food sustainability research paper

Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions

Affiliation.

• 1 Food Climate Research Network, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. [email protected]
• PMID: 23336559
• DOI: 10.1017/S0029665112002947

The global food system makes a significant contribution to climate changing greenhouse gas emissions with all stages in the supply chain, from agricultural production through processing, distribution, retailing, home food preparation and waste, playing a part. It also gives rise to other major environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss and water extraction and pollution. Policy makers are increasingly aware of the need to address these concerns, but at the same time they are faced with a growing burden of food security and nutrition-related problems, and tasked with ensuring that there is enough food to meet the needs of a growing global population. In short, more people need to be fed better, with less environmental impact. How might this be achieved? Broadly, three main 'takes' or perspectives, on the issues and their interactions, appear to be emerging. Depending on one's view point, the problem can be conceptualised as a production challenge, in which case there is a need to change how food is produced by improving the unit efficiency of food production; a consumption challenge, which requires changes to the dietary drivers that determine food production; or a socio-economic challenge, which requires changes in how the food system is governed. This paper considers these perspectives in turn, their implications for nutrition and climate change, and their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, an argument is made for a reorientation of policy thinking which uses the insights provided by all three perspectives, rather than, as is the situation today, privileging one over the other.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Conservation of Natural Resources*
• Energy Intake
• Environment*
• Food Supply*
• Nutrition Policy*
• Nutritional Requirements*
• Socioeconomic Factors

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 19 May 2020

Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system

• Mario Herrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-5090 1 ,
• Philip K. Thornton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-0182 2 ,
• Daniel Mason-D’Croz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-2301 1 ,
• Jeda Palmer 1 ,
• Tim G. Benton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973 3 ,
• Benjamin L. Bodirsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-6712 4 ,
• Jessica R. Bogard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-5284 1 ,
• Andrew Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-6569 1 ,
• Bernice Lee 3 ,
• Karine Nyborg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-548X 5 ,
• Prajal Pradhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-5489 4 ,
• Graham D. Bonnett 1 ,
• Brett A. Bryan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-5641 6 ,
• Bruce M. Campbell 7 , 8 ,
• Svend Christensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-1954 7 ,
• Michael Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7161-7751 9 ,
• Mathew T. Cook 1 ,
• Imke J. M. de Boer 10 ,
• Chris Downs 1 ,
• Kanar Dizyee 1 ,
• Christian Folberth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6738-5238 11 ,
• Cecile M. Godde 1 ,
• James S. Gerber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-0481 12 ,
• Michael Grundy 1 ,
• Petr Havlik 11 ,
• Andrew Jarvis 8 ,
• Richard King   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6404-8052 3 ,
• Ana Maria Loboguerrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-0763 8 ,
• Mauricio A. Lopes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-9940 11 ,
• C. Lynne McIntyre 1 ,
• Rosamond Naylor 13 ,
• Javier Navarro 1 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 11 ,
• Alejandro Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-138X 10 ,
• Mark B. Peoples 1 ,
• Ilje Pikaar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-9983 14 , 15 ,
• Alexander Popp 4 ,
• Johan Rockström 4 , 16 ,
• Michael J. Robertson 1 ,
• Pete Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124 17 ,
• Elke Stehfest   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-2679 18 ,
• Steve M. Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-745X 1 ,
• Hugo Valin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0618-773X 11 ,
• Mark van Wijk 19 ,
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5518 10 ,
• Sonja Vermeulen 3 , 20 ,
• Joost Vervoort 21 &
• Paul C. West   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-1657 12  

Nature Food volume  1 ,  pages 266–272 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

274 Citations

341 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Science, technology and society

Future technologies and systemic innovation are critical for the profound transformation the food system needs. These innovations range from food production, land use and emissions, all the way to improved diets and waste management. Here, we identify these technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system. We argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence. These, in turn, require constructive stakeholder dialogue and clear transition pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions

Tiehu He, Weixin Ding, … Quanfa Zhang

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

Yang Shen & Xiuwu Zhang

Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

B. Buma, D. R. Gordon, … S. P. Hamburg

Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 , 519–525 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 105004 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 14964–14969 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3709–3714 (2014).

Rosegrant, M. W. et al. Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity The Role of Agricultural Technologies (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2014).

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Rockström, J. et al. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1 , 3–5 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Gao, L. & Bryan, B. A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544 , 217–222 (2017).

Arneth, A. et. al. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2019).

Searchinger, T. et al. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: a Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (Agency for International Development, 2018).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–429 (2019).

Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 7351–7359 (2018).

Walsh, B. J. et al. New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets. Carbon Balance Manag 10 , 1–8 (2015).

Bumpus, A. & Comello, S. Emerging clean energy technology investment trends. Nat. Clim. Chang 7 , 382–385 (2017).

Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: Considerations for the EU (Chatham House, 2019).

Hall, A. & Dijkman, J. Public Agricultural Research and Development in an Era of Transformation Vol. 1 (Independent Science Council of the CGIAR and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2019).

Selian, A. N. & McKnight, L. In The Pursuit of Human Well-Being (eds. Estes, R. & Sirgy, M.) 639–687 (Springer, 2017).

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 20260–20264 (2011).

Davis, K. F. et al. Historical trade-offs of livestock’s environmental impacts. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 125013 (2015).

Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22 , 8 (2017).

Swinburn, B. A. et al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 6736 , 1–56 (2019).

Mankins, J. C. Technology Readiness Levels, A White Paper (NASA, 1995).

Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronautica 65 , 1216–1223 (2009).

Hirshhorn, S. et al. Final Report of the NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Study Team (NASA, 2016).

Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 (FAO, 2012).

Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy (Swedish Research Council for Environment Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012).

National Bioeconomy Blueprint (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2012).

El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D. & Philp, J. Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535 , 221–223 (2016).

System Innovation: Synthesis Report (OECD, 2015).

Sánchez-Mejía, M. in Globalization and Health Inequities in Latin America (Malagón de Salazar, L. & Luján Villar, R.) 205–218 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Philp, J. The bioeconomy, the challenge of the century for policy makers. Nat. Biotechnol. 40 , 11–19 (2018).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Building the Bioeconomy 4th edn (Pugatch Consilium, 2017).

Noack, A.-L. & Pouw, N. R. M. A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate. Agric. Human Values 32 , 169–182 (2015).

Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A. Changing Climate , Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption (Chatham House, 2015).

Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Greaker, M. & Midttømme, K. Network effects and environmental externalities: do clean technologies suffer from excess inertia? J. Public Econ. 143 , 27–38 (2016).

Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M. & Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67 , 44–57 (2017).

Stilgoe., J., Owen, R. & McNaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42 , 1568–1580 (2013).

Mytelka, L. K. Competition, Innovation and Competitiveness in Developing Countries (OECD, 1999).

Snowden, D. J. The Cynefin Framework (Cognitive Edge, accessed 22 December 2018); https://cognitive-edge.com/

Asheim, G. B. et al. The case for a supply-side climate treaty. Science 365 , 325–327 (2019).

Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Kerr, W. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ. 124 , 52–104 (2016).

Harstad, B., Lancia, F. & Russo, A. Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc 17 , 1–29 (2019).

Ashford, N. in The Steilmann Report: The Wealth of People: An Intelligent Economy for the 21st Century 233–274 (2001).

Dempwolf, C. S., Auer, J. & D’Ippolito, M. Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics among Start-Up Assistance Organisations (Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Univ. Maryland, 2014).

Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 143 , 8–17 (2018).

de Boer, J. & Aiking, H. Prospects for pro-environmental protein consumption in Europe: cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factors. Appetite 121 , 29–40 (2018).

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X. & Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62 , 7–16 (2013).

Preston, F. & Lehne, J. A Wider Circle? The Circular Economy in Developing Countries (Chatham House, 2017).

