- Email: [email protected]
Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark
Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark Afton Halloran a,⇑, Jesper Clement c, Niels Kornum c, Camelia Bucatariu d,1, Jakob Magid b a
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Fredriksberg C, Denmark University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark c Center for Decision Neuroscience, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3C, 2000 Frederiksberg C, Denmark d Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Viale Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 October 2013 Received in revised form 1 May 2014 Accepted 8 September 2014
Keywords: Food and nutrition security Food waste Multi-stakeholder processes Natural resources Food systems Sustainability
a b s t r a c t Global food demand is driven by population and economic growth, and urbanization. One important instrument to meet this increasing demand and to decrease the pressure on food production is to minimize food losses and food waste. Food waste and loss is a major societal, economic, nutritional and environmental challenge. Using the case of Denmark, this paper analyses causes of food waste, and discusses how different stakeholders address the prevention and reuse of the €1.18 billion of annual edible food waste. Currently, the majority of food waste is still incinerated with energy recovery. However, improvements in technology have made it more efficient to utilize food waste for biogas and compost, which improves nutrient cycling through the food system. Major efforts to address food waste in Denmark have mainly been promoted through civil society groups with governmental support, as well as by industry. In order to better understand food waste and loss more research must be conducted on the total amount of food waste at every level of the food supply chain. Solutions can be found through improved communication, more efficient food packaging, and better in interpretation of food labels by consumers. Likewise, systems thinking may support an integrated agricultural and food system where food utilization is optimized and loss and waste of resources is reduced. In conclusion, sustainable solutions to the reduction of food waste in Denmark must include multi-stakeholders collaboration, especially public–private partnerships at the global level. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Global food demand is increasingly driven by population and economic growth, and urbanization. This trend is expected to continue over the coming decades, reaching a 60 per cent increase in the total current demand for food by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Additionally, emerging consumption patterns have implied a larger role for processed foods, creating new opportunities for value-added and income-generating activities. The minimization of food losses and waste can help to meet this increasing demand, and decrease pressure on food production. ⇑ Corresponding author. 1 Camelia Bucatariu is Policy Development Consultant at FAO working on food systems sustainability; policy/regulatory development; food loss/waste; strategy; resource use efficiency; green public procurement. Trained at EC and FAO and holds a Postgraduate Advanced Diploma in Policy development and European studies from European College of Parma with thesis cited in FAO/WHO. 2013. State of the art on the initiatives and activities relevant to risk assessment and risk management of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors: Bucatariu, C.A. 2011. Genetically modified organisms and nanotechnologies in food and feed: EU lessons learned [thesis]. Parma, Italy: European College of Parma Foundation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005 0306-9192/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Awareness of food losses and waste has grown at the international level: acknowledgement of food loss and waste was announced at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (known as Rio + 20) as a component of the Zero Hunger Challenge. Moreover, the 2013 comprehensive consultation conducted for the Post-2015 Agenda set the scene for goal identification. It contained Goal No. 5 on food and nutrition security, which included reduction of food loss and waste. Efforts are now concentrating on the identification of indicators that can be measured and monitored. In addition, the 2013 OECD/FAO Agricultural Outlook states that the expansion of agricultural production is likely to slow at least in the medium term, and that supply should keep up with demand at prices that are expected to remain relatively high (OECD/FAO, 2013). This paper uses the case of Denmark in order to understand how food waste can be reduced through the value chain. Denmark offers an interesting case study because of the relatively high degree of potential reduction in food waste. As a small country with a high degree of social capital defined by trust, we argue that within Denmark it is easier to encourage systemic change throughout the food supply chain. Denmark can also serve as an exemplary
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
295
test-site for innovation, evaluating what innovative elements in food waste prevention can be transferred to the EU and global context. We gather knowledge not previously published in one overall article and provide a snapshot of the current situation. We discuss the roles of various actors within the food system, their contributions, consequences, and available solutions to food waste.
priorities in other sectors (FAO, 2011). Kjær and Werge (2010) note that food wasted in Denmark is largely avoidable or partially avoidable. In other words they acknowledge some food waste will always occur and 100 per cent utilization is unrealistic.
