, cultured meat has inspired several start-ups around the world and some examples are presented in Table 3 ( Clean Meat News Australia, 2019 ).

Table 3 . Examples of start-ups producing different cultured products around the world.

However, cellular agriculture has the potential to produce more than only animal-derivative products. A recent study conducted by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland explored the growing of plant cell cultures from cloudberry, lingonberry, and stoneberry in a plant growth medium. The cells were described to be richer in protein, essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, sugars, and dietary fibers than berry fruits, and additionally to have a fresh odor and flavor ( Nordlund et al., 2018 ). Regarding their use, berry cells can be used to replace berry fruits in smoothies, yogurt, jam, etc. or be dried and incorporated as ingredients in several preparations (e.g., cakes, desserts, and toppings).

Insects are potentially an important source of essential nutrients such as proteins, fat (including unsaturated fatty acids), polysaccharides (including chitin), fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Edible insects are traditionally consumed in different forms (raw, steamed, roasted, smoked, fried, etc.) by populations in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia ( Duda et al., 2019 ; Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). The production of edible insects is highly efficient, yielding various generations during the year with low mortality rates and requiring only little space, such as vertical systems ( Ramos-Elorduy, 2009 ). Additionally, the cultivation of edible insects utilizes very cheap materials, usually easily found in the surrounding area. Indeed, insects can be fed by food waste and agricultural by-products not consumed by humans, which fits well in the circular bioeconomy models (section The circular economy). The introduction of insect proteins could diversify and create more sustainable dietary alternatives. However, the resistance of consumers to the ingestion of insects needs to be overcome ( La Barbera et al., 2018 ). The introduction of insects in the form of powder or flour can help solve consumer resistance ( Duda et al., 2019 ; Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). Several technologies are used to transform insect biomass into food ingredients, including drying processes (freeze-drying, oven-drying, fluidized bed drying, microwave-drying, etc.) and extraction methods (ultrasound-assisted extraction, cold atmospheric pressure plasma, and dry fractionation) ( Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). Recently, cricket powder was used for enriching pasta, resulting in a significant increase in protein, fat, and mineral content, and additionally improving its texture and appearance ( Duda et al., 2019 ). Chitin, extracted from the outer skeleton of insects, is a precursor for bioactive derivatives, such as chitosan, which presents potential to prevent and treat diseases ( Azuma et al., 2015 ; Kerch, 2015 ). Regenerated chitin has been recognized as a promising emulsifier ( Xiao et al., 2018 ), with potential applications including stabilizing yogurt, creams, ice cream, etc. Whole insects, insect powder, and food products from insects such as flavored snacks, energy bars and shakes, and candies are already commercialized around the world. However, food processing and technology is currently needed to help address consumer neophobia and meet sensory requirements ( Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ).

Algae and microalgae are a source of nutrients in various Asian countries ( Priyadarshani and Rath, 2012 ; Wells et al., 2017 ; Sathasivam et al., 2019 ), that can be consumed as such (bulk material) or as an extract. The extracts consists of biomolecules that are synthesize more efficiently than plants ( Torres-Tiji et al., 2020 ). Some techniques used for improving algae and microalgae productivity and their nutritional quality are genotype selection, alteration, and improvement, and controlling growing conditions ( Torres-Tiji et al., 2020 ). Although their direct intake is more traditional (e.g., nori used in sushi preparation), in recent years the extraction of bioactive compounds from algae and microalgae for the preparation of functional food has attracted great interest. Spirulina and Chlorella are the most used microalgae species for this purpose, being recognized by the European Union for uses in food ( Zarbà et al., 2020 ). These microalgae are rich in proteins (i.e., phycocyanin), essential fatty acids (i.e., omega-3, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid), β-glucan, vitamins from various groups (e.g., A, B, C, D2, E, and H), minerals like iodine, potassium, iron, magnesium, and calcium, antioxidants (i.e., ß-carotene), and pigments (i.e., astaxanthin) ( Priyadarshani and Rath, 2012 ; Vigani et al., 2015 ; Wells et al., 2017 ; Sathasivam et al., 2019 ). The latter molecules can be recovered using, for example, pulsed electric field, ultrasound, microwaves, and supercritical CO 2 ( Kadam et al., 2013 ; Buchmann et al., 2018 ).

Finally, in addition to proteins, lipids, and digestible carbohydrates, it is necessary to introduce fiber in to the diet. Dietary fibers include soluble (pectin and hydrocolloids) and insoluble (polysaccharides and lignin) fractions, which are usually obtained through the direct ingestion of fruits, vegetables, cereals, and grains ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ). Although appropriate dietary fiber intake leads to various health benefits, the proliferation of low fiber foods, especially in Western countries resulted in low dietary intake ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ; Anderson et al., 2009 ). This lack of consumed dietary fibers created the demand for fiber supplementation in functional foods ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ; Doyon and Labrecque, 2008 ). As additives, besides all benefits in health and well-being, dietary fibers contribute to food structure and texture formation ( Sakagami et al., 2010 ; Tolba et al., 2011 ; Jones, 2014 ; Aura and Lille, 2016 ).

Sources of dietary fibers include food crops (e.g., wheat, corn, oats, sorghum, oat, etc.), vegetables/fruits (e.g., apple and pear biomasses recovered after juicing process, orange peel and pulp, pineapple shells, etc.) ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ) and wood ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). The use of plant-based derivatives and waste aligns with the circular bioeconomy framework and contributes to the sustainability of the food chain.

It is worth mentioning that new and alternative sources of food and food ingredients require approval in the corresponding regulatory systems before commercialization. In Europe, safety assessment is carried out according to the novel food regulation of the European Union [Regulation (EU) 2015/2283]. Important aspects such as composition, stability, allergenicity, and toxicology should be evaluated for each new food or food ingredient ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). Such regulatory assessments are responsible for guaranteeing that new food and food ingredients are safe for human consumption.

Food Design

Humans are at the center of the food supply ecosystem, with diverse and dynamic expectations. To impart sustainability in food supply by utilizing novel materials and technologies discussed in the preceding chapters, the framework of food production and consumption should go beyond creating edible objects and integrate creativity to subvert neophobic characteristics of consumers and enhance acceptability of sustainable product innovations. These innovations should also consider changing consumer demographics, lifestyle and nutritional requirements. Food design is a newly practiced discipline to foster human-centric innovation in the food value chain by applying a design thinking process in every step of production to the disposal of food ( Olsen, 2015 ). The design concept utilizes the core ideas of consumer empathy, rapid prototyping, and mandate the collaboration of a multitude of sectors involved in designing food and the distribution of food to the space where we consume it ( Figure 4 ) ( Zampollo, 2020 ).

Figure 4 . Neural network graphical representation of the major disciplines (black dots) in the food design concept and their interconnections. Sub-disciplines arising through communion of ideas of some major disciplines indicated by gray dots.

The sub-discipline of food product design relates to the curation of food products from a technological perspective utilizing innovative process and structured engineering methodologies to translate consumer wishes into product properties. In the future, food producers need to shift their focus from the current conventional approach of mass production, to engineering of food products that emphasizes food structure-property-taste. Through food product design, it is possible to influence the health of consumers by regulating nutrient bioavailability, satiety, gut health, and developing feelings of well-being, as well as encompass consumer choice by modulating consumers sensorial experience. These aspects become important with the introduction of new materials and healthy alternatives where the neophobic characteristic of humans can lead to poor food choices and eating habits due to consumer prejudices or inferior sensorial experience. For example, environmental concerns related to meat substitutes were less relevant for consumers, and sensorial properties were the decisive factor ( Hoek et al., 2011 ; Weinrich, 2019 ). In this regard, food designers and chefs will have an important role in influencing sustainable and healthy eating choices by increasing the acceptability of food products, using molecular gastronomy principles. Innogusto ( www.innogusto.com ), a start-up founded in 2018, aims to develop gastronomic dishes based on meat substitutes to increase their acceptability.

To stimulate taste sensations, electric and thermal energy have been studied, referred to as “digital taste” ( Green and Nachtigal, 2015 ; Ranasinghe et al., 2019 ). For example, reducing the temperature of sweet food products can increase sweet taste adaptation and reduce sweetness intensity ( Green and Nachtigal, 2015 ). On the other hand, electric taste augmentation can modulate the perception of saltiness and sourness in unsalted and diluted food products leading to a possible reduction of salt ( Ranasinghe et al., 2019 ). Another external stimulus that can modify the sensorial experience during food consumption, is social context. In this case, interaction with other people leads to a resonance “mirror” mechanism, that allow people to tune in to the emotions of others. Indeed, positive emotions such as happiness increase the desirability and acceptability of food, contrarily to neutral and negative emotions (angriness) ( Rizzato et al., 2016 ). Also, auditory responses such as that to background music, referred to as “sonic seasoning” ( Reinoso Carvalho et al., 2016 ) have been studied in the context of desirability and overall perception of food. Noise is able to reduce the perception of sweetness and enhance the perception of an umami taste ( Yan and Dando, 2015 ). Bridging the interior design concepts with the sensory perception in a holistic food space design is an interesting opportunity to influence healthy habits and accommodate unconventional food in our daily lives.

Food packaging which falls under the Design for food sub-discipline is expected to play an integral role to tackle issues of food waste/loss. Potential solutions to food waste/loss at the consumers level can be realized by the design of resealable packages, consideration of portion size, clear labeling of “best by” and expiration dates, for example. Although a clear understanding on the interdependency of food waste and packaging design in the circular economy has not yet been established, the design of smart packaging to prolong shelf life and quality of highly perishable food like fresh vegetables, fruits, dairy, and meat products has been considered the most efficient option ( Halloran et al., 2014 ). Packaging is a strong non-verbal medium of communication between product designers and consumers which can potentially be used to favor the consumption of healthier and sustainable options ( Plasek et al., 2020 ). Packaging linguistics has shown differential effect on taste and quality perceptions ( Khan and Lee, 2020 ), whereas designs have shown to create emotional attachment to the product surpassing the effect of taste ( Gunaratne et al., 2019 ). Visual stimuli such as weight, color, size, and shape of the food containers have been linked to the overall liking of the food ( Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2011 ; Harrar and Spence, 2013 ). Food was perceived to be dense with higher satiety when presented in heavy containers compared with light-weighted containers ( Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2011 ).

In light of emerging techniques in food production, it is envisioned that technologies like 3D printing, at both the industrial and household level, will be widely used to design food and recycle food waste ( Gholamipour-Shirazi et al., 2020 ). Upprinting Food ( https://upprintingfood.com/ ), a start-up company, has initiated the production of snacks from waste bread using 3D printing. These initiatives will also encourage the inclusion of industrial side streams (discussed in section the circular economy) in the mainstream using novel technologies. In addition to the increasing need for healthy food, it is envisioned that the food industry will see innovation regarding personalized solutions ( Poutanen et al., 2017 ). In the latter, consumers will be at the center of the food production system, where they can choose food that supports their personal physical and mental well-being, and ethical values. Techniques such as 3D printers can be applied in smart groceries and in the home, where one can print personalized food ( Sun et al., 2015 ) inclusive of molecular gastronomy methods ( D'Angelo et al., 2016 ). A challenge will be to incorporate the food structure-property-taste factor in such systems. In a highly futuristic vision, concepts of personalized medicine are borrowed to address the diverse demands of food through personalized or “smart” food, possibly solving food-related diseases, while reducing human ecological footprint.

Digitalization

Many major challenges faced by global food production, as discussed previously and presented in Table 1 (eating habits and dietary choices, food waste and loss, biodiversity, diseases, and resource availability), can be addressed by food system digitalization. The most recent research advances aim to overcome these challenges using digitalization (summarized in Table 4 and Figure 5 ). The rapidly advancing information and communication technology (ICT) sector has enabled innovative technologies to be applied along the agri-food chain to meet the demands for safe and sustainable food production (i.e., traceability) ( Demartini et al., 2018 ; Raheem et al., 2019 ).

Table 4 . Recent research advances in digitalization solutions to overcome challenges in global food production.

Figure 5 . Digitalization solutions for the development of future food. Red area represents digitalization-enabled targets. IoT, Internet of Things; ML, Machine Learning; RFID, Radio Frequency Identification; AI, Artificial Intelligence.

An interesting part of ICT is artificial intelligence (AI). The latter is a field of computer science that allows machines, especially computer systems, to have cognitive functions like humans. These machines can learn, infer, adapt, and make decisions based on collected data ( Salah et al., 2019 ). Over the past decade, AI has changed the food industry in extensive ways by aiding crop sustainability, marketing strategies, food sales, eating habits and preferences, food design and new product development, maintaining health and safety systems, managing food waste, and predicting health problems associated with food.

Digitalization can be used to modify our perception of food and help solve unsustainable eating behaviors. It is hoped that a better insight into how the neural network in the human brain works upon seeing food can be discovered using AI in the future and can thus direct consumer preference toward healthier diets. Additionally, it can be used to assist the development of new food structures and molecules such as modeling food gelling agents (e.g., using fuzzy modeling to predict the influence of different gum-protein emulsifier concentration on mayonnaise), and the design of liquid-crystalline food (by predicting the most stable liquid crystalline phases using predictive computer simulation tool based on field theory) ( Mezzenga et al., 2006 ; Ghoush et al., 2008 ; Dalkas and Euston, 2020 ). In addition, the development of aroma profiles can be explored using AI. Electronic eyes, noses, and tongues can analyze food similarly to sensory panelists and help in the optimization of quality control in food production ( Loutfi et al., 2015 ; Nicolotti et al., 2019 ; Xu et al., 2019 ). Companies like Gastrograph AI ( https://gastrograph.com/ ) and Whisk ( https://whisk.com/ ) are using AI and natural language processing to model consumer sensory perception, predict their preferences toward food and beverage products, map the world's food ingredients, and provide specific advertisements based on consumer personalization and preferences.

With the advancement of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), in the future, digitalization can offer obesity-related solutions, where consumers can eat healthy food while simultaneously seeing unhealthy desirable food. This possibility has been studied by Okajima et al. (2013) using an AR system to change visual food appearance in real time. In their study, the visual appearance of food can highly influence food perception in terms of taste and perceived texture.

AI also provides a major solution to food waste problems by estimating food demand quantity, predicting waste volumes, and supporting effective cleaning methods by smart waste management ( Adeogba et al., 2019 ; Calp, 2019 ; Gupta et al., 2019 ).

AI-enabled agents, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, and blockchain technology can be combined to maximize the supply network and increase the revenue of all parties involved along the agri-food value chain ( Salah et al., 2019 ). Blockchain is a technology that can record multiple transactions from multiple parties across a complex network. Changing the records inside the blockchain requires the consensus of all parties involved, thus giving a high level of confidence in the data ( Olsen et al., 2019 ). Blockchain technology can support the traceability and transparency of the food supply chain, possibly increasing the trust of consumers, and in combination with AI, intelligent precision farming can be achieved, as illustrated in Figure 6 .

Figure 6 . Digitalization in the food supply chain: intelligent precision farming with artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain. IoT, Internet of Things; ML, Machine Learning. Modified from Salah et al. (2019) and reproduced with permission from IEEE.

The physical flow of the food supply chain is supported by the digital flow, consisting of different interconnected digital tools. As each block is approved, it can be added to the chain of transactions, and it becomes a permanent record of the entire process. Each blockchain contains specific information about the process where it describes the crops used, equipment, process methods, batch number, conditions, shelf-time, expiration date, etc. ( Kamath, 2018 ; Kamilaris et al., 2019 ).

Traceability and transparency of the complex food supply network are continuously increasing their importance in food manufacturing management. Not only are they an effective way to control the quality and safety of food production, but they can also be effective tools to monitor the flow of resources from raw materials to the end consumer. In the future, it will be essential to recognize the bottlenecks of the entire food supply chain and redirect the food resource allocation accordingly to minimize food waste.

The digital tools reviewed here can be combined with all the solutions proposed before, enabling fast achievement of the necessary conditions for feeding the increasing world population while maintaining our natural resources.

The Effect of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic on the Food System

Although the strategies examined in this review can possibly help reaching food security in 2050, the entire food system has been facing a new challenge because of COVID-19 pandemic. Since December 2019, a new severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by a novel Coronavirus started spreading worldwide from China. To contain the diffusion of the novel Coronavirus and avoid the collapse of national sanitary systems, several governments locked down entire nations. These actions had severe consequences on global economy, including the food system.

As first consequence, the lockdown changed consumer purchasing behavior. At the initial stage of the lockdown, panic-buying behavior was dominant, in which consumers were buying canned foods and stockpiling them, leading to shortage of food in several supermarkets ( Nicola et al., 2020 ). However, as the lockdown proceeded, this behavior become more moderate ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ). The problems faced by the food supply chain in assuring food availability for the entire population have risen concerns about its architecture. Indeed, as discussed by Bakalis et al. (2020) , the western world food supply chain has an architecture with a bottleneck at the supermarkets/suppliers interface where most of the food is controlled by a small number of organizations. Additionally, as noted by these authors, problems with timely packaging of basic foods (such as flour) led to their shortage. Bakalis et al. (2020) suggest that the architecture of the food system should be more local, decentralized, sustainable, and efficient. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the food system, indicating that the aid of future automation (robotics) and AI would help to maintain an operational supply chain. Therefore, the entire food system should be rethought with a resilient and sustainable perspective, which can assure adequate, safe, and health-promoting food to all despite of unpredictable events such as COVID-19, by balancing the roles of local and global producers and involving policymakers ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ; Galanakis, 2020 ).

