food waste management essay

• Ways to Give
• Contact an Expert
• Explore WRI Perspectives

Filter Your Site Experience by Topic

Applying the filters below will filter all articles, data, insights and projects by the topic area you select.

• All Topics Remove filter
• Climate filter site by Climate
• Cities filter site by Cities
• Energy filter site by Energy
• Food filter site by Food
• Forests filter site by Forests
• Freshwater filter site by Freshwater
• Ocean filter site by Ocean
• Business filter site by Business
• Economics filter site by Economics
• Finance filter site by Finance
• Equity & Governance filter site by Equity & Governance

Search WRI.org

Not sure where to find something? Search all of the site's content.

The Global Benefits of Reducing Food Loss and Waste, and How to Do It

• Food Loss and Waste
• food security

One-third of all food produced globally by weight is lost or wasted between farm and fork — that's  more than 1 billion tonnes . Converted into calories, this equates to 24% of the world’s food supply going uneaten. At the same time,  1 in 10 people globally remain malnourished.

This scale of food loss and waste harms not only human health and nutrition but also economies and the environment. Wasted food takes a major financial toll, costing the global economy more than $1 trillion every year. It also fuels climate change, accounting for approximately 8%-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

And if current trends persist, food loss and waste will double by 2050.

Here, we delve into the scope of this challenge and the global benefits of reducing food loss and waste, as well as solutions at the individual, local and national levels.

What Causes Food Loss and Waste?

While food loss and food waste are often talked about together, these terms encompass different issues throughout the food system. Food loss refers to loss at or near the farm and in the supply chain, for example, during harvesting, storage or transport. Food waste occurs at the retail level, in hospitality and in households.

Food loss and waste are caused by a wide range of issues, from technological challenges to consumer behaviors. Some common drivers of food loss include:

• Inadequate technology : Poor infrastructure, such as roads that flood or are hard to travel consistently, can prevent food from making it from farm to table. Lack of cold storage is another major concern for ensuring food can arrive fresh to markets. Farmers may also struggle with inadequate equipment such as old or inefficient machinery that makes it difficult to harvest all of a crop.
• Suboptimal packaging : How foods are packaged can make a big difference in the length of time they stay safe to eat. Many people are justly concerned about the environmental impacts of excessive packaging, but it’s important to remember that correct packaging can help foods stay fresher for longer, thereby reducing spoilage and the associated  methane emissions  that result from wasted food. An underappreciated fact is that the environmental impact of wasted food is greater than that of packaging waste. So, while it’s important to limit this waste, it’s also important to use correct packaging to reduce food spoilage.

Some common reasons for food waste include:

• Poor food management : Examples include insufficient skills and knowledge among staff who prepare food, which can lead to unnecessary waste during cooking, and inflexible procurement requirements such as retailers only stocking perfect-looking produce or not accepting a farmer’s oversupply of crop. Food waste can also occur when retailers and food providers do not adequately forecast and plan for demand to meet supply (or vice versa).
• Consumer behaviors : Households account for the majority of food wasted at the consumer and retail level. This often results from a lack of awareness of the scale of the issue and insufficient education about how to properly use up and store food at home. Food waste also stems from  norms and attitudes  that say wasting food is normal, as well as concerns about possible risks of eating food past its sell-by or use-by date label.

There used to be a view that food waste, which happens at the consumer level, tended to be more of a developed country problem while food loss, which can arise from issues in farming and supply chains, was a greater problem in developing countries. But recent research has shown this isn’t true.

Work by the  UN Environment Programme  shows that food waste occurs at roughly the same level in middle-income countries as in high-income countries. Good-quality data is still limited, but there is a reasonable amount of information to back up this conclusion. Similarly, recent work by the  World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)  concluded that food loss on farms is a problem in high-income countries as well as middle- and lower-income countries. These recent studies show that both issues must be addressed on a global scale.

The Global Benefits of Reducing Food Loss and Waste

The  UN’s Sustainable Development Goals  include a call to halve food waste and reduce food losses by 2030 for good reason. Reducing food loss and waste generates benefits for economies, for businesses and consumers, for human health and for the environment.

Improved global nutrition and food security

Reducing food loss and waste can play a big role in providing a healthy, nutritious diet to a growing global population. Not only does one third of all food produced by volume go uneaten, but perishable foods with higher nutritional value, such as fruit and vegetables, are particularly prone to loss and waste: More than 40% of produce by weight is lost or wasted worldwide each year. Ensuring more of the global food supply is used to feed people, rather than perishing or ending up in landfills, is an important strategy for addressing hunger in a world where hundreds of millions still face malnutrition.

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

Project Drawdown  has listed reducing food loss and waste as the single-best strategy for reducing emissions and fighting the climate crisis. Because up to 10% of global emissions result from food loss and waste, it’s simply not possible to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal to stay within 1.5-2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F) of warming without tackling this issue.

Emissions from food loss and waste result from the energy and inputs used to produce food that’s ultimately not consumed, as well as the methane that’s emitted when food rots in fields or landfills. Although shorter lived than carbon dioxide, methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas with over  80 times the warming power  of CO2. By reducing food loss and waste, we avoid its associated planet-warming emissions.

Improving existing food systems  will also help the world feed more people without expanding cultivated areas. Agricultural expansion is a major driver of greenhouse gas emission s and often results in deforestation, which releases stored carbon dioxide and lowers the land’s carbon storage capacity. In addition, increasing the efficiency of food production could potentially liberate agricultural land for reforestation, an important way to  remove carbon  from the atmosphere. 

WRI has identified alleviating land use pressures — through efforts like reducing the need to produce more food to compensate for loss and waste — as a key strategy to address  the global land squeeze .

Financial savings for businesses and consumers and increased financial security for farmers

Reducing consumer food waste by even 20%-25% by 2030 could save the world an estimated  $120-$300 billion  per year. These savings play out on an individual level as well as a systemic one; by consuming more of what they purchase, households can reduce their overall spending on food. Eliminating avoidable food waste would save the average family in the United Kingdom more than £700 ($870) each year, while in the United States, the average family would save approximately $1,800.