Mazzucato, M. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov 23 , 140–156 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H., D.M.-D., J.P.J., J.R.B., G.D.B., M.T.C., C.D., C.M.G., M.G., C.L.M., J.N., M.B.P., M.J.R. and S.M.S. acknowledge funding from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; P.T., B.M.C., A.J. and A.M.L. acknowledge funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements (see https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors ). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. B.L.B. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608); P.P. acknowledges funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant agreement no. 01DP17035); M.C. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People), award number 205212/Z/16/Z; J.S.G., P.S. and P.C.W. acknowledge funding from the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI DEVIL project (grant no. NE/M021327/1); A.P. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia https://www.csiro.au

Mario Herrero, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Jeda Palmer, Jessica R. Bogard, Andrew Hall, Graham D. Bonnett, Mathew T. Cook, Chris Downs, Kanar Dizyee, Cecile M. Godde, Michael Grundy, C. Lynne McIntyre, Javier Navarro, Mark B. Peoples, Michael J. Robertson & Steve M. Swain

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Philip K. Thornton

The Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK

Tim G. Benton, Bernice Lee, Richard King & Sonja Vermeulen

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Prajal Pradhan, Alexander Popp & Johan Rockström

Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Karine Nyborg

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Brett A. Bryan

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Fredriksberg, Denmark

Bruce M. Campbell & Svend Christensen

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia

Bruce M. Campbell, Andrew Jarvis & Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Livestock, Environment and People, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Michael Clark

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

Imke J. M. de Boer, Alejandro Parodi & Hannah H. E. van Zanten

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

Christian Folberth, Petr Havlik, Mauricio A. Lopes, Michael Obersteiner & Hugo Valin

Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA

James S. Gerber & Paul C. West

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Rosamond Naylor

The School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Ilje Pikaar

Advanced Water Management Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, Universität Potsdam, Campus Golm, Potsdam-Golm, Germany

Johan Rockström

Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands

Elke Stehfest

International Livestock Research Institute, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Nairobi, Kenya

Mark van Wijk

CGIAR System Management Organisation, Montpellier, France

Sonja Vermeulen

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Joost Vervoort

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P. and J.B. designed the research. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P., A.H., B.L. and K.N. wrote the manuscript. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C. J.P., J.B., C.G., K.D. and J.N. analysed data. All authors contributed data and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Herrero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary methods, discussion and Tables 1,2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food 1 , 266–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2019

Accepted : 13 April 2020

Published : 19 May 2020

Issue Date : May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

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

This article is cited by

Modelling six sustainable development transformations in australia and their accelerators, impediments, enablers, and interlinkages.

• Cameron Allen
• Annabel Biddulph
• Shirin Malekpour

Nature Communications (2024)

Assessing and addressing the global state of food production data scarcity

• Endalkachew Abebe Kebede
• Hanan Abou Ali
• Kyle Frankel Davis

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Interventions to increase circularity and reduce environmental impacts in food systems

• Benjamin van Selm
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten
• Imke J. M. de Boer

Ambio (2024)

Exploring inclusion in UK agricultural robotics development: who, how, and why?

• Kirsten Ayris
• Anna Jackman
• David Christian Rose

Agriculture and Human Values (2024)

The role of food industries in sustainability transition: a review

• S. Prasanna
• Praveen Verma

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2024)

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Journals, books & databases

• Our journals

Sustainable Food Technology

Cultivating sustainable solutions to food processing and engineering

What would you like to know about Sustainable Food Technology ?

Impact factor: n/a

Time to first decision (all decisions): 33.0 days**

Time to first decision (peer-reviewed only): 49.0 days***

Editor-in-Chief: Jorge Barros Velázquez

Gold open access, APCs waived until mid-2025

Indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Scopus

Read this journal

Submit an article

Sign up for regular email alerts

View all journal metrics

Open. Impactful. Multidisciplinary.

An open access forum for new food technologies.

What can we do to ensure food security around the globe? How do we end world hunger? Where can we find the solutions to produce food more sustainably?

Sustainable Food Technology seeks the answers to these big questions. While our companion journal, Food & Function , focuses on the purpose of food and its relation to health and nutrition, this new journal publishes high-quality sustainable research on food engineering and technologies. Key topics include food preservation methods, shelf life and the creation of greener packaging.

Hear from our Editor-in-Chief

Read and publish in our themed collections

Sustainable Food Technology publishes a number of themed collections every year, guest edited by members of the community on timely and important topics.

Interested in contributing your work? Explore the latest open calls for papers in Sustainable Food Technology

Journal scope

Sustainable Food Technology is a gold open access journal focused on cutting-edge strategies for food production, that aim to provide quality and safe foods in an environmentally conscious and sustainable way.

We welcome novel green strategies applied to both crops and animal foods from every step of the food chain, “from farm to fork”. Circular economy strategies and life cycle analysis are particularly welcomed, from those adding value to food by-products to those focused on the appropriate reuse of food waste.

Manuscripts submitted to Sustainable Food Technology  should focus on either applied or fundamental science and cover the development and optimisation of technologies aimed at improving post-harvest supply-chain of food. All manuscripts must address environmental, economic and/or health challenges associated with food sustainability.

The quantitative and/or qualitative aspect of sustainability e.g. water usage, energy efficiency, process intensification, by-product extraction, or benchmarking of proposed sustainable packaging against conventional should be demonstrated and discussed.

Topics of interest include but are not limited to:

• Novel and sustainable food resources and food ingredients
• Food fortification
• Food production systems requiring less energy and water consumption
• Nanotechnology and biosensors in food processing, packaging and safety
• Data harmonisation, digitalisation and artificial intelligence to assist food production and control
• Omics-based food traceability tools to prevent economic and sanitary threats
• Biotechnology and bioengineering approaches to increase food production, quality and safety
• Emerging food preservation techniques: non-thermal processes, bioactive compounds
• Green active and intelligent packaging and storage systems
• Circular strategies for adding value to food by-products and food waste (recovery and valorisation)
• Life cycle analysis and sustainability metrics in food production
• Sustainable intensification of food production and processing

Manuscripts without a foundation in sustainability, or studies that are purely descriptive in nature are not suitable for publication in this journal.

Manuscripts must show significant novelty and exhibit cutting-edge technologies or engineering advances. Sufficient chemical, microbiological and/or nutritional analysis must be provided to justify claims of novelty, interest and applicability of the research presented.

The following fields of study are not included in the scope of Sustainable Food Technology :

• Nutritional and toxicological studies – these can be published in Food & Function
• Routine applications of well-established processing and preservation techniques
• Compositional analyses of conventional foods not representing novel food resources
• In-vitro characterization of microorganisms not performed in food models or food systems
• Incremental advances or application of agricultural practices

Submissions

Submissions are initially assessed and taken through peer-review by our high-profile, internationally-recognised  Associate Editors . The journal operates a single-anonymised peer review model, and a minimum of two reviewer reports are required.

See who's on the team

Meet Sustainable Food Technology  Editor-in-Chief and board members.

Editor-in-Chief University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Associate Editor RMIT University, Australia

Associate Editor Institute of Chemical Technology, India

Associate Editor University of Maryland, USA

Editorial Board Member University College Dublin, Ireland

Cristóbal N. Aguilar, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Mexico

Rafael Auras ,  Michigan State University, USA

Maria G. Corradini, University of Guelph, Canada

Sakamon Devahastin, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Bangkok, Thailand

Tian Ding, Zhejiang University, China

Hao Feng, North Carolina A&T State University, USA

Elena Ibañez , CIAL-CSIC, Spain

Joe P. Kerry, University College Cork, Ireland

Olga Martín-Belloso, University of Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

Maria Angela A Meireles , Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

Manjusri Misra , University of Guelph, Canada

Solange I. Mussatto, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

Indrawati Oey, University of Otago, New Zealand

Umezuruike Linus Opara, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Federico Pallottino , CREA-IT, Italy

Marco Poiana, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Italy

Anet Režek Jambrak, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Victor Rodov , Agricultural Research Organization - The Volcani Institute, Israel

Andreas Schieber, University of Bonn, Institute of Nutritional and Food Sciences, Germany

Juming Tang , Washington State University, USA

Paula Teixeira, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal

Long Yu , South China University of Technology, Institute of Chemistry, Henan Academy of Sciences, China

Min Zhang , Jiangnan University, China

Bhesh Bhandari , University of Queensland, Australia 

Anna Rulka , Executive Editor, ORCID: 0000-0002-3236-9801

Audra Taylor , Deputy Editor

Viktoria Titmus , Editorial Production Manager

Angelica-Jane Kechinyere Onyekwere , Assistant Editor

Shwetha Krishna , Assistant Editor

Michael Whitelaw , Assistant Editor

Alexander Whiteside , Assistant Editor ORCID:  0000-0002-1743-1531

Samantha Campos , Editorial Assistant 

Brittany Hanlon , Publishing Assistant

Neil Hammond , Publisher, ORCID: 0000-0001-6390-8874

Open access

We want the research published here to be easily accessible and beneficial to people globally. That’s why Sustainable Food Technology is gold open access with all article processing charges (APCs) paid by us until mid-2025 – so initially you can publish for free. We’re committed to increasing the visibility of your articles and making a difference around the world. As part of the submission process, authors will be asked to agree to the Sustainable Food Technology open access terms & conditions.

We offer Sustainable Food Technology authors a choice of two Creative Commons licences: CC BY or CC BY NC. Publication under these licences means that authors retain the copyright of their article, but users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. Read our open access statement for further information. All published articles are deposited with LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico and the British Library for archiving.

Dive into the benefits of open access publishing

Find out more about open access publishing routes

Explore Royal Society of Chemistry open access journals

Read our Researchers’ voice report in response to Plan S

Transparent peer review policy

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article. Reviewers are anonymous unless they choose to sign their reports.

Find out more about our transparent peer review policy .

