Conserving natural resources through food loss reduction: Production and consumption stages of the food supply chain

Author’s Accepted Manuscript CONSERVING NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH FOOD LOSS REDUCTION: PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION STAGES OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN Shahla M. Wunderlich, Natalie M. Martinez www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2095-6339(18)30098-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.06.002 ISWCR142

To appear in: International Soil and Water Conservation Research Received date: 2 June 2018 Revised date: 26 June 2018 Accepted date: 29 June 2018 Cite this article as: Shahla M. Wunderlich and Natalie M. Martinez, CONSERVING NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH FOOD LOSS REDUCTION: PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION STAGES OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN, International Soil and Water Conservation Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.06.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1

CONSERVING NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH FOOD LOSS REDUCTION: PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION STAGES OF THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN Shahla M. Wunderlich & Natalie M. Martinez Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA

[email protected] [email protected] Corresponding author: Shahla M. Wunderlich. ABSTRACT Globally, attention has been drawn to the increasingly alarming rates of food loss and waste (FLW) along the food supply chain (FSC) and its contributions to the depletion of the natural resources and rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Within the past decade, discovery of the rippling impacts of this interrelationship has generated an increased sense of urgency in efforts amongst scholars, global leaders, government and non-government agencies to research, and formulate comprehensive plans and goals to address and reduce the rates of global FLW. Not only does FLW lessen the quantity of available food, but also, the availability of the many natural resources required to produce food. This will become an important factor when the world population increases by more than 30% by the year 2050. Although advances have been made, still 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted every year due to various underlying causes and challenges. This enormous quantity of wasted food also represents an increase in usage of natural resources. In the United States (U.S.), food and agriculture consume up to 16% of energy, almost half of the land, and account for 67% of the nation’s freshwater use (NRDC, 2017). The rate of natural resource depletion is not sustainable, and it endangers the ecosystem. Multiple reports have cited the first and last stages of the FSC as the most significant contributors of FLW and environmental resource depletion. This literature review attempts to provide a comprehensive assessment of the intricacies of the FSC, the multi-variable causes of global FLW at the production and consumption stages, its environmental implications and the necessary sustainability compliant actions. Key words: global sustainability, food loss and waste, food security, environmental impact, sustainable food future, food supply chain, natural resources

1. Introduction Worldwide, one-third of all food produced is lost or wasted, equating to approximately 1.3 billion tons (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This is particularly concerning considering that it is predicted that by the year 2050, global food production must increase significantly to close the food gap (EPA, 2018) which will include a predicted 2 billion additional people to be fed around the world (United Nations, 2018). Knowing this, current systemic practices within the food supply chain must undergo a sharp shift from the norm. To achieve a sustainable food future, via a sustainable agricultural system, we must first understand where the greatest impacts on food loss and waste can be made by exploring where and why it occurs. With that, we can look to other models of success for potential solutions and effective practices that lead to reduced food loss/waste, conservation of our natural resources and achievement of a sustainable food future.

2

2. Methods This paper serves as a systematic review of the currently available body of literature on global food loss and waste along the food supply chain including the causes and potential solutions. It then reviews the literature regarding the relationship between food loss and waste and natural resource depletion and sustainability. Ultimately, it is focused on the first and last stages of the food supply chain, namely the production and consumption stages and the contributions and impacts of loss and waste at these two stages.

The review process began by identifying relevant, subject specific websites and reports of national and international government agencies to gain an understanding of the scope of the food loss and waste issue as a whole, policies and current initiatives regarding this topic. Government websites where data were retrieved were the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Secondly, we reviewed reports generated by research groups dedicated to global sustainability such as the World Resources Institute and the Natural Resource Defense Council. We then conducted a systemic review of peer reviewed literature to further assess, qualify and focus the research on the first and last stages of consumption. The databases used for the review were Science Direct, Sage Premier, Public Health Database and Google Scholar. Key word searches included “food loss”, “food waste”, “environmental impact”, “resource depletion”, “food supply chain” and articles were selected by checking the references of articles and database suggestions of similar articles (i.e. snowball technique). Peerreviewed articles that did not discuss food loss and waste at the first (production) and/or last (consumption) stage of the food supply chain were not included. 3. Background Throughout this paper, food loss and food waste are referred to the definitions used in reports generated by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). These are specifically in the body of FAO literature “Food Wastage Footprint, Impacts on Natural Resources: Summary Report.” In addition, the terms sustainability and sustainable agriculture are referenced frequently. To provide context, these terms are referred to by the defining parameters of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Food loss occurs during the beginning of the FSC, namely the stages of production, handling and storage, and processing and packaging (FAO, 2011). This review will focus discussion of food loss in regards to the first stage of the FSC: Production. Food loss refers to a decrease in mass (dry matter) or nutritional value (quality) of food that was originally intended for human consumption. Causes of food loss can range from natural disasters to inadequate infrastructure. However, typically food loss is caused by inefficiencies in the food supply chain like poor infrastructure and logistics, lack of technology, insufficient skills, knowledge and management capacity of supply chain actors, and lack of access to markets quickly after the harvest (FAO, 2013). Food loss subsequently contributes to high food prices and reduces the quantity of food that is available for human consumption (FAO, 2011). Food waste also occurs during the last two stages of the FSC: distribution and marketing, and consumption. Food waste refers to food that is discarded before or after its expiration date or left