Terms, definitions and identification of food waste
Until recently, food waste has been largely ignored due to the abundance of food. This has led to major amounts of waste, mainly at primary production and consumer levels (European Parliament, 2011). Food consumption has been identified as one of the most resource demanding and polluting activities within a household (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Even with substantial technological improvements to keep food lasting longer over the course of the food supply chain an unnecessary amount of food is still wasted. Moreover, a clear understanding of the actual scale of food waste at both global and at national levels is lacking (Parfitt et al., 2010). A variety of supply chain actors influence the decision-making processes of other actors in the supply chain making food loss a dynamic flow. Consequently, actors’ flow-related decisions become interdependent and by that the network structure influence food losses. The structure of the food supply chain in Denmark has in last decade of the twentieth century been characterized by consolidations in the primary sector and a reduction of enterprises in the processing industry. This consolidation is characterized by a reduction in the numbers of firms on each level in the supply chain, and with minor reduction in the number of links in the chain (Baker, 2003). Besides fruits and vegetables, the wholesale link in the food supply chain has been made redundant and has become embedded in a retailers’ business strategy or producers’ business strategy. Kadiyali et al. (2000) also found this tendency emphasizing the significant increase of power at the retail level. The question of who holds the bargaining power is more a matter of economy and having exclusive access to information (Nijs et al., 2014). FAO (2011) find food losses as a direct cause of lack of coordination between actors within the food system together with cultural, social and economic factors. Moreover, a clear understanding of the actual scale of food waste at both global and at national levels is lacking (Parfitt et al., 2010). We discuss the aspects of knowledge sharing further in relation to actors in food waste, the contributing factors to food waste, and the consequences associated with these factors. Fig. 2 provides an overview of the types of wasted food products at different levels in the value chain. Beyond the direct reason for food waste several actors within the food supply chain contribute indirectly to food waste by influencing consumer behaviour for example through packaging sizes, sale promotions or discounts. A lack of systemic evidence blurs the image of what actually causes food waste and prevent significant national and global changes, as well as potential to measure reductions (Parfitt et al., 2010). Moreover, knowledge of how to prevent food waste throughout the food system is relatively limited. Worldwide 30 per cent of cereals, 40–50 per cent of root crops and fruits & vegetables, 20 per cent of oilseeds and meat & dairy, and 30 per cent of fish end up lost or wasted along the food supply chain (FAO, 2011). Farm to fork losses have an €1.1 billion annual economic cost in Denmark, which is in line with the European average. Sixty-six per cent of food is wasted from farm to retail (Jensen, 2011; Mogensen et al., 2011). When converted into food waste per person, each European wastes 280 kg/year, 185 kg of which derives from farm to retail and 95 kg from households (FAO, 2011).
All food systems rely upon natural resources such as water and land. Moreover, a significant amount of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, energy, and labour are used to produce, then process, transport, distribute, store, and make food available for human consumption. Consequently, food waste is a waste of land, water, energy and inputs, as well as an unnecessary contributing factor to climate change (FAO, 2011; FAO, 2013a,b; Kummu et al., 2012). At all levels of the food supply chain greenhouse gases (GHG) are emitted (Garnett, 2011), making food consumption one of the largest direct and indirect contributors to climate change (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Food losses or waste refers to the food lost or wasted along the food supply chain providing edible products for human consumption. According to the FAO Save Food initiative, food loss and waste ‘‘is measured only for products that are directed to human consumption, excluding feed and parts of products which are not edible’’ (FAO, 2011). The cause of food waste The perception of food waste depends on the definition of food waste itself. Food waste dichotomises into two categories (Fig. 1): Edible food waste and non-edible food waste. Within the EU, food waste is generally understood to mean all of the foodstuffs discarded from the food supply chain still perfectly edible and fit for human consumption. These products are ultimately eliminated and disposed of for economic or aesthetic reasons, or because of the closeness to the ‘use by’ or ‘best before’ date. Consequently, this generates negative externalities from an environmental point of view, and causes increases in overall economic costs and a loss of revenue for businesses (European Parliament, 2011). Due to the products natural appearance and design, waste can also be a consequence of consumption habits like peeling a banana or eating a potato with the skin on. Food waste occurs at all levels of the food system in the form of edible crops left in the field, losses through transport, food discarded in packaging or poor stock management (Parfitt et al., 2010). While much of this waste is inevitable, the majority of food waste is preventable. On a per-capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries. It is estimated that the per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and NorthAmerica is 95–115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa or in South/Southeast Asia is only 6–11 kg/year. Food waste in developed countries, like Denmark, is generally related to consumer behaviour, as well as to policies and regulations that address
Raw materials with the potential to be eaten by humans
Food with the potential to be eaten
Inedible fraction removed within the supply chain
Actors and trends that influence food losses
Primary sector – food producers Food eaten
Food waste
Fig. 1. Wasted resources in the food production system.