Article Types

Sustainable Food Technology publishes:

Communications

Full papers.

Our Communication format is ideally suited to short studies - which can be preliminary in nature - that are of such importance that they require accelerated publication.

Communications must contain original and highly significant work whose interest to the Sustainable Food Technology readership and high novelty warrants rapid publication. Authors should supply with their submission a justification of why the work merits urgent publication as a Communication. Referees will be asked to judge the work on these grounds.

Communications are given high visibility within the journal as they are published at the front of an issue. Communications will not normally exceed the length of five printed journal pages.

These must demonstrate an advance in strategies for sustainable food production and are judged according to originality, quality of scientific content and contribution to existing knowledge.

Although there is no page limit for Full papers, appropriateness of length to content of new science will be taken into consideration.

Reviews should be definitive, comprehensive and provide a critical evaluation of the chosen topic area. These are normally commissioned by the editorial board and editorial office, although suggestions from readers for topics and authors are most welcome and should be directed to the editorial office.

Reviews must be high-quality, authoritative and state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field. They should be timely and add to the existing literature, rather than duplicate existing articles, and should be of general interest to the journal's readership.

All review content should consist of original text and interpretation, avoiding any direct reproduction. If a significant amount of other people's material is to be used, either textual or image-based, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law and must be made clear in the manuscript. We recommend that systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the PRISMA guidelines for the transparent reporting of these studies.

All reviews undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure in the same way as regular research papers.

Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Sustainable Food Technology .

For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or a new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.

Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.

Author Guidelines

General author guidelines.

For general guidance on preparing an article please visit our Prepare your article page , the content of which is relevant to all our journals.

To learn more about the Royal Society of Chemistry's policies and processes, including licensing, publishing ethics, peer review, and formatting, please refer to our Resources for authors page .

All submitted papers must include a cover letter that should specify the novelty of the work and give a justification for the publication of the paper.

Sustainability Spotlight Statement

All submitted manuscripts must include a Sustainability Spotlight Statement (120 words maximum) that should categorically state the sustainable advance of the work and how it aligns with the  UN’s Sustainable Development Goals . This statement should be different from the abstract and set the work in a broader context regarding sustainability. It should aim to answer the following questions.

• What is the situation and why is it important to address/understand this?
• What is the sustainable advancement of the work?
• How the work aligns with the  UN SDG(s) ?

This statement will be seen by the reviewers and will help ascertain the relevance of the article for a broad but technical audience and authors should use it to show that they have given serious consideration to problems that are sustainable in nature. If the paper is accepted this statement will also be published. Manuscripts cannot be reviewed without this statement.

Peer review and editorial process

All articles published in  Sustainable Food Technology are subject to external peer review by experts in the field and all manuscripts submitted are handled by a team of internationally recognised  Associate Editors , who are all practicing scientists in the field.

The peer review for all articles submitted to the journal consists of the following stages:

• Phase 1 : Your manuscript is  initially assessed  by an associate editor to determine its suitability for peer review
• Phase 2 : If the manuscript passes the initial assessment process, the associate editor solicits recommendations from at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. They will provide a report along with their recommendation.
• Phase 3 : The associate editor handling your manuscript makes a decision based on the reviewer reports received. In the event that no clear decision can be made, another reviewer will be consulted.

Sustainable Food Technology is committed to a rigorous peer review process and expert editorial oversight for all published content. Please refer to  our processes and policies  for full details including our appeals procedure.

All submissions to our Open Calls will undergo an initial assessment by the journal Editors and subsequent peer review as per the usual standards of RSC journals .

Publication frequency

Articles accepted for publication in Sustainable Food Technology are published online with citeable DOIs as Advance Articles after they are edited and typeset. Articles are then assigned page numbers and published in an issue. Issues of Sustainable Food Technology are published every other month. Please find our most recent issue here .

Ethical Requirements

Sustainable Food Technology authors, editors, reviewers and published works are required to uphold the Royal Society of Chemistry’s  ethical standards . The Royal Society of Chemistry is a member of  Committee on Publication Ethics  (COPE) and our ethical standards follow COPE’s  core practices  and  best practice guidelines . In cases where these guidelines are breached or appear to be so, the Royal Society of Chemistry will consult with COPE.

When a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, authors must include in the 'methods/experimental' section of the manuscript a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the author’s institute’s policy on animal use and ethics; where possible, details of compliance with national or international laws or guidelines should be included. The statement must name the institutional/local ethics committee which has approved the study; where possible, the approval or case number should be provided. A statement that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects is required. Reviewers may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.

For further guidance on author responsibilities and code of conduct, which apply to  Sustainable Food Technology and to all manuscripts submitted to Royal Society of Chemistry journals, please visit  our author hub .

Themed Collections

Sustainable Food Technology  publishes a number of themed collections every year on timely and important topics, guest edited by members of the community. All submissions to our themed collections undergo an initial assessment by the journal's associate editors and subsequent peer review as per the usual standards of RSC journals.

Subscription Information

Sustainable Food Technology is fully gold open access – articles can be downloaded free from the website with no barriers to access.

Online only: ISSN 2753-8095

Copyright is retained by authors when an open access licence is accepted, as with our standard licence to publish agreement. Full and accurate attribution to the original author is required for any re-use of the work. Find out more about copyright, licences and re-use permission .

Get email alerts about Sustainable Food Technology

For the latest editorial board news, scope details and announcements, sign up for news and issue alerts by using the form below. For any other queries, please get in touch using the contact us form on this page.

Please update your browser to a newer version to use this form.

Terms and conditions

Please tick this box to acknowledge that:

• You have read, understood and accept the terms and conditions .
• We need to collect and manage your personal data in order to provide this service. Our privacy statement explains how we do this.

Edit your RSC contact preferences .

**The median time from submission to first decision including manuscripts rejected without peer review from the previous calendar year

***The median time from submission to first decision for peer-reviewed manuscripts from the previous calendar year

Advertisement

A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

68k Accesses

133 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste Valorization in Food Industries: A Review of Sustainable Approaches

Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Review

Food Wastes: Perceptions, Impacts and Management

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

Research aim and structure.

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

Structure of the research presented in this paper

Definition of Food Waste

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

Review on Methods to Classify Food Waste

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicators to Classify Food Waste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development and Partial Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redistribution for Human Consumption

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

Animal Feeding

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

Anaerobic Digestion

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

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

Thermal Treatment with Energy Recovery

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

Final Results and Discussion: Case Studies

Introduction to case studies.

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

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

Brewery: Molson Coors

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

Spent Grain

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

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

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

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

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

Beer rejected because of mislabelling.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditioning Bottom

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

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

Filter Waste

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

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

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

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

Applicability of the Categorization Process and the FWMDT

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

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

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

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

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

Manufacturer of Meat Alternatives: Quorn Foods

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

Food Solid/Slurry Mix

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

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

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

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

Food Product Returns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O.: The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 , 648–658 (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Instruments: The Food Information Regulations 2014 (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

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

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

Quorn Foods, Stokesley, North Yorkshire, UK

Louise Needham

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliot Woolley .

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Received : 09 June 2016

Accepted : 29 September 2016

Published : 25 October 2016

Issue Date : September 2017

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, analyzing the relationship between consumers’ and entrepreneurs’ food waste and sustainable development using a bibliometric approach.

• 1 Department of Economics and Sustainable Development, School of Environment, Geography and Applied Economics, Harokopio University of Athens, Kallithea, Greece
• 2 Department of Public and Community Health, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

The present study investigates the relationship between food waste and sustainable development, aiming to reveal contextual insights and present novel findings regarding the pivotal importance of waste and environmental strategies toward a circular economy. This research represents an effort to delineate methodological and thematic contributions, thoroughly analyze key themes, examine co-citation patterns, assess collaboration among countries, and identify current knowledge gaps in the literature. As waste management takes precedence within the framework of sustainable development goals, policymakers, and academia will better understand how effective food waste management can contribute to environmental sustainability. Methodologically, we employ systematic review, employing the PRISMA approach, analyzing 761 final papers, and investigating the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. We delve deeper to reveal contextual insights and present empirical findings that underscore the critical role of food waste in the economy and environment. Furthermore, guided by the identified knowledge gaps, we illuminate potential future research avenues that hold immense promise for advancing our understanding of food waste and its impact on sustainable development.

1 Introduction

Sustainable Development Goals centered on food security, environmental preservation, and optimizing material and energy usage are significant motivators for effectively managing the overuse of food waste ( Kaur et al., 2021 ). Food waste is a pressing global issue that squanders valuable resources and exacerbates challenges related to food security, environmental sustainability, and economic efficiency. Food waste, as defined by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, 1 “ is any food and inedible parts sent to a specified list of food waste destinations, where “food” is defined as any substance that was at some point intended for human consumption.”