Another problem caused by the lockdown was food waste. Indeed, restaurants, catering services, and food producers increased their food waste due to forced closure and rupture of the food chain ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, consumers become more aware of food waste and strived to reduce household food waste. Unfortunately, the positive behavior of consumers toward reducing food waste has been more driven by the COVID-19 lockdown situation rather than an awareness ( Jribi et al., 2020 ).

COVID-19 has also showed the importance of designing food products that can help boosting our immune system and avoid the diffusion of virions through the entire food chain ( Galanakis, 2020 ; Roos, 2020 ). Virions can enter the food chain during food production, handling, packing, storage, and transportation and be transmitted to consumers. This possibility is increased with minimally processed foods and animal products. Therefore, packaging and handling of minimally processed foods should be considered to reduce viral transfer while avoiding increasing waste. The survival of virions in food products can be reduced by better designing and engineering foods taking into consideration for example not only thermal inactivation of virions but also the interaction between temperature of inactivation, water activity of food, and food matrix effects ( Roos, 2020 ).

Therefore, to reach food security by 2050, besides the solutions highlighted in section (Food science and technology solutions for global food security), it is of foremost important to implement actions in the entire food system that can counteract exceptional circumstances such as the global pandemic caused by the novel Coronavirus.

Conclusions and Outlook

To achieve food security in the next 30 years while maintaining our natural bioresources, a transition from the current food system to a more efficient, healthier, equal, and consumer- and environment-centered food system is necessary. This transition, however, is complex and not straightforward. First, we need to fully transition from a linear to a circular economy where side streams and waste are valorized as new sources of food materials/ingredients, leading to more efficient use of the available bioresources. Secondly, food production has to increase. For this, vertical farming, genetic engineering, cellular agriculture, and unconventional sources of ingredients such as microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers can make a valid contribution by leading to a more efficient use of land, an increase in food and ingredient productivity, a shift from global to local production which reduces transportation, and the transformation of non-reusable and inedible waste into ingredients with novel functionalities. However, to obtain acceptable sustainable food using novel ingredients and technologies, the aid of food design is necessary in which conceptualization, development, and engineering in terms of food structure, appearance, functionality, and service result in food with higher appeal for consumers. To complement these solutions, digital technology offers an additional potential boost. Indeed, AI, blockchain, and VR and AR are tools which can better manage the whole food chain to guarantee quality and sustainability, assist in the development of new ingredients and structures, and change the perception of food improving acceptability, which can lead to a reduction of food-related diseases.

By cooperating on a global scale, we can envision that in the future it may be common to, for example, 3D print a steak at home using cells or plant-based proteins. The understanding of the interaction between our gastrointestinal tract and the food ingredients/structures aided by AI and biosensors might allow the 3D printed steak to be tailored in terms of nutritional value and individual preferences. The food developed in the future can possibly also self-regulate its digestibility and bioavailability of nutrients. In this context, the same foodstuff consumed by two different people would be absorbed according to the individuals' needs. In this futuristic example, the food of the future would be able to solve food-related diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, while maintaining the ability of the Earth to renew its bioresources.

However, the strategies and solutions proposed here can possibly only help to achieve sustainable food supply by 2050 if they are supported and encouraged globally by common policies. Innovations in food science and technology can ensure the availability of acceptable, adequate, and nutritious food, and can help shape the behavior of consumers toward a more sustainable diet. Finally, the recent COVID-19 global pandemic has highlighted the importance of developing a resilient food system, which can cope with exceptional and unexpected situations. All these actions can possibly help in achieving food security by 2050.

Author Contributions

FV wrote abstract, sections introduction, the effect of novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the food system, and conclusions and outlook, and coordinated the writing process. MA and FA wrote section the circular economy. DM and JS wrote section alternative technologies and sources for food production. MB and JV wrote section food design. AA and EP wrote section digitalization. FV and KM revised and edited the whole manuscript. All authors have approved the final version before submission and contributed to planning the contents of the manuscript.

FV, MA, FA, and KM acknowledge the Academy of Finland for funding (FV: Project No. 316244, MA: Project No. 330617, FA: Project No. 322514, KM: Project No. 311244). DM acknowledges Tandem Forest Values for funding (TFV 2018-0016).

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.

Publisher's Note

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.

Acknowledgments

We thank JV for drawing Figures 2 – 6 , and Mr. Troy Faithfull for revising and editing the manuscript.

Adeogba, E., Barty, P., O'Dwyer, E., and Guo, M. (2019). Waste-to-resource transformation: gradient boosting modeling for organic fraction municipal solid waste projection. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7, 10460–10466. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b00821

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahlswede, S., Asam, S., and Röder, A. (2021). Hedgerow object detection in very high-resolution satellite images using convolutional neural networks. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 15:018501. doi: 10.1117/1.JRS.15.018501

Alfian, G., Syafrudin, M., Farooq, U., Ma'arif, M. R., Syaekhoni, M. A., Fitriyani, N. L., et al. (2020). Improving efficiency of rfid-based traceability system for perishable food by utilizing iot sensors and machine learning model. Food Control 110:107016. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.107016

Alvarez, C., Gonzalez, A., Alonso, J. L., Saez, F., Negro, M. J., and Gullon, B. (2020). Xylooligosaccharides from steam-exploded barley straw: structural features and assessment of bifidogenic properties. Food Bioproducts Process. 124, 131–142. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2020.08.014

Anderson, J. W., Baird, P., Davis, R. H. Jr., Ferreri, S., Knudtson, M., Koraym, A., et al. (2009). Health benefits of dietary fiber. Nutr. Rev. 67, 188–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00189.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aura, A. M., and Lille, M. (2016). Wood Components to Boost the Quality of Food Products . VTT – Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd. Available online at: https://news.cision.com/vtt-info/r/wood-components-to-boost-the-quality-of-food-products.c2020810

Azais-Braesco, V., Brighenti, F., Paoletti, R., Peracino, A., Scarborough, P., Visioli, F., et al. (2009). Healthy food and healthy choices: a new european profile approach. Atheroscler. Suppl. 10, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosissup.2009.09.001

Azuma, K., Nagae, T., Nagai, T., Izawa, H., Morimoto, M., Murahata, Y., et al. (2015). Effects of surface-deacetylated chitin nanofibers in an experimental model of hypercholesterolemia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 17445–17455. doi: 10.3390/ijms160817445

Bain, L. E., Awah, P. K., Geraldine, N., Kindong, N. P., Sigal, Y., Bernard, N., et al. (2013). Malnutrition in sub-saharan africa: burden, causes and prospects. Pan Afr. Med. J. 15:120. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.15.120.2535

Bakalis, S., Valdramidis, V. P., Argyropoulos, D., Ahrne, L., Chen, J., Cullen, P. J., et al. (2020). Perspectives from co+re: how covid-19 changed our food systems and food security paradigms. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 3, 166–172. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2020.05.003

Berners-Lee, M., Kennelly, C., Watson, R., and Hewitt, C. N. (2018). Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene 6, 52–66. doi: 10.1525/elementa.310

Bhat, Z. F., and Fayaz, H. (2011). Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives. J. Food Sci. Technol. 48, 125–140. doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0198-7

Bhatt, S., Lee, J., Deutsch, J., Ayaz, H., Fulton, B., and Suri, R. (2018). From food waste to value-added surplus products (vasp): consumer acceptance of a novel food product category. J. Consum. Behav. 17, 57–63. doi: 10.1002/cb.1689

Buchmann, L., Bocker, L., Frey, W., Haberkorn, I., Nyffeler, M., and Mathys, A. (2018). Energy input assessment for nanosecond pulsed electric field processing and its application in a case study with chlorella vulgaris. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 47, 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2018.04.013

Calp, M. (2019). An estimation of personnel food demand quantity for businesses by using artificial neural networks. J. Polytech. 22, 675–686. doi: 10.2339/politeknik.444380

Caporgno, M. P., and Mathys, A. (2018). Trends in microalgae incorporation into innovative food products with potential health benefits. Front. Nutr. 5:58. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00058

Castro-Muñoz, R., and Yáñez-Fernández, J. (2015). Valorization of nixtamalization wastewaters (nejayote) by integrated membrane process. Food Bioprod. Process. 95, 7–18. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2015.03.006

Cattaneo, C., Lavelli, V., Proserpio, C., Laureati, M., and Pagliarini, E. (2018). Consumers' attitude towards food by-products: the influence of food technology neophobia, education and information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 54, 679–687. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13978

Cencic, A., and Chingwaru, W. (2010). The role of functional foods, nutraceuticals, and food supplements in intestinal health. Nutrients 2, 611–625. doi: 10.3390/nu2060611

Clean Meat News Australia (2019). Clean Meat Startups: 10 Lab-Grown Meat Producers to Watch . Available online at: https://www.cleanmeats.com.au/2019/07/24/clean-meat-startups-10-lab-grown-meat-producers-to-watch/ (accessed: October 30, 2019).

Google Scholar

Dalkas, G., and Euston, S. R. (2020). “Modelling and computer simulation approaches to understand and predict food structure development: Structuring by gelation and self-association of biomolecules,” in Handbook of Food Structure Development , eds F. Spyropoulos, A. Lazidis and I. Norton, editors. (The Royal Society of Chemistry), 383–401. doi: 10.1039/9781788016155-00383

D'Angelo, G., Hansen, H. N., and Hart, A. J. (2016). Molecular gastronomy meets 3d printing: layered construction via reverse spherification. 3D Printing Addit. Manuf. 3, 153–159. doi: 10.1089/3dp.2016.0024

de Souza, R. R., Bergamasco, R., da Costa, S. C., Feng, X., Faria, S. H. B., and Gimenes, M. L. (2010). Recovery and purification of lactose from whey. Chem. Eng. Process. 49, 1137–1143. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2010.08.015

Demartini, M., Pinna, C., Tonelli, F., Terzi, S., Sansone, C., and Testa, C. (2018). Food industry digitalization: from challenges and trends to opportunities and solutions. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 1371–1378. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.337

Doyon, M., and Labrecque, J. (2008). Functional foods: a conceptual definition. Br. Food J. 110, 1133–1149. doi: 10.1108/00070700810918036

Duda, A., Adamczak, J., Chelminska, P., Juszkiewicz, J., and Kowalczewski, P. (2019). Quality and nutritional/textural properties of durum wheat pasta enriched with cricket powder. Foods 8:46. doi: 10.3390/foods8020046

Dudley, N., and Alexander, S. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18, 45–49. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2017.1351892

Ehrlich, P. R., and Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1217. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1212

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Cities and Circular Economy for Food . Available online at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Cities-and-Circular-Economy-for-Food_280119.pdf (accessed: october 30, 2019).

FAO (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction . Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf

Feng, P. Y., Wang, B., Liu, D. L., and Yu, Q. (2019). Machine learning-based integration of remotely-sensed drought factors can improve the estimation of agricultural drought in south-eastern australia. Agric. Syst. 173, 303–316. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.015

Floros, J. D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa-Canovas, G. V., Chen, H. D., Dunne, C. P., et al. (2010). Feeding the world today and tomorrow: the importance of food science and technology an ift scientific review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9, 572–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x

Fritsch, C., Staebler, A., Happel, A., Marquez, M. A. C., Aguilo-Aguayo, I., Abadias, M., et al. (2017). Processing, valorization and application of bio-waste derived compounds from potato, tomato, olive and cereals: a review. Sustainability 9:1492. doi: 10.3390/su9081492

Galanakis, C. M. (2020). The food systems in the era of the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic crisis. Foods 9:523. doi: 10.3390/foods9040523

Gholamipour-Shirazi, A., Kamlow, M. -A. T., Norton, I., and Mills, T. (2020). How to formulate for structure and texture via medium of additive manufacturing-a review. Foods 9:497. doi: 10.3390/foods9040497

Ghoush, M. A., Samhouri, M., Al-Holy, M., and Herald, T. (2008). Formulation and fuzzy modeling of emulsion stability and viscosity of a gum–protein emulsifier in a model mayonnaise system. J. Food Eng. 84, 348–357. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.05.025

Global Footprint Network (2020a). Earth Overshoot Day . Available online at: https://www.overshootday.org (accessed: June 20, 2020).

Global Footprint Network (2020b). Earth Overshoot Day, Food . Available online at: https://www.overshootday.org/solutions/food/ (accessed: June 6, 2020)

Govindaraj, M. (2015). Is fortification or bio fortification of staple food crops will offer a simple solution to complex nutritional disorder in developing countries? J. Nutr. Food Sci. 5:351. doi: 10.4172/2155-9600.1000351

Green, B. G., and Nachtigal, D. (2015). Temperature affects human sweet taste via at least two mechanisms. Chem. Senses 40, 391–399. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjv021

Guirado, E., Blanco-Sacristan, J., Rodriguez-Caballero, E., Tabik, S., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Martinez-Valderrama, J., et al. (2021). Mask r-cnn and obia fusion improves the segmentation of scattered vegetation in very high-resolution optical sensors. Sensors 21:320. doi: 10.3390/s21010320

Gunaratne, N. M., Fuentes, S., Gunaratne, T. M., Torrico, D. D., Francis, C., Ashman, H., et al. (2019). Effects of packaging design on sensory liking and willingness to purchase: a study using novel chocolate packaging. Heliyon 5:e01696. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01696

Guo, Y. H., Fu, Y. S., Hao, F. H., Zhang, X., Wu, W. X., Jin, X. L., et al. (2021). Integrated phenology and climate in rice yields prediction using machine learning methods. Ecol. Indic. 120:106935. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106935

Gupta, P. K., Shree, V., Hiremath, L., and Rajendran, S. (2019). “The use of modern technology in smart waste management and recycling: artificial intelligence and machine learning,” in Recent Advances in Computational Intelligence , eds R. Kumar and U. K. Wiil (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 173–188. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12500-4_11

Gutiérrez-Uribe, J. A., Rojas-Garcia, C., Garcia-Lara, S., and Serna-Saldivar, S. O. (2010). Phytochemical analysis of wastewater (nejayote) obtained after lime-cooking of different types of maize kernels processed into masa for tortillas. J. Cereal Sci. 52, 410–416. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2010.07.003

Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., and Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in denmark. Food Policy 49, 294–301. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005

Harrar, V., and Spence, C. (2013). The taste of cutlery: how the taste of food is affected by the weight, size, shape, and colour of the cutlery used to eat it. Flavour 2:21. doi: 10.1186/2044-7248-2-21

Henderson, K., and Loreau, M. (2018). How ecological feedbacks between human population and land cover influence sustainability. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14:e1006389. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006389

Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Haedey, D., and Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the eat– lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8:e59–e66. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4

Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., and de Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. a survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 56, 662–673. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001

Huang, C., Lai, C., Wu, X., Huang, Y., He, J., Huang, C., et al. (2017). An integrated process to produce bio-ethanol and xylooligosaccharides rich in xylobiose and xylotriose from high ash content waste wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 228–235. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.109

Jones, J. M. (2014). Codex-aligned dietary fiber definitions help to bridge the 'fiber gap'. Nutr. J. 13:34. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-34

Jørgensen, S., and Pedersen, L. J. T. (2018). “The circular rather than the linear economy,” in Restart Sustainable Business Model Innovation , eds S. Jørgensen and L. J. T. Pedersen (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 103–120. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-91971-3_8

Jribi, S., Ben Ismail, H., Doggui, D., and Debbabi, H. (2020). Covid-19 virus outbreak lockdown: what impacts on household food wastage? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 3939–3955. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00740-y

Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikainen, J., Saikku, L., et al. (2016). Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustainability 8:69. doi: 10.3390/su8010069

Kadam, S. U., Tiwari, B. K., and O'Donnell, C. P. (2013). Application of novel extraction technologies for bioactives from marine algae. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 4667–4675. doi: 10.1021/jf400819p

Kamath, R. (2018). Food traceability on blockchain: walmart's pork and mango pilots with ibm. J. Br. Blockchain Assoc. 1, 47–53. doi: 10.31585/jbba-1-1-(10)2018

Kamilaris, A., Fonts, A., and Prenafeta-Bold?, F. X. (2019). The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91 640–652. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.034

Kandra, P., Challa, M. M., and Jyothi, H. K. (2012). Efficient use of shrimp waste: present and future trends. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 93, 17–29. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3651-2

Karayannakidis, P. D., and Zotos, A. (2016). Fish processing by-products as a potential source of gelatin: a review. J. Aquat. Food Product Technol. 25, 65–92. doi: 10.1080/10498850.2013.827767

Kerch, G. (2015). The potential of chitosan and its derivatives in prevention and treatment of age-related diseases. Mar. Drugs 13, 2158–2182. doi: 10.3390/md13042158

Khan, H., and Lee, R. (2020). Does packaging influence taste and quality perceptions across varying consumer demographics? Food Qual. Prefer. 84:103932. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103932

La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., and Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding westerners' disgust for the eating of insects: the role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 64 120–125. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002

Lagrange, V., Whitsett, D., and Burris, C. (2015). Global market for dairy proteins. J. Food Sci. 1, A16–22. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12801

Loutfi, A., Coradeschi, S., Mani, G. K., Shankar, P., and Rayappan, J. B. B. (2015). Electronic noses for food quality: a review. J. Food Eng. 144, 103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.07.019

Lowe, M. R., and Butryn, M. L. (2007). Hedonic hunger: a new dimension of appetite? Physiol. Behav. 91, 432–439. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.006

Lynch, H., Johnston, C., and Wharton, C. (2018). Plant-based diets: considerations for environmental impact, protein quality, and exercise performance. Nutrients 10:1841. doi: 10.3390/nu10121841

Mazloumian, A., Rosenthal, M., and Gelke, H. (2020). Deep Learning for Classifying Food Waste . arXiv preprint (Ithaca, NY).