Reducing food losses — especially post-harvest losses, including food that’s grown but never makes it to market — will also improve farmers’ incomes.

Without the resources to buy up-to-date equipment, many farmers must rely on manual approaches or old, broken equipment that limits their potential yields. Targeted loans and financing can help these farmers buy better equipment, allowing them to harvest more and better-quality crops in a shorter amount of time. The efficiency savings may then lead to higher income. In addition, many smallholder farmers are women who would especially benefit from access to finance and new equipment; reduced food losses could mean they are better positioned to feed, educate and care for their families.

How to Reduce Food Loss and Waste at a Systemic Level

Because food loss and waste happen at every stage of the supply chain, everyone has a vital role to play in addressing this issue.

Households can reduce food waste by focusing on smart shopping and food storage. Some strategies include writing a shopping list, planning meals so that when you go shopping you know what and how much you need, understanding the difference between use-by and best-by date labels, making sure your fridge is set to the optimal temperature, understanding how best to store different foods and making the most of your freezer for leftovers.

Restaurants

Restaurants can reduce food waste by monitoring and managing food usage and ordering. Strategies include measuring food waste in the kitchen to understand what foods are being wasted and designing a fix, engaging staff to understand the importance of minimizing waste, avoiding super-sized portions, and focusing on a smaller range of menu offerings in order to better forecast supply ordering.

In September 2022, Ingka Group, IKEA’s largest retailer, became the  world’s first major company  to cut food waste in half, having done so across all its IKEA restaurants in 32 markets. Such savings can also bring financial benefits for restaurants, with the average restaurant examined in a Champions 12.3 study saving  $7 for every $1 invested  in programs to combat food waste.

Retailers can reduce food waste by improving stocking and food handling practices. Strategies include measuring the amounts and types of food being wasted to identify hotspots that can be reduced; training staff in temperature management, product handling and stock rotation; accepting less-than-perfect looking produce; and educating customers about better food management — for example, how to meal plan and understand date labels, and tips for safe food handling at home.

Many retailers in the UK now include storage advice on food packs (such as “Store in the fridge”) and give customers menu cards with ideas for cooking the produce or foods they purchase. Some are also removing “Best before” date labels from fruit and vegetables, which can help consumers avoid throwing away food that is still perfectly edible. Retailers are explicitly telling customers that these measures are intended to reduce waste and encouraging people to use their senses to tell if food is still good to eat.

Food producers

Farmers, ranchers and fishers can reduce food losses by improving farming practices; for example, by ensuring produce is harvested at the right maturity and using appropriate harvesting equipment to maximize yield while minimizing crop damage. They can also improve their skills or use tools to better schedule harvesting, including accessing better data on weather via new apps like  Mausam  (which is published by India's Ministry of Earth Sciences). And they can engage customers such as wholesale retailers to communicate implications of order changes.

Food distributers

Packing, storage and distribution facilities can reduce food loss and waste by re-examining handling, storage and transportation to ensure adoption of best practices and reduce damage. They can also use technological interventions to optimize the transport of food, and work upstream with customers to provide planning tools and handling and storage technologies that help them reduce losses.

For example, bar coding is being used to track food’s transportation journey, so managers can know where a product has been, for how long, and in what temperatures and conditions. This allows retailers to more accurately label and handle food to maximize shelf life, while also providing traceability in the event of a recall.

Processors and manufacturers

Processors and manufacturers can reduce food loss and waste by implementing technical solutions in the supply chain. Strategies include improving training to reduce technical malfunctions and errors during processing, reengineering production processes and product design to reduce waste, using product sizes and packaging that reduce waste by consumers and standardizing date labels to reduce confusion.

Governments and policymakers

Governments and policymakers can reduce food loss and waste through educational programs, policies and financial incentives that support more efficient food production and distribution. For example, they can embed food loss awareness, technical assistance and financial aid into agricultural extension services and farmer subsidy programs.

Governments can also promote policies to prevent unfair trading practices (such as last-minute order cancellations and unilateral or retroactive changes to contracts); remove barriers to food redistribution via policies such as liability limitations and tax breaks, which make it easier for food suppliers to donate safe but unsold food to charities or those in need; and support policies to standardize food date labelling practices to reduce confusion about product safety and quality and improve consumer understanding of the meaning of date labels. Finally, governments can make measurement and reporting of food loss and waste by large companies mandatory to facilitate benchmarking, transparency and learning.

Learn more about WRI’s work  Fighting Food Loss and Waste .

Relevant Work

We’ve woken up to plastic waste. is food waste next, 3 things to think about before buying your thanksgiving turkey, 4 surprising reasons to measure and reduce food loss and waste, can we really cut food waste in half, how you can help.

WRI relies on the generosity of donors like you to turn research into action. You can support our work by making a gift today or exploring other ways to give.

Stay Informed

World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Suite 800 Washington DC 20002 +1 (202) 729-7600

© 2024 World Resources Institute

Envision a world where everyone can enjoy clean air, walkable cities, vibrant landscapes, nutritious food and affordable energy.

• Food Waste Management Importance Words: 1947
• Construction Waste Management Words: 13009
• Food Waste Reduction Strategy Words: 834
• Waste Management in Hospitality and Tourism Management Words: 840
• Australian Consumers Strategies to Reduce Food Waste Words: 1251
• A Problem of Food Waste and Its Solutions Words: 1376
• Urban Solid Wastes Management in the USA Words: 1720
• Food and Water Security Management Words: 1307
• The Environmental Impacts of the Food and Hospitality Industry Words: 1579
• Waste Management in Urban Sprawls Words: 1674
• Strategies to Improve Waste Management in Qatar Restaurants Words: 12306
• Impact of Food Waste and Water Use on Earth Words: 1464
• Municipal Solid Waste Management Words: 919
• Are Food Manufactures Killing Us? Words: 2188
• The Clinical Waste Management in Cameroon Words: 881
• Gabon’s Nuclear Waste Management Words: 826
• Hazardous Waste and Its Management Methods Words: 859
• Environmental Management Approaches and Waste Audit Words: 1828
• Right to Food as a Fundamental Right Words: 2863

Food Waste Management

Food waste poses threats at economic, ecological, and social levels, which makes it an urgent topic of investigation. The paper aims at explaining the issue of food waste and describing approaches to the reduction of this problem. The introduction contains a general overview of the paper and presents the components included in the study. Research contains an expanded definition of the ‘food waste’ concept along with its presence in foodservice organizations. Further, food waste management and prevention initiatives to be employed in the foodservice industry are discussed. The challenges and opportunities of food waste mitigation are analyzed. In the conclusion, the main points of the paper are summarized. The research presents a brief but substantial analysis of the food waste problem and approaches to its elimination.