A critical issue facing our global food system is the enormous amounts of food wasted yearly, leaving millions hungry. In order to resolve this contradiction, it is essential to comprehend the complex relationship between food waste and consumption patterns. This comprehensive investigation explores the different ways that consuming habits, from meal preparation and disposal to planning and purchasing, contribute to the creation of food waste. By looking at these relationships, we hope to pinpoint important intervention areas and create plans to encourage ethical and sustainable food consumption habits, ultimately reducing waste and guaranteeing everyone fair access to wholesome food. Approximately one-third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste ( Schanes et al., 2018 ). This phenomenon leads to several environmental issues, such as soil erosion, deforestation, water and air pollution, and the release of greenhouse gases during various stages of food production ( Mourad, 2016 ). Thus, most developed countries have witnessed growing awareness and concern regarding the magnitude of food waste within their borders in recent years. Understanding food waste’s intricate parameters and dynamics becomes paramount as we strive to become more environmentally conscious and sustainable.

The current study broadly examines the available literature and discusses the interdisciplinary nature of food waste and its role in sustainable development ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). Our investigation seeks to unravel the main findings of the current research on sustainable development and SDGs. In doing so, we aim to shed light on the extent of the problem, the societal, economic, and environmental repercussions, and the potential strategies and interventions that can be adopted to mitigate food waste. The world, characterized by its cultural diversity, varying consumption patterns, and dynamic economies, presents a unique and complex landscape for studying food waste. Our investigation extends academic discussion on the association between food waste and sustainability.

More specifically, this study highlights the countries, the authors, and the sources that decidedly investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. By analyzing the successes and challenges faced in the region, we aim to provide valuable insights that can underline possible scientific gaps, inform policy development, and encourage cross-border collaboration in the fight against food waste. In conclusion, this research contributes to the growing knowledge surrounding food waste. By examining the shape of food waste dynamics, we hope to provide food of thought for a foundation for evidence-based policies and practices to minimize food waste’s detrimental impact on society, the environment, and the economy. Pursuing a more sustainable and food-secure future for Europe necessitates a deeper understanding of food waste, making this study an essential step toward that goal.

In sum, the main contribution of this systematic literature review is twofold. Firstly, it serves as a tool for pinpointing areas where scholarly evidence remains insufficient, highlighting the need for further research to expand our understanding of food waste behavior. Secondly, it establishes a knowledge repository that can offer valuable insights for evidence-based decision-making and policy formulation. This, in turn, can enhance the quality and efficacy of policy measures and technological innovations to reduce food waste. However, several objectives and research questions should be addressed and responded to achieve these goals. The main objectives are as follows:

• To investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainable development through a bibliometric analysis.

• To identify key themes, trends, and knowledge gaps in the existing research on food waste and its connection to sustainability within the framework of a circular economy and

• To provide valuable insights for policymakers, academics, and stakeholders working toward reducing food waste and achieving sustainable development goals.

After that, the research questions that are necessary to be addressed and be able to achieve the objectives of the current research are as follows:

• RQ1: What are the dominant themes and research trends in the literature on food waste and sustainable development within a circular economy framework, as revealed by a bibliometric analysis?

• RQ2: What key methodological approaches are employed in the existing research on food waste and sustainable development?

• RQ3: What are the prominent countries, institutions, and authors contributing to the field, and how do they collaborate on research related to food waste and sustainable development?

• RQ4: What are the critical knowledge gaps and potential future research avenues identified in the current body of literature on food waste and sustainable development?

By addressing these research questions, this study aims to offer a comprehensive and data-driven understanding of the current knowledge surrounding food waste and its connection to achieving sustainable development within a circular economy. This understanding can inform future research efforts and guide the development of effective strategies to address this pressing global challenge.

The remaining components are organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the research methodology and data selection. Section 3 delves into the empirical findings, exploring their connections to the article’s conceptual, intellectual, and social framework. Section 4 presents the conclusion and implications for policy.

2 Scheme of the research and empirical methodology

2.1 bibliometric data.

The bibliometrics approach assesses information trends to emphasize the contributions of both individuals and research groups. We also utilize review processes to synthesize content and generate innovative policy recommendations concerning the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. For the subsequent procedures, we exclusively rely on the Scopus database, which is recognized as one of the most reliable and comprehensive sources. We used “ food waste ” and “ sustainable development ” to pinpoint publications. After that, we eliminated non-relevant publications to exclude irrelevant studies ( Shahbaz et al., 2021 ) following the PRISMA methodology ( Page et al., 2021 ).

In particular, a comprehensive search string in Scopus combined relevant keywords related to food waste and sustainable development. The exclusion criteria were as follows: duplicates were removed, non-English language articles were excluded, and conference materials, editorials, and letters to maintain focus on in-depth research were also removed. Following data extraction using a standardized form, we employed a multifaceted approach. Bibliometric software like VOSviewer and bibliometrix facilitated co-citation analysis, keyword clustering, and citation network visualization are also employed. Additionally, text analysis techniques complemented our understanding of key themes and emerging trends within the selected publications. This process narrows our selection to a final set of 761 studies from 214 sources for further examination.

A compilation of 1,480 research publications published between 2003 and 2023 is the outcome of our first search. We chose this time frame with significant consideration for the reasons listed below. First, we want to highlight some recent developments. There has been much advancement in food waste and its relationship to sustainable development in recent years. With an emphasis on studies released after 2003, we sought to encompass the most recent findings and patterns in this quickly developing subject. Second, it is critical to comprehend the most recent research findings and their implications for current policy and practice as the urgency of tackling food waste and reaching sustainable development goals increases.

2.2 Bibliometric analysis

Researchers can use quantitative and qualitative methodologies to identify gaps in the scientific literature by using the bibliometrics methodology to track trends in academic research ( Siddiqui et al., 2023 ). We have used bibliometric tools like VOSviewer, the R-package, and Biblioshiny to analyze publications about food waste ( Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ). The VOSviewer is a tool that uses a two-dimensional map to show the relationships between co-citation data, geographic locations, research journals, and keywords. Their proximity shows the degree of link or similarity between nodes in this visualization. More specifically, this software is excellent at producing two-dimensional maps showing the connections between various items in a dataset. The most popular keywords and how they gathered together are shown in the visualization, which sheds light on the recurring themes in food waste. In addition, VOSviewer assists us in recognizing significant research and schools of thinking that have shaped our current comprehension of food waste and its relationship to sustainability.

On the other hand, R-package and Biblioshiny utilize a diverse set of bibliometric tools that serve as visualization functions for conducting information analysis and generating scientific maps related to the intersection of food waste and sustainability ( da Silva Duarte et al., 2021 ; Srinivas, 2022 ). The package facilitates efficient data processing and transformation, ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the analysis. Biblioshiny provides advanced functions for constructing and analyzing bibliographic networks, allowing us to explore the intricate relationships between different entities within the food waste literature.

3 Empirical results

3.1 publication output and citation growth.

Figure 1 presents a per annum publication and citation growth trend since 2003, with an average of 75.6 citations per document. Notably, interdisciplinary research on food waste has received significant attention recently ( Dhir et al., 2020 ). There has been an exponential increase in publications in recent years, with 2023 having the highest number of publications (146 articles).

Figure 1 . Publication output.

Document-citation analysis was also performed using the “document” unit from the downloaded publications to create a table based on citation data by selecting the first ten documents as a threshold. For each of the ten documents, the number of citations and doi number are presented in the following Table 1 . For brevity, most citations reported by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) (910 citations) have investigated the factors that increase food waste through several channels of the food supply chain and propose a framework for appropriately managing food waste. Guo et al. (2010) (636 citations) focused their interest on agricultural production and the degradation of the natural environment due to the energy crisis. Authors propose hydrogen as one of the most promising substitutes for fossil fuels. After that, a group of authors with around 300 citations consists of Notarnicola et al. (2017) , who has a total of 383 citations; Williams et al. (2012) , with 360 citations, and Xue et al. (2017) , who has 359 citations. Next, Alexander et al. (2017) , Mourad, Garrone et al. (2014) , Sharma P. et al. (2020) , and Sharma S. et al. (2020) papers have more than 200 citations, but less than 300 completed the first ten high-cited documents.

Table 1 . Top 10 most cited documents.

3.2 Countries’ collaboration networks

Next, Figures 2 , 3 visually represent global research collaboration among countries, displaying the collaboration network and the volume of publications contributed by each country.

Figure 2 . Country scientific production.

Figure 3 . Countries’ collaboration network.

In Figure 2 , the research output is presented with varying shades of color, wherein the darker colors represent the regions with the highest frequency of publications. Notably, China is the global leader in research publications, with an impressive count of 481, showcasing its substantial contribution to the academic landscape. Following closely behind are other key players in the research arena, with Italy contributing 442 publications, the United Kingdom with 246, India with 215, and the United States with 208, all demonstrating their significant presence in the global research community. Additionally, several other highly productive economies, such as Spain, Sweden, Germany, Malaysia, and Australia, are notable contributors, further enriching the global research output landscape.