The primary sector contains producers of basic food products. These producers range from large-scale commercial producers to
296
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
Primary sector
Economic index
Major types of wasted food
Vegetables
Food processors
Dairy products Meat
Wholesalers and retailers
Commercial kitchens
Consumers and households
Food waste processors
Vegetables Cereals
Vegetables Cereals Meat
Vegetables Cereals Dairy products Meat
Vegetables Cereals Dairy products Meat
1 0,5 (not relevant)
eatable
0
Volume index
1 0,5
uneatable eatable
0
Actors
Farmers Horticultures
Slaughterhouses Dairies Manufactures
Distributers Supermarkets Shops
Canteens Restaurants
Consumers Citizens
Public and private waste handlers
Fig. 2. The major types of food products wasted at different stages in the value chain roughly shown as index. Source: CONSITO, 2011 and Jensen, 2011.
family farmers. The Danish food supply chain is characterized by a relatively high percentage of small firms with less than 50 employees in the primary sector (Baker, 2003). A significant amount of potentially edible products are lost in the primary sector, including dead or discarded animals and wasted grain in the field. In Denmark, 541,000 tonnes of food are lost in this sector per year. This total amount surpasses that of household food waste (CONSITO, 2011). A large percentage of food wasted in this sector is due to standardisation in terms of sizing, quality and varieties demanded by stakeholders in later parts of the chain, for example wholesalers, large kitchens, and retailers. Food processors Food processors contribute rather minimally food waste. Although very little data is available on this group of actors estimates show that edible food waste is only 1–2 per cent of total production (Mogensen et al., 2011). Processing of milk and dairy products contribute an estimated 71,000 tonnes of food waste annually, while meat and meat products, as well as fruit and vegetable processing contributes roughly 34,000 and 30,000 tonnes respectively (Jensen, 2011). However, some of this food waste is inedible, and should rather be classified as bi-products (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Wholesalers and retailers Danish hypermarkets, warehouses, mini-markets, discount stores and supermarkets create 45,676 tonnes of food waste per year. The majority of the food waste in the wholesale and retail sector is from fruits and vegetables, bread and yoghurt (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). On average retailer creates approximately 165–562 kg of food waste per every €130,000 of turnover (Ettrup and Bjørn, 2002). Small and large supermarkets dominate the Danish retail sector. However, discount stores are comprising a substantial and growing market share. Wholesale and grocery retailing are dominated by three groups; Coop Denmark, Dansk Supermarked Gruppen, and Dagrofa. These groups control about 87 per cent of total grocery turnover (Aastrup et al., 2010). Small and specialized stores like butchers, green grocers and bakeries play a minor role in the Danish retail sector (Baker, 2003) and by that an insignificant role in food waste.
Commercial kitchens Commercial kitchens are defined as any kitchen that makes food for a group of people and generates over 100 kg of food per week. This type of kitchen is found in hotels, workplaces with canteens, and institutions like child care facilities, hospitals, or universities. The total food waste created in workplace canteens in Denmark is 33,138 tonnes per year. Forty-two per cent of this amount originates from public services (ECONET, 2011). Consumers and households Food products contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions (European Comission, 2006). However, a study of Danish consumers found that Danes do not associate food waste with negative environmental impacts or climate change (Beck et al., 2011). However, the EU Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to final consumption the category ‘‘food and drink, tobacco and narcotics’’ is responsible for 20–30 per cent of total environmental impacts (from cradleto-grave) in the EU. These impacts are categorized as abiotic depletion, acidification, ecotoxicity, global warming, eutrophication, human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and photochemical oxidation (European Commission, 2006). Within the consumption category of ‘‘food and drink, tobacco and narcotics’’ the entire life cycle of meat and meat products (cradle-to-grave) carry the largest environmental burden, and contribute to an estimated 4–12 per cent share of global warming. These impacts are assumed to increase due to integration of new member states (ibid.). Of the various actors who contribute to food waste, Danish households create 50 per cent of the total amount, or approximately 237,000 tonnes annually (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Edible and inedible food waste makes up nearly half of Danish household waste. According to a 2012 study on the contents of family’s wastebaskets1 total annual edible food waste was found to be 42 kg, and another 34 kg was found to be inedible (Miljøministeret, 2012a). A Danish household generates 1.42 kg per week of vegetable waste, of which 1.1 kg is unprocessed and 0.32 is processed food waste. This amounts to 1.46 kg of inedible food waste thrown out per week (ibid.). 1 This research did not take into account for edible food waste poured down the sink like milk or sauce. Thus, this study shows only what ends up in the wastebasket.