Introduction

The problem of food waste is one of the key unresolved issues of the modern world. While people living in some parts of the world throw away the products which they no longer want or which they bought thoughtlessly, others suffer from hunger and are not able to buy any food. However, it is not only the question of inequality that strikes society. Apart from economic complications, food waste generates many problems of social and environmental nature.

Spoiled products can be harmful to people’s or animals’ health. The recycling process for such food is costly and energy-consuming. The foodservice industry is the most dangerous in this respect since it produces large amounts of food, a great part of which remains unwanted and becomes wasted. The present paper offers an overview of the main causes and outcomes of food waste. Solutions for management and prevention of the problem are offered, along with the discussion of barriers to their implementation. The problem of food waste is too serious to be overlooked, and everyone is responsible for making it subside.

Results and Discussion

Defining food waste.

Food waste is an increasingly aggravating problem of modern society due to several environmental, economic, and social effects. Food waste is composed of the materials which were appointed to be consumed by people but ended up being lost, contaminated, degraded, or discharged (Girotto, Alibardi, & Cossu, 2015). The problem of food waste is linked with various waste management sectors, starting with its collection and ending with disposal. All members of the food supply chain have some effect on food waste management, be it industrial and agricultural companies, retailers, or people who consume food products (Girotto et al., 2015). Hence, every person is directly or indirectly responsible for food waste.

Food waste is not the same for different products, and it can generally be categorized into two large types: plant and animal. Further, as Otles, Despoudi, Bucatariu, and Kartal (2015) note, seven subcategories can be singled out: root and tubers, fruit and vegetables, cereals, oil crops, and pulses, dairy, fish and seafood, and meat products. The categories that are most likely to be wasted are vegetables, fruits, and roots, and tubers. Globally, 40-50% of fruits, vegetables, roots, and tubers are wasted or lost (Otles et al., 2015). For cereals and fish, the rate is 30%, and for meat, dairy, and oilseeds, the number reaches 20%. These data urge finding the reasons for food waste and coming up with solutions to this detrimental process.

Some of the major problems causing food waste are slow to progress in waste management development, rapid urbanization, and ineffective approaches to waste management. As Ravindran and Jaiswal (2016) note, food waste putrefies upon accumulation due to having a high nutritional content. As a result, such waste creates conditions for disease-generating organisms’ emergence and spread. Thus, researchers remark that it is crucial to both take preventive measures and find solutions for the already existing masses of food waste.

Food waste also includes food loss, which emerges from the low quality of vegetables, damaged crops that remain in the field, and products with low commercial worth. As Girotto et al. (2015) report, food waste and food loss can happen due to a variety of reasons, including damage during transportation, inappropriate storage or packaging, contamination, or problems during the processing phase.

Markets and retailers also contribute to food waste and loss. Sometimes, products are not stored at a proper temperature or in a proper place. For instance, various microorganisms and pets can damage food stored in warehouses (Otles et al., 2015). Finally, food can become wasted after being purchased by customers. Frequently, people buy or cook too much, which results in products being thrown away.

The reason why food waste is viewed as a social problem is that at the time, much food is becoming disposed of, many people are suffering from hunger. According to research conducted by Martin-Rios, Demen-Meier, Gössling, and Cornuz (2018), nearly 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted all over the world annually. These numbers typically refer to high-developed countries, whereas in developing states, more than 800 million people are reported to be chronically undernourished (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Taking into consideration the major causes and outcomes of food waste, it is relevant to analyze the industry in which this negative process occurs most frequently.

Food Waste in Food Service Organizations

Foodservice organizations are commonly the ones responsible for most of the food waste. According to Heikkilä, Reinikainen, Katajajuuri, Silvennoinen, and Hartikainen (2016), the foodservice sector produces a considerable amount of avoidable food waste, which leads to economic and ecological losses. Not only is the money lost when food is thrown away instead of being consumed. There is a detrimental impact on the environment due to the time and effort wasted on the production and processing of raw materials into food that later is thrown away.

Foodservice organizations are a part of the tourist industry, one of the most highly-developed areas in the world. The foodservice industry incorporates fast-food chains, cafés, cafeterias, restaurants, dining rooms, canteens, and catering options (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). The industry is currently the leader in the number of individuals employed. Over 14 million people work in food service organizations in the USA, and 8 million – in Europe. Such a state of affairs leads to billions of meals being served annually (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Therefore, food service organizations play a significant role in global food waste rates.

Food Waste Management and Initiatives for Food Waste Reduction in the Food Service Industry

There are three major factors related to sustainable waste management in the foodservice industry. They include stringent environmental policies with escalated environmental concerns, sustainable use of resources, and waste disposal costs (Otles et al., 2015). The industry produces biodegradable waste in large amounts, as well as leaves residue with high demands for biochemical and chemical oxygen. Due to this fact, legislative requirements at a global level have raised restrictive policies over the past ten years.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the USA was created to monitor the situation with food waste, set standards, and controlling the enforcement of policies to secure environmental protection in the country. The EPA issued the Food Waste Management and Recovery Hierarchy, which lists the options of eliminating food waste (Otles et al., 2015). The most preferred approach in the hierarchy is source reduction, which is followed by feeding hungry people, feeding animals, industrial uses, and composting (Otles et al., 2015). The last step in the hierarchy, which is the least preferred one, is landfill, or incineration.