Moving on to Figure 3 , it describes the collaborative aspect of research on a global scale, shedding light on the interconnections and partnerships between various countries in the pursuit of knowledge and academic advancement.

A compelling pattern emerges when examining collaborations between authors and countries in food waste. Notably, China, Italy, and the United Kingdom substantially collaborate. This outcome highlights their proactive stance in fostering international partnerships to tackle food waste and sustainability nexus. Following closely behind are the United States and Spain, both of which also participate actively in collaborative initiatives. These findings underscore the global significance of addressing food waste and the willingness of these nations to join forces in addressing this critical challenge.

3.3 Keywords, authors, and key countries framework

The upcoming section aims to reveal how researchers have documented various research streams across different countries. To achieve this, we employ the CAK framework to introduce innovative visualizations that portray the amalgamation of authors, research themes, and countries.

It is evident from Figure 4 that Italy, China, and the UK are the most prominent geographical locations. Likewise, the most dominant research themes are food waste, sustainable development, waste management, and waste disposal. It is worth noting that the smaller size of countries with limited contributions suggests that the current state of research is in its early stages. Additional research, mainly from European economies with substantial food demands, should shed light on recent research developments and explore new avenues of inquiry.

Figure 4 . CAK framework. Authors, keywords, countries.

Figure 5 , depicted as a tree diagram, visually represents the keywords extensively employed in the array of previously studied records. A closer examination of the results illuminates the prominent themes authors have chosen to emphasize in their works.

Figure 5 . Keywords tree-map.

Notably, “food waste” takes the lead, featuring in approximately 36% of the articles. This underscores the paramount significance of addressing food waste within the scope of the research, signifying its pervasive relevance in current academic discourse. Sustainability is another crucial focus in 18% of the articles, highlighting the shared commitment to promoting sustainable practices and environmental responsibility within food waste management. Furthermore, the concept of a “circular economy” garners notable attention, being employed as a keyword in 10% of the publications, reflecting the growing interest in developing circular and resource-efficient systems to combat food waste. The utilization of “life cycle assessment” as a keyword in 8% of the articles underscores the methodological approach many authors took, emphasizing the importance of assessing environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of food products. Finally, the notion of “sustainable development” is reflected in 7% of the works, signifying the broader context in which food waste mitigation is situated, emphasizing the pursuit of development that satisfies current requirements without jeopardizing those of coming generations. This breakdown of prevalent keywords offers valuable insights into the thematic and methodological orientations of the scholarly discourse surrounding food waste. It underscores the critical areas of focus within this research domain.

3.4 Co-citation analysis of authors – intellectual structure

Afterward, we utilize co-citation analysis to understand better how literature has evolved in recent decades. The extent to which studies reference one another indicates the interrelatedness within the scientific literature. Co-citation analysis is a constantly changing metric that aids in recognizing emerging paradigms within a selected body of academic literature ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). In our present study, we refer to Figure 6 (co-citation analysis), where the number of citations is represented, and the relatedness of topics is indicated by the distance between these nodes, shedding light on academic discourse. The visualization in Figure 6 reveals two distinct clusters.

Figure 6 . Co-citations analysis of authors.

The first group of publications delves into the importance of food waste as a critical element in developing a sustainable food system ( Quested et al., 2011 ). They also attempt to identify the losses occurring along the entire food chain and identify the causes of food losses and possible ways of preventing them ( Quested et al., 2011 ; Falasconi et al., 2015 ; Eriksson et al., 2020 ). Conversely, a second cluster examines food issues in a more global scale analysis linked to sustainable development goals ( Liu et al., 2022 ) introducing, for instance, the effects of international food trade on the food system ( Wang et al., 2022 ). Smaller groups use a more quantitative analysis highlighting possible environmental and socio-economic impacts of food waste ( Albizzati et al., 2021 ) and policies at a micro level ( Lassen et al., 2019 ).

3.5 Conceptual structure of the publications

Recently, keyword co-occurrence networks have become increasingly popular in systematic review-based studies, offering a means to harness knowledge mapping and uncover associations among research themes in research management ( Bashir et al., 2021 ). This approach empowers researchers to comprehensively understand a specific field within the amassed knowledge, harnessing the associations between keywords to reveal insights in economic literature. In our current research, we utilize a keyword co-occurrence network approach, setting a threshold of at least five occurrences for a word to be included. Consequently, out of a total of 1,136 keywords, 113 satisfied this requirement (see Figures 7 , 8 ).

Figure 7 . Keywords co-occurrence network.

Figure 8 . Keywords co-occurrence network.

Notably, keywords like “food waste,” “sustainability,” “waste management,” “environmental impact,” and “waste disposable” are the most frequently occurring. Furthermore, as depicted in Figure 7 , three separate groups of keywords are evident (green, red, and blue). Looking at the blue cluster, the keywords “sustainability,” “food supply,” “food security,” “nutrition” and “supply chain” exhibit close associations. As far as the red cluster is concerned, the keywords “article,” “waste disposal,” “fertilizer,” “biogas,” and “nitrogen” indicate a group of research that investigates the concept of food waste from a different perspective. An interesting observation is that keywords (green cluster) such as “life cycle assessment,” “gas emissions,” “anaerobic digestion,” “municipal waste,” and “climate change” have small node sizes but remain interconnected in terms of links.

After that, we expanded the keywords’ co-occurrence network by exploring its time evolution. The connection between food waste and sustainability is relatively recent, with most publications emerging after 2019. Even more recently, authors have also incorporated into their analysis the “circular economy,” “sustainable development goals,” “waste management,” and “food supply.” These keywords provide more information on the trend already in process around the relationship between food waste management and sustainability in the future. A notable trend is observed, with most publications centered around food waste, sustainability, environmental impact assessment, food supply, and climate change.

We further employ Figure 9 to explore thematic mapping from the perspective of four distinct subdivisions, which aids in comprehending the diversity and significance of sub-components within the scientific literature ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). We have established the maximum number of keywords at 119 and the minimum cluster frequency at 3.

Figure 9 . Thematic map.

The upper right section encompasses “motor themes,” representing research topics with the highest density and centrality, such as “food waste,” “sustainability,” “circular economy,” “life cycle assessment,” and “waste management.” In the lower-right quadrant, we find “food security” characterized by low density, discussing topics like “recycling,” “climate change,” “food waste management,” and “food supply chain.” These transversal themes hold significant importance in the research, contributing to discussions on various research directions. Lastly, “declining or emerging themes” and “niche themes” encompass research topics related to “household food waste” and “co-digestion.” In summary, Figure 9 serves as a valuable tool for understanding the current academic discourse and the potential role of food waste in future waste management policies.

4 Discussion

The present work aims to offer researchers and policymakers a toolbox of organized ideas to tackle food waste. Simultaneously, to achieve the objectives outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals, the target of reducing food waste and adopting a comprehensive strategy incorporating various measures is domineering. These efforts rectify informational gaps already highlighted by previous systematic literature review works ( Schanes et al., 2018 ).

Besides, similar to previous studies ( Principato et al., 2021 ) our research sheds light on the complex sides of the food waste phenomenon, highlighting the trend of research on this topic ( Zhang et al., 2018 ; Vásquez Neyra et al., 2022 ; D'Adamo et al., 2023 ). More specifically, our study provides an essential segment of information presenting the issues around food waste that are denoted as the motor themes with a critical role of food waste in future food waste management and policies, such as the concept of circular economy ( de Oliveira et al., 2021 ; Nikolaou and Tsagarakis, 2021 ; Santagata et al., 2021 ). In this direction, the European Food Safety Authority (2020) highlights that circular economy initiatives are increasing attention to food waste as a food and feed source.

Furthermore, our review, concentrating on strategies to reduce food waste and promote sustainability, dovetails with the Green Deal’s priorities, such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable consumption. By positioning the study within the broader context of global sustainability challenges, it becomes evident that addressing food waste is integral to achieving the Green Deal’s ambitious targets. In this direction, according to FAO (2021) one of the ways toward more sustainable agriculture and food production is to manage food production systems sustainably through significant reductions in food loss and waste.

5 Concluding remarks and policy implications

The central objective of our research is to investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainability through a review of academic literature. Our study thoroughly examines all pertinent publications on the nexus between food waste and sustainable development. Given the pivotal role of food waste in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it becomes crucial for policymaking institutions to evaluate socio-economic and policy variables.