McKee, L. H., and Latner, T. A. (2000). Underutilized sources of dietary fiber: a review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 55, 285–304. doi: 10.1023/A:1008144310986

Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite 47, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.006

Melgar-Lalanne, G., Hernández-Álvarez, A. J., and Salinas-Castro, A. (2019). Edible insects processing: traditional and innovative technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 18, 1166–1191. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12463

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., and Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Cleaner Prod. 178, 703–722. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Mezzenga, R., Bo Lee, W., and Fredrickson, G. H. (2006). Design of liquid-crystalline foods via field theoretic computer simulations. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17, 220–226. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2005.11.009

Monteiro, A., Paquincha, D., Martins, F., Queiros, R. P., Saraiva, J. A., Svarc-Gajic, J., et al. (2018). Liquid by-products from fish canning industry as sustainable sources of omega3 lipids. J. Environ. Manage. 219, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.102

Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A., and Galli, A. (2012). Projecting future human demand on the earth's regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indic. 16, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.013

Ni, Q., Xu, G., Wang, Z., Gao, Q., Wang, S., and Zhang, Y. (2012). Seasonal variations of the antioxidant composition in ground bamboo sasa argenteastriatus leaves. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 2249–2262. doi: 10.3390/ijms13022249

Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., et al. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (covid-19): a review. Int. J. Surg. 78, 185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018

Nicolotti, L., Mall, V., and Schieberle, P. (2019). Characterization of key aroma compounds in a commercial rum and an australian red wine by means of a new sensomics-based expert system (sebes)-an approach to use artificial intelligence in determining food odor codes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67, 4011–4022. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00708

Nirmala, C., Bisht, M. S., Bajwa, H. K., and Santosh, O. (2018). Bamboo: A rich source of natural antioxidants and its applications in the food and pharmaceutical industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 77, 91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.003

Nordlund, E., Lille, M., Silventoinen, P., Nygren, H., Seppanen-Laakso, T., Mikkelson, A., et al. (2018). Plant cells as food - a concept taking shape. Food Res. Int. 107, 297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.045

Okajima, K., Ueda, J., and Spence, C. (2013). Effects of visual texture on food perception. J. Vis. 13, 1078–1078. doi: 10.1167/13.9.1078

Olsen, N. V. (2015). Design thinking and food innovation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 41, 182–187. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.10.001

Olsen, P., Borit, M., and Syed, S. (2019). Applications, Limitations, Costs, and Benefits Related to the Use of Blockchain Technology in the Food Industry . Nofima rapportserie. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2586121

O'Riordan, K., Fotopoulou, A., and Stephens, N. (2017). The first bite: imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Underst. Sci. 26, 148–163. doi: 10.1177/0963662516639001

Panesar, R., Kaur, S., and Panesar, P. S. (2015). Production of microbial pigments utilizing agro-industrial waste: a review. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 1, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.12.002

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., and bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020

Pennanen, K., Närväinen, J., Vanhatalo, S., Raisamo, R., and Sozer, N. (2020). Effect of virtual eating environment on consumers' evaluations of healthy and unhealthy snacks. Food Qual. Prefer. 82:103871. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103871

Pentikäinen, S., Tanner, H., Karhunen, L., Kolehmainen, M., Poutanen, K., and Pennanen, K. (2019). Mobile phone app for self-monitoring of eating rhythm: field experiment. JMIR mHealth uHealth 7:e11490. doi: 10.2196/11490

Perry, R. A., Mallan, K. M., Koo, J., Mauch, C. E., Daniels, L. A., and Magarey, A. M. (2015). Food neophobia and its association with diet quality and weight in children aged 24 months: a cross sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 12:13. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0184-6

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., and Spence, C. (2011). Do the material properties of cutlery affect the perception of the food you eat? An exploratory study. J. Sens. Stud. 26, 358–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00351.x

Pitkänen, L., Heinonen, M., and Mikkonen, K. S. (2018). Safety considerations of phenolic-rich plant polysaccharides for food use: case study on softwood galactoglucomannan. Food Funct. 9, 1931–1943. doi: 10.1039/C7FO01425B

Plasek, B., Lakner, Z., and Temesi, A. (2020). Factors that influence the perceived healthiness of food-review. Nutrients 12:1881. doi: 10.3390/nu12061881

Plazzotta, S., Manzocco, L., and Nicoli, M. C. (2017). Fruit and vegetable waste management and the challenge of fresh-cut salad. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 63, 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.02.013

Post, M. J. (2014). Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 94, 1039–1041. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6474

Poutanen, K., Nordlund, E., Paasi, J., Vehmas, K., and Åkerman, M. (2017). Food Economy 4.0. VTT - Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd . Available online at: https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/visions/2017/V10.pdf

Priyadarshani, I., and Rath, B. (2012). Commercial and industrial applications of micro algae—a review. J. Algal Biomass Util. 3, 89–100.

Quested, T., and Johnson, H. (2009). Household Food and Drink Waste in the Uk . WRAP. Available online at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2009

Raheem, D., Shishaev, M., and Dikovitsky, V. (2019). Food system digitalization as a means to promote food and nutrition security in the barents region. Agriculture 9:168. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9080168

Rahmanian, N., Jafari, S. M., and Galanakis, C. M. (2014). Recovery and removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 91, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11746-013-2350-9

Ramos-Elorduy, J. (2009). Anthropo-entomophagy: cultures, evolution and sustainability. Entomol. Res. 39, 271–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5967.2009.00238.x

Ranasinghe, N., Tolley, D., Nguyen, T. N. T., Yan, L., Chew, B., and Do, E. Y. (2019). Augmented flavours: modulation of flavour experiences through electric taste augmentation. Food Res. Int. 117, 60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.030

Reinoso Carvalho, F., Velasco, C., van Ee, R., Leboeuf, Y., and Spence, C. (2016). Music influences hedonic and taste ratings in beer. Front. Psychol. 7:636. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00636

Rizzato, M., Di Dio, C., Fasano, F., Gilli, G., Marchetti, A., and Sensidoni, A. (2016). Is food desirability affected by social interaction? Food Qual. Prefer. 50, 109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.005

Rockenfeller, P., and Madeo, F. (2010). Ageing and eating. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1803, 499–506. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.01.001

Roos, Y. H. (2020). Water and pathogenic viruses inactivation—food engineering perspectives. Food Eng. Rev. 12, 251–267. doi: 10.1007/s12393-020-09234-z

Ryan, C., Gúeret, C., Berry, D., Corcoran, M., Keane, M. T., and Mac Namee, B. (2021). Predicting Illness for a Sustainable Dairy Agriculture: Predicting and Explaining the Onset of Mastitis in Dairy Cows . arXiv preprint.

Sabaté, J., and Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100, 476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522

Saini, A., Panesar, P. S., and Bera, M. B. (2019). Valorization of fruits and vegetables waste through green extraction of bioactive compounds and their nanoemulsions-based delivery system. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 6:26. doi: 10.1186/s40643-019-0261-9

Sakagami, H., Kushida, T., Oizumi, T., Nakashima, H., and Makino, T. (2010). Distribution of lignin-carbohydrate complex in plant kingdom and its functionality as alternative medicine. Pharmacol. Ther. 128, 91–105. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2010.05.004

Salah, K., Rehman, M. H. U., Nizamuddin, N., and Al-Fuqaha, A. (2019). Blockchain for ai: review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7, 10127–10149. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890507

Sasson, A. (2012). Food security for africa: an urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 1:2. doi: 10.1186/2048-7010-1-2

Sathasivam, R., Radhakrishnan, R., Hashem, A., and Abd Allah, E. F. (2019). Microalgae metabolites: a rich source for food and medicine. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 26, 709–722. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.11.003

Siegrist, M., and Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat. Food 1, 343–350. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

Siró, I., Kapolna, E., Kapolna, B., and Lugasi, A. (2008). Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance-a review. Appetite 51, 456–467. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.060

Smithers, G. W. (2008). Whey and whey proteins—from ‘gutter-to-gold'. Int. Dairy J. 18, 695–704. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2008.03.008

Springmann, M., Mason-D'Croz, D., Robinson, S., Garnett, T., Godfray, H. C., Gollin, D., et al. (2016). Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01156-3

Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., and Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155–166. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010

Sun, J., Zhou, W. B., Huang, D. J., Fuh, J. Y. H., and Hong, G. S. (2015). An overview of 3d printing technologies for food fabrication. Food Bioprocess Technol. 8, 1605–1615. doi: 10.1007/s11947-015-1528-6

Tolba, R., Wu, G., and Chen, A. (2011). Adsorption of dietary oils onto lignin for promising pharameutical and nutritional applications. Bioresources 6, 1322–1335.

Toldrá, F., Aristoy, M. C., Mora, L., and Reig, M. (2012). Innovations in value-addition of edible meat by-products. Meat Sci. 92, 290–296. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.004

Torres-Tiji, Y., Fields, F. J., and Mayfield, S. P. (2020). Microalgae as a future food source. Biotechnol. Adv. 41:107536. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2020.107536

van Huis, A., and Oonincx, D. G. A. B. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 43. doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8

Vigani, M., Parisi, C., Rodriguez-Cerezo, E., Barbosa, M. J., Sijtsma, L., Ploeg, M., et al. (2015). Food and feed products from micro-algae: market opportunities and challenges for the eu. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 42, 81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.12.004

Wang, Q. J., Mielby, L. A., Junge, J. Y., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., et al. (2019). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic sensory factors in sweetness perception of food and beverages: a review. Foods 8:211. doi: 10.3390/foods8060211

Weinrich, R. (2019). Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: a review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability 11:4028. doi: 10.3390/su11154028

Wells, M. L., Potin, P., Craigie, J. S., Raven, J. A., Merchant, S. S., Helliwell, K. E., et al. (2017). Algae as nutritional and functional food sources: revisiting our understanding. J. Appl. Phycol. 29, 949–982. doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-0974-5

Wieben, E. (2017). Food loss and Waste and the Linkage to Global Ecosystems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . Available online at: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/7fed720c-18e6-4be4-83d2-385b05b79ace/

Xiao, J.-R., Chung, P.-C., Wu, H.-Y., Phan, Q.-H., Yeh, J.-L. A., and Hou, M. T.-K. (2021). Detection of strawberry diseases using a convolutional neural network. Plants 10:31. doi: 10.3390/plants10010031

Xiao, Y., Chen, C., Wang, B., Mao, Z., Xu, H., Zhong, Y., et al. (2018). In vitro digestion of oil-in-water emulsions stabilized by regenerated chitin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 12344–12352. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b03873

Xu, M., Wang, J., and Zhu, L. (2019). The qualitative and quantitative assessment of tea quality based on e-nose, e-tongue and e-eye combined with chemometrics. Food Chem. 289, 482–489. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.080

Yan, K. S., and Dando, R. (2015). A crossmodal role for audition in taste perception. J. Exp. Psychol. 41, 590–596. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000044

Zampollo, F. (2020). Food Design and Food Design Thinking . Available online at: http://francesca-zampollo.com/category/uncategorized/

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Zarbà, C., La Via, G., Pappalardo, G., and Hamam, M. S. M. (2020). The sustainability of novel foods in the transition phase to the circular economy; the trade “algae fit for human consumption” in european union. AIMS Agric. Food 5, 54–75. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.54

CrossRef Full Text

Keywords: food loss and food waste, circular economy, food production and food security, food structure design, new ingredients, digitalization, food design

Citation: Valoppi F, Agustin M, Abik F, Morais de Carvalho D, Sithole J, Bhattarai M, Varis JJ, Arzami ANAB, Pulkkinen E and Mikkonen KS (2021) Insight on Current Advances in Food Science and Technology for Feeding the World Population. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:626227. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.626227

Received: 30 November 2020; Accepted: 23 September 2021; Published: 21 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Valoppi, Agustin, Abik, Morais de Carvalho, Sithole, Bhattarai, Varis, Arzami, Pulkkinen and Mikkonen. 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: Fabio Valoppi, fabio.valoppi@helsinki.fi

A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends

The TQM Journal

ISSN : 1754-2731

Article publication date: 6 December 2021

Issue publication date: 19 December 2022

The purpose of this paper is to explore the increased research attention gained by sustainability in food supply chain management. Although previous review studies have focused on aspects such as traceability, food safety, and performance measurement, sustainability has rarely been considered as a means of integrating these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature on food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM). Using systematic review methods, relevant studies published from 1997 to early 2021 are explored to reveal the research landscape and the gaps and trends.

The paper shows the building blocks and the main research directions in FSSCM, particularly considering the opportunities in “neglected” emerging countries. Insights are provided into the various elements of the sustainability supply chain in the food industry, which have previously been analysed separately.

Originality/value

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management.

• Systematic literature review
• Food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM)
• Food industry
• Global supply chain
• Emerging countries
• Sustainability

Palazzo, M. and Vollero, A. (2022), "A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends", The TQM Journal , Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2021-0300

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Maria Palazzo and Agostino Vollero

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The debate over the approach to sustainability has become central to most businesses, as a proper sustainability perspective holistically considers all of a company's functions and business relationships along supply chains, which are increasingly interconnected globally ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Solér et al. , 2010 ). Managing the integration of sustainable environmental, social and economic criteria along the multiple aspects of the supply chain represents a major challenge for manufacturers and producers ( Massaroni et al. , 2015 ).

Supply chain management (SCM) has been defined as “the configuration and operation of efficient and effective production and logistics networks and the intra- and inter-organizational management of supply, transformation and delivery processes” ( Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015 ). A revolution in SCM has occurred in recent years, which has been noted by many scholars and researchers, as its focus has shifted from economic performance to an integrated social and environmental approach ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ; Ahi and Searcy, 2013 ; Khan et al. , 2020 ).

Exploring the intersection between sustainability and SCM involves considering different viewpoints, as SCM is based on both downstream and upstream flows of goods ( Cosimato and Troisi, 2015 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Maditati et al. , 2018 ). The downstream flows of goods (towards the final customer) has been traditionally viewed as involving responsibility and ethical issues ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ), while upstream flows of products/services (towards the supplier) are explored from manufacturing, product recovery and reverse logistics perspectives ( Feng et al. , 2017 ), and thus more concerned with environmental issues, such as energy and waste reduction ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ; Kumari et al. , 2021 ). There is general agreement that the sustainable management of a supply chain requires an integrated approach to social, environmental and economic goals ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Hassini et al. , 2012 ; Juettner et al. , 2020 ). Thus, the means by which SCM can develop sustainable features and follow the path of sustainable development have been considered ( Manning, 2013 ; Zhu et al. , 2018 ). This can be challenging in industries such as food, in which the SCM can have a strong effect on not only the final consumer but also other stakeholders in the value chain ( Matopoulos et al. , 2015 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ; Mangla et al. , 2019 ).

A food supply chain (FSC) is particularly complex, as it connects different sectors of the economy (agriculture and the food-processing industry and distribution sector) in a market dominated by rapidly changing customer preferences ( Beske et al. , 2014 ). Food types can affect the natural environment, due to the food production systems, transport distances from producers and consumers, waste management, and workers' conditions in the sectors involved ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ). The situation is even more complicated in the agri-fresh food sector due to the perishability of products and the short shelf-life ( Siddh et al. , 2017 ). Thus, examining sustainable development in the FSC is extremely complex due to the high level of unpredictability in terms of demand and cost, the fragile nature of food and consumers' increased awareness of risks and safety issues associated with diets and eating disorders ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Finally, many firms in the FSC are small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ) that may find it difficult to address sustainability challenges and implement practices. The various FSC duties and tasks are often perceived as more demanding when sustainability is applied to enrich conventional profit-oriented models ( Allaoui et al. , 2018 ). Studies in this area have addressed issues such as the triple bottom line, ethics and corporate social responsible principles in their analyses ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Allaoui et al. , 2018 ), but few have provided an integrated overview of the phenomenon.

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management (FSCM). However, many articles have applied specific methods to explore particular themes or typical processes. These themes and processes include sustainable sourcing ( Ghadge et al. , 2017 ), food traceability ( Bosona and Gebresenbet, 2013 ), approaches for enhancing sustainability in SCM ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Dania et al. , 2018 ), sustainable supply chain strategies and tactics ( Beske et al. , 2014 ; Zhong et al. , 2017 ), food safety ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ), controls of the level of sustainability ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ), measurements of sustainable items ( Sharma et al. , 2021 ) and the circular economy ( Corallo et al. , 2020 ).

Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) , for example, presented a literature review that focussed mainly on food traceability, which highlights several features, definitions, items and measurements of the food traceability system. The bibliometric approach was also taken by Beske et al. (2014) , who described how sustainable supply chain management tactics allow organizations to manage their supply chain while putting into practice dynamic capabilities. Zhong et al. (2017) used the bibliometric approach to review the FSCM, and considered it in terms of systems and implementations. Siddh et al. (2017) explored the agri-fresh food supply chain quality features and definitions, by collecting and analysing relevant academic papers. Using the same method, Sharma et al. (2017) analysed the performance indicators and sub-indicators of green SCM implementation. Dania et al. (2018) proposed a systematic review of sustainable agri-food supply chains to assess and manage collaborative performances, while Govindan (2018) focused on the influence of stakeholders in the food industry.

Thomé et al . (2020) recently provided several insights into food supply chains and short food supply chains based on a bibliometric analysis, while Kamble et al. (2020) proposed a framework for managers in the agri-food supply chain based on an extensive literature review, to increase supply chain visibility and resources. Finally, Sharma et al. (2020) applied a systematic literature review of machine learning applications in agricultural supply chains.

These studies demonstrate the pressing need to examine the “green” side of SCM in the food sector. They show that the number of empirical papers in this area is increasing, but that there is a lack of an integrated perspective for holistically linking recent trends and facets of the FSCM. The focus is on very specific viewpoints rather than a broader exploration. To increase our understanding of the intellectual progress and knowledge structure of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM), a comprehensive analysis is required. Thus, in the present paper, we aim to outline a comprehensive framework of the research and current trends in the FSSCM, and to identify specific research gaps that must be addressed.

To achieve this, earlier review analyses of FSSCM and broad research trends are identified objectively and systematically, by providing an analysis of the evolution of FSSCM over the past years, exploring the international research, studying the mainly empirical FSSCM research, examining the research tools applied, identifying any issues that arise, and by identifying the main gaps and directions for future research in the field of FSSCM.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology used for the literature review. Section 3 provides the results and analyses of the selected papers. Sections 4 and 5 present the findings, a discussion and the implications in terms of FSSCM that can enrich further research. Finally, a conclusion and limitations are presented in Section 6 .

2. Methodology

As other studies take various specific perspectives, we applied a comprehensive analysis of the literature focussing on the link between sustainability and FSCM. This offers a complete view and several insights for further studies in various emerging business contexts.

Unlike other conventionally structured literature reviews, a systematic review was selected as this can be effective in managing the exploration of a huge number of academic publications and enables the development of a complex framework for the research subjects ( Garcia-Buendia et al. , 2021 ). The method can also help researchers and scholars explore the literature by considering its bibliographic elements ( Xu et al. , 2020 ). This analytical approach also helps in terms of recognizing the main features and definitions of specific research field(s), identifying the main research questions and gaps, identifying the theoretical area in which the analyses will have an effect, understanding the theoretical concepts and their terminology, providing a list of the relevant resources available, and highlighting the research designs, methodologies and approaches that can be applied ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Feng et al. , 2017 ).

Time horizon: The first step is the selection of a time period. The exploration period for academic and research articles is between 1997 and early 2021, as SCM and corporate social responsibility (CSR) were implemented in the food industry to a greater extent after 1997 ( Henk and Hans, 1997 ). We end our paper collection in early 2021.

Selection of publications: Only papers written in English were selected, and the articles were selected in Scopus. This database is commonly used by management science researchers (or in related fields) for bibliometric analyses or systematic literature review methods in SCM ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ). The Scopus database has greater coverage than the Web of Science, and it was deemed more appropriate for exploring complex research areas that are constantly changing and developing ( Feng et al. , 2017 ).

The keywords used for the selection of the publications: The keywords chosen for developing the search of the main publications in Scopus were “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*”. In total, after using the “title, abstract, keywords” search in the Scopus, 1,930 papers were found by searching with these keywords. “Sustainabl*” involves environmental, economic, and social facets, and thus papers identified by searching for “sustainabl*” and “supply” were examined. The papers resulting from the searches were then analysed for information including title, author(s), affiliation(s), source title, number of citations, keywords, abstract and references.

The categorization of academic publications according to the Association of Business Schools (ABS) 2018 list: The number of papers was further reduced by selecting only academic and well-referred journals that were considered in this list. Of the 1,930 papers, some were non-referred publications appearing in 0-star journals, magazines and conference proceedings that did not follow a rigorous scientific editorial approach. Chapters of books and whole books were also not selected for the analysis. After deleting these, 733 articles remained and were filtered from the total number of downloaded publications.

Categorization of academic publications: After reading the abstracts and the complete papers, the number was further reduced by considering the relevance of the publications. The sample size was condensed in this phase to create a representative data set. The rule for selecting the articles was that they had to be related to the food sector, supply chain management and sustainability. Thus, 176 papers remained.

Systematic classifications of the papers: The articles were then categorized according to leading journals in FSSCM research and journal name per number of published articles; number of published articles in FSSCM research per field; number of publications; trending articles about the food sustainable supply chain; geographical locations by region of the first author's affiliation; the methodology used; theoretical frameworks; tool/research methods; data collection; the entity of analysis and sustainability issues.

3. Results and analysis

All of the identified papers are presented, discussed and analysed in the following sections in terms of their various aspects and features.

3.1 Year-based classification of number of publications

The number of articles about FSSCM has increased, probably due to the increased interest and awareness of managers and academics in the area of sustainability and SCM. The annual number of published articles has increased in recent times (2017–2020) to three times that of the 2015–2016 period (in fact, in 2017, 26 papers were published; in 2018, 29 articles were proposed; while in 2019 and 2020, 23 and 27 studies were focused on the selected topics).

3.2 Journal-based categorization of papers

This categorization illustrates the frequency of papers presented in various leading academic journals. Many of these appear to be very interested in issues and problems related to FSSCM. These include Business Strategy and the Environment (BSE), the British Food Journal (BFJ), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (CSREM), Food Policy (FP), Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS), International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE), International Journal of Production Research (IJPR), Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP), Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (JMTM), Production Planning and Control (PPC), and Supply Chain Management – An International Journal (SCM-IJ).

In total, 176 papers that focused on SCM definitions and features in the food industry from the perspective of sustainability were selected. This demonstrates that a considerable number of papers were published in the relevant fields of study. Table 1 shows the number of total articles published (PSC) and average global citations received per paper (AGC), and most are from JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC), followed by IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), PPC (7 PSC, 4.14 AGC), SCM-IJ (7 PSC, 17.29 AGC), and BSE (6 PSC, 21.67 AGC). Considering the average global citations received per paper (AGC), the journals with the highest are IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), IJPR (5 PSC, 81.60 AGC), FP (4 PSC, 75.50 AGC), CSREM (4 PSC, 41.25 AGC) and JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC).

Moreover, the distribution of published articles in FSSCM research per field (economics; ethics-csr management; international business and area; information management; marketing; operations research and management science; organizational studies; regional studies; sector; social studies), based on how they are ranked in the ABS Journal Guide of 2018 was analysed.

It was highlighted that, especially, in the fields of “Operations Research and Management Science” and “Sector”, there were many articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the realm of FSSCM.

3.3 Categorization of publications based on the geographical location of first authors

Publications are classified based on the first authors' affiliated regions and include developed and emerging economies. This classification clearly shows that most papers are from developed countries in Europe (63%), Asia (18%) and North America (8%), with less attention paid to FSSCM in developing areas such as South America (5%) and Africa (1%), although many countries in these regions are still mainly agrarian.

3.4 Categorization of trending articles in the field of FSSCM

Several of the papers achieved a remarkable number of total citations. The data presented in Table 2 show that two papers gained more than 300 total citations, four achieved over 200, and the remaining four publications gained more than 100 total citations.

3.5 Categorization based on methodology and tools/research methods

FSSCM papers can be analysed according to the methodology (approach) applied. Most publications utilized a qualitative approach (78%) and only 22% take a quantitative approach.

Table 3 shows that theoretical and empirical explorations of SCM sustainability in the food sector have been conducted ( Pohlmann et al. , 2020 ; Yakavenka et al. , 2020 ; Khan et al. , 2021 ).

Case study analysis is the most used (26%: 46 papers) followed by statistical analysis (22%: 38 papers), conceptual analysis and/or frameworks (19%: 34 articles), mathematical models (13%: 23 articles), quality tool (11%: 19 articles) and finally bibliometric analysis and/or literature review (9%: 16 papers). Examples of the methodologies and tools applied to this complex concept include the following: Taghikhah et al. (2020) used several mathematical models to explore the relation between consumer preferences and environmental factors related to food production. Morley (2020) used case studies to analyse the impact of public procurement on various food company strategies. Thomé et al . (2020) used a structured literature review to examine studies of short food supply chains. Sharma et al. (2020) statistically analysed aspects of food and other industries during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

3.6 Research publications categorization on the basis of data collection

We first examine the data collection (data sources) applied in the FSSCM papers and find that the majority of the publications use primary data (i.e. survey, experiment, interviews, focus groups, observation, etc.) (56%: 99 papers). Secondary data (i.e. archival, content extraction, bibliometric records, etc.) are used in 46 papers (26%), a combination of primary and secondary data is used in 10 (6%), and 21 papers (12%) do not use data collection as they are based on conceptual analyses, viewpoint research, etc.

3.7 Research publications categorization based on issues of FSSCM

We then categorize the papers based on the FSSCM issues addressed, as shown in Figure 2 . FSSCM involves multiple sustainability issues, and the majority of articles focused on “supplier management” (20%: 36 papers). “Sustainable development” was the next most common (17%: 30 papers), followed by “collaboration and coordination management” in 25 (14%), “performance management” in 17 (10%), “circular economy” in 15 (9%), “logistic management” in 14 (8%), “strategic management” in 11 (6%), “innovation” in 10 (6%), “agriculture” in 6 (3%), a “comprehensive view” (involving more than one issue) in 5 (3%), “quality management” in 4 (2%), and “other issues” were analysed in 3 papers (2%).

Thus, “supplier management”, “sustainable development” and “collaboration and coordination management” were the most common issues, covered by over half of the total selected publications. Other issues are also significant in the area of FSSCM, but not to the same extent, while others are mainly neglected (i.e. “agriculture” and “quality management”)

3.8 Research publications categorization on the basis of theoretical framework

The theoretical framework applied to develop the selected papers was then explored. Nearly two-thirds (114) of the articles did not follow any specific theoretical approach. The stakeholder approach was considered in 11 articles, 8 papers were based on the triple bottom line, 8 took the life cycle approach, 7 the circular economy approach, 6 applied resource-based view (RBV) and knowledge-based view (KBV) frameworks, 6 the institutional theory, 4 applied the resource dependency theory and 2 the decision theory-based framework. Other approaches (i.e. country of origin, TOE, critical success factors, etc.) were taken in ten articles.

3.9 Publications categorization on the basis of entity of analysis

Finally, we examined the main perspectives taken when exploring FSSCM issues.

Many research publications use the supply chain as the entity of analysis (EOA) (70 papers). However, a significant number (23) consider the whole supply network or the manufacturer's point of view (21); 18 are mainly conceptual; 10 are based on the distributor's perspective; 10 take a dyadic view (more than 1 EOA); 9 take the suppliers'/farmers' perspectives; the logistic industry is examined in 7; consumers in 5; and the remaining 3 papers do not use any of these EOA.

4. Discussion: main themes and trends in FSSCM

The increase and evolution of FSSC studies suggests that supply chains in the food sector are moving towards a sustainable approach. Several new trends have emerged in the field, which focus on both intra- and inter-firm dimensions ( Figure 3 ).

Increasingly, the multiplicity of stakeholders in FSSCM and the collaboration/coordination challenges this brings have been explored throughout the food supply chain phases. These include the sustainable purchasing relationships of food retailers ( Chkanikova, 2016 ); increasing legitimacy in the food industry ( Czinkota et al. , 2014 ); strategies for reducing food waste within the circular economy framework ( Dora, 2019 ); and tools for increasing collaboration and coordination throughout the food supply chain ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ). Collaboration has gained the attention of researchers exploring the competitive advantages derived from a sustainable approach by leveraging environmental information along the supply chain ( Solér et al. , 2010 ), the alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies ( Croom et al. , 2007 ), and dynamic capabilities ( Beske et al. , 2014 ).

“Collaboration and coordination management”, “supplier management” and “sustainable development” are the most common issues, covered by over half of the total publications. These include collaboration with partners along the supply chain ( Pakdeechoho and Sukhotu, 2018 ), the criteria for selecting suppliers ( Wilhelm et al. , 2016 ), the alignment of supplier-producer procedures ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ), the overall efficiency of the supply chain ( Danny and Priscila, 2004 ), and collaborations adopting mandatory and voluntary standards when assessing environmental, social and economic performances ( Glover et al. , 2014 ; Touboulic and Walker, 2015 ; Govindan, 2018 ). Other recent emerging challenges include more general sustainability-related aspects, such as innovation and the circular economy. On the other hand, the inclusion of quality management in the field of FSCM seems to be scarce in academic literature ( Ting et al. , 2014 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Feng et al. , 2020 ), even though, there are several authors who tried to build a more centred approach in reviewing quality issues inside the analysis of sustainable supply chain. For example, Manzini et al. (2014) highlighted the existing connection between food quality and environmental sustainability of supply chain strategies and tactics, while Winter and Knemeyer (2013) explored how sustainability can be included in supply chain quality and, Ilbery and Maye (2005) presented a list of important sustainable food standards linked with environmental quality, socially inclusiveness and other relevant items.

Besides, the findings suggest that an integration of intra- and inter-firm processes can be crucial for the effective sustainable performance of organizations, as if FSSCM is based on sustainability it can have a positive effect on all stages of the supply chain ( Erol et al. , 2011 ; Kahi et al. , 2017 ). Unlike traditional performance measurements, sustainable performance involves comprehensively considering social, economic, and environmental factors ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Pullman et al. (2009) focussed on how to improve the quality performance of the food supply chain, which in turn improves cost performance. Raut et al. (2019) analysed operational/technology-based and human resource-based performance indicators of the sustainable value chain that help those in the food sector minimize their effect on the environment while boosting their economic performance. Thus, when proposing new “green” performance measurements, food industry researchers should include the bases of sustainability in their analyses of FSSCM.

The development of these new FSSCM trends suggests that this field of research will continue to grow as many scholars and academics explore the specific features and perspectives applicable to developed countries. The literature review shows that few studies consider less developed countries, with just 1% having African authors. Developing economies, such as those in Asia, have however had more attention in recent years. Some studies show that a lack of infrastructure or inefficient logistics could result in more food waste and inefficient processes ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ). This is a major issue in FSSCM, as it is expected that 90% of the global population will live in developing countries by 2050 ( PRB, 2020 ). Sustainability is therefore vital in the food global supply chains of these countries, which are characterized by strong interdependencies along the north-south axis.

Most scholars investigating the sustainability of the food supply chain directly collect their data using tools such as surveys, experiments, interviews, and focus groups. The case study is the most common method for these explorations, as indicated in previous research ( Ashby et al. , 2012 ; Massaroni et al. , 2015 ). This emphasis on case studies indicates the novel and fast-changing nature of the field, and that more in-depth investigations are required to identify its boundaries and foundations. However, modelling-based studies are increasing in number (e.g. Chen et al. , 2018 ) as they address the need for a more integrated understanding of sustainable supply chains ( Brandenburg et al. , 2014 ). In addition, the lack of specific theoretical frameworks in two-thirds of the studies indicates that the research field is still emerging, and thus extensive opportunities for research that bridges the gap between theory and practice are presented.

5. Implications and research directions

This systematic literature review offers several implications for practitioners, and insights for further research in the field of FSSCM.

Food supply chains make a significant contribution to the global economy and sustainable development, as they involve suppliers and other stakeholders from various industries working together so food can reach the final consumer ( Joshi et al. , 2020 ; Kamble et al. , 2020 ; Thomé et al. , 2020 ). Kamble et al. (2020) suggest that better economic performance and social wellbeing can be achieved by food suppliers, retailers and others only if critical post-harvest losses can be avoided by applying new methods linked with supply chain visibility and sustainable resources. Thus, the focus should be on the upstream of the supply chain, particularly in many under-developed and developing nations where agriculture is still the essential basis of the economy ( Taghikhah et al. , 2020 ). Some studies were identified as being conducted in developing geographic areas, but more should be encouraged due to the greater potential FSSCM can bring.

The specific directions identified include those of Kumar Sharma et al. (2019) , who stated that the circular economy and sustainability are complex and must be managed by decision makers and practitioners in both developed and developing nations. They proposed a model that can inform the implementation of circular economy-driven sustainability FSC activities in emerging and under-developed economies, particularly in India.

Asian et al. (2019) examined how the increasing costs of logistics, lower yields, and strategic barriers have a negative impact on the level of competitiveness of farmers in developing countries. The authors proposed an algorithm to help key decision makers address the challenges of the FSC and sustainable development. Further studies can also develop theories and practical tools based on specific features, as these geographic areas can support the food industry through new sustainable strategies and tactics.

Such strategies and tactics are high on the agendas of many types of companies, but the business models of start-ups differ from those of other organizations and thus affect their creation and implementation. Larger companies may be able to better sustain the impact of the evolving trends of FSSCM, but they may also be less flexible than start-ups in finding opportunities and innovating ( Suchek et al. , 2021 ).