3

to spoil that was at one point or is currently appropriate for human consumption (FAO, 2013). Food waste could be also due to retailer and consumer behaviors as a result of negligence or a conscious decision to throw food away (FAO, 2011 & Lipinski, et al., 2013). Sustainability is supporting present needs without compromising the needs of future generations. This is accomplished by maintaining a peaceful coexistence between humans and nature (USDA & EPA, 2018). Sustainable agriculture is an adjunct of sustainability by enhancing the natural resources that food growing depends on through efficient use of non-renewables (NIFA, 2018). 4. Understanding the Food Supply Chain and its Global Impact The FSC includes the several stages in which food travels from the producers to reach the consumers. The FSC stages involve everything from the foods’ initial production and harvest on the farm (production), to transportation (handling and storage), packaging (processing and packaging), distribution (distribution and marketing), and finally to where the food product is in the hands of the consumer (consumption). Throughout this complex global system, millions of pounds of food are produced to feed the world’s population but also lost and wasted as a result of various shortcomings throughout the FSC. The definition of food losses at the production stage are the actions that occur during or immediately after harvesting on the farm and often, is due to food left behind in the field. Food loss can happen during handling and storage after food leaves the farm. Storage and transport often cause food loss due to spillage, pests, bacteria, and suboptimal storage conditions, and transporting food for long periods of time to consumers. Loss can occur during the distribution process to wholesale and retail markets. Waste at the consumption stage refers to losses in the home or business of the consumer and includes restaurants, schools, and caterers. While millions of pounds of edible food are thrown away every year throughout the supply chain, 815 million people, primarily in underdeveloped countries, are hungry and undernourished (12.9%) (United Nations, 2018). In the United States alone, 15.8 million households are estimated to be food insecure (Global Hunger Relief, 2018). By achieving a 15% food waste reduction, all food insecure households in the U.S. can be fed. Furthermore, if we halve food losses, we could feed an additional 1 billion people (NRDC, 2012). With a steadily increasing demand for food, especially in developing countries there is great concern regarding the ability to sustain an adequate global food supply. If these wasteful practices continue, the soil, freshwater, oceans, forests and biodiversity will be in danger of destruction (United Nations, 2018). The protection of the earth’s water and soil becomes a priority, as without adequate availability of the natural resources, food production diminishes. Consequently, the ability to be agriculturally productive and environmentally responsible declines significantly. 4a. Environmental Impact & Food Loss & Waste Footprint Food loss and waste not only just affect the quantity of edible food available, but they also distress many natural resources that are required in food production for the world’s growing population. Humans contribute to and increase the rate of global climate change through food production, consumption and food loss. Since 1880, the earth’s temperature has risen by almost 2o Fahrenheit (NASA, 2018) mostly due to human activities that cause the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that leak into the earth’s atmosphere destroying its first line

4

of protection. In North America, the per capita food waste footprint is 1,900 pounds CO2 and is responsible for at least 2.6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FAO, 2011) which are what make up the carbon footprint. The U.S. is the 2nd largest contributor in the world of GHG emissions emitting the equivalent of 37 million vehicles a year (Friedrich, et. al., 2017 & NRDC, 2012). The carbon footprint of a food production is the total amount GHG’s it emits throughout its life cycle, expressed in CO2. Most GHG emission occur during the production phase (FAO, 2013) and includes all of the agricultural inputs, machinery, livestock, and soils. In addition, processing, transportation, preparation of food and waste disposal in landfills accounts for the significant rise in GHG emissions. Cereals, vegetables and meat are the commodities that contribute to the carbon footprint the most. Although meat is one of the least wasted commodities, it is the 3rd largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To produce 1kg of meat, a significant amount of resources is required all of which have an impact on the environment through the release of methane gases (FAO, 2011). In the current food system practice, enormous resources are used to get food from the farm to the table. These resources are mainly in the form of embedded resources which are utilized in the agricultural stage which is the most resource intensive stage of food production (NRDC, 2012). Food and agriculture consume up to 16 percent of U.S. energy, almost half of all U.S. land, and account for 67 percent of the nation’s freshwater use (NRDC, 2013). Those resources are used in vain if the food is never eaten, wasting up to about one-fifth of U.S. cropland, fertilizers, and agricultural water (NRDC, 2017). In regard to carbon intensities, a food’s GHG impact factor, all foods are not created equally. In Europe, vegetable production is more carbon intensive than in Southeast Asia, as Europe uses more carbon-intensive means of production such as artificially heated greenhouses (FAO, 2011). The disposal of just one hamburger is equivalent to the water wasted during a 90-minute shower, while 1-pound of wasted beef is equal to the water used for 12, 30-minute showers (NRDC, 2012). The environmental cost and inputs used to produce beef food products are staggering when compared to other commodities as is highlighted in in a report by the National Resource Defense Council. Even pork, the second leader in water requirement for production, uses two times less water than beef (NRDC, 2012). 5. Comparison of FLW in Developed and Developing Countries The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Resources Institute on global food loss highlight the stark differences in FLW per capita (Gustavsson et al., 2011). The prevalence of FLW by food supply chain stage, and factors that contribute to FLW in different regions of the world have been studied. While FLW occurs at all stages of the FSC, some stages account for a greater percentage of FLW than others. Variations occur between developed countries, i.e. those in North America (NA) and Europe (EU) and developing countries, i.e. SubSaharan Africa (SSA) and South/Southeast Asia (SEA), the areas with the greatest hunger burden, with about 281 million undernourished people (United Nations, 2018). Sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia produce 10 times less food waste per capita than EU and NA. In EU and NA, food wasted by consumers per capita totaled between 209-253 pounds per year in comparison to SSA and SEA’s total food loss per capita of 13-24 pounds per year.