This evaluation is essential for harmonizing food consumption and environmental sustainability via several policy implications. For instance, policymakers should prioritize integrating food waste reduction strategies into the broader framework of SDGs. This approach ensures a more holistic and sustainable approach to addressing food waste while advancing the global sustainability agenda. Also, at a microeconomic level, governments must focus on socio-economic and policy factors that directly influence food waste. By designing policies that incentivize food waste reduction at the individual, household, and industrial levels, they can contribute to achieving both economic and environmental goals. On a more global-scale and macroeconomic level, collaboration among countries, mainly focusing on emerging economies, is essential to address the multifaceted challenges posed by food waste. Policymakers should explore international partnerships to facilitate knowledge sharing, best practices, and innovative strategies in mitigating food waste.

In a more specific and focused aspect, our analysis identifies key themes and research areas related to food waste and sustainability. European and national policy measures should emphasize the need to integrate specific food waste reduction strategies into national SDG goals such as Goal 2 (zero hunger) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production). Moreover, governments and policymakers can identify specific socio-economic and policy factors that significantly influence food waste at individual, household, and industrial levels. These policy interventions could include consumer awareness campaigns, incentivizing food waste reduction within entrepreneurs, exploring policies like tax breaks for businesses implementing waste reduction strategies, or introducing waste disposal fees based on waste generation. Financially, the public sector could also encourage policies that facilitate the redistribution of surplus food to those in need, reducing waste and promoting social welfare. That can be done by promoting the establishment of international funding mechanisms to support emerging economies in implementing effective food waste reduction strategies.

However, it is noteworthy that conducting country-specific analyses can offer valuable insights and potentially address limitations associated with quantitative data and analysis. Understanding the specific dynamics of food waste in different nations is crucial for tailoring effective policies and interventions. In addition, we urge future research to delve into the role of addressing food waste issues, particularly in emerging economies. Such research endeavors have the potential to yield diverse policy insights. By examining the unique challenges and opportunities food waste presents in these regions, policymakers can better understand the evolving issues in developing and developed nations. This knowledge is invaluable for shaping effective strategies to reduce food waste and promote sustainable practices worldwide.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

IK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Software, Visualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SP: Investigation, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GM: Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

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

Publisher’s note

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

1. ^ https://wrap.org.uk/

Albizzati, P. F., Tonini, D., and Astrup, T. F. (2021). High-value products from food waste: an environmental and socio-economic assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 755:142466. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142466

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., and Rounsevell, M. D. (2017). Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric. Syst. 153, 190–200. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.014

Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11, 959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Qin, Y., and Bashir, M. A. (2021). Evaluation of one belt one road publications: a bibliometric and literature review analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 37016–37030. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14621-y

Buczacki, A., Gładysz, B., and Palmer, E. (2021). HoReCa food waste and sustainable development goals—a systemic view. Sustain. For. 13:5510. doi: 10.3390/su13105510

D'Adamo, I., Desideri, S., Gastaldi, M., and Tsagarakis, K. P. (2023). Sustainable food waste management in supermarkets. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 43, 204–216. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.11.005

de Oliveira, M. M., Lago, A., and Dal’Magro, G. P. (2021). Food loss and waste in the context of the circular economy: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 294:126284. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126284

da Silva Duarte, K. S., Lima, T. A. C., Alves, L. R., Rios, P. A. P., and Motta, W. H. (2021). The circular economy approach for reducing food waste: a systematic review. Revista Produção e desenvolvimento 7. doi: 10.32358/rpd.2021.v7.572

Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Kaur, P., and Malibari, A. (2020). Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. Journal of Cleaner Production , 270, 122861. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122861

Eriksson, M., Malefors, C., Bergström, P., Eriksson, E., and Persson Osowski, C. (2020). Quantities and quantification methodologies of food waste in Swedish hospitals. Sustain. For. 12:3116. doi: 10.3390/su12083116

European Food Safety AuthorityMaggiore, A., Afonso, A., Barrucci, F., and Sanctis, G. D. (2020). Climate change as a driver of emerging risks for food and feed safety, plant, animal health and nutritional quality. EFSA Support. Publ. 17:1881E. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1881

Falasconi, L., Vittuari, M., Politano, A., and Segrè, A. (2015). Food waste in school catering: an Italian case study. Sustain. For. 7, 14745–14760. doi: 10.3390/su71114745

FAO. (2021) In Brief to The State of Food and Agriculture “ Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses .” Rome, FAO.

Google Scholar

Garrone, P., Melacini, M., and Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy 46, 129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014

Guo, X. M., Trably, E., Latrille, E., Carrère, H., and Steyer, J. (2010). Hydrogen production from agricultural waste by dark fermentation: a review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35, 10660–10673. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.008

Kaur, G., Lasaridi, K., and Wong, J. (2021). “Sustainable food waste management: an introduction” in Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering (Elsevier), 1–10.

Lassen, A. D., Christensen, L. M., Spooner, M. P., and Trolle, E. (2019). Characteristics of canteens at elementary schools, upper secondary schools and workplaces that comply with food service guidelines and have a greater focus on food waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1115. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071115

Liu, Y., Tan, Q., Chen, J., Pan, T., Penuelas, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2022). Dietary transition determining the tradeoff between global food security and sustainable development goals varied in regions. Earth's Future 10:e2021EF002354 doi: 10.1029/2021EF002354

Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 461–477. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084

Nikolaou, I. E., and Tsagarakis, K. P. (2021). An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 600–609. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017

Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Saouter, E., and Sonesson, U. (2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable Agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 399–409. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.071

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 134, 178–89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33789819

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

Principato, L., Mattia, G., Di Leo, A., and Pratesi, C. A. (2021). The household wasteful behaviour framework: a systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 93, 641–649. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.010

Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., and Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK , vol. 36, 460–467.

Santagata, R., Ripa, M., Genovese, A., and Ulgiati, S. (2021). Food waste recovery pathways: challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A systematic review and an assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 286:125490 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125490

Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., and Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 978–991. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030

Siddiqui, A., Altekar, S., Kautish, P., Fulzele, S., Kulkarni, N., Siddiqui, M., et al. (2023). Review of measurement of sustainable development goals: A comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 30, 91761–91779. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-28887-x

Shahbaz, M., Bashir, M. F., Bashir, M. A., and Shahzad, L. (2021). A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review of tourism-environmental degradation nexus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 58241–58257. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14798-2

Sharma, S., Basu, S., Shetti, N. P., and Aminabhavi, T. M. (2020). Waste-to-energy nexus for circular economy and environmental protection: recent trends in hydrogen energy. Sci. Total Environ. 713:136633. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136633

Sharma, P., Gaur, V. K., Kim, S., and Pandey, A. (2020). Microbial strategies for bio-transforming food waste into resources. Bioresour. Technol. 299:122580. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122580

Srinivas, H. (2022). “Nexus in green economics for Asian countries” in Progress in green economics , 1–16.

Vásquez Neyra, J. M., Cequea, M. M., Gomes Haensel Schmitt, V., and Ferasso, M. (2022). Food consumption and food waste behaviour in households in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Br. Food J. 124, 4477–4495. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2021-0798

Wang, J. M., Liu, Q., Hou, Y., Qin, W., Bai, Z. H., Zhang, F. S., et al. (2022). Impacts of international food and feed trade on nitrogen balances and nitrogen use efficiencies of food systems. Sci. Total Environ. 838:156151. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156151

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

Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6618–6633. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00401

Zhang, M., Gao, M., Yue, S., Zheng, T., Gao, Z., Ma, X., et al. (2018). Global trends and future prospects of food waste research: a bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 24600–24610. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2598-6

Keywords: food waste, sustainability, behavior, bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer, bibliometrix

Citation: Kostakis I, Papadaki S and Malindretos G (2024) Analyzing the relationship between consumers’ and entrepreneurs’ food waste and sustainable development using a bibliometric approach. Front. Sustain . 5:1373802. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1373802

Received: 20 January 2024; Accepted: 15 March 2024; Published: 04 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Kostakis, Papadaki and Malindretos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ioannis Kostakis, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Innovation in Sustainable Food

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Yale J Biol Med
• v.91(2); 2018 Jun

Focus: Nutrition and Food Science

Food sustainability in the context of human behavior.

The long-term goal of food sustainability is to produce enough food to maintain the human population. The intrinsic factors to guarantee a sustainable food system are a fertile land, water, fertilizers, a stable climate, and energy. However, as the world population grows, the volume of food needed in the future will not depend just on these intrinsic factors, but on human choices. This paper analyzes some of the human actions that may affect the sustainable future of the food supply chain, including diet, obesity, food miles, food waste, and genetically modified organisms.

Introduction

In addition to food directly harvested from the wild, food is mostly produced at farms, and therefore, food sustainability is directly linked to sustainable agriculture. In 1990, the U.S. Congress addressed the issue of sustainable agriculture in the farm bill, which stated that “sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:

• provide human food and fiber needs;

• enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends;

• make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls;

• sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and

• enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.”

Based on the U.S. Congress’ definition and the now famous 1997 United Nations’ definition about sustainable development, which states that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” definitions of sustainability have emerged in all sectors of the population.