As suggested in previous sections, researchers must also focus on assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of FSSCM theories, as we found that many papers focussed on theory building. However, these theories generally address specific facets and thus the results cannot be easily generalized. Our study enriches the research by reviewing the most common theoretical approaches (e.g. the stakeholder approach, triple bottom line, the life cycle approach), and others that are less used (i.e. RBV and KBV, institutional theory, resource dependency theory, decision theory-based framework, etc.). This requires further exploration as a need to build a more solid conceptual framework for FSSCM research has also emerged.

In terms of FSSCM measurement and control, our analysis reveals an increase in the development of standardized constructs, which can be used to monitor and control how companies involved in the FSC achieve a successful level of sustainable development ( Folkerts and Koehorst, 1998 ; Yakovleva et al. , 2012 ; Sharma et al. , 2017 ). This is required as most aspects of FSSCM are associated with government regulation, incentive policies, stakeholders' approval of pioneering “green” products/services and the associated cultural and social consequences, and entrepreneurs' inclinations to follow ground-breaking sustainable principles. These trends are often related to the market, and involve accessibility, the costs of raw materials, and new technology, which require specific knowledge and thus may incur huge costs that many companies cannot afford.

In terms of the EOA, we suggest that future empirical research should focus on intra-functional and intra-firm exploration at corporate and network levels, or on dyads that reveal the relationships between pairs of organizations (i.e. farms, manufacturers, distributors, etc.). Similarly, Siddh et al. (2017) also emphasized that empirical research should focus on exploring intra-firm and intra-functional relations, as integration between companies should be encouraged before sustainability at different levels of the FSC is achieved. Finally, the role of end consumers in the FSSCM is still largely unexplored but important, as they can prompt organizations, dyads and networks to adopt more efficient and effective methods of introducing sustainable innovations and identifying new niche opportunities in this area.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we provide a literature review of papers focussed on the various facets of the FSSCM. We identify relevant papers published over the past 23 years (1997 to early 2021), with the aim of informing academics and practitioners about the research landscape, gaps, and current and future trends in the FSSCM. The literature review considers 176 influential peer-reviewed articles using accurate selection procedures and content investigation.

The majority of the selected papers were published in the last eight years (2014–2021), probably due to the increased awareness of environmental problems and of the need to reduce hunger globally (Zero Hunger is Goal Two of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda), the increased food risks, an awareness of the benefits of decreasing food wastage, health management and of the well-being of people in all geographical areas (Goal Three: Good Health and Well-being).

FSSCM research is undoubtedly increasing, but few studies succeed in combining the various sustainability constructs with the main elements of the FSCM, particularly in the context of developing/under-developed countries. Thus, there are opportunities to increase our understanding of the integrative factors, particularly in less-developed regions of the world.

Our research has various limitations, like most studies. First, we used the specific keywords “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*” to select the articles from the Scopus database. While this identified nearly 2000 articles, using different keywords may have a different outcome. Additionally, only one database was used, so researchers can explore others such as Web of Science and compare their findings to ours, and although many analyses were identified, other methods of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review may offer different insights into the specific context. Thus, we suggest that researchers apply different bibliometric methods when addressing this research domain.

Steps of the systematic literature review

Main sustainability issues in the field of FSSCM

Trends in FSSCM research

Leading journals in FSSCM research

Applied tools/research methods in the field of FSSCM

Ahi , P. and Searcy , C. ( 2013 ), “ A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  52 , pp.  329 - 341 .

Allaoui , H. , Guo , Y. , Choudhary , A. and Bloemhof , J. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable agro-food supply chain design using two-stage hybrid multi-objective decision-making approach ”, Computers and Operations Research , Vol.  89 , pp.  369 - 384 .

Ashby , A. , Leat , M. and Hudson-Smith , M. ( 2012 ), “ Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature ”, Supply Chain Management , Vol.  17 No.  5 , pp.  497 - 516 .

Asian , S. , Hafezalkotob , A. and John , J.J. ( 2019 ), “ Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: a pathway to sustainable development ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  218 , pp.  322 - 338 .

Beer , S. and Lemmer , C. ( 2011 ), “ A critical review of ‘green’ procurement: life cycle analysis of food products within the supply chain ”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , Vol.  3 No.  3 , pp.  229 - 244 .

Beske , P. , Land , A. and Seuring , S. ( 2014 ), “ Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 , pp.  131 - 143 .

Bosona , T. and Gebresenbet , G. ( 2013 ), “ Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain ”, Food Control , Vol.  33 No.  1 , pp.  32 - 48 .

Brandenburg , M. and Rebs , T. ( 2015 ), “ Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective ”, Annals of Operations Research , Vol.  229 No.  1 , pp.  213 - 252 .

Brandenburg , M. , Govindan , K. , Sarkis , J. and Seuring , S. ( 2014 ), “ Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions ”, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol.  233 No.  2 , pp.  299 - 312 .

Carter , C.R. and Rogers , D.S. ( 2008 ), “ A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory ”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management , Vol.  38 No.  5 , pp.  360 - 387 .

Chen , Y. , Wang , S. , Yao , J. , Li , Y. and Yang , S. ( 2018 ), “ Socially responsible supplier selection and sustainable supply chain development: a combined approach of total interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy analytic network process ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  27 No.  8 , pp.  1708 - 1719 .

Chkanikova , O. ( 2016 ), “ Sustainable purchasing in food retailing: inter-organizational relationship management to green product supply ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  25 No.  7 , pp.  478 - 494 .

Corallo , A. , Latino , M.E. , Menegoli , M. and Pontrandolfo , P. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic literature review to explore traceability and lifecycle relationship ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  58 No.  15 , pp.  4789 - 4807 .

Cosimato , S. and Troisi , O. ( 2015 ), “ Green supply chain management: practices and tools for logistics competitiveness and sustainability. The DHL case study ”, The TQM Journal , Vol.  27 No.  2 , pp.  256 - 276 .

Croom , S. , Cox , A. , Chicksand , D. and Yang , T. ( 2007 ), “ The proactive alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies: a food service case ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  12 No.  5 , pp.  321 - 333 .

Czinkota , M. , Kaufmann , H.R. and Basile , G. ( 2014 ), “ The relationship between legitimacy, reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol.  43 No.  1 , pp.  91 - 101 .

Dania , W.A.P. , Xing , K. and Amer , Y. ( 2018 ), “ Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  186 , pp.  851 - 864 .

Danny , P.C. and Priscila , B.D.O.C. ( 2004 ), “ Coordinating B2B cross-border supply chains: the case of the organic coffee industry ”, The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing , Vol.  19 No.  6 , pp.  405 - 414 .

Dora , M. ( 2019 ), “ Collaboration in a circular economy: learning from the farmers to reduce food waste ”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management , Vol.  33 No.  4 , pp.  769 - 789 .

Erol , I. , Sencer , S. and Sari , R. ( 2011 ), “ A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain ”, Ecological Economics , Vol.  70 No.  6 , pp.  1088 - 1100 .

Fahimnia , B. , Sarkis , J. and Davarzani , H. ( 2015 ), “ Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  162 No.  c , pp.  101 - 114 .

Feng , Y. , Zhu , Q. and Lai , K.H. ( 2017 ), “ Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: a literature review and bibliometric analysis ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  100 No.  158 , pp.  296 - 307 .

Feng , H. , Wang , X. , Duan , Y. , Zhang , J. and Zhang , X. ( 2020 ), “ Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: a review of development methods, benefits and challenges ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  260 , 121031 .

Folkerts , H. and Koehorst , H. ( 1998 ), “ Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  100 No.  8 , pp.  385 - 388 .

Garcia-Buendia , N. , Moyano-Fuentes , J. , Maqueira-Marín , J.M. and Cobo , M.J. ( 2021 ), “ 22 Years of lean supply chain management: a science mapping-based bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  59 No.  6 , pp.  1901 - 1921 .

Ghadge , A. , Kaklamanou , M. , Choudhary , S. and Bourlakis , M. ( 2017 ), “ Implementing environmental practices within the Greek dairy supply chain drivers and barriers for SMEs ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  1995 - 2014 .

Glover , J.L. , Champion , D. , Daniels , K.J. and Dainty , A.J. ( 2014 ), “ An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 No.  C , pp.  102 - 111 .

Govindan , K. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: a conceptual framework ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  195 No.  C , pp.  419 - 431 .

Hassini , E. , Surti , C. and Searcy , C. ( 2012 ), “ A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  140 No.  1 , pp.  69 - 82 .

Henk , F. and Hans , K. ( 1997 ), “ Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  2 No.  1 , pp.  11 - 14 .

Ilbery , B. and Maye , D. ( 2005 ), “ Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders ”, Land Use Policy , Vol.  22 No.  4 , pp.  331 - 344 .

Joshi , S. , Singh , R.K. and Sharma , M. ( 2020 ), “ Sustainable agri-food supply chain practices: few empirical evidences from a developing economy ”, Global Business Review , Vol.  1 No.  24 .

Juettner , U. , Windler , K. , Podleisek , A. , Gander , M. and Meldau , S. ( 2020 ), “ Implementing supplier management strategies for supply chain sustainability risks in multinational companies ”, The TQM Journal , Vol.  32 No.  5 , pp.  923 - 938 .

Kahi , V.S. , Yousefi , S. , Shabanpour , H. and Saen , R.F. ( 2017 ), “ How to evaluate sustainability of supply chains? A dynamic network DEA approach ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 , pp.  1866 - 1889 .

Kamble , S.S. , Gunasekaran , A. and Gawankar , S.A. ( 2020 ), “ Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and applications ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  219 , pp.  179 - 194 .

Khan , S.A.R. , Yu , Z. , Golpîra , H. , Sharif , A. and Mardani , A. ( 2020 ), “ A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis on sustainable supply chain management: future research directions ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 278 , 123357 .

Khan , S.A. , Mubarik , M.S. , Kusi‐Sarpong , S. , Zaman , S.I. and Kazmi , S.H.A. ( 2021 ), “ Social sustainable supply chains in the food industry: a perspective of an emerging economy ”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , Vol.  28 No.  1 , pp.  404 - 418 .

Kumar , A. , Mangla , S.K. , Kumar , P. and Karamperidis , S. ( 2020 ), “ Challenges in perishable food supply chains for sustainability management: a developing economy perspective ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  29 No.  5 , pp.  1809 - 1831 .

Kumar Sharma , Y. , Mangla , S. , Patil , P. and Liu , S. ( 2019 ), “ When challenges impede the process: for circular economy driven sustainability practices in food supply chain ”, Management Decision , Vol.  57 No.  4 , pp.  995 - 1017 .

Kumari , S. , Raghuram , P. , Venkatesh , V.G. and Shi , Y. ( 2021 ), “ Future perspectives on progressive farming with adoption of virtual reality technology for sustainable quality in agriculture ”, The TQM Journal , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-2021-0191 .

Maditati , D.R. , Munim , Z.H. , Schramm , H.J. and Kummer , S. ( 2018 ), “ A review of green supply chain management: from bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework and future research directions ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol.  139 , pp.  150 - 162 .

Mangla , S.K. , Sharma , Y.K. , Patil , P.P. , Yadav , G. and Xu , J. ( 2019 ), “ Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: study on leading Indian diary organizations ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  238 , 117620 .

Manning , L. ( 2013 ), “ Corporate and consumer social responsibility in the food supply chain ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  115 No.  1 , pp.  9 - 29 .

Manzini , R. , Accorsi , R. , Ayyad , Z. , Bendini , A. , Bortolini , M. , Gamberi , M. , Valli , E. and Toschi , T.G. ( 2014 ), “ Sustainability and quality in the food supply chain. A case study of shipment of edible oils ”, British Food Journal , Vol.  116 No.  12 , pp.  2069 - 2090 .

Massaroni , E. , Cozzolino , A. and Wankowicz , E. ( 2015 ), “ Sustainability in supply chain management-a literature review ”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management , Vol.  33 , pp.  331 - 355 .

Matopoulos , A. , Barros , A.C. and van der Vorst , J.G.A.J. ( 2015 ), “ Resource-efficient supply chains: a research framework, literature review and research agenda ”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol.  20 No.  2 , pp.  218 - 236 .

Morley , A. ( 2020 ), “ Procuring for change: an exploration of the innovation potential of sustainable food procurement ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  279 , 123410 .

Naik , G. and Suresh , D.N. ( 2018 ), “ Challenges of creating sustainable agri-retail supply chains ”, IIMB Management Review , Vol.  30 , pp.  270 - 282 .

Pakdeechoho , N. and Sukhotu , V. ( 2018 ), “ Sustainable supply chain collaboration: incentives in emerging economies ”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol.  29 No.  2 , pp.  273 - 294 .

Pohlmann , C.R. , Scavarda , A.J. , Alves , M.B. and Korzenowski , A.L. ( 2020 ), “ The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: a Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  245 , 118798 .

PRB ( 2020 ), “ 2020 world population data sheet. World population data sheet (population reference bureau, July 2020) ”, available at: https://www.prb.org/2020-world-population-datasheet .

Pullman , M.E. , Maloni , M.J. and Carter , C.R. ( 2009 ), “ Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes ”, Journal of Supply Chain Management , Vol.  45 No.  4 , pp.  38 - 54 .

Raut , R.D. , Luthra , S. , Narkhede , B.E. , Mangla , S.K. , Gardas , B.B. and Priyadarshinee , P. ( 2019 ), “ Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  215 , pp.  926 - 943 .

Seuring , S. and Muller , M. ( 2008 ), “ From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  16 No.  15 , pp.  1699 - 1710 .

Sharma , A. , Adhikary , A. and Borah , S.B. ( 2021 ), “ Covid-19's impact on supply chain decisions: strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  117 , pp.  443 - 449 .

Sharma , R. , Kamble , S.S. , Gunasekaran , A. , Kumar , V. and Kumar , A. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance ”, Computers and Operations Research , Vol.  119 , 104926 .

Sharma , V.K. , Chandna , P. and Bhardwaj , A. ( 2017 ), “ Green supply chain management related performance indicators in agro industry: a review ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  141 , pp.  1194 - 1208 .

Siddh , M.M. , Soni , G. , Jain , R. and Sharma , M.K. ( 2018 ), “ Structural model of perishable food supply chain quality (PFSCQ) to improve sustainable organizational performance ”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol.  25 No.  7 , pp.  2272 - 2317 .

Siddh , M.M. , Soni , G. , Jain , R. , Sharma , M.K. and Yadav , V. ( 2017 ), “ Agri-fresh food supply chain quality (AFSCQ): a literature review ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  2015 - 2044 .

Solér , C. , Bergström , K. and Shanahan , H. ( 2010 ), “ Green supply chains and the missing link between environmental information and practice ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol.  19 No.  1 , pp.  14 - 25 .

Soni , G. and Kodali , R. ( 2011 ), “ A critical analysis of supply chain management content in empirical research ”, Business Process Management Journal , Vol.  17 No.  2 , pp.  238 - 266 .

Suchek , N. , Fernandes , C.I. , Kraus , S. , Filser , M. and Sjögrén , H. ( 2021 ), “ Innovation and the circular economy: a systematic literature review ”, Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print , pp. 1 - 17 , doi: 10.1002/bse.2834 .

Taghikhah , F. , Voinov , A. , Shukla , N. , Filatova , T. and Anufriev , M. ( 2020 ), “ Integrated modeling of extended agro-food supply chains: a systems approach ”, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol.  288 No.  3 , pp.  852 - 868 .

Thomé , K.M. , Cappellesso , G. , Ramos , E.L.A. and de Lima Duarte , S.C. ( 2020 ), “ Food supply chains and short food supply chains: coexistence conceptual framework ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 278 , 123207 .

Ting , S.L. , Tse , Y.K. , Ho , G.T.S. , Chung , S.H. and Pang , G. ( 2014 ), “ Mining logistics data to assure the quality in a sustainable food supply chain: a case in the red wine industry ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  152 , pp.  200 - 209 .

Touboulic , A. and Walker , H. ( 2015 ), “ Love me, love me not: a nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains ”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management , Vol.  21 No.  3 , pp.  178 - 191 .

Vodenicharova , M.S. ( 2020 ), “ Supply chain study in food industry in Bulgaria ”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , Vol.  48 No.  9 , pp.  921 - 938 .

Wilhelm , M. , Blome , C. , Wieck , E. and Xiao , C.Y. ( 2016 ), “ Implementing sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: strategies and contingencies in managing sub-suppliers ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.  182 , pp.  196 - 212 .

Winter , M. and Knemeyer , A.M. ( 2013 ), “ Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain management: current state and opportunities for future inquiry ”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management , Vol.  43 No.  1 , pp.  18 - 38 .

Xu , S. , Zhang , X. , Feng , L. and Yang , W. ( 2020 ), “ Disruption risks in supply chain management: a literature review based on bibliometric analysis ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  58 No.  11 , pp.  3508 - 3526 .

Yakavenka , V. , Mallidis , I. , Vlachos , D. , Iakovou , E. and Eleni , Z. ( 2020 ), “ Development of a multi-objective model for the design of sustainable supply chains: the case of perishable food products ”, Annals of Operations Research , Vol.  294 No.  1 , pp.  593 - 621 .

Yakovleva , N. , Sarkis , J. and Sloan , T. ( 2012 ), “ Sustainable benchmarking of supply chains: the case of the food industry ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  50 No.  5 , pp.  1297 - 1317 .