5

In developing countries, 40% of food loss occurs during the production (Gustavsson, et al., 2011) (i.e.: on the farm, harvesting, food left in the field, fishing, or livestock tending) and handling and storage phases (FAO, 2009). Although food loss at the production stage does not occur to this degree in developed countries such as the EU and US, it is still worth noting due to the enormous loss of embedded resources, that are used to cultivate food for consumption (NRDC, 2013). Embedded resources are the resources used for food production at all stages of the food supply chain such as: fertilizer, cropland, fresh water and energy (NRDC, 2013 & Reich & Foley, 2014). In both developed and developing countries, the production stage is the most resource intensive stage of the supply chain. This is why food sustainability models such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Food Recovery Hierarchy prioritize reducing the amount of surplus food generated to begin with. Food waste, (loss that occurs by consumers) in developing countries, is quite low because it is deemed socially unacceptable due to poverty and limited household incomes. Also, food purchases are generally smaller and fewer and consumers tend to make purchases for meals on a daily basis based on what they need (Gustavsson et al., 2011). On the other hand, forty percent (40%) of food waste in developed countries occurs at the distribution and consumer stages (i.e. restaurants, caterers, households, individuals) (Gustavsson, et al., 2011). This accounts for more than 35% of carbon foot print contributions (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions) (FAO, 2011). Retailers and consumers in the U.S. alone waste 133 billion pounds of food every year (Buzby, et al, 2014). The USDA found that consumers most commonly waste: fish (~40%), fresh fruit and vegetables (70%), and grain and dairy products (30%) (Buzby, et al, 2014). Manifestation of waste at the late stage in the food supply chain is especially detrimental. As food moves along the FSC, the resources used to bring it from stage to stage accumulate. Thus, the further along in the FSC that waste occurs, it becomes more demanding on the resource. With the majority of food waste occurring at the final stage of the FSC in industrialized countries, targeting food waste interventions at consumers’ stage; may produce significant reductions in food loss and lessen the environmental impact generated by waste that occurs this late in the FSC (FAO, 2011). 5.1a Causes of Food Loss in Developing Countries at the Production Stage The causes and differences in loss and waste are multifactorial. Food loss in developing countries in the beginning of the FSC, as mentioned in section 1.2, is often caused by one or a combination of financial, managerial and technical limitations. In countries like Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, where there is a significant percentage of the population that are food insecure and malnourished, food waste reduction efforts are best targeted at the beginning of the FSC where most loss occurs. It is recognized that a significant source of loss in developing countries is due to lack of proper harvesting, storage facilities and access to modern technologies that have the potential to reduce post-harvest losses. A recent study conducted in rural Ethiopia, (a country affected by food insecurity and postharvest losses), investigated the impacts of improved storage technologies. Most post-harvest food losses in Ethiopia occur as a result of poor storage practices such as the use of bags or sacks

6

(61%) and granaries. While some farmers do use improved storage technologies, they are the great minority with only 20% reporting using the improved technology of an airtight drum. All other forms of improved storage technology use (improved local structures, modern store, metal silo), were insignificant. When examining the relationship between modern storage technology use and food security the study found that improved storage positively affects food and nutrition security by reducing negative changes in the diet by allowing for an extended shelf life of the quality of the food (Tesfaye & Tirivayi, 2018) and in turn, reducing losses at the beginning stages of the FSC. Other forms of loss in developing countries can be attributed to many other factors that are described in Table 1. Table 1. Forms of Food Loss in Developing Countries (Sub-Saharan Africa & Southeast Asia) Author

Forms of Loss in Developing Countries Causes of Loss Comments

Gustavsson, et al., 2011 & Food & Agriculture Organization, 2013

Harvesting techniques & manpower

The second half of the agricultural season is often marked by early harvesting of crops by poor farmers who are desperate for cash and/or because their consumers face food deficiency and insecurity. This early harvesting causes the food to lose nutritional value and thus economic value ultimately leading to its loss.

Gustavsson, et al., 2011 & Food & Agriculture Organization, 2013

Access to facilities with appropriate storage and cooling

Most developing countries experience seasons of extremely hot climate and many of their fresh products like fruits, vegetables, meat and fish spoil because of the lack of access to storage and cooling facilities.

Food & Agriculture Organization, 2013

Agricultural and economical infrastructure

The poor infrastructure in developing countries exacerbates food loss as it makes it difficult for farmers to access and transport harvested goods to selling markets. Additionally, the lack of infrastructure is a barrier for consumers to access selling markets to purchase food as well. This leaves tons of fresh food to rot and further contributes to loss.

Gustavsson, et al., 2011 & Food & Agriculture Organization, 2013

Lack of packaging and marketing systems

There are very few wholesale, supermarket, and retail facilities that provide suitable storage and sales conditions for food products. Wholesale and retail markets are usually either small, overcrowded, unsanitary and do not have cooling equipment

Food & Agriculture Organization, 2013

Unsafe food that is not fit for human consumption

Food safety issues are quite common in underdeveloped countries. They are usually related to contaminated water, unsafe use of pesticides, and toxins in the food itself. Also, poor and unhygienic handling and storage conditions and a lack of adequate temperature control contribute to unsafe food.

7

5.1b Causes of Food Waste in Developed Countries at the Consumption Stage In contrast, as previously mentioned, food waste in developed countries primarily occurs during the latter end of the FSC, i.e.: distribution and marketing, and consumption. The main drivers from the market end by retailer and consumer behaviors are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Forms of Food Waste in Developed Countries (U.S. & Europe): Consumption Stage Author

Causes of Waste

Comments

Lipinski, et al., 2013

Farmer-buyer sales agreements

Farmer’s give buyer’s discounts when they purchase products in large quantities and/or purchase multiple varieties of brands and food types. This gives the buyer an incentive to overpurchase and often, for much of the over-purchased food to go to waste.