In 2013, the EPA announced the US Food Waste Challenge in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture. The purpose of the challenge was to increase people’s awareness of the problems caused by food waste at different levels (Otles et al., 2015). The Food Waste Challenge consisted of three elements: ‘reduce,’ ‘recover,’ and ‘recycle.’ Each of these elements was recommended for the foodservice industry to apply. The project advised the food industry to reduce the loss and waste of food, recover wholesome products, and recycle the food for other uses, such as composting, generating energy, and feedings animals (Otles et al., 2015). The initiative was expected to eliminate the amount of food wasted and decrease the number of health hazards associated with disposed of products.

Apart from the approaches recommended by the ETA, researchers also emphasize the potential for food waste to be converted into energy. Scholars note that food waste has “a great potential” for producing energy (Pham, Kaushik, Parshetti, Mahmood, & Balasubramanian, 2015, p. 399). Such options as the biological, thermal, and thermochemical conversion of food waste into energy are available. Biological technologies include fermentation and anaerobic digestion (Pham et al., 2015). Thermal and thermochemical technologies involve incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and hydrothermal oxidation (Pham et al., 2015). Scholars note that by developing research in this direction, it will become possible to eliminate useless waste of food and make it profitable instead.

Food Waste Prevention Practices in the Food Service Industry

While managing the problem is a good idea, preventing it is an even better one. Lefadola, Viljoen, and du Rand (2018) have performed a systematic review of suggested approaches to preventing food waste that could be implemented in the foodservice industry. First of all, it is recommended to introduce a pre-booking system, which would permit cancellation before food preparation. Secondly, researchers note that the use of advanced-demand planning software might decrease food waste to a great extent (Lefadola et al., 2018).

Next, a flexible way of planning a menu could be used, which enables foodservice organizations to use the products with an approaching expiration date first. At the same time, this method would enable saving on excessive ingredients practical use of leftovers. Finally, researchers suggest designing a lean menu, which would make it possible to eliminate the number of options to choose from and, at the same time, simplify the planning of production and decrease food waste. By introducing these changes, food service organizations are likely to prevent massive food waste and loss.

Limitations and Implications

Challenges facing food waste mitigation.

While food waste mitigation approaches are justified by researchers, there are some limitations to their implementation. As Otles et al. (2015) report, microbial activity can increase due to the existence of pathogens and insufficient biological stability. High water content in such products as vegetables and meat can considerably influence transportation costs on waste management. Meanwhile, high-fat products are sensitive to oxidation, which increases their likelihood to spoil (Otles et al., 2015).

Hence, it is necessary to evaluate the cost-efficiency of each food waste management method before implementing it. Salemdeeb, Zu Ermgassen, Kim, Balmford, and Al-Tabbaa (2017) remark that using food waste as animal food is currently illegal due to the potential threats to animals’ health. Meanwhile, Pham et al. (2015) report that utilizing waste food for energy is challenging because of low calorific value and high moisture contents, which lead to the impossibility of creating energy efficiently.

Opportunities for Food Waste Mitigation

Despite some barriers, food waste mitigation is a highly promising area of research and practice. First of all, by eliminating the amount of food waste and food loss, it will be possible to reduce the excessive use of energy spent on the production and transportation of products. Secondly, the damage to the environment will be reduced significantly. Finally, by wasting less food, developed countries could save resources and utilize them to help the developing ones.

The paper has presented an overview of the food waste problem. Food waste is a highly negative social, economic, and environmental problem. The foodservice industry is specifically involved in the question of food waste, which signifies the need for solutions both to manage and prevent the issue. Recycling, reducing, and recycling are the options suggested by the ETA. Also, it is possible to give food waste to animals or turn it into energy. However, these approaches do not have the necessary legal grounds to be implemented so far. More research is necessary to find the most viable solutions to food waste.

Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., & Cossu, R. (2015). Food waste generation and industrial uses: A review. Waste Management, 45 , 32–41. Web.

Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., & Hartikainen, H. (2016). Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56 , 446–453. Web.

Lefadola, B. P., Viljoen, A., & du Rand, G. E. (2018). A systems approach to food waste prevention in food service operations: An integrative review . African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7 (4). Web.

Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S., & Cornuz, C. (2018). Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Management, 79 , 196–206. Web.

Otles, S., Despoudi, S., Bucatariu, C., & Kartal, C. (2015). Food waste management, valorization, and sustainability in the food industry. In C. M. Galanakis (Ed.), Food waste recovery: Processing technologies and industrial techniques (pp. 3–23). London, UK: Elsevier.

Pham, T. P. T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G. K., Mahmood, R., & Balasubramanian, R. (2015). Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: Current status and future directions. Waste Management, 38 , 399–408. Web.

Ravindran, R., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2016). Exploitation of food industry waste for high-value products. Trends in Biotechnology, 34 (1), 58–69. Web.

Salemdeeb, R., zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Kim, M. H., Balmford, A., & Al-Tabbaa, A. (2017). Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: A comparative analysis of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140 , 871–880. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, June 20). Food Waste Management. https://studycorgi.com/food-waste-management/

"Food Waste Management." StudyCorgi , 20 June 2021, studycorgi.com/food-waste-management/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Food Waste Management'. 20 June.

1. StudyCorgi . "Food Waste Management." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/food-waste-management/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Food Waste Management." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/food-waste-management/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Food Waste Management." June 20, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/food-waste-management/.

This paper, “Food Waste Management”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: June 20, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change Research Paper

Research question, search terms and combinations, database repositories, annotated bibliography, research-based solutions.

How effective is composting food waste in enhancing sustainability and reducing the effects of climate change?

The following key terms are used to identify and scrutinize references and study materials.

• “Food waste” and sustain*
• “Food waste” and compost and environment*
• “Compost bio* and “Food waste”
• “Carbon sequestration” and compost
• “Carbon sequestration” and “compost bio*” and sustain*
• “Carbon sequestration” and “compost bio*” and “climate change”
• “Carbon sequestration” and “compost bio*” and “global warming”

The following databases and repositories were used.

• Science Direct.
• Web of Science.

Byun, J., Kwon, O., Park, H., & Han, J. (2021). Food waste valorization to green energy vehicles: Sustainability assessment. Energy & Environmental Science , 14 (7), 3651-3663. Web.