Zhong , R. , Xu , X. and Wang , L. ( 2017 ), “ Food supply chain management: systems, implementations, and future research ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol.  117 No.  9 , pp.  2085 - 2114 .

Zhu , Z. , Chu , F. , Dolgui , A. , Chu , C. , Zhou , W. and Piramuthu , S. ( 2018 ), “ Recent advances and opportunities in sustainable food supply chain: a model-oriented review ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol.  56 No.  17 , pp.  5700 - 5722 .

Acknowledgements

Although the views and ideas expressed in this article are those of Maria Palazzo and Agostino Vollero; “sections 1; 3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.6; 3.8; 4” are attributed to Maria Palazzo; while “sections 2; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; 3.7; 3.9; 5; 6” are attributed to Agostino Vollero.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Advertisement

A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 25 October 2016
• Volume 8 , pages 2209–2227, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Guillermo Garcia-Garcia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5562-9197 1 ,
• Elliot Woolley 1 ,
• Shahin Rahimifard 1 ,
• James Colwill 1 ,
• Rod White 2 &
• Louise Needham 3  

68k Accesses

133 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

As much as one-third of the food intentionally grown for human consumption is never consumed and is therefore wasted, with significant environmental, social and economic ramifications. An increasing number of publications in this area currently consider different aspects of this critical issue, and generally focus on proactive approaches to reduce food waste, or reactive solutions for more efficient waste management. In this context, this paper takes a holistic approach with the aim of achieving a better understanding of the different types of food waste, and using this knowledge to support informed decisions for more sustainable management of food waste. With this aim, existing food waste categorizations are reviewed and their usefulness are analysed. A systematic methodology to identify types of food waste through a nine-stage categorization is used in conjunction with a version of the waste hierarchy applied to food products. For each type of food waste characterized, a set of waste management alternatives are suggested in order to minimize environmental impacts and maximize social and economic benefits. This decision-support process is demonstrated for two case studies from the UK food manufacturing sector. As a result, types of food waste which could be managed in a more sustainable manner are identified and recommendations are given. The applicability of the categorisation process for industrial food waste management is discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste Valorization in Food Industries: A Review of Sustainable Approaches

Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Review

Food Wastes: Perceptions, Impacts and Management

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Food waste is one of the most challenging issues humankind is currently facing worldwide. Currently, food systems are extremely inefficient: it is estimated that between one-third and one half of the food produced is lost before reaching a human mouth [ 1 , 2 ]. The Sustainable Development Goal 12 ‘Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns’ established by the United Nations in 2015 includes a specific target for food waste reduction: halve per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030. Additionally, it also includes a more general goal to reduce food losses along food supply chains [ 3 ]. Therefore, it is expected that there will be an increasing number of initiatives, campaigns and legislative developments in order to reach the aforementioned objectives.

Nevertheless, reduction of the current levels of food waste must be accompanied by better management of the waste: inevitably there will always be some food waste. Furthermore, some parts of the food products are inedible and will unavoidably become a waste stream. There are countless alternatives to manage food waste, however the most common solution worldwide is still landfilling [ 4 ], which is highly damaging to the environment and poses a risk to human health, whereas it does not provide any benefit. In spite of the progress achieved in recent years to find alternative solutions, particularly in developed nations, better management of food waste in supply chains is still required.

Sustainable management of food waste is a momentous research area that has rapidly grown over recent years. Meritorious examples of research aiming to find sustainable solutions for food waste management are numerous, but they have been generally inclined to look into only one area of sustainability: environmental, economic or social ramifications [ 5 , 6 ]. Recent research aims to expand the scope and consider two or even all three pillars of sustainability implications mentioned above. Remarkable examples are work by Münster et al. [ 7 ], Ahamed et al. [ 8 ] and Martinez-Sanchez et al. [ 9 ], who consider economic and environmental ramifications of food waste management.

Nevertheless, as the scope of this research area expands, systematic analyses are needed to obtain comparable results. Examples of frameworks with this aim have been developed for solid waste management (e.g. [ 10 , 11 ]), but are less common for food waste management. A recent example of this is the framework recently developed by Manfredi et al. [ 12 ], which provides a useful six-step methodology to evaluate environmental and economic sustainability of different alternatives to manage food waste, with the aim of also incorporating social considerations.

The waste hierarchy applied to food products is a useful tool to rank waste management alternatives by sustainability performance. The waste hierarchy concept was introduced for the first time into European waste policy in 1975 [ 13 ], and has been continuously used until today in European Directives which have been implemented since then. It is also used in the UK by the Government and institutions such as Defra [ 14 ] and WRAP [ 15 ], and has been implemented in UK law [ 16 ]. There is a considerable number of research papers published in prestigious scientific journals discussing the waste hierarchy, plenty of them focussed on food waste, e.g. [ 17 , 18 ]. More detailed information on the technologies described in the food waste hierarchy and their associated emissions can be found in the Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatments Industries [ 19 ].

This paper describes a novel, systematic methodology to support sustainable decisions regarding management of food waste. With this objective, a nine-stage categorization and a version of the food waste hierarchy are used as a basis of a methodical procedure to identify types of food waste and alternative activities to manage them. As a result, a novel Food Waste Management Decision Tree is developed and discussed, and its applicability is tested using two case studies from the UK food manufacturing sector.

Methodology

Research aim and structure.

The decision as to which is the most beneficial waste management alternative to utilise to manage food waste is usually made considering fundamentally only economic reasons and availability of waste management facilities. Furthermore, legislation delimits the range of solutions applicable to manage different types of food waste and therefore the decision is often made considering only a few alternatives. This paper seeks to add environmental and social considerations to the decision-making process so that more sustainable solutions can be achieved from the range of feasible waste management options. With this aim, the structure of the research presented in this paper is as follows: firstly, the definition of food waste used throughout this paper is provided; secondly, previous categorizations of food waste are discussed; thirdly, a categorization process is described based on the most pertinent indicators to classify food wastes; fourthly, the different types of food waste identified are linked to their most appropriate waste management alternatives, building a Food Waste Management Decision Tree; and finally, the categorization process is illustrated with two case studies from the UK food industry. A visual model of the research approach used can be seen in Fig.  1 .

Structure of the research presented in this paper

Definition of Food Waste

The first aspect to look upon in order to improve food waste management is to define unambiguously the exact meaning of ‘food waste’. Unfortunately an agreement has not been reached yet and rather there are a range of definitions used. For consistency in this paper, food waste will be defined as food materials (including drinks) originally intended to be used to feed humans and not ultimately sold for human consumption by the food business under study, and inedible parts of food. Consequently, food sent to charities by companies is considered food waste in this paper, as it implies an economic loss to the food business, although from a biological and legal aspect this product remains being food and could be classified as surplus food. Inedible parts of food are also included in the definition because waste is often composed of both edible and inedible parts difficult to separate, and food businesses must manage this waste. Inedible food waste is thus considered unavoidable waste. Any food used in other way than for human consumption is also considered food waste (e.g. animal feeding, industrial uses). On the other hand, food wasted by consumers and managed at home (e.g. home composting) falls out of the scope of this paper. Clearly, the inclusion of these factors in the definition is debatable; this paper studies the management of these materials and therefore they have been included in the term ‘food waste’.

Review on Methods to Classify Food Waste

Categorization is a key step in order to identify the most appropriate waste management alternative for different types of food waste. Such categorization should consider all the divisions necessary to link different types of food waste with treatment methodologies in a way that their economic and social benefit are maximised and their environmental impact is minimized. Usually different studies use their own categorizations [ 20 ]. This section describes different attempts to classify food waste. These classifications are assessed and their usefulness to select optimal food waste management alternatives is discussed.

The most obvious categorization divides different types of food waste according to the type of food: cereals, fruits, meat, fish, drinks, etc. This categorization is useful to quantify the amount of food wasted based on mass (more commonly), energy content, economic cost, etc. There exist plenty of examples to classify food waste according to its food sector, e.g. [ 21 , 22 ]. This type of classification is typically based on codes, e.g. the recently published Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard recommends the use of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) system or the United Nations’ Central Product Classification (CPC) system as main codes, and when more precise classifications are needed, the Global Product Category (GPC) code or the United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC) as additional codes [ 23 ]. Additionally, food waste can be categorized with regard to its nutrient composition (e.g. carbohydrate and fat content [ 24 ]), chemical composition (e.g. C, H, N, O, S and Cl content [ 25 ]) or storage temperature (e.g. ambient, chilled or frozen [ 26 ]). Nonetheless, the information provided with these examples is not enough to prioritise some waste management alternatives against others.

In the UK, WRAP also identified the stages of the supply chain where food waste was generated (e.g. manufacturer, retailer) and assess the edibility of the waste. In this way, food waste can be avoidable (parts of the food that were actually edible), unavoidable (inedible parts of the food, such as bones, fruit skin, etc.) and possibly avoidable (food that some people would have eaten and others do not, such as bread crusts and potato skins) [ 27 ]. Different authors have further classified food waste at the household level as cooked/uncooked, as unpackaged/packaged food waste (when waste is packaged, it is additionally sorted as opened/unopened packaging) and according to their reason to disposal [ 28 – 30 ]. Other researchers also identified the leftovers and untouched food which goes to waste (e.g. [ 31 ]). Considering these options will be useful for a more comprehensive categorization, but there is still a lack of sections that further classify the waste in a way that a selection of the most appropriate waste management practice is facilitated. Furthermore, some of these classifications have been applied only to household food waste: a comprehensive categorization must include all stages of the food supply chain.

A more detailed attempt to classify food waste was carried out by Lin et al. [ 32 ], where food waste falls into the following categories: organic crop residue (including fruits and vegetables), catering waste, animal by-products, packaging, mixed food waste and domestic waste. In this study the potential for valorisation and some of the most appropriate options to manage the waste were assessed for each type of waste. However, the edibility of the waste and whether the food was fully processed during manufacturing were not considered.

Edjabou et al. [ 33 ] included two new factors: vegetable/animal-derived food waste and avoidable-processed/avoidable-unprocessed food waste. A more explicit classification with sub-categories was also suggested by Lebersorger and Schneider [ 20 ]. However the new sub-categories introduced, namely life cycle stage and packaging, are applicable only at the retail and household levels. They are irrelevant to improve the management of waste at other stages of the supply chain. On the other hand, Chabada et al. [ 34 ] used the ‘seven wastes’ approach from lean theory (namely transport, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, over-processing and defects) to classify categories of waste in fresh foods and identify the causes of waste generation, but not solutions for waste management. Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] suggested a number of indicators to classify food waste that provides useful information to delimit the range of waste management solutions applicable, nevertheless these indicators have not been used yet to identify the different types of food waste and propose the most appropriate waste management alternatives to manage them.

Therefore, a comprehensive and exhaustive analysis of all types of food waste has yet to be published. A holistic approach, where all relevant sub-categories of food wastes are identified and assessed, is necessary to support effective waste management. A solution to fill this knowledge gap is described in the following sections of this paper.

Indicators to Classify Food Waste

The previous section of the paper highlights the lack of a standardised and holistic approach to food waste management and the need for a classification process applicable to all types of food wastes as defined previously. The final aim of such a classification is to provide support for a better selection of alternatives to manage food waste. Any scheme should allow prioritisation of sustainability decisions in terms of the three pillars of sustainability:

Economic ramifications, which can be either positive (economic benefit obtained from management of the waste) or negative (economic cost to dispose of the waste).

Environmental impacts, which are usually negative (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions), but can also be positive (e.g. use of waste for the removal of pollutants in wastewater).

Social considerations, which can be either positive (e.g. food redistributed to people in need) or negative (e.g. increased taxes).

The categorization proposed in this paper is based on nine indicators as explained by Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] and shown in Fig.  2 . The assessment of these characteristics provides a systematic classification of the different types of food waste that enables a more appropriate selection amongst the available waste management alternatives. In each stage of the categorization process, one characteristic out of two or three options must be selected. Clarification of the different indicators can be found below:

Indicators to categorize food waste. Adapted from Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ]

Edibility : the product is edible if it is or has been expected to be consumed by humans at any point during its life cycle, otherwise the product is inedible. Inedible products include fruit skins, meat bones, some vegetable stalks, etc. When the product is edible from a biological point of view, but there is no demand for it (e.g. some types of offal, spent grain from breweries) it is considered inedible in this scheme, as it is not possible to reallocate it for human consumption. Therefore, the edibility of some food wastes can vary over time and geographical area considered. Various foods contain inedible parts when they are sold (e.g. banana and its skin); these food products are considered edible.

State : this characteristic must be assessed only for edible products. The product is eatable if it has not lost the required properties to be sold and fit for human consumption at the moment of its management as waste, otherwise the product is uneatable. If the food had not lost those properties, but requires further processing in the factory before being sold or consumed, it is classified as eatable and unprocessed (see indicator 6). A food product can become uneatable by being damaged at different points of the supply chain (e.g. overcooked during its manufacture, spilled during its distribution), being spoiled (e.g. leaving the cold chain), passing its use-by date, etc. If a product contains both uneatable and eatable parts and it is going to be managed as a whole, it must be considered uneatable. When the product is eatable from a biological point of view, there may still be ethical issues that can lead to classify it as uneatable to restrict its usage for human consumption, for instance to prevent using surplus alcoholic drinks for redistribution to charities, or products of lower quality to an acceptable established level. A third category includes products uneatable for humans because of safety concerns, but still fit for animal feeding (e.g. fallen from conveyor belts during manufacturing).

Origin : the product is animal based if it was produced by an animal (e.g. dairy products, eggs, honey) or using parts of animals (meat, including fish), otherwise the product is plant based. When the product contains both plant and animal-based materials (e.g. ready meals), it must be classified according to its predominant ingredient. If this is a plant ingredient the product will be also classified as a mixed product (see next categorization stage).

Complexity : this characteristic is only required for plant-based products. The product is single if it is formed of only one type of ingredient and it has not been in contact with other food material, otherwise the product is mixed.

Animal product presence : when the product is animal based, it must be categorized as meat (including fish), animal product (a product produced by animals) or by-product from animal bodies not intended for human consumption (e.g. by-products from slaughterhouses). In the last case, the waste should be further classified according to European regulations into Category 1, 2 or 3 [ 36 ]. When the product is plant based and mixed, it must be assessed as to whether the product contains any animal-based material or has been in contact with animal-based material.

Treatment : a food is considered processed when it has the same properties as the final product to be sold to the consumer (i.e. it has completed the manufacturing process, e.g. a ready meal; or the food does not need any processing before being distributed, e.g. fresh fruits and vegetables). If the food still needed any treatment at the moment of its management as waste it is unprocessed. Consequently, only edible and eatable waste should be assessed in this stage.

Packaging : a product is unpackaged if it is not contained in any packaging material. If the product is packaged but there is an available technology for unpacking and separating the food waste from its packaging, the product can be considered unpackaged; otherwise the product is packaged.

Packaging biodegradability : this characteristic must be assessed for packaged foods. Commonly, biodegradability of a material means that it can be digested by microorganisms, although the process may last for several months or years. Therefore, in this paper biodegradable packaging refers to that made of materials which have been tested and received a certificate of being “suitable for anaerobic digestion” or “compostable” in a technical composting plant (e.g. ‘DIN CERTCO’ logo and the ‘OK compost’ logo). Biodegradable packaging is generally composed of paper, bioplastics, wood or any plant-based product. Typically non-biodegradable packaging is made of plastic, glass or metal.

Stage of the supply chain : catering waste includes domestic waste and waste from food services (e.g. restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc.); non-catering waste is generated in earlier stages of the supply chain (i.e. during farming, manufacturing, distribution or retailing).

The assessment of these nine stages, and the consequent determination of nine characteristics, is the starting point to select the most convenient waste management alternative. The hypothesis of this work is that each combination of nine indicators has associated with it one most favourable solution. The nine-stage categorization scheme is intended to be easy to apply and determinative for selection of the optimal waste management alternatives, taking into account regulations and economic, environmental and social ramifications. The next chapter proposes a set of waste management alternatives for the different food waste types identified following the categorization based on the nine indicators explained in this section.

Development and Partial Results

Having identified and classified the different food wastes following the guidelines presented in the previous section, the next step is to identify and analyse the food waste management alternatives. In order to do so, the waste hierarchy applied to food products is an appropriate tool to classify the different options to manage food waste, based on the sustainability of its results. The particular order of the different options in the hierarchy (i.e. the preference of some alternatives against others) is debatable (e.g. anaerobic digestion is considered better than composting), but the final aim is to prioritize options with better environmental, economic and social outcomes. Hence, there are several slightly different adaptations of the food waste hierarchy, however the most recent versions are usually based on the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [ 37 ]. An example of a food waste hierarchy which aims to prioritise sustainable management alternatives can be seen in Fig.  3 ; it is based on previous versions, including those of Defra et al. [ 14 ], Adenso-Diaz and Mena [ 38 ], Papargyropoulou et al. [ 17 ] and Eriksson et al. [ 18 ].