Gustavsson, et al., 2011

Food abundance

Consumers in developed countries favor, demand and expect to find a wide range of products on the shelves and expect the shelves to be fully stocked. This increases the likelihood t hat products reach their “sell by” dates before being sold.

Lipinkski, et al, 2013; De Hooge, I.E, 2018

High quality standards

Both consumers and distributors have high quality standards regarding the weight, size, shape, color and other aesthetic properties that they perceive are appropriate and high quality for food products especially when it comes to produce. These high-quality standards lead to perfectly edible and nutritional foods that are considered imperfect or “ugly” being left behind and wasted.

Lipinski, et al., 2013

Failure to plan

Failing to plan leads to over purchasing behaviors amongst consumers. Over purchasing leads to foods expiring, rotting or passing of the product’s “best-before” date.

Lipinski, et. al, 2013; Gustavsson, 2011

Consumer knowledge

Consumer knowledge deficits about the true meanings of the wide range of phrases used for product date labels lead to the unnecessary discarding of large sums of food because it has passed the stated date. Furthermore, shoppers tend to choose the products with later dates, leaving the others behind.

Reich & Foley, 2014

Lack of awareness regarding food waste

Prevalence, environmental impacts

Restaurant Culture

Most restaurants have extensive menu’s that lack ingredient crossover, provide diners with large portions, have kitchen practices that cause overproduction and poor management of inventory.

NRDC, 2013

2.2a The Food Date Label’s Impact on Consumer Food Waste One of the sources of food waste in the United States is misuse of food labels. Unlike the other highly regulated components of the food sector by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA, food date labeling is highly variable (USDA FSIS, 2018). Currently, there are no federal

8

regulations that require food date labeling nor, are there regulations that provide for a consistent framework of date labeling food products. The only food product whose date labels are federally regulated and meant to provide a warning about food safety, is infant formula (USDA FSIS, 2018). Furthermore, food date label regulations vary from state to state. The current inconsistency that exists amongst food product date labeling inhibits and is detrimental to food waste prevention, recovery and redistribution progress in the United States (NRDC, 2013). Consumer beliefs surrounding “sell by” and “use by” dates are incongruent with the facts. In a report by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 54% of consumers believed that eating food past its sell by or use by date constituted a health risk (NRDC & Harvard, 2013). However, food date labels were created with the intent of providing indicators of freshness, not spoilage. Moreover, another survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute revealed that an alarming 91% of respondents have at least occasionally discarded food past its “sell by” date out of concern for the products safety and 25% reported always doing so (NRDC & Harvard, 2013). The USDA affirms that even if the date expires, a product should be safe, wholesome and of good quality if handled properly and kept at 40 F or below (NRDC & Harvard, 2013). This date labeling system allows the manufacturer to decide whether to put a date label on their food product and which date label phrase to apply. Also, there are no consistent methods of determining the date to apply to a food product or which of the same or similar phrases with multiple meanings should be applied (NRDC, 2013). Currently, as many as 10 different date labels can be found on food products such as: sell by, use by, expires on, best before, better if used by or best by (GMA, 2018). These commonly seen phrases are defined but lead to misinterpretation and confusion by consumers. According to the USDA, the term sell-by or display until tells the store selling the product how long to display it. The terms best-if-used-by or best before recommending a date by when to consume the product in order to experience peak flavor and quality and doesn’t pertain to the safety of the product. Use-by indicates the last date recommended for the use of the product from a food safety perspective (USDA, 2018). A study conducted by the USDA’s National Integrated Food Safety Initiative found that many respondents were unable to correctly identify the general meanings of different open dates and less than half (44%) were able to correctly describe the meaning of the “sell by” date and only 18% were able to explain the meaning of the “use by” date (NRDC & Harvard, 2013). Confusion among consumers hinders efforts of food service providers to achieve sustainability. It also contributes to and exacerbates the waste of millions of pounds of food (NRDC, 2013). This is not solely a problem in the United States. Similar findings were observed in Japan among local governing bodies’ food stockpiles and as a result, stockpiled foods with best-before-dates were being wasted at a high rate (Sato, et al., 2016). 6. Potential Solutions to Reduce Food Loss and Waste The industrial revolution resulted in massive advancements in technology and the lifestyles of Americans. It especially increased food production, and food access and storage capability in the developed world and ultimately, lead to higher levels of food waste as well. Since then, policy reform to regulate and reduce food waste has remained stagnant. In the United States, until about 1996, there was no legislation in place dedicated to reducing food waste and or increasing food