Most businesses have embraced what is called the three dimensions of sustainability, or “triple bottom line,” and some variations like “people-planet-profit,” “the three pillars,” or “the three E’s,” for economy, equity, and ecology. This idea is based on the premise that for a company to be sustainable it needs to be economically feasible, environmentally dependable, and socially responsible. The concept of the triple bottom line goes even further by allowing interchangeability, which means that if a business falls short in one of the dimensions, it can make up by “investing” in another dimension. For instance, a mining company is environmentally unsustainable in the long term because it depletes the resource. However, according to the triple bottom line concept, this company could compensate by making social contributions.

The general public has their own ideas of food sustainability, which often includes concepts like social justice, animal welfare, fair labor and trade, local farming, organic food production, and the concept of “natural,” just to mention the most important ones. There is no official definition of natural. So different people have different ideas of the meaning of “natural.” Another idea that most of the time is wrongly attributed to food sustainability by the general public is food miles. Many people believe the biggest impact on the whole environmental impact of food products is transportation and therefore favor local products, which in many cases is not necessarily true.

Regardless of definitions and beliefs, food sustainability is about generating food at a productivity level that is enough to maintain the human population. Sustainable food production is fundamentally grounded on the availability of fertile land, water, nutrients, and an adequate climate. In addition, the volume of food needed to feed humans is linked to intended or unintended human behavior. This paper analyzes some population attitudes and choices that have an impact on both the volume of food needed and the environmental impact to produce it.

The Effect of Diet

Besides their effect on health, different diets have different environmental impacts. One change in the global diet in the last 50 years has been the increased consumption of animal protein, which correlates with increased affluence around the world [ 1 ]. Production of animal protein is very tasking on the environment. One reason for this is the efficiency (or inefficiency) of conversion of feed into animal tissue, ruminants being the most inefficient animals to convert feed into muscle. On average, to produce 1 kcal of beef using a feedlot system, which is common in North America and is now becoming popular around the world, takes the input of 40 kcal of energy. Grass-fed beef takes approximately half of that energy. The advantage of ruminants is that they can ingest low-grade feed because they are capable of digesting cellulose. Monogastric animals like swine and poultry are more efficient at converting feed into muscle, but they require specialized diets with low cellulose content. Swine, turkey, and chicken need an input of 14, 10, and 4 kcal of energy respectively per 1-kcal output [ 2 ].

In addition to land use, livestock production has an enormous role in soil destruction, water depletion and pollution, impact on biodiversity, and a disturbance of the nitrogen and carbon cycles. Livestock grazing occupies the equivalent of 26 percent of ice-free surface of the planet in addition to 33 percent of arable land dedicated to the production of feed crops [ 3 ]. Besides land use, cattle raising has a profound impact on soil properties. The constant animal traffic, especially cattle, compacts the soil, which reduces water infiltration and promotes runoff. Runoff not only translates into soil erosion but also carries nutrients to surface water [ 3 ].

Ruminants, in particular, are major producers of greenhouse gases through enteric fermentation. Besides carbon dioxide, a byproduct of enteric fermentation is methane, which has a greenhouse potential twelve times higher than carbon dioxide. Ammonia is another gas resulting from animal production. Ammonia is not a greenhouse gas but has local and regional effects and is responsible for alteration of the nitrogen cycle [ 2 ].

One way to reduce the environmental impact of animal production would be a diet with more vegetable protein. One disadvantage is that vegetable protein does not have a complete amino acid profile, thus requiring the right combination to have all the essential amino acids in the diet. A second disadvantage is that vegetable proteins are more difficult to get broken down by the human digestive system. Nevertheless, perhaps the most difficult issue that we humans confront in the reduction of consumption of animal products is the undeniable preference we have for animal protein.

Insects are another source of protein used in many countries around the world but not very well accepted yet in western countries. Insects have a significant advantage in terms of lower environmental impact in relation to traditional livestock. Insects need much less water and produce fewer greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions. According to one source, the emission of greenhouse gases from insects is 1 percent of the emissions of ruminants for the same amount of protein [ 4 ].

Obesity and Overconsumption

Worldwide, an estimated 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, are overweight, and out of these over 650 million are obese. More alarming is the fact that 41 million children under the age of 5, and more than 340 million children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 were reported overweight or obese by the WHO in 2016 [ 5 ].

Weight increase and obesity is the result of consuming more calories than the calories spent in physical activities. Most foods can cause weight gain, but the main offenders are calorie dense foods. According to FAO, Americans eat an average of over 3,600 calories a day, which is well above the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommendations of 2,000 to 2,600 calories per day for a sedentary adult male and 1,600 to 2,000 for a sedentary adult female [ 6 ]. Besides consuming too many calories, Americans, especially children, are getting their calories from calorie dense foods and sweetened beverages made with fats and sugars [ 7 ].

The growing obesity pandemic presents one more challenge for agricultural sustainability. In addition to keeping up with food production to tend to a growing population, more food will be needed to maintain population’s extra weight.

Overweight and obesity have both significant health and environmental implications. Being overweight decreases physical activity and personal mobility leading to increased use of motor vehicles [ 8 ]. Even airlines have recognized the effect of the increased average weight of passengers on fuel consumption [ 8 ]. Other scientists are studying the impact of obesity on the environment from direct emissions of CO 2 through respiration, which is proportional to body mass. According to results reported by Gryka et al . [ 9 ], a 10-kg weight loss of all overweight and obese people would translate into a 0.2 percent reduction in the global CO 2 emissions. Although this percentage is small, the main issue, however, is the extra burden placed on the environment to produce, process, and transport additional food to provide the extra calories required by overweight populations.

A 2009-study reported that an overweight population with an average body mass index of 29 needs 19 percent more calories than a normal population with a body mass index of 24.5 [ 10 ]. To produce these extra calories, more land, water, fertilizer, and fossil fuels are needed.

Local vs. Transported

It is often believed that locally produced foods have a lower environmental impact than food grown or raised somewhere else and transported; and “food miles” is the indicator commonly used to illustrate how far the food has traveled from production to consumption [ 11 ]. Nevertheless, does the food produced locally have a lower environmental impact than food produced in other regions and transported? The answer is it depends on the food product and the transportation mode. As a general rule, the faster the transportation mode the higher the environmental impact it produces. Regarding energy used, planes have the highest consumption per ton of food transported followed by trucks, trains, inland barges, and maritime ships [ 2 ].

Because of the perishable nature of foods, not all food products can be transported with all transportation modes. Dry materials, such as grains, can be carried in barges or maritime ships. Fresh produce and fruits, on the other hand, have to rely on faster transportation modes such as trains, trucks, and planes [ 2 ]. On average in the U.S., the energy used to transport foods represents only 14 percent of the total energy used to produce, process, distribute, and prepare the food at home, restaurants, and institutions [ 12 ].

Another factor to consider in the debate of local vs. transported is climate and seasons. Fruits and vegetables cannot be grown in high latitude climates in open agricultural fields during winter. The only alternative is to use greenhouses or to transport the food from temperate climates. If grown in greenhouses, plants need supplemental light and heat with the resulting expenditure of energy and the emission of greenhouse gases.

Other foods are more favorable to be produced throughout all the seasons in specific parts of the world. A classic example is lamb meat produced in New Zealand vs. in the UK. Even when grazing is the main source of nutrition for both countries, pastures are more productive in New Zealand due to more solar irradiation and less use of synthetic fertilizers. Therefore, an advantage may exist in terms of lower environmental impact for lamb produced in New Zealand instead of the UK even when factoring transportation by ship to the UK [ 13 ].

Another consideration is seasonality. In this day and age, especially in developed countries, and as a result of low-cost transportation and logistics, most food products are available all year round. Due to their short shelf life, fruit and vegetables are in most cases transported by plane with the associated environmental impact. On average, the operational energy of a long-haul cargo plane, expressed in MJ/metric ton-km, is around four times more than a truck and 30 times more than a train [ 14 ].

According to estimates, of the 200 million metric tons of food produced annually in the U.S., 60 million metric tons go to waste [ 15 ]. From the analysis of food waste that reaches landfills, 47 percent of the waste comes from the residential sector [ 15 ].

Clearly, not all food waste is edible. Food waste can be classified into three main types: avoidable, possibly avoidable, and unavoidable. Avoidable waste is food or drinks that before disposal were perfectly edible or drinkable and for no particular reason were discarded. Potentially avoidable are parts of foods that are eaten by some people and discarded by others. For instance, some fruit peels are edible, but some people prefer not to eat them. The third category, unavoidable food waste, encompasses inedible parts of the food like bones, eggshells, inedible peels, and spent coffee grains [ 16 ].

What are the reasons for the food waste generated by the residential sector? There are several, the most important ones being: availability of inexpensive food, poor purchase planning, perishable nature of foods, and confusing shelf life statements.