Waste hierarchy for surplus food and food waste. Adapted from Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] and based on Defra et al. [ 14 ], Adenso-Diaz and Mena [ 38 ], Papargyropoulou et al. [ 17 ] and Eriksson et al. [ 18 ]

It is difficult to apply a waste hierarchy to food products due to the heterogeneity of these materials and the numbers of actors at different stages of the food supply chain that waste food. Therefore, the waste hierarchy must be assessed for each type of food waste, rather than for ‘food waste’ as a whole. This case-specific application of the waste hierarchy has been also recommended by Rossi et al. in their analysis of the applicability of the waste hierarchy for dry biodegradable packaging [ 39 ].

In this paper, environmental, economic and social ramifications associated with food waste management are considered, but impacts of the food during its life cycle are not included as they do not affect food waste management decisions (i.e. the impacts have already occurred before the food was wasted). Consequently, a life-cycle approach was not necessary to assess different alternatives and only end-of-life impacts were studied.

In order to link the categorization process and the waste management alternatives from the food waste hierarchy, the indicators described previously have been firstly used to identify the different types of food waste. Each indicator has been assessed and the superfluous categories for each indicator have been eliminated to simplify the analysis (e.g. state for inedible waste). The optimal waste management alternatives have been identified for each type of food waste in compliance with UK and European regulations and based on the food waste hierarchy, therefore prioritising the most sustainable solutions (Fig.  3 ). The result of this analysis has been represented in a diagram (namely Food Waste Management Decision Tree, FWMDT) that helps with analysing food waste using the indicators described. This FWMDT has been divided into four parts for display purposes and can be seen in Fig.  4 (edible, eatable animal-based food waste), Fig.  5 (edible, eatable, plant-based food waste), Fig.  6 (edible, uneatable food waste) and Fig.  7 (inedible and uneatable for humans, eatable for animals food waste).

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, eatable, animal-based food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, eatable, plant-based food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, uneatable food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Inedible and uneatable for humans, eatable for animals food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives. The list of materials classified as animal by-products categories 1–3 can be found in [ 36 ]

The FWMDT functions as a flowchart. The user begins at the highest level, and selects the indicator that best describes the food waste (e.g. edible or inedible). The user then moves through subsequent levels of the diagram, following the arrows and making further indicator selections. At the bottom the user is presented with a set of waste management alternatives that differ according to the set of indicators for that food type.

The food waste must be broken down for analysis into the same subgroups as for the treatments to be applied, e.g. if a food business generates both plant-based waste and animal-based waste which are collected and treated separately, they must be also assessed independently. However, if a producer of convenience foods produces undifferentiated waste composed of both plant and animal products, this must be studied as a whole. In the latter example, the waste is classified as a mixed product. It is readily seen that separate collection provides the benefit that more targeted management practices can be carried out on the different food waste streams. When separate collection is not possible, a thorough waste sorting is still recommended, although some of the alternatives will not be available then (e.g. plant-based food waste that has been in contact with meat cannot be used for animal feeding).

The development of a categorization that covers all types of food waste is arduous due to the number of waste types and their dissimilarity. Similarly, there are numerous alternatives for food waste management. In Fig.  3 some of these numerous alternatives have been grouped—for instance, all processes for extracting substances from all types of food waste are included in extraction of compounds of interest. This is because there are dozens of chemical and physical routes to obtain bio-compounds from food products, and also numerous possibilities to use different types of food waste for industrial applications such as removal of pollutants from wastewater. It is therefore unfeasible to consider all these options explicitly for all the food waste categories. Consequently, in all cases when there are management alternatives other than redistribution and animal feeding suggested in the FWMDT, a targeted study for each type of waste must be carried out in order to find what opportunities there are to extract compounds of interest or for industrial use, before considering options lower down in the food waste hierarchy.

Additionally, prevention of food waste generation is not included in the FWMDT because is out of the scope of this research, and also this option would be always prioritised, as it is at the top of the food waste hierarchy and can potentially be applied to all types of edible food wastes. The option of prevention also includes alternative uses of products for human consumption (e.g. a misshapen vegetable that can be used in convenience foods). In these cases the products must be reprocessed and they would not be considered food waste according to the definition provided in the previous section, and therefore they are out of the scope of this work. If instead they are directly consumed without further processing the alternative to follow will be redistribution, although this will normally give a smaller economic benefit to the food company than selling them at their normal price. In this paper it is assumed that all prevention steps have been taken to minimize food waste generation, but nevertheless food waste is created and requires waste management optimisation.

Landspreading can be used with the majority of food waste types, but according to the food waste hierarchy (Fig.  3 ) this alternative is less beneficial than composting. As both alternatives can be used to treat the same types of food wastes, landspreading has not been further considered in this work and only composting has been examined.

Additionally, the last two waste management practices, namely landfilling and thermal treatment without energy recovery, are not considered in the analysis. Landfilling has a high environmental impact, and its economic and social outcomes are also negative. Treatment without energy recovery damages the environment likewise, but its economic and social ramifications are generally less adverse. In both cases there are always more sustainable management practices that can be used to manage food waste, even if these two alternatives could be potentially used with all types of food waste, regardless of their nature.

The FWMDT was designed as far as possible to embody the categories and indicators described in the previous section, but this was not always achievable. For instance, the category animal-product presence includes additional indicators for inedible, animal-based products, as can be seen in Fig.  7 , to comply with European regulations [ 36 ].

A description of each management alternative evaluated and the associated types of waste can be found below.

Redistribution for Human Consumption

Redistribution for human consumption is the optimal alternative, as food is used to feed people. Agreements with charities and food banks help to distribute surplus food to those in need. Products must be edible, eatable and processed, as defined in the previous section. It must be noted that processed does not necessarily mean that the final product was fully processed as initially planned by the food business, e.g. surplus potatoes for the preparation of chips for ready meals can be redistributed if they are fit for human consumption and distribution (for example, they have not been peeled yet) and comply with regulations. In this case the potatoes are defined as processed because they are as sold to final consumers. The European legislation redistribution for human consumption must meet is the General Food Law [ 40 ], the Food Hygiene Package [ 41 – 44 ], the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 [ 45 ], and the Tax legislation [ 46 ], as explained by O’Connor et al. [ 47 ]. An extensive study of the situation of food banks and food donation in the UK was carried out by Downing et al. [ 48 ].

Animal Feeding

This is the best alternative for foods which are not fit for human consumption but are suitable for animal feeding. In this category only farmed animals are considered (e.g. cattle, swine, sheep, poultry and fish). Pets, non-ruminant zoo animals, etc. are excluded, following guidelines explained in [ 49 ]. In order to be used for animal feeding, products must either be eatable or uneatable for humans but eatable for animals, unpackaged or separable from packaging, and non-catering waste. Inedible, plant based, single product, non-catering waste can be used for animal feeding depending on the type of waste. This particular case must be assessed for each type of waste independently. When the product is mixed, it must be either not in contact with or containing meat, by-products from animal bodies or raw eggs if it is eatable, or not in contact with or containing animal-based products if it is inedible or uneatable for humans but eatable for animals. Mixed waste containing animal products from manufacturers is suitable for animal feeding when the animal product is not the main ingredient. Meat (or plant-based products containing meat) cannot be sent for animal feeding. Eggs and egg products (or plant-based products containing them) must come from the agricultural or manufacturing stage when used for animal feeding and must follow specific treatments. Milk and dairy products can be used for animal feeding if they are processed (the processing needed is similar to that for human consumption), or unprocessed under UK rules if the farm is a registered milk processing establishment. Inedible, animal based, category 3 waste can also be used for animal feeding only under the conditions listed in the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ). According to European regulations, all types of category 3 animal by-products can be used in animal feed except hides, skins, hooves, feathers, wool, horns, hair, fur, adipose tissue and catering waste. Nevertheless the UK regulation is stricter than European regulations and this has been incorporated into the FWMDT. It must be noted that technically some category 3 animal by-products are edible, but they are not intended for human consumption. In any case, they must be not spoiled in order to be usable for animal feeding, and in most cases they must be processed following specific requirements before being used. If a waste contains different categories of animal by-products, it must be treated following the requirements of the material with the highest risk (category 1: highest risk, category 3: lowest risk). The following sources have been used to develop the FWMDT and must be consulted when using animal by-products in animal feeds: European regulations [ 36 , 50 , 51 ] and UK legislation [ 52 ]. Useful guidance information on this matter in the UK can be found at [ 49 , 53 ]. Further information on additional legislation that applies to work with animal by-products can be found at [ 54 ] and [ 55 ] for milk products. Eggs must be treated in a processing facility under national rules [ 56 ]. The following additional legislation for animal feeding has also been consulted: European regulations [ 57 – 59 ] and regulations in England [ 60 ]. General guidance on animal feeding was collected by Food Standards Agency [ 61 ].

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion can be used with all types of food waste except animal by-products category 1 and packaged waste (i.e. non-separable from packaging) in a non-biodegradable packaging. The animal by-products category 3 must be pasteurised; the particle size of animal by-products category 2 must be 50 mm or smaller, and its core must have reached a temperature of 133 °C for at least 20 min without interruption at an absolute pressure of at least 3 bar [ 36 , 52 , 62 ]. Anaerobic digestion plants in the UK must comply with regulations with regard to environmental protection, animal by-products, duty of care, health and safety and waste handling (more information about the different legal requirements can be found in [ 63 ]).

The types of material suitable for composting are the same as for anaerobic digestion: all food waste except animal by-products category 1 and packaged waste (i.e. non-separable from packaging) in non-biodegradable packaging. Animal by-products category 2 can be composted if processed according to regulations [ 36 , 52 ]. Composting must be carried out in closed vessels (in-vessel composting) if the waste contains or has been in contact with any animal-based material [ 15 , 62 ], as it can attract vermin. Further guidance for the composting of waste can be found in [ 64 ].

Thermal Treatment with Energy Recovery

This alternative can be applied to every type of food waste; nevertheless its use must be minimized as it provides small benefit compared to the impacts generated. Additionally, a great quantity of energy is needed to treat food waste due to its mainly high water content, and therefore this alternative may be useful and give an energy return on investment when treating dry food wastes (e.g. bread and pastries) or food waste mixed with other materials, such as in municipal solid waste. Thermal treatments with energy recovery, which includes incineration, pyrolysis and gasification, is the only alternative available to treat packaged food (non-separable from packaging) in non-biodegradable packaging, except the cases when the product is also edible, eatable and processed, and therefore can be redistributed for human consumption. As this type of waste is the final packaged product it will usually be generated in the last stages of the supply chain, particularly at retailing and consumer level (municipal solid waste). Thermal treatments with energy recovery are also the most appropriate alternative to treat animal by-products category 1, and in some cases, it is also necessary to process by pressure sterilisation [ 36 , 52 ]. Useful information on incineration of municipal solid waste can be found in [ 65 ] and on technologies and emissions from waste incineration in the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration [ 66 ].

Final Results and Discussion: Case Studies

Introduction to case studies.

The food waste categorization process presented in this paper has been applied to two case studies to demonstrate its applicability: a brewery (Molson Coors) and a manufacturer of meat-alternative products (Quorn Foods). These food companies were selected because previous contact between the researchers and the industries existed, and also due to their leading position in their product market, large size and therefore a predictable number of different types of food waste produced. A visit to their headquarters took place in June 2015, in which interviews were held with company employees. A questionnaire was used to systematically identify food waste streams and collect relevant data.

The categorization of these wastes according to the categorization scheme and the most favourable waste treatment alternatives identified using the FWMDT (Figs.  4 – 7 ) are explained in the following sections. The rest of the alternatives from the food waste hierarchy were also assessed for each type of food waste.

Brewery: Molson Coors

This section categorizes the different types of food waste generated at one of Molson Coors’ manufacturing sites, a brewery situated in central England. The different types of food waste generated, in order of decreasing quantity, are: spent grain, waste beer, conditioning bottom, filter waste and trub. The quantity of waste generated during a year is only dependent on the level of production, since a relatively constant percentage of waste is generated per amount of final product manufactured. The different types of food waste identified are categorized in Table  1 and explained below.

Spent Grain

Spent grain accounts for around 85 % of the total food waste in the manufacturing plant. It is an unavoidable by-product of the mashing process and is formed of barley and small amounts of wheat.

According to the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ), the best option is to send the waste for animal feeding. Currently spent grain is mixed with trub (in an approximate proportion of 99 % spent grain, 1 % trub) and used for animal feeding. However, the possibility of reprocessing the waste to adapt it for human consumption was also assessed, as suggested in the previous subsection. Spent grains contain high proportions of dietary fibres and proteins which may provide a number of health benefits [ 67 ]. Spent grain should not be mixed with trub if it is intended to use it to produce food products. Flour can be produced from spent grain following a process that includes drying and grinding [ 67 ]. This can be mixed afterwards with wheat flour and used in a wide range of food products such as bread, muffins, biscuits, etc., increasing their health benefits [ 68 ]. It must be noted that production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because spent grain was considered inedible, as there is no current consumer demand for the products described above. If technology existed to produce new food products from spent grain, such as those described above, and these products could be sold because there was a consumer demand for it, spent grain would not be considered food waste providing it was used for this purpose.

Other uses for spent grain, apart from food uses and for animal fodder, include pet food, use in construction bricks, removal of pollutants in wastewater, production of paper, growing medium for mushrooms or microorganisms, extraction and synthesis of compounds (e.g. bioethanol, lactic acid, polymers and resins, hydroxycinnamic acids, arabinooligoxylosides, xylitol, pullulan), anaerobic digestion, composting, thermal treatment with energy recovery and landspreading [ 68 – 70 ].

This waste corresponds to the final product which is not ultimately consumed. There are three reasons as to why this waste is generated:

Beer left in casks brought back from the food service sector, which accounts for most of the waste in this category. It means an economic loss to the food service sector, not to the brewing company; therefore, it has not been given a high importance by the beer producer.

Beer rejected because of mislabelling.

Spilled beer in the filling process, which accounts for a negligible amount.

Currently, 95 % of the waste is sent to farms and mixed with other waste to feed animals (pigs). The remaining 5 % is sent to sewage.

Ideally, and according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ), beer left in casks could be reused for human consumption; however, as this comes from outside of the factory, it is difficult to prove that it has not been altered and is safe for consumption. If the option of redistribution for human consumption is discarded, the next recommended alternative is animal feeding, which is the current final use.

Beer rejected because of mislabelling is perfectly potable, so it is potentially reusable; however, there is difficulty of extracting the product from its packaging (i.e. emptying bottles and dispensing the product into new bottles). This would require significant employee time or new technologies for automation of the process, but would prevent beer from being wasted. Alternatively, in England the mislabelled beer can be sold at a lower price to a redistributor of surplus products such as Company Shop, where the label is corrected to meet Food Information Regulations 2014 [ 71 ], and providing the beer is compliant with food safety legislation it can be sold at a lower price to the final consumer. Similarly, European legislation that regulates the food information that must be provided to consumers in product labelling is the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 [ 45 ]. Food banks generally do not serve beer and therefore in these cases it cannot be redistributed to charities for people in need.

Alternatively, extraction of alcohol from waste beer by distillation could also give an economic benefit.

Conditioning Bottom

This waste is an unavoidable by-product which settles to the bottom of the conditioner tanks during the maturation process. It is composed principally of yeast, thus it is edible. However, it is not suitable for redistribution for human consumption, as the waste is not processed. Currently it is sent for animal feeding (pigs), which is the optimal alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ).

Alternatively, some substances from the conditioning bottom can be used to produce new food products. Yeast can be separated and used to produce foodstuff. In order to recover yeast, the sediment should be filtered and squeezed, and this gives the opportunity to recover cloudy-type beer. As well as with spent grain, discussed previously, production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because conditioning bottom is unprocessed, as there is either no current consumer demand for it or no technology available to undertake the processes required.

Filter Waste

Filter waste is formed of diatomaceous earth, yeasts and proteins. Yeast and proteins are edible; typically diatomaceous earth (i.e. fossilized remains of diatoms) is considered inedible; however there are two types: food grade diatomaceous earth and inedible diatomaceous earth. In order to choose the best waste management alternative the type of diatomaceous earth must first be identified. As the current use for beer production is as a filter medium, it will be assumed to be inedible diatomaceous earth.

Following the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ), the waste should be used in animal feeds. However, the type of diatomaceous earth used is not suitable for animal feeding and therefore the next alternative from the food waste hierarchy was suggested: anaerobic digestion to obtain energy. Currently, filter waste is sent to composting (when it is dry) and sewage (when it is wet). As composting is an alternative under anaerobic digestion in the waste hierarchy and sewage is at the bottom of the hierarchy, there is an important opportunity for improvement. Potential additional uses of diatomaceous earth include industrial (filter medium, stabiliser of nitroglycerin, abrasive in metal polishes and toothpaste, thermal insulator, reinforcing filler in plastics and rubber, anti-block in plastic films, support for catalysts, activation in blood coagulating studies, cat litter, etc.), additive in ceramic mass for the production of red bricks, insecticide and anticaking agent for grain storage (when it is food grade), growing medium in hydroponic gardens and plotted plants and landspreading [ 72 , 73 ].

This is an unavoidable by-product obtained principally in the separator after the brewing process. It is formed of hops, inactive yeast, heavy fats and proteins. Currently this waste is mixed with spent grain and sent to animal feeding, which is the best alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ).