9

recovery and redistribution efforts. Until the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (1996) and the U.S. Federal Food Donation Act (2008), there were no protections and little incentive for federal agencies to donate food to nonprofit organizations. The passing of these Acts into law, eliminated barriers to food redistribution efforts. These two acts played a major role in reducing food waste, reducing hunger among impoverished communities and launching the ability to redistribute food. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Food Recovery Hierarchy provides a framework for prioritizing action to reduce food waste in order of environmental benefit. The most preferred method of food waste reduction is to reduce the total volume of surplus food generated. This action takes precedent over landfill incineration, composting, industrial uses, and feeding animals because it is least taxing on the environment (EPA, 2018). Businesses and the environment benefit the most when food isn’t wasted. There is a significant environmental impact and cost savings that occurs when the top of the Food Recovery Hierarchy is prioritized. From an environmental perspective, the prevention of food waste is 10 times more carbon emission saving than food redistribution. Additionally, food waste prevention creates three times more the societal net economic value of recovery and recycling combined (NRDC, 2017). In Europe, product specification guidelines, the standards and perceptions of sellers and buyers, contribute significantly to FLW. One study found that not only is food deliberately wasted because of its cosmetic appearance, but also due to high standards of selection among farmers and consumer. At each stage of the supply chain, it’s estimated that between 1%-40% of products are wasted because of these guidelines and are considered suboptimal (de Hooge, et al., 2018). The European product specifications categorize 10 of the most popular fruits and vegetables based on their color, shape, skin, size and weight and then assign them a grade of Extra, A-class, or B-class. These specifications lead farmers and others along the supply chain to discard perfectly edible foods simply because they are not up to par with standards. In addition, individualized product specifications exist amongst farmers, who leave suboptimal crops on the field; retailers, who believe that there is no market within their customers and/or the consumers for suboptimal products and therefore, do not sell them; and lastly among the consumers, who demand and choose “perfect” looking produce and leave the “ugly” produce behind and subsequently, to waste (de Hooge, et al., 2018). The vast majority of consumers (75%) are not willing to buy products that they view as sub-optimal (de Hooge et al., 2017). In other words, safe and edible produce has the potential to be discarded at practically every stage of the FSC due to standards set forth by the EU government as well as the beliefs and marketing practices of farmers and retailers and innate consumer bias and beliefs about differences in safety and/or nutrition of imperfect produce. Most retailers cited consumer demands for perfect looking produce as the number one reason for not selling suboptimal produce. However, the study found that most retailers are interested in finding ways to utilize and/or sell sub-optimal produce with the two most common motivators being an improved company image and profits (de Hooge, et al., 2018). However, for the market of suboptimal products to take off, suboptimal products need to meet the FSC actor’s economic motivation to maximize their value but for more long-term success, the shift must be in consumer preferences. The current available research surrounding successful interventions and programs aimed at improving retailer and consumer perceptions and purchasing of suboptimal food products is

10

scarce and warrants further analysis. A change in a policy such as this one, would improve food loss at both ends of the supply chain. In developing countries, the issue of food loss is much more of a systemic, political and infrastructure related issue. The approach to tackling the rates off loss in developing countries will vary based on the region, climate, political climate and support and the willingness of the country and local governments to invest in making improvements to the food supply chain where necessary. Research regarding feasible and effective means of improving the current practices of actors along the supply chain is warranted as there is currently very limited findings. What has been unearthed is that technology is lagging, infrastructure to transport, store, market and sell food is weak, and there is little regulation to enforce policy change (Gustavsson et al., 2011, Jia F. et al., 2018, & NRDC, 2013). One of the key areas of improvement to reduce loss at the beginning of the supply chain it seems, is to make the ability for food to successfully move from the first stage to the second and then to the third. Often, food is left behind to rot on the farm by the farmers because of the perception and experience that their buyers will reject them (Gustavsson, et al., 2011). when it comes to the safe transport of foods to markets for sale and for the buyers to gain access to the markets to purchase the food. The previously stated issue of high cosmetic standards is not unique to consumers in the western countries, but also proliferates amongst farmers and their buyers in developing countries (NRDC, 2013). Investment from government to develop a transportation and roads system to improve the ability of the sellers to reach the buyers and for the buyers to access affordable food, are also crucial to improving not only loss, but rates of hunger. Storing and keeping food at the proper temperatures and in optimal conditions is quite challenging as well. One effective solution is to provide and improve access to modernized storage technologies for farmers, markets, and households (Tesfaye & Titivayi, 2018). In addition, perhaps the development of regulatory agencies similar to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S., to set standards and to assist in improving practices along the supply chain, in developing countries would be valuable. Increasing awareness about the economic and health benefits related to reducing food loss among stakeholders, farmers, and the community is also necessary. In developing countries, where natural resources may not be as abundant (i.e. drought), where food insecurity and malnutrition are widespread in many areas, reducing food loss is crucial. The Natural Resource Defense Council compiled a comprehensive list of potential food waste solutions which address common causes of FLW at each stage of the supply chain. A summary of some of those and other potential solutions for FSC stages 1,3, 4 and 5 are outlined in Table 3. Table 3. Solutions to Address FLW throughout the Supply Chain

11

Stage 1: Production

Gustavvson, et al., 2011 - Fund transportation and infrastructure for food donation (Gustavsson, et al., 2011); -

Develop and expand markets and knowledge and awareness campaigns for cosmetically inferior items

NRDC, 2013 - Shift away from current high cosmetic standards to increase acceptability of foods that have suboptimal physical attributes; incentivize sale and use of suboptimal products

Stage 2: Handling & Storage

-

Increase tax incentives for donating unsaleable edible food; Invest in infrastructure and transportation in developing countries

-

Stage 3: Processing & Packaging

Improve the knowledge and ability of workers to apply safe food handling practice NRDC, 2013 - Focus on packaging improvements to reduce and customize portions; -

Standardize date labels to reduce consumer confusion about food spoilage

-

Develop alternative ways to utilize trimmings and peels

Stage 4: Distribution & Marketing

NRDC, 2013 - Establish online marketplaces that facilitate sale or donation of short-life products and/or rejected shipments;

*accounts for a significant portion of food waste in the developed world

-

Stage 5: Consumption

Expand and/or develop infrastructure to enable food rescue organizations to accept fresh food donations. EPA, 2018: - Shift away from the current high cosmetic standards to increase acceptability of foods that have physical attributes that may be undesirable by developing education and awareness campaigns to increase the acceptability of suboptimal produce; -