All the authors teach at the School of Semiconductor and Chemical Engineering, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea. In their work, the authors study the relationship between increases in amounts of food waste and the realization of a sustainable society. The study also scrutinizes the impact of green vehicles that are due to uncontrolled population growth. While the study is mainly focused on the transportation of food waste and sustainable development, it also explores the impact of different types of green vehicles employed in the venture. Four types of green vehicles are examined with respect to the fuel produced from food waste. The different types of green fuels studied in this case are used in internal combustion engines and include biomethane, bioethanol, biohydrogen, and bioelectricity. The study notes that Brazil, China, the USA, and India are the biggest producers of food waste and also have the highest potential to reduce greenhouse gases. Fuel Cell Vehicles running on biohydrogen are the most sustainable as they can travel between 220 and 250 miles for every one tome of food waste utilized. The study concludes that over 7 million fuel cell vehicles can be run using only 20% of the food waste produced in the four mentioned countries by the year 2030. Such solutions present a stepping stone for researchers, entrepreneurs, and other environment protection activists in achieving ideal sustainability and reducing the adverse effects of climate change.

Anderson, R., Bayer, P. E., & Edwards, D. (2020). Climate change and the need for agricultural adaptation. Current Opinion in Plant Biology , 56 , 197-202. Web.

Dr. Anderson is an associate professor and the University College of Dublin. He is attached to the school of Biosystems and Food Engineering and has authored different publications on the link between agricultural sustainability and climate change. The author looks at different scientific phenomena including global warming, eutrophication effects on decomposition, biocharacteristics, and its composition. He employed the GaBI version 6 to study the lifecycle of agricultural produce and how it can be harnessed sustainably. The study explored the process of food production, from planting, sustaining in the farms, harvesting, processing, logistics, and waste management. The tools and mechanisms used in agricultural processes such as planting, storage, and subsequent processing produce a lot of greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. The study recommends the use of energy-efficient machinery and tools in all steps of agricultural processes. It also recommends proper processing of food waste within sources such as farms and industrial enterprises.. Paying attention to the handling of waste from raw and processed food products, there is a significant emission of greenhouse gases that can be eliminated by encompassing effective preservation mechanisms. Although the authors recommend already existing solutions, it is challenging to gather the political will needed to limit the number of fossil fuels used in agricultural processes to achieve sustainability. The recommendations provide a further starting point for the current environmental protection and sustainable climate change mitigation efforts already in place.

Institutions of higher learning are focussed on attaining total sustainability by researching authentic and reliable solutions to food waste management. Arizona State University (ASU) is one such institution and is determined to fully manage all food waste generated within its premises. Such institutions should be at the forefront of researching, validating, and verification of sustainable solutions to climate change and global warming. While a significant fraction of the global population risks hunger yearly, most of the food waste generated globally ends up in landfills, resulting in greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide (Zero Waste Annual Report Fiscal Year, 2018). The report revealed the unknown and least addressed dangers of food waste that end in landfills. Institutions of higher learning do not pay much attention to humanitarian activities so that they can effectively utilize food waste within their premises. It makes them better placed to venture into nonpartisan research and development of sustainable solutions like a biochar facility in the case of ASU. Scholars have proven that biochar combined with compost is extremely effective in sequestering carbon (Liang et al., 2021). The process ensures carbon is absorbed back into the soil instead of being released from landfills into the atmosphere where its impacts are devastating.

To curb this problem, greenhouse gases can be reduced by preventing the generation of carbon dioxide released from landfills dumped with food waste.

ASU is chartered to reach a zero-waste status by the year 2025, implying that its waste will no longer end up in landfills as is the case currently. Reports indicate that most of the institution’s food waste comes from food courts, dining halls, and cafeterias, an indication of how its food-handling operations are flawed (Tsai and Chang, 2019). The institution intends to construct an onsite biochar facility for investigative and sustainable food waste handling. The project will help achieve logistical, environmental, financial, and strategic goals. It will also ensure the institution achieves great soil quality with will benefit the surrounding agricultural areas. The biochar production facility can achieve zero carbon emission by utilizing green machinery and equipment such as those running on renewable sources of energy, unlike the current situation. The facility will be used for both research and environmental purposes as the institution will update its research databases on food handling, carbon sequestration as well as biochar technologies.

Although the institution may opt for other carbon neutralization processes, specifically tree planting, its cost implications may surpass the construction of a biochar facility on site. The institution stands to benefit from research and experiments similar to that carried out by Byun (2021) in studying the comparisons of conventional fertilizers to biochar, compost as well as a combination of both. An onsite facility will result in a reduction in carbon emission, improvement of soil quality for agricultural purposes, creation of jobs, and reduction of operational costs, hence, achieving true sustainability in all areas of investment. The onsite biochar facility presents more advantages than any anticipated costs, cutting across finance, environment, jobs, agriculture as well as economic and ecological aspects of flora and fauna.

Liang, Y., Al-Kaisi, M., Yuan, J., Liu, J., Zhang, H., Wang, L., Cai, H., & Ren, J. (2021). Effect of chemical fertilizer and straw-derived organic amendments on continuous maize yield, soil carbon sequestration and soil quality in a Chinese Mollisol . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 314 , 107403. Web.

Tsai, C. C., & Chang, Y. F. (2019). Carbon dynamics and fertility in biochar-amended soils with excessive compost application . Agronomy , 9 (9), 511. Web.

Zero Waste Annual Report Fiscal Year (2018). Arizona State University . Web.

• The Te Urewera Area Preservation Planning
• Non-Acoustic Measures to Handle Community Response to the Noise Around Airports
• Green Business Strategy Approach
• Soil Articles Summary Analysis
• Harvest Company Investment: Financial Statements Analysis
• Efficient Strategies to Improve Waste Management in Qatar Restaurants
• The Chesapeake Bay Coastal Zone Management Act
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: The Functioning of Small Fisheries
• How Visual Analytics Enhance Avalanche Forecasting
• Understanding the Water Regulations in Kenya
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 16). Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-waste-management-impact-on-sustainability-and-climate-change/

"Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change." IvyPanda , 16 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/food-waste-management-impact-on-sustainability-and-climate-change/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change'. 16 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change." November 16, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-waste-management-impact-on-sustainability-and-climate-change/.

1. IvyPanda . "Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change." November 16, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-waste-management-impact-on-sustainability-and-climate-change/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Food Waste Management: Impact on Sustainability and Climate Change." November 16, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-waste-management-impact-on-sustainability-and-climate-change/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

The Big Picture

Food waste occurs along the entire spectrum of production, from the farm to distribution to retailers to the consumer . Reasons include losses from mold, pests, or inadequate climate control; losses from cooking; and intentional food waste. [1]

This waste is categorized differently based on where it occurs:

• Food “loss” occurs before the food reaches the consumer as a result of issues in the production, storage, processing, and distribution phases.
• Food “waste” refers to food that is fit for consumption but consciously discarded at the retail or consumption phases.

Wasted food has far-reaching effects, both nationally and globally. In the U.S., up to 40% of all food produced goes uneaten [2], and about 95% of discarded food ends up in landfills [3]. It is the largest component of municipal solid waste at 21%. [1] In 2014, more than 38 million tons of food waste was generated, with only 5% diverted from landfills and incinerators for composting. [3] Decomposing food waste produces methane, a strong greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Worldwide, one-third of food produced is thrown away uneaten, causing an increased burden on the environment. [4] It is estimated that reducing food waste by 15% could feed more than 25 million Americans every year. [5]

Benefits of Less Food Waste

• Cost savings on labor through more efficient handling, preparation, and storage of food that will be used.
• Cost savings when purchasing only as much food as needed, and avoiding additional costs of disposal.
• Reduced methane emissions from landfills and a lower carbon footprint.
• Better management of energy and resources, preventing pollution involved in the growing, manufacturing, transporting, and selling of food.
• Community benefits by providing donated, untouched, and safe food that would otherwise be thrown out. [6]

Proposed Solutions to Food Waste

Globally, reducing wasted food has been cited as a key initiative in achieving a sustainable food future . Sustainable Development Goal 12 addresses responsible consumption and production, which includes two indicators to measure (in order to ultimately reduce) global food loss and food waste. [7]

In the U.S, on June 4, 2013, the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, calling on entities across the food chain, including farms, agricultural processors, food manufacturers, grocery stores, restaurants, universities, schools, and local governments. [1] The goals are to:

• Reduce food waste by improving product development, storage, shopping/ordering, marketing, labeling, and cooking methods.
• Recover food waste by connecting potential food donors to hunger relief organizations like food banks and pantries.
• Recycle food waste to feed animals or to create compost, bioenergy, and natural fertilizers.

On September 16, 2015, both agencies also announced for the first time a national food loss and waste goal, calling for a 50% reduction by 2030 to improve overall food security and conserve natural resources.

The National Resources Defense Council issued a summary paper providing guidelines on how to reduce waste throughout the food production chain. [2] The following are some focal points:

• State and local governments can incorporate food waste prevention and education campaigns, and implement municipal composting programs. Governments can provide tax credits to farmers who donate excess produce to local food banks. Proposed bills are currently in place in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado.
• Businesses such as restaurants, grocery stores, and institutional food services can evaluate the extent of their food waste and adopt best practices. Examples include supermarkets selling damaged or nearly expired produce at discounted prices, or offering “half-off” promotions instead of “buy-one-get-one-free” promotions. Restaurants can offer smaller portions and donate excess ingredients and prepared uneaten food to charities. Schools may experiment with concepts that allow children to create their own meals to prevent less discarded food, such as with salad bars or build-your-own burritos.
• Farms can evaluate food losses during processing, distribution, and storage and adopt best practices. Farmers markets can sell “ugly” produce, which are discarded, misshapen fruits and vegetables that do not meet the usual standards for appearance. Farms can sell fresh but unmarketable produce (due to appearance) to food banks at a reduced rate.
• Consumers can learn when food is no longer safe and edible, how to cook and store food properly, and how to compost. See Tackling Food Waste at Home .

• Source reduction : Earliest prevention by reducing the overall volume of food produced
• Feed hungry people : Donating excess food to community sites
• Feed animals : Donating food scraps and waste to local farmers who can use them for animal feed
• Industrial uses : Donating used fats, oils, and grease to make biodiesel fuel
• Composting : Food waste that is composted to produce organic matter that is used to fertilize soil
• Landfill/Incineration : A last resort for unused food

Read Next:  Tackling Food Waste at Home »

• Reducing meal waste in schools: A healthy solution
• Sustainability
• The Food Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School
• United States Department of Agriculture. U.S Food Waste Challenge. https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm Accessed 3/20/2017.
• Gunders, D., Natural Resources Defense Council. Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. Issue Paper, August 2012. IP: 12-06-B. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf Accessed 3/20/2017.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sustainable Management of Food. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food Accessed 3/20/2017.
• Salemdeeb Ramy, Font Vivanco D, Al-Tabbaa A, Zu Ermgassen EK. A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manag . 2017 Jan;59:442-450.
• D. Hall, J. Guo, M. Dore, C.C. Chow, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, “The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its environmental Impact,” PLoS ONE 4(11):e7940, 2009.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. How to Prevent Wasted Food Through Source Reduction https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/how-prevent-wasted-food-through-source-reduction Accessed 3/20/2017.
•  United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 12.3.  http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/1231/en/ . Accessed 1/16/2018.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. Food Recovery Hierarchy.  https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy  Accessed 3/20/2017.

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

Topmost menu

• University of Illinois
• College of ACES

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

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

How is food waste defined?

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

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

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

What is being done to reduce food waste?