On the other hand, while hops are typically considered inedible, some parts are actually edible. For example, hop shoots can be consumed by humans [ 74 ]. Ideally edible parts of the hops would be separated and used in food products and the remaining hops be sent to animal feeding. Yeast, fats and proteins could potentially be used in food products. As well as with spent grain, discussed previously, production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because trub was considered inedible, as there is either no current consumer demand for the products described above or no technology available to undertake the processes required.

Applicability of the Categorization Process and the FWMDT

The FWMDT was proved to be useful to classify food waste generated at Molson Coors, as two types of waste were identified to be upgradeable: waste beer and filter waste could be managed in an alternative way in which more value would be obtained.

The assessment of some categories was complex for some food wastes, e.g. edibility for spent grain and waste beer. Spent grain was demonstrated to be edible, but as there is no market for this product for human consumption spent grain waste was consequently further classified as inedible. Research and investment to produce new food products from spent grain is encouraged, and when that takes place the categorization of spent grain will have to be amended. Waste beer was classified as eatable, however safety concerns regarding beer left in casks brought back from the food service sector must be overcome before the beer is reused. Should waste beer be considered safe for consumption but of low quality, ethical issues may arise regarding the benefits of using it for human consumption. Following the FWMDT, redistributing safe food for human consumption is always better from a sustainable point of view than any other alternative from the food waste hierarchy.

The feasibility to send food waste to animal feeding was also difficult to assess. It was found that when considering animal feeding for inedible, plant-based, single or mixed product not in contact with or containing animal-based products, non-catering waste (Fig.  7 ) each type of food waste should be analysed independently. For instance, trub can be sent for animal feeding but filter waste not because it contains diatomaceous earth which cannot be digested by animals.

Additionally, waste formed principally of yeast could not be strictly classified as plant-based or animal-based. The ‘microorganisms’ indicator was introduced for this reason, but in practice this was considered as plant-based material, since it is not under animal by-product regulations.

Molson Coors also generates a by-product from the mashing process, spent yeast, which is currently sold to a food company nearby to produce Marmite ® , a food spread. Since this by-product is sold as planned by Molson Coors to produce a food product, it is not considered food waste according to the definition provided previously, and therefore is out of the scope of this work. If spent yeast were sent for any other use, it would be considered food waste and would have to be analysed using the FWMDT.

Manufacturer of Meat Alternatives: Quorn Foods

This section categorizes the different types of food waste generated at Quorn Foods, a manufacturer of meat alternatives situated in Northern England. Two types of food waste were identified: food solid/slurry mix and food product returns, which account for 63 and 21 % of the total waste in the factory respectively. The rest of the waste is non-food materials such as cardboard, plastic, etc. The quantity of waste generated during a year is only conditional on the level of production: a relatively constant percentage of waste is generated per amount of final product manufactured. The different food waste types are listed and categorized in Table  2 and explained below.

Food Solid/Slurry Mix

This category of waste includes products being lost through the production line: product falling from conveyor belts, trimmings, product stuck onto inner walls of the industrial equipment, etc. It has the same ingredients as the final product: fungus (mycoprotein), plant-based material, and animal-based products (egg albumen) in low proportions: 2–3 % by mass of the final product. It is an avoidable waste as it could be reduced or eliminated with more appropriate industrial equipment.

This waste was considered eatable, as it is generated only because of the inefficiency of the systems rather than to due to problems with the product. However, a more detailed analysis should be carried out to identify all different cases where this waste is generated and assess their state. If uneatable waste (e.g. spilled food onto the floor) is found, this should be classified as a different category of waste [ 75 ], although the new food waste management alternative for this waste according to the FWMDT would remain unchanged in this particular case: animal feeding.

Considering the previous comments, the most beneficial alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ) is animal feeding, which is the option currently followed by the company. Unfortunately, this does not provide any economic income at present.

An investment in improvements in the industrial equipment would reduce the amount of food wasted in this category. Alternatively, the waste generated could be recovered and used to produce more final product.

Food Product Returns

Food product returns is the final product which cannot be sold to the final consumer for a number of reasons, including incorrect formulation, no traceability, packaging errors, etc. It has the same ingredients as the final product: fungus (mycoprotein), plant-based material, and animal-based products (egg albumen) in low proportions: 2–3 % by mass of the final product. It is an avoidable waste as it could be reduced or eliminated with more appropriate manufacturing practices.

This waste was considered eatable, as it corresponds to the final product. However, a more detailed analysis must be carried out before redistributing the food for human consumption in order to identify all different cases where this waste is generated and assess their state. If uneatable waste is found (e.g. its use-by date has passed), it must be classified as a different category of waste and this will allow a bespoke solution for this type of food waste. In this case, since the product is packaged, there is no risk of uneatable waste contaminating eatable waste.

Considering the previous comments, the most beneficial alternative is redistribution for human consumption, according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ). Currently the waste is separated from its packaging and sent to anaerobic digestion. The remaining packaging is used to produce refuse-derived fuel.

The FWMDT was proved to be useful to classify food waste generated at Quorn Foods, as one type of waste was identified to be upgradeable: food product returns could be managed in an alternative way in which more value would be obtained.

A more detailed analysis would be useful to identify sub-types of food waste and consequently the categorization process should be completed for all new food wastes found. This would provide a tailored waste management alternative for each type of food waste. For instance, if a final product for which the use-by date has passed is found, this could be named as ‘expired food product returns’ and its most appropriate waste management alternative would be anaerobic digestion, unlike the current generic ‘food product returns’ which should be redistributed.

Additionally, waste formed principally of fungus could not be strictly classified as plant-based or animal-based. The ‘fungus’ indicator was introduced for this reason, but in practice this was considered as plant-based material, since it is not covered by animal by-product regulations.

Conclusions

The food waste categorization and management selection flowchart (i.e. the Food Waste Management Decision Tree) discussed in this paper facilitates the selection of the most sustainable food waste management alternative, with the objective of minimizing environmental impacts and maximising economic and social benefits. The categorization is intended to be easy to apply, facilitating identification of the type of food waste generated, and its link with the most appropriate food waste management alternative. This methodology has been illustrated with case studies from two large UK food and drink manufacturers. Their food waste types have been identified and their existing waste management practices compared to the proposed alternatives. It was found that a detailed breakdown of the types of food waste provides significantly better results than general itemisation, since bespoke solutions can be used for each food waste.

The analysis described can be applied to every type of food waste from every stage of the food supply chain. However, this methodology is expected to be more useful in the early stages (agricultural and manufacturing) of the food supply chain, where separate collection is generally carried out more effectively, than in the retailing and consumer stages where waste is often sent to municipal solid waste. Additionally, it is recommended to adapt the categorization to each food sector or business and include more waste management alternatives in the analysis (e.g. extraction of compounds of interest from food waste).

Unfortunately, the alternatives at the top of the food waste hierarchy are applicable to fewer food waste types than those at the bottom. Consequently, a range of solutions is required for a tailored treatment of each food waste type. A clear example of this is the reduction in the previously widespread use of food waste for animal feeding. This is due to stricter regulation that has resulted in fewer types of food waste that can be used to feed animals [ 76 ]. Health and safety concerns influence legislation on food waste management, but excessively zealous bans of food waste management options results in the unintended consequence that less advantageous alternatives are more commonly used. Regarding the animal feeding example, there are initiatives to change legislation and allow more types of food waste to be fed to animals [ 77 ].

The food waste categorization scheme is also useful for monitoring purposes. It provides an easy way to classify food waste in a business or a region to assess progress in management and sustainability and measure against other companies or areas. In order to do that, firstly a clear definition of food waste must be agreed, the boundaries of the system to analyse must be delimited, and afterwards the food waste types can be identified and quantified.

Evaluating the relative merits of waste management alternatives is a complex task. The factors determining which solution is more convenient are difficult to assess and sometimes even difficult to identify, including yields of the processes, proximity of waste management facilities, tax regulations, and demand for by-products, amongst many others. As a consequence, the waste hierarchy should be applied to every type of food waste identified independently, rather than to food waste as a whole, and undertake an exhaustive analysis for each food waste. To meet this challenge the authors are developing an analysis method and associated figures of merit to allow quantitative comparison of waste management alternatives, with a focus on environmental impacts, as an improvement over the current, qualitative approach.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Global food losses and food waste—extent, causes and prevention, Rome (Italy) (2011)

Institute of Mechanical Engineers: Global Food—Waste Not. Want Not, London, UK (2013)

Google Scholar  

United Nations: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Toolkit. Reducing the Food Wastage Footprint (2013)

Griffin, M., Sobal, J., Lyson, T.A.: An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agric. Human Values 26 , 67–81 (2009)

Article   Google Scholar  

Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J.: A management framework for municipal solid waste systems and its application to food waste prevention. Systems 3 , 133–151 (2015)

Münster, M., Ravn, H., Hedegaard, K., Juul, N., Ljunggren Söderman, M.: Economic and environmental optimization of waste treatment. Waste Manag. 38 , 486–495 (2015)

Ahamed, A., Yin, K., Ng, B.J.H., Ren, F., Chang, V.W.-C., Wang, J.-Y.: Life cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste management technologies from environmental and economic impact perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 131 , 607–614 (2016)

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

Harrison, K.W., Dumas, R.D., Solano, E., Barlaz, M.A., Downey Brill, E.J., Ranjithan, S.R.: Decision support tool for life-cycle-based solid waste management. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 15 , 44–58 (2001)

Karmperis, A.C., Aravossis, K., Tatsiopoulos, I.P., Sotirchos, A.: Decision support models for solid waste management: review and game-theoretic approaches. Waste Manag. 33 , 1290–1301 (2013)

Manfredi, S., Cristobal, J.: Towards more sustainable management of European food waste: methodological approach and numerical application. Waste Manag. Res. 0734242X16652965 (2016)

The Council of the European Communities: Council Directive of 15 December 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Communities. L 194/39–41 (1975)

Defra, Environment Agency, WRAP: Applying the Waste Hierarchy: evidence summary. London (UK) (2011)

Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Applying the waste hierarchy: a guide to business (2011)

Statutory Instruments: The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (2011)

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., bin Ujang, Z.: The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76 , 106–115 (2014)

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A.: Carbon footprint of food waste management options in the waste hierarchy—a Swedish case study. J. Clean. Prod. 93 , 115–125 (2015)

European Commission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatments Industries (2006)

Lebersorger, S., Schneider, F.: Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manag. 31 , 1924–1933 (2011)

Flores, R.A., Shanklin, C.W., Loza-Garay, M., Wie, S.H.: Quantification and characterization of food processing wastes/residues. Compost Sci. Util. 7 , 63–71 (1999)

Malamis, D., Moustakas, K., Bourka, A., Valta, K., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Panaretou, V., Skiadi, O., Sotiropoulos, A.: Compositional analysis of biowaste from study sites in Greek municipalities. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 6 , 637–646 (2015)

Food Loss + Waste Protocol: Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (2016)

Russ, W., Meyer-Pittroff, R.: Utilizing waste products from the food production and processing industries. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 44 , 57–62 (2004)

Hla, S.S., Roberts, D.: Characterisation of chemical composition and energy content of green waste and municipal solid waste from Greater Brisbane, Australia. Waste Manag. 41 , 12–19 (2015)

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. 55 , 648–658 (2011)

Bridgwater, E., Quested, T.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Synthesis of Food Waste Compositional Data 2012 (2013)

Ventour, L.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The food we waste (2008)

Quested, T., Murphy, L.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Household food and drink waste: A product focus (2014)

Schott, A.B.S., Andersson, T.: Food waste minimization from a life-cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 147 , 219–226 (2015)

Matsuda, T., Yano, J., Hirai, Y., Sakai, S.: Life-cycle greenhouse gas inventory analysis of household waste management and food waste reduction activities in Kyoto, Japan. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 , 743–752 (2012)

Lin, C., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Solhy, A., Clark, P.J., Koutinas, A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., Thankappan, S., Zahouily, M., Brocklesby, R., Luque, R.: Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6 , 426–464 (2013)

Edjabou, M.E., Jensen, M.B., Götze, R., Pivnenko, K., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F.: Municipal solid waste composition: sampling methodology, statistical analyses, and case study evaluation. Waste Manag. 36 , 12–23 (2015)

Chabada, L., Dreyer, H.C., Romsdal, A., Powell, D.J.: Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Towards a Framework for Waste Identification. In: Emmanouilidis, C., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems. Competitive Manufacturing for Innovative Products and Services, pp. 208–215. Springer, Berlin (2013)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Garcia-Garcia, G., Woolley, E., Rahimifard, S.: A framework for a more efficient approach to food waste management. Int. J. Food Eng. 1 , 65–72 (2015)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 300/1–33 (2009)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 312/3–30 (2008)

Adenso-Diaz, B., Mena, C.: Food industry waste management. In: Tiwari, B.K., Norton, T., Holden, N.M. (eds.) Sustainable Food Processing, pp. 453–462. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2014)

Rossi, V., Cleeve-Edwards, N., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Dubois, C., Humbert, S., Jolliet, O.: Life cycle assessment of end-of-life options for two biodegradable packaging materials: sound application of the European waste hierarchy. J. Clean. Prod. 86 , 132–145 (2015)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (2002)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/3–21 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/22–82 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/83–127 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 195/12–15 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 304/18–63 (2011)

The Council of the European Union: Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 347/1–118 (2006)

O’Connor, C., Gheoldus, M., Jan, O.: Comparative Study on EU Member States’ legislation and practices on food donation, Final report (2014)

Downing, E., Kennedy, S., Fell, M.: Food Banks and Food Poverty. House of Commons Library. SN06657. Libr. House Commons. (2014)

Gov.uk: Supplying and using animal by-products as farm animal feed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplying-and-using-animal-by-products-as-farm-animal-feed . Accessed November 2015

The European Comission: Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 54 , 1–254 (2011)

European Comission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries (2005)

The Secretary of State: The Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. Statut. Instruments (2013)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): Controls on Animal By-Products: Guidance on Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and accompanying implementing Regulation (EC) 142/2011, enforced in England by the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2011 (2011)

Gov.uk: Guidance for the animal by-product industry. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-for-the-animal-by-product-industry . Accessed October 2015

Gov.uk: Using leftover milk and milk products as farm animal feed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-leftover-milk-and-milk-products-as-farm-animal-feed . Accessed October 2015

Gov.uk: How to operate an animal by-product (ABP) processing facility. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-operate-an-animal-by-product-abp-processing-facility . Accessed November 2015

European Commission (EC): Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed. Off. J. Eur. Union. L140, 10–21 (2002)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 268/29–42 (2003)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 229/1–28 (2009)

The Secretary of State: The Animal Feed (England) Regulations 2010. Statut. Instruments (2010)

Food Standards Agency (FSA): Animal feed legislation and guidance. http://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farmingfood/animalfeed/animalfeedlegislation . Accessed November 2015

Gov.uk: Using animal by-products at compost and biogas sites. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-animal-by-products-at-compost-and-biogas-sites . Accessed December 2015

Biogas-info.co.uk: Regulation. http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/about/regulation/

Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Quality Protocol. Compost. End of waste criteria for the production and use of quality compost from source-segregated biodegradable waste

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),: Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. (2013)

European Commission: Reference document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. Integr. Pollut. Prev. Control. (2006)

Santos, M., Jiménez, J.J., Bartolomé, B., Gómez-Cordovés, C., Del Nozal, M.J.: Variability of brewer’s spent grain within a brewery. Food Chem. 80 , 17–21 (2003)

Mussatto, S.I., Dragone, G., Roberto, I.C.: Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics and potential applications. J. Cereal Sci. 43 , 1–14 (2006)

Aliyu, S., Bala, M.: Brewer’s spent grain: a review of its potentials and applications. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10 , 324–331 (2013)

Environmental Protection Agency: BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for the Brewing. Malting & Distilling Sector, Wexford (Ireland) (2008)

Statutory Instruments: The Food Information Regulations 2014 (2014)

Ferraz, E., Coroado, J., Silva, J., Gomes, C., Rocha, F.: Manufacture of ceramic bricks using recycled brewing spent Kieselguhr. Mater. Manuf. Process. 26 , 1319–1329 (2011)

Diatomaceous Earth. https://www.diatomaceousearth.com/ . Accessed March 2016

The Guardian: “It”s like eating a hedgerow’: why do hop shoots cost €1,000 a kilo? http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2015/may/18/its-like-eating-a-hedgerow-why-do-hop-shoots-cost-1000-a-kilo . Accessed March 2016

European Commission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the food, drink and milk industries (2006)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),: Feeding catering waste to farmed animals is ILLEGAL., London (UK)

Stuart, T., Miers, T., Wahaca: The pig idea. http://thepigidea.org/ . Accessed March 2016

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK through the Grant EP/K030957/1.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Sustainable Manufacturing and Recycling Technologies (SMART), Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK

Guillermo Garcia-Garcia, Elliot Woolley, Shahin Rahimifard & James Colwill

Molson Coors, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK

Quorn Foods, Stokesley, North Yorkshire, UK

Louise Needham

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliot Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Garcia-Garcia, G., Woolley, E., Rahimifard, S. et al. A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste. Waste Biomass Valor 8 , 2209–2227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0

Download citation

Received : 09 June 2016

Accepted : 29 September 2016

Published : 25 October 2016

Issue Date : September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0

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

• Waste categorization
• Waste management
• Food sustainability
• Brewery waste
• Mycoprotein waste
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research