Consumer education about food safety and interpretation of food date labels to reduce confusion about when food is and isn’t safe to eat;

-

Consumer education regarding food storage, preparation, meal planning and shopping (i.e.: purchasing the right amount of food to begin with)

-

Establish standard, clear language for both quality based and safety-based date labels and make sell by dates invisible to the consumer

Reich & Foley, 2014: - Training for supermarket, restaurant and catering management to learn to forecast customer demand and reflect demand in food purchasing to reduce over purchasing habits;

12 -

Provide updated and novel education and training for workers involved in handling at this stage regarding production, handling and rotating practices, and proper storage techniques to reduce waste;

-

Decrease aversions to consuming leftovers through education, taste testing’s and cooking demos that focus on creating specialty dishes to utilize leftovers and excess food;

Merrow, K. et al., 2012 - School and University cafeterias can get rid of trays to avoid students taking more than what they will actually eat and allow students to decide how much they want to take rather than keep to a standard serving size. Schools and Universities can also reduce their plate sizes, implement sustainable meal planning practices, design sustainable kitchens that are conducive to reducing and reusing waste, water and are energy saving and lastly, educate the staff and students. NRDC, 2013 -

In restaurants and catering operations, owners can reduce portion sizes and the number of menu options to optimize inventoried ingredients and increase cross-over from dish to dish;

-

In restaurants allow diners to have their choice of portions by offering half orders, choice of sides, or smaller portions with optional refills;

-

Public awareness campaigns modeled after successful programs such as Love Food, Hate Waste which raises awareness regarding the importance of reducing food waste by aiding individuals, families, communities and local authorities to take action and facilitate positive behavior changes;

-

Utilizing social media to promote awareness about food waste and educate the public about how they can be pillars of change in their homes and community’s in food waste reduction efforts. Morton Salt Company has a hashtag #EraseFoodWaste where individuals share ways to reduce waste at home and when dining out;

-

Develop surplus food markets where individuals can purchase surplus food at a discounted price (similar to Denmark Model);

6.1 A Change to Impact the First and Last Stage of the Supply Chain While there are various strategies and solutions at each stage of the FSC can be implemented. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the first stage (production) and the last (consumption). In Europe, one of the global contributors to the food loss and waste conundrum, product specification guidelines and the standards and perceptions of sellers and buyers, contribute

13

significantly to FLW. One study found that not only is food deliberately wasted because of its appearance, but also due to high farmer, buyer and consumer standards of selection. At each stage of the supply chain, it’s estimated that between 1%-40% of products are wasted because of these guidelines (de Hooge, et al, 2018). The European product specifications categorize 10 of the most popular fruits and vegetables based on their color, shape, skin, size and weight and then assign them a grade of Extra, A-class, or B-class. These specifications lead farmers and others along the supply chain to discard perfectly edible foods simply because they are not up to par with standards. In addition, individualized product specifications exist amongst farmers, who leave suboptimal crops on the field; retailers, who believe that there is no market within their customers and/or the consumers for suboptimal products and therefore, do not sell them; and lastly among the consumers, who demand and choose “perfect” looking produce and leave the “ugly” produce behind and subsequently, to waste (de Hooge, et al., 2018). The vast majority of consumers (75%) are not willing to buy products that they view as sub-optimal (de Hooge et al., 2017). In other words, safe and edible produce has the potential to be discarded at practically every stage of the FSC due to standards set forth by the EU government as well as the beliefs and marketing practices of farmers and retailers and innate consumer bias and beliefs about differences in safety and/or nutrition of imperfect produce. Most retailers cited consumer demands for perfect looking produce as the number one reason for not selling suboptimal produce. However, the study found that most retailers are interested in finding ways to utilize and/or sell sub-optimal produce with the two most common motivators being an improved company image and profits (de Hooge, et al., 2018). However, for the market of suboptimal products to take off, suboptimal products need to meet the FSC actor’s economic motivation to maximize their value but for more long-term success, the shift must be in consumer preferences. The current available research surrounding successful interventions and programs aimed at improving retailer and consumer perceptions and purchasing of suboptimal food products is scarce and warrants further analysis. 6.2 Current Policies & Initiatives in Place to Reduce Food Waste in The United States Numerous initiatives to reduce waste in the U.S. are currently in place. In 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the US Food Waste Challenge. This challenge called on every part of the food chain: farms, processors, manufacturers, grocery stores, restaurants, universities, schools and local governments to join efforts to reduce, recover and recycle food waste. It is a joint effort with the goal of leading “a fundamental shift in how we think about and manage food and food waste in this country (USDA OCE, 2018).” To bring more attention and increase public awareness about FLW, the USDA and the EPA set a national goal to cut food waste in half by 2030 which align with targets set by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. In line with these efforts, in 2015, Congress improved food donation tax incentives and expanded the incentives to businesses of all sizes to improve food recovery efforts. Following that, the food industry via the Consumer Goods Forum, a global consortium of more than 400 retailers and manufacturers, committed to halve food waste within the operations of its members by 2025. And in 2016, 15 leading U.S. companies (i.e.: PepsiCo, Walmart, Unilever, General Mills), were named the USDA Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions when they committed to reduce food