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
In economic terms, Danish households are the largest culprits of food waste. Household food waste amounts to €2.15 million per year (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010). Approximately 20 per cent of the food Danes buy end up in the waste bin. This equates to enough food for one million Danes a year (ibid.). On average, Danish households waste €390 of edible food annually (Tænk Forbrugerrådet, 2012), with €125 of this total amount produced over the course of the Christmas holiday. Similar amounts of waste are also produced during the Easter holidays (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010 in Stop Spild af Mad, 2012). Use of ‘‘best before,’’ was adopted by the EU in 1979. However, it was poorly translated into Danish and has caused confusion amongst consumers ever since (Kruse, 2011). Danish consumers, like most European consumers, are uncertain of how to read and interpret the ‘‘best before’’ dates on packaging (ibid). As a consequence, many consumers throw food away when they are uncertain whether if it safe or not to eat (Beck et al., 2011). In one study by Beck et al. (2011), half of the consumers interviewed interpreted ‘‘best before’’ label as ‘‘inedible after.’’ Culturally, not all food waste is considered unacceptable; while it may not be acceptable to throw unopened packages of food away, uneaten food from a plate is often perceived as more socially acceptable. Since meat still is the centre of most Danish dishes, foodstuffs with a lower status, like bread and vegetables, are easier and more culturally acceptable to throw away. Additionally, most leftovers are forgotten in the refrigerator and thrown out if they have not been consumed after four days (ibid.). Food waste processors Biological treatment of food waste is only available in a few places, but it is only a viable solution if the treatment facility can handle packaged food. Instead, most food waste is incinerated with energy recovery. Retail and wholesale sectors have agreements with private waste companies to transport their waste to an incineration facility. Waste for recycling is the responsibility of the retail sector. On the other hand, waste for incineration is the responsibility of the local government, which directs the waste to a specific incineration plant (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). Due to EU regulations the system for separate collection of food waste from restaurants and canteens to animal feed no longer exists, as it has been withdrawn in 2003 (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2012). Regulations and private/public initiatives As the understanding of the food waste issue has grown, so have international, regional and national targets to reduce food waste. This review will make reference to these targets as they were expressed, acknowledging that they represent differences in quantity and timeframes for achievement. Starting from 2011, targets for reduction of food loss and food waste have been put forward by European Institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament, such as halving edible food waste by 2020 or 2025 respectively (EC, 2012; EP, 2012). However, progress on the knowledge at the EU level, as well as the global level have put into question the feasibility and coherence of such targets considering that there is still a need to improve quantification of food loss and waste along with monitoring and identification of feasible medium to long-term solutions. In the beginning of 2012 the European Parliament passed a resolution to target the reduction of food waste. Consequently, the European Commission called on member states to reduce food waste by 50 per cent before 2025 pushing ahead by 5 years the target set by the European Commission in 2011 (EP, 2012). According
297
to the European Commission, a lack of knowledge of European food waste is a major barrier to any possible future solutions: ‘‘More information on the issue [is] necessary to determine the scale of the problem and to identify appropriate measures that could be taken’’ (EC, 2010:11). As a European Union member state, Denmark is subject to the current European Commission efforts to reduce in country food waste by 50 per cent before 2020 as set by the 2011 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011). Private initiatives in Denmark Research on food waste in Denmark has typically taken the ‘‘garbage can’s point of view.’’ Thus, there is a relatively good understanding of the composition of the food that is wasted (Beck et al., 2011). However, recognition of the social, economic and environmental costs of food waste has been developing over recent years through push from civil society and government. Action against food waste began predominantly as a consumer movement in Denmark. Leading this movement is ‘‘Stop Spild af Mad’’ (Stop Wasting Food) with the aim of raising awareness about food waste (www.stopspildafmad.dk). The movement is supported by Danish consumers, Members of the European Parliament, Members of Danish Parliament, top Danish chefs, and food personalities. The Danish Consumer Council (www.tænk.dk) has also initiated a campaign to increase consumer awareness of food waste. Public initiatives in Denmark A variety of governmental initiatives have surfaced over the previous years. These include a stakeholder conference connecting public and private stakeholders, as well as a series of studies on food waste throughout the Danish food system. In 2011 the Danish Ministry of the Environment established a voluntary ‘‘Initiative Group Against Food Waste’’ where stakeholders representing the public and private sectors could work together to achieve reduced food waste in the Danish food system. From these meetings the ‘‘Charter on Less Food Waste’’ was created and signed by 19 major stakeholders such as various supermarket chains, restaurants, ministries, and hotel chains (Miljøministeret, 2012b). Knock-on effect on industry The private sector has also begun to look at the role they play the creation of food waste; Arla Foods, Denmark’s largest dairy producer, adopted a zero waste vision to reduce consumer food waste by 50 per cent by 2020. This is to be accomplished through the better design of packaging and portion sizes, as well as assisting consumers to better plan food purchasing. Additionally, Arla Foods plan to use food waste from production level as animal feed or in biogas production (Arla, 2012). In another private sector initiative, the discount food store REMA 1000 stopped its buy ‘3 for 2’ sales in 2008 and now only sells by the piece in an attempt to reduce food waste (Rema 1000, 2012). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions In a saturated food market measured in volumetric growth (Marsden et al., 1997) and with fewer and more dominant firms, cost savings through economies of scale and scope is one way to increase profits (Morrison, 2001). Another is a value-added approach through increased quality (Meulenberg and Viaene, 2002), product innovation, or through the discovery of new channels (Hughes, 2002). Little economic incentive to reduce food waste exists within the current food supply chain (Jensen, 2011). This might derive from a general lack of information, as well as
298
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
incentives for retailers to order the correct amounts of food because they often can send it back to producers and wholesalers without severe repercussions (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). Moreover, few retailers promote staff participation in training schemes, advanced vocational training, and workshops. Few staff acts as disseminators and role models in the responsible handling of food. Finally, there are currently few financial incentives for households to reduce their food waste (Jensen, 2011). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to primary agricultural producers The significant volume of raw products lost in this sector makes it relevant to look for ways to minimize the waste. On the production level in the food supply chain there is a need for coordinating activities to achieve the ‘‘just in time’’ demand (Kornum, 1996; Kornum, 1998). This is the case especially for agricultural products, like milk, fruit and meat; these products have to be delivered in fresh conditions (Boon, 2001). An uncertainty in daily quantity ordering for these types of products leads to varied daily production and with the risk of overproduction to ensure supply. In order to optimize and to avoid waste it requires coordination, which again implies insights with production and logistic, and at best a horticultural knowledge sharing towards marketing and selling giving insights into later parts of the supply chain. Lack of loyalty and trust between retailers and producers lead to breach of contract (Weber, 2010) and longer contract periods and contract farming are suggestions from FAO (2011). Price reduction on day-old bread or close to expiry date is not only a problem for retailers. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to food processors A large portion of food waste generated at the primary production level originates from sizing demands. Due to marketing mechanisms and demands from retailers, fruits and vegetables, which do not fit into the required sizing demands often will not make it into the market (MFLF, 2011). At the supermarket level most fruits and vegetables are sold by the piece and not by weight, unless packaged. This means that under- and oversized-produce cannot be sold to supermarkets and are often discarded automatically at the production level (ibid.). The regulation on quality standards (Commission Regulation N°1221/2008) provides marketing standards for certain fruits and vegetables. These standards are rules related to e.g. size, shape, and how fruits and vegetables should look like. These standards are not based on safety criteria and it causes loss of food products that could have been eaten. Abolishment of such rules could decrease the amount of food waste, and the number of products for which quality standards are set has in EU recently been reduced from 36 to 10. Optimization for transport focuses mainly on material suitable for handling, size in relation to modular systems, and weight reduction. However the criterion protection has a direct influence on food waste. It concerns the balance between over-packaging versus under-packaging and loss of goods, which in economic terms is the monetary value, lost in wasted goods during distribution and product sales. It has been estimated that for developing countries up to 50 per cent of food produced is lost due to poor packaging. Moreover, up to 10 per cent of all fruit and vegetables shipped in the EU are destroyed along the way. Enormous resources go into producing, transporting, storing these goods, which are lost mainly because of inadequate packaging (EC, 2012).
Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to wholesalers and retailers European leading retailers have already adapted sustainability in their business strategy with some national differences (Bobe and Dragomir, 2