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

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

Questions that remain about food waste

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

food loss , food waste , SNAP

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  

74k Accesses

141 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

Food waste generation and its industrial utilization: An overview

Waste Valorization in Food Industries: A Review of Sustainable Approaches

Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Review

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

Food Waste - Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Food Waste refers to the discarding or loss of food that could have been consumed. Essays might delve into the reasons for food waste, its environmental, economic, and social implications, and potential solutions to reduce it. This topic can also touch on the contrast between food wastage and global hunger issues. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Food Waste you can find at PapersOwl Website. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Food Waste Causes and Effects

Food waste means to throw food away even it is still able to eat. According to The European Commission, food waste means misuse combined with fresh or cooked food components and combines food abandoned at any moment, which means in family units associating with food waste created before, during or after food preparedness, such as skins of garden produces, cut of flesh, and decay or oversupply materials or cooked food. (van der Werf, Seabrook, and Gilliland, 2018). A whole adaption […]

Stop Food Waste

Have you ever considered what happens to all of the extra food and drinks that are cast aside unopened at the end of each lunch period? The ugly truth is that all of that perfectly good food is thrown away, contributing to the millions of tons, 63 million tons to be exact, of food wasted every year in the United States. Those 63 million tons of food amount to about 40 of the total food that is produced in the […]

Love Food Hate Waste

The global food crisis is currently affecting more than one-sixth of the world's population. The number of people suffering from starvation and undernourishment is increasing at an alarming rate and will continue to increase if a solution is not found soon. The food scarcity being experienced throughout the world is caused by many factors including urbanization, climate change, population increase, and much more. One of the biggest factors playing a part in the global food crisis is food waste. Approximately […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Global Food Waste: how to Effectively and Efficiently Battle Food Waste

Abstract The topic of my research will be about finding initiatives and/or implementing existing initiatives on combatting global food waste and eventually helping those in need. So basically it is about creating a sustainable balance in the food industry and market on a global scale. It is a relevant topic that affects our economy and lives every day, directly and indirectly. While in one country people are starving, in another country people are wasting edible food that could’ve been distributed […]

Food Waste Affects Everyone

Once something is thrown away, the majority of people stop thinking about it and aren't interested in what happened to the people that don't have food. Food is a prevalent waste item in the United States. When people become full or do not fully enjoy something they start with a new plate of food. Few people stop and think about the resources it took to produce, transport, and prepare the food that is being thrown away casually. Food waste is […]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations or FAO (2017), defines food waste and food losses as ""the decrease of food in subsequent stages of the food supply chain intended for human consumption"". In other words, this means in the supply chain, from the moment food is planted and harvested to the moment humans buy it and consume it, the amount of produce there was in the beginning has significantly dropped because it gets lost on the way […]

Food Waste Problem in the United States of America

In the past decade, consumer behavior in the United States and the world has become the guileless act of acquiring goods and services to maintain households, but also to pursue human satisfaction of personal needs and wants. The entire economy is wasteful; it is based on the human urge to consume and society further persuades customers to believe that they are king, and that the customer is always right. What this has created in modern society is the shop until […]

Food Waste in United States

In average, an American citizen will produce 4.4 pounds of trash in a single day. With the population of the United States being about 324 million, this equates daily to about 700,000 tons of trash produced. The biggest amount of wasted resources, though, is food waste. 1.3 billion tons of food is lost or wasted across the globe in the span of one year (Loki). The effect of this kind of waste on the environment is extremely destructive and detrimental. […]

Plastic Pollution in the USA

In America we love plastic! We use it in our everyday life because it’s super convenient, but most people rarely think about the impact plastic has on the world around us. The downside of these qualities is that, unlike other materials, plastic does not biodegrade and it takes over hundreds of years for it to break down causing an increase every day to plastic pollution. Those billions of plastics end up in our oceans. This has become a cause of […]

Grocery Store Food Waste

Over 30 percent of food in America is wasted due to grocery stores, producers, and even customers. Thirty percent of food is about $162 billion dollars being wasted on food which isn't even consumed. A major cause of food waste is a customer's view on how aesthetic the product is. We are the problem, consumers are expecting perfect produce, which causes a huge effect on the market, and grocery stores wasting perfectly healthy produce. If you go to a local […]

Food Waste Due to Poor Products

The idea of food aid originated from the excess amount of agricultural commodities around the time of the Great Depression. There was an abundance of food during this time, so the Food Stamp Act of 1964 was created in hopes to counteract this and to also assist those in need, or those that would be considered “food insecure.” Food insecurity is divided into two different types, low and very low, and is defined by The United States Department of Agriculture […]

Food Wastage Behavior of Consumers in UMD

The secondary sources will be used in order to define problem and establish its scope and the sources were categorized in terms of methodologies used and the issues addresses (e.g. food choice, handling, disposal). In order to find a solution to the problem, I will focus on conducting the study with both secondary and primary research on consumer behavior regarding food waste. Moreover, the combination of quantitative surveys, experiment and qualitative research will be undertaken to clarify how certain cultural […]

Food Waste: Reducing the Transport of Cows

In 2019 America, humans acquire large quantities of beef without thinking too much about the environmental impacts the beef was involved in in getting from point A to point B. Going all the way back to the cow, beef plays quite a large role in the destruction of our environment. When most people get this picture, they would get the idea that it relates to the amount of gas consumed by the delivery vehicle to deliver the fresh beef to […]

Food Waste: Starbucks Coffee Company

Starbucks Coffee Company is known for their deep roots in their local communities while providing opportunities in and outside of the company. However, one opportunity for the company to become more involved with donating daily food waste to local communities. Multiple food items often reach the sale by date and must be removed; despite the food being well within its expiration for consumption. The company has started with small changes, yet there is no specific standard for donating companywide; therefore, […]

Reducing Food Waste in Australia

Reducing food Waste by 20% in a year through Changing Food Practices and Behavior amongst Young Adults (18-24 years old) in New South Wales. Food waste is a growing national problem in Australia. It accounts to a billion worth of food waste each year. It is wasted through production, retail, and consumer wastes. Food insecurity and obesity cohabit in this problem. Food insecurity exists when there is limited or uncertain access to nutritious and safe food. Obesity in this context […]

Reducing Food Waste

There a few things to consider when throwing out the container of strawberries that sat in the refrigerator for weeks. By doing so, this amounts to a major misuse of natural resources like water, land, energy, as well as labor. Also, this waste disposal contributes to Greenhouse Emissions, Global Warming, and Climate Change. ""Up to one-third of all food is spoiled or squandered before it is consumed by people."" (FAO, 2018) Food loss and waste not only impact the consumer's […]

Food Wastage – Global Environmental Problem

Food wastage is a global problem that many nations mainly the developed nations are dealing with. From statistics provided in the US, it is clear that more than 35 million tons of food goes to waste every year in the US which is taken to the landfills. This means that on average, every family in the US $1,600 to $2,000 each year to food that is purchased but not eaten which is basically enough to feed a family of four. […]

Who is Actually the Biggest Fan of your Food Waste?

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a microbially mediated process by which organic matter (agricultural residues, food wastes, manure, etc.) is turned into biogas and biofertilizer in conditions that require the absence of oxygen (anoxic environment) (Kelleher et al., 2002). The advantages of this kind of waste decomposition over traditional waste management are obvious: low energy requirement, potential energy recovery, reduction of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere, etc. However, because of the complexity of the AD process and poor knowledge of […]

Additional Example Essays

• The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
• Junk Food Should be Taxed
• Poor Nutrition and Its Effects on Learning
• David Zinczenko: “Don't Blame the Eater”
• Why Parents and Schools Shouldn't Ban Junk Food
• My Favorite Food and Childhood Memories
• A Raisin in the Sun Theme
• Why Abortion Should be Illegal
• Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• The Mental Health Stigma
• How the Roles of Women and Men Were Portrayed in "A Doll's House"
• Biggest Influence In Your Life

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Food waste: a global problem that undermines healthy diets

Facebook Twitter Print Email

A lack of food, hunger and malnutrition affect every country in the world, the UN said on Tuesday, in an urgent appeal for action to reduce the amount of food that’s wasted.

 The call comes as the Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) said that 17 per cent of all food available to consumers in 2019, ended up being thrown away.

An additional 132 million people face food and nutrition insecurity today because of the COVID-19 pandemic, FAO said, ahead of the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste , on Wednesday 29 September.

Global problem

The problem of food waste is a global one and not limited to wealthy nations alone, said Nancy Aburto, Deputy Director of FAO’s Food and Nutrition Division Economic and Social Development Stream, speaking at a press conference in Geneva.

“Food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition are impacting every country in the world and no country is unaffected; 811 million people suffer hunger, two billion suffer micronutrient deficiencies – that’s vitamin and mineral deficiencies - and millions of children suffer stunting and wasting, deadly forms of under-nutrition.”

The FAO official warned that the high cost of “healthy” diets, meant that they were now “out of reach” of every region in the world, including Europe.

She also said that more countries needed to embrace innovation to reduce waste, such as new packaging that can prolong the shelf-life of many foods, while smartphone apps can bring consumers closer to producers, reducing the time between harvest and plate.

Repercussions of food waste

Reducing food loss and waste would improve agri-food systems and help towards achieving food security, food safety and food quality, all while delivering on nutritional outcomes.

According to FAO, it would also contribute “significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as pressure on land and water resources”.

With less than nine years left to reach Sustainable Development Goal ( SDG ) 12 on ensuring sustainable consumption, and target 12.3 to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels, there is an urgent need to accelerate action, up to the 2030 deadline.

Takeaways for action:

• Reducing food loss and waste, strengthens the sustainability of food systems and improves planetary health.
• Increasing the efficiency of food systems and reducing food loss and waste, requires investment in innovation, technologies and infrastructure.
• Composting food waste is better than sending it to a landfill, but preventing waste in the first place, lessens its impact on the environment.
• Maximizing the positive impacts of reducing food loss and waste, requires good governance and human capital development.

However, this requires national and local authorities along with businesses and individuals to prioritize actions in this direction and contribute to restoring and improving agri-food systems.

Fruit and veg

And with just three months to go, during this International Year of Fruits and Vegetables , FAO has reminded that produce provides human nutrition and food security while working to achieve the SDGs.

“In the current health crisis we are facing around the world, promoting healthy diets to strengthen our immune systems is especially appropriate”, FAO chief QU Dongyu said , kicking off the year last December.

He also noted that  food loss and waste  in the fruits and vegetables

sector remain a problem with considerable consequences, pointing out that “innovative technologies and approaches are of critical importance”, as they can help maintain safety and quality, “increasing the shelf life of fresh produce items and preserving their high nutritional value”.

• agriculture and food security
• UN International Days

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Environment Problems — Food Waste

Essays on Food Waste

A discussion on leftovers and food waste, we should find ways to prevent food waste, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Need to Provide Right Attitudes About Food Waste Among Students

Advantages & disadvantages of buying food locally, an analysis of the rampant food waste america produce, factors that impacts personal consumption and food waste, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Current Problem of Food Waste

The way food waste affects the economy, the way restaurants and farmers are solving the food waste problem, waste less, feed more: mathematical modelling serves to combat food waste, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Potential Methods for Reducing Food Waste

Food waste in america, environmental issues: causes and consequences of food waste, "an edible history of humanity" analysis, fed up: analyzing the crisis of the modern food industry, challenges and opportunities in reducing food waste (2023-2024), the collective responsibility in mitigating food waste (2023-2024), understanding and unpacking food waste (2023-2024), innovating and strategizing for a future with reduced food waste (2023-2024), ethical dimensions and socio-economic ramifications of food waste (2023-2024), world hunger solution, advantages and disadvantages of jackfruit, meat eating vs veganism: a comprehensive analysis.

Food “waste” refers to food that is fit for consumption but consciously discarded at the retail or consumption phases.

The causes of food waste are numerous and occur throughout the food system, during production, processing, distribution, retail and food service sales, and consumption.

Food loss and waste is a major part of the impact of agriculture on climate change (it amounts to 3.3 billion tons of CO2e emissions annually) and other environmental issues, such as land use, water use and loss of biodiversity.

Prevention of food waste, reuse, animal feed, and recycling of nutrients.

One third of all food produced is lost or wasted – around 1.3 billion tonnes of food. Up to 10% of global greenhouse gases comes from food that is produced, but not eaten. Wasting food is worse than total emissions from flying (1.9%), plastic production (3.8%) and oil extraction (3.8%). Almost half of all fruit and vegetables produced are wasted.

Relevant topics

• Global Warming
• Climate Change
• Invasive Species
• Environmental Issues
• Natural Disasters
• Deforestation
• Water Pollution
• Ocean Pollution
• Solar Energy

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free