14

waste by 50% by 2030 (NRDC, 2017). The Morton Salt Company for example, has joined many other large food organizations, in increasing awareness about food waste. They’ve developed a step-by-step, day-by-day guide to implement small changes at home that will result in food saving. College campuses are another source of significant food waste. To combat this, the Food Recovery Network (FRN) has collaborated with over 200 schools to recover 2.5 million pounds of food, donate 2.2 million meals, and prevent 4.8 million kg of CO2 emissions. The FRN calls on students on college campuses to take action and fight food waste and hunger by recovering perishable food from their campuses and communities and donating it to needy individuals. College campuses prove to be sources of major food waste with an approximate 169,000-pound food wastage rate per year, per school. They have played an instrumental part in reducing food waste on college campuses across the nation and feeding needy individuals in college town areas. By providing toolkits for success, food waste redistribution is possible. The FRN model should serve as a model and branch out to other sectors of the FSC. 6.3 Consumer Initiatives The United Kingdom, 5th leader in global food waste reduction, launched the nationwide campaign Love Food, Hate Waste under The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in 2007 to raise awareness of the importance of reducing food waste. The program’s approach follows the 4 E’s behavioral change model which are: enabling people to make a change, encouraging action, engaging in the community and exemplifying other’s success. The campaign encouraged consumers to reduce food waste by using dollar savings as a motivator based on national research that showed it as the prominent motivator of change (WRAP, 2018). The model has proven to be extremely successful with a 15% household food waste reduction and an avoidable waste reduction of 21% observed from 2007-2012 (PPE, 2018). The program managed to achieve this success by targeting consumer awareness and education on simple practical ways to reduce food waste. In the U.S., it would be wise to incorporate elements of successful models similar to WRAP and Denmark, who moved into a leading position in the fight against food waste with a 25% national FW reduction. This was accomplished through large-scale awareness campaigns in combination with collaboration with the FSC (EU-Fusions, 2016). A Danish charity spearheaded the very first food surplus supermarket, We Food, where consumers can shop for surplus, edible food at a 3050% discounted rate compared to other supermarkets. The surplus food comes from supermarkets that are unable to sell the products because of “best before” date labels. While there are other markets that donate surplus food to needy individuals, We Food is accessible to anyone that wants to support their mission of reducing waste (DanChurchAid, 2018). 7. Challenges Multiple successful food loss and waste campaigns and initiatives around the globe have been implemented. However, none of them did so without facing their fair share of challenges. Although programs like WRAP, FRN, and Denmark’s model were successful in their respective regions and area of focus, to achieve global sustainability, and meet the increasing demands of the world’s population with the responsibility of feeding 9 billion people without depleting our natural resources, poses a tremendous challenge. Implementing integrated social marketing

15

campaigns like the ones above require massive market research, buy-in from teams of professionals, marketing agencies, and specific sectors of the supply chain in order to be successful (Pearson & Perera, 2018). These are tremendous and costly undertakings. First and foremost, achievement of a sustainable food future where FLW are reduced by 50% by 2030 will require radical change and cohesion on the fronts of policy reform. However, policy reform takes significant time and there are many hurdles to passing legislation. For example, in 2016, the Food Date Labeling Act was presented (but not passed) to address and reduce food waste that occurs as the result of seller safety regulations and consumer confusion about the various date labeling phrases seen on food packages. This bill could aid in food recovery and redistribution efforts and reduce the likelihood of consumers tossing good food away. Food date labels present a significant challenge to supermarkets, restaurants and even food pantries who have to follow specific regulations when distributing food with past dates. Establishing a more standardized, easily understandable dating system will decrease confusion amongst consumers about whether a product is or is not still safe to eat (NRDC, 2013). 8. Discussion The scope of this review paper was to assess the current available body of literature regarding the causes of global food loss and waste along the stages of the food supply chain and the potential solutions and necessary actions required to reduce the depletion of our natural resources. Business as usual is not an option and will only further put the future of our society, ecosystem and biodiversity at risk (FAO, 2017). The main theme encountered throughout the review process is that the causes of food loss and waste are complex and multi-factorial. A one-pronged or silo-like approach will not be effective in achieving the overall goal of reducing the waste of natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions via the food supply chain. Tracking and trending FLW is challenging and it is predicted that the most recent estimates are actually higher. Newer, current, comprehensive and more accurate means of assessing both food loss and waste and environmental impacts must be developed to more accurately and currently observe progress towards the ambitious U.N. Global Sustainability Goals to preserve natural resources, halve food waste and eradicate world hunger. The most recent estimates are highly variable from source to source as a result of the complexities involved with these estimates and limited availability of reliable and valid tools to assess food loss and waste at all levels of the FSC. Although this review mainly focused on the greatest contributors of food loss and waste: loss at the production stage and waste at the consumer stage, it is evident that to elicit significant improvements, a global approach is required. Most interventions that currently exist are in the form of social marketing campaigns that aim to increase awareness, knowledge and self-efficacy of consumers to foster food saving behavior changes. While this has proven to be somewhat effective, systematic changes that make food saving the easy and possibly only choice is necessary. This requires policy reform and improvements in infrastructure in both developed and developing countries. Novel and sustainable approaches that have an “nature first” philosophy must be implemented throughout the FSC from this point forward. While the work to be done by governing bodies on the policy end is tremendous, reducing food waste also requires buy-in, education and attitude and behavior change among stakeholders and