It is fair to say that the main drive to food waste at the household level in the U.S. is that food is inexpensive. According to USDA data, the disposable income to buy food to eat at home has decreased from 10 percent in 1970 to around 6 percent in 2009 [ 17 ]. In the same period, food waste increased by 50 percent [ 18 ]. It is important to point out that in the same period, food eaten away from home rose only from 3.5 to 4 percent [ 17 ].

Another reason food purchased to be consumed at home is often wasted is a combination of lack of purchasing planning and the nature of perishable food, especially fruits and vegetables. Very often, this is exacerbated by packages containing a large volume of food at a reduced price, which is often offered in wholesale clubs.

Most foods in the U.S. have some shelf life statement such as “use by,” “sell by,” or “best by” date. “Use by,” mostly used in meat, fish, and cheese, is a firm expiration date that is related to the safety of the food. “Sell by” is a statement aimed at retailers, which informs them when the product has to be pulled from the shelf. Typically, one-third of the product’s shelf-life remains after the sell-by date for the consumer to use at home. “Best by” is an indicator to the consumer about when the product will have an optimal quality [ 19 ]. Unfortunately, most consumers are not acquainted with the exact meaning of these terms and take them as firm expiration dates. As a consequence, they do not buy the products close to these dates, or they discard the food products once they reach the “sell by” or a “best by” date [ 19 ].

Besides being morally questionable, food waste uses resources to produce and transport extra food such as land, energy, water, and fertilizers with the consequent emission of greenhouse gases. At the end of the cycle, wasted food needs to be transported and disposed of with subsequent land use, fuel use, and emission of greenhouse gases from trucks, machinery, and decomposing food [ 18 ].

Genetically Modified Organisms

Projections indicate that the world population will increase to 9.2 billion by 2050. To provide food for this growing population, a substantial increase in agricultural production will be required. Scientists have estimated that the agricultural production has to grow at a rate of 1.1 percent annually to cover food demand in 2050 [ 20 ].

Agricultural biotechnology based on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) offer new prospects and opportunities to increase the productivity of agriculture while decreasing the environmental detriment caused by current agricultural practices. Genetically modified organisms, also known as “genetically modified food,” refer to the alteration of the genetic makeup of crops by the insertion of novel genes from other sources or deletion of existing genes. Scientists and farmers agree that there are many advantages in applying biotechnology in the food industry, including the possibilities of solving the world’s hunger problem, developing superfoods with added vitamins and nutrients, while generating economic growth for the farmers [ 21 ].

The first generation of GMO crops, mainly GMO soybeans, canola, corn, and cotton were approved for commercialization in 1996. The goal of this first generation of genetically modified crops was primarily the improvement of pest management such as herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, some yield enhancement, but not profitability. The rapid adoption of these technologies in agriculture demonstrated their benefits to farmers around the world, but did not have a tangible benefit to the consumers. The second generation of GMO crops focused on output traits such as enhanced nutritional features and processing characteristics. These had no impact on profits received by farmers because the products are indistinguishable from conventional crops. The most recent third generation of genetically modified crops, which are currently produced only at small scale, includes plants engineered to generate specialty chemicals, including biodegradable plastics, adhesives, and synthetic proteins. A particular subset of the third generation of GMOs, also known as “Pharmacrops,” has been genetically modified to produce vaccines and antibodies [ 22 ].

Despite its benefits, controversial debates on the advantages of GMOs persist. After two decades using and developing GMO crops, some social and environmental implications have recently raised serious concerns. Some of the negative socio-economic effects include corporate dominance, land concentration, loss of farm jobs, and an increase in income inequality. Many argue that it is still too early to know for sure if GMOs will not have an adverse impact on the environment and human health in the long term. Environmentalists have expressed their growing concern regarding the possibility of engineered genes exposure to wild populations. Others fear that the use of biotech crops will affect the biodiversity by the persistence of genes after a GMO has been harvested, the susceptibility of non-target organisms, and the instability of new genes. As for human health, the main fear has been the creation of new allergens and the gene transfer from GMO foods to human cells or the intestinal microflora. Another hazard is the transfer of genes from GMO plants into conventional crops, as well as the mixing of GM crops with those derived from conventional seeds, which could have an indirect effect on food safety and food security [ 22 ].

GMOs promoters, on the other hand, consider biotechnology agriculture a crucial tool to enhance crop productivity, food quality, and the production of vaccines and therapeutic medicines. GMO crops advocates claim that there is enough evidence that GMOs are essential for promoting sustainable agriculture since it can decrease agriculture’s environmental footprint by reducing the use of pesticides, saving fossil fuels, lowering CO 2 emissions and conserving soil and moisture [ 21 ].

Even though GMO crops are not presented as the “absolute solution,” they could undoubtedly make a significant contribution to find a solution to the global food security problem. A recent meta-analysis of 147 published biotech crop studies from 1995 to 2014 concluded that biotech crops have generated multiple and tangible benefits over the past 20 years [ 23 ]. According to this study, on average, the adoption of GMO technology has reduced the use of chemical pesticides by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. There are also health benefits for farm workers as a result of less chemical pesticide spraying [ 22 ]. The adoption of GM insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 581.4 million kg (8.2 percent reduction), and the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops, measured by the EIQ indicator, dropped by 18.5 percent since 1996 [ 24 ].

In spite of the fears, very likely GMO technology will play an increasingly significant role in agricultural sustainability in the years to come. This technology offers the opportunity to generate new crop varieties that would be more resistant to pest or drought, and consequently will increase and enhance productivity yields to ameliorate hunger and the food insecurity problem worldwide.

The food system, particularly in terms of emission of greenhouse gases, has impacts at all stages of the supply chain. However, the agricultural stage is the single largest greenhouse gases emitter with meat and dairy products as the most greenhouse gases-intensive foods. Nevertheless, the role of humans and their consumption patterns have a significant impact on the production of food and the population set of beliefs and attitudes will dictate whether or not the long-term sustainability of the food supply chain can be achieved.

• Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health . Nature . 2014; 515 :518–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morawicki RO. Handbook of Sustainability for the Food Sciences . Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinfeld H. Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative Livestock, and Food and Agriculture Organization. Animal Production and Health Division. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options . Rome: FAO; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oonincx DG, van Itterbeeck J, Heetkamp MJ, van den Brand H, van Loon JJ. An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption . PLoS One . 2010; 5 ( 12 ):e14445. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization (WHO) Obesity and overweight. February 2018. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
• The National Academies Press Estimated Calorie Needs per Day by Age, Gender, and Physical Activity Level . 2002. Available from: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
• Wallinga D. Agricultural policy and childhood obesity: A food systems and public health commentary . Health Aff (Millwood) . 2010; 29 :405–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann RF. Controlling the Environmental Costs of Obesity . Environ Law . 2007; 47 :2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gryka A, Broom J, Rolland C. Global warming: is weight loss a solution? Int J Obes . 2012. r; 36 ( 3 ):474–6. Epub 2011 Jul 26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards P, Roberts I. Population adiposity and climate change . Int J Epidemiol . 2009; 1 :1–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghoshal S. Understanding food mile: an qualitative study on the concept of food mile . TSM Business Review. 2014; 2 ( 2 ):55–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heller MC, Keoleia GA. Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System . University of Michigan; 2000: Ann Arbor. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb J, Williams AG, Hope E, Evans D, Moorhouse E. Do foods imported into the UK have a greater environmental impact than the same foods produced within the UK? Int J Life Cycle Assess . 2013; 18 ( 7 ):1325–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber CL, Matthew HS. Food‐Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States . Environ Sci Technol . 2008; 42 ( 10 ):3508–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. House of Representatives 2016. Food Waste from Farm to Table: Hearing before the committee on Agriculture . House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session MAY 25, 2016 Serial No. 114–52 . Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20309/html/CHRG-114hhrg20309.htm
• Quested T, Johnson H. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. 2009. Report prepared by WRAP . Banbury. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_and_drink_waste_in_the_UK_-_report.pdf
• USDA Americans’ budget shares devoted to food have flattened in recent years . 2016. Accessed from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967
• Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC. The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact . PLoS One . 2009; 4 ( 11 ):e7940. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudners D. Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill . NRDC . August 2012. iP:12-06-B. Available from: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf
• Taheri F, Azadi H, D’Haese M. A World without Hunger: organic or GM Crops? Sustainability . 2017; 9 ( 4 ):580. [ Google Scholar ]
• James C. A global overview of biotech (GM) Crops: Adoption, impact and future prospects . GM Crops . 2010; 1 ( 1 ):8–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buiatti M, Christou P, Pastore G. The application of GMOs in agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: two different scientific points of view . Genes Nutr . 2013; 8 :255–70. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klümper W, Qaim M. A Meta-Analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops . PLoS One . 2014; 9 :e111629. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2014 . GM Crops Food . 2016; 7 :38–77. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]