16

individuals involved in each stage of the supply chain (FAO, 2017). For example, on the consumer end of the supply chain, especially in wealthy countries, policies and initiatives must target consumer knowledge and beliefs about the environmental impacts of wasted food and food date labels and increasing acceptability of cosmetically suboptimal foods. Changes in policy lead to tremendous costs to finance and implement infrastructural changes that would transition to green economies which reduce carbon emissions, FLW, and reduce the depletion of our natural resources. Political support for the implementation of sustainable practices in developed countries is greater than that of developing countries. The lack of political support is disproportionately mentioned in the literature as a barrier to implementing sustainable practices. Furthermore, even with political support, there is often low levels of regulation and little enforcement of those regulations (Jia, F. et.al., 2018) and in turn, reduce the probability of compliance. This paper justifies the need for action along the supply chain to sustain our natural resources. Also calls for additional research surrounding potential solutions to food loss in developing countries especially at the first stage of FSC – production, the most resource intensive stage. Some studies (mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa) have identified the provision of adequate storage containers as a marker for food loss improvements. While more research has been conducted on other means of improving loss at this stage, they mostly lack generalizability, due to small sampling sizes. Additionally, needs vary greatly dependent on region, climate, crop majority and infrastructure. Conducting needs assessments to tailor effective interventions and pilot programs to determine effectiveness is warranted. Expanding research to other developing countries in Southeast Asia is warranted as well. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

References Buzby, J.C., Wells, H.F., Hyman, J. (2014). The estimated amount, value and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Bulletin Number 121. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf DanChurchAid (2018). Wefood Denmark’s first-ever surplus food supermarket. Retrieved from: https://www.danchurchaid.org/join-us/wefood De Hooge, I.E., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Normann, A., Mueller Loose, S., Almli, V.L. (2017). This apple is too ugly for me! Consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food Quality and Preferences, 56, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012 de Hooge, I.E., van Dulm, E., van Trijp, H.C.M. (2018). Cosmetic specifications in the food waste issue: supply chain considerations and practices concerning suboptimal food products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 698-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012

17

Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Sustainable management of food basics. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-management-food-basics Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Food Recovery Challenge (FRC). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-challenge-frc EU-Fusions (2016). Food waste in Denmark reduced by 25% and 4,4 billion DKK. Retrieved from: http://www.eu-fusions.org/index.php/14-news/238-food-waste-in-denmark-reduced-by-25and-4-4-billion-dkk Food and Agriculture Organization, The International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children Fund, World Food Programme & World Health Organization (2017). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2017 report. Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome, FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011). Food wastage footprint and climate change. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bb144e.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013). Food wastage footprint and its effects on natural resources: summary report. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf Friedrich, J., Ge, M., & Pickens, A. (2017). This interactive chart explains world’s top 10 emitters, and how they’ve changed. Retrieved from: http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-howtheyve-changed Global Hunger Relief (2018). Global hunger relief statistics. Retrieved from: http://globalhungerrelief.com/statistics Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (2018). Grocery industry launches new initiative to reduce consumer confusion on product date labels. Retrieved from: https://www.gmaonline.org/newsevents/newsroom/grocery-industry-launches-new-initiative-to-reduce-consumer-confusion-onpr/ Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. (2011). Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf Jia, F., Zuluaga, L., Bailey, A., Rueda, X. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management in developing countries: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.248 K.D. Hall, J. Guo, M. Dore, C.C. Chow (2009). The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS ONE 4(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007940

18

Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., Searchinger, T. (2013). Installment 2 of creating a sustainable food future: reducing food loss and waste. World Resources Institute, Working Paper. Merrow, K., Penzien, P., Dubats, T. (2012). Exploring food waste reduction in campus dining halls. Western Michigan University. Retrieved from: https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/ENVS%204100%20Final%20Project%20Repor t%20-%20Merrow,%20Penzien,%20Dubats.pdf Morton Salt (n.d.). Walk Her Walk Campaign. Retrieved from: http://www.mortonsalt.com/walkherwalk/ National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture (2018). Sustainable agriculture program. Retrieved from: https://nifa.usda.gov/program/sustainableagriculture-program Natural Resource Defense Council (2012). Wasted: how America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from fark to fork to landfill. Retrieved from: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf Natural Resource Defense Council & Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (2013). The dating game: how confusing food date labels lead to food waste in America. Natural Resource Defense Council (2017). Assessing corporate performance on waste reduction: a strategic guide for investors. Retrieved from: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/corporateperformance-food-waste-reduction-ib.pdf Pearson, D. & Perera, A. (2018). Reducing food waste: A practitioner guide identifying requirements for an integrated social marketing communication campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(1), 45-57. doi: 10.1177/1524500417750830 Public Law (1996). Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ210/pdf/PLAW-104publ210.pdf Public Law (2008). United States Federal Food Donation Act. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ247/pdf/PLAW-110publ247.pdf Public Policy Exchange (2018). Reducing food waste in the UK: promoting collaboration, innovation and responsibility at the national and local levels. Retrieved from: https://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/events/IB01-PPE Reich, A.H., Foley, J.A. (2014). Food loss and waste in the US: the science behind the supply chain. University of Minnesota, Issue Brief Food Policy Research Center. Retrieved from: https://www.foodpolicy.umn.edu/sites/foodpolicy.umn.edu/files/food-loss-waste.pdf Sato, M., Nakano, M., Gatto, K., Wunderlich, S. (2016). Nutritional and environmental considerations of food stockpiles in Japan and USA: reducing food waste by efficient reuse through the food banks. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning. 11(6), 980-988.

19

Tesfaye, W., & Titivayi, N. (2018). The impacts of postharvest storage innovations on food security and welfare in Ethiopia. Food Policy, 75, 52-67. United Nations (2018). Goal 2: end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Retrieved form: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ United Nations (2018). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (2018). Food product dating. Retrieved from: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safetyeducation/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/food-product-dating/food-productdating United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist (2018). The U.S. food loss and waste challenge. Retrieved from: https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/Challenge/index.htm WRAP (n.d.). Household food waste prevention study: West London waste authority in partnership with recycle for London. The impact of love food hate waste. Retrieved from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/West%20London%20LFHW%20Impact%20case%20st udy_0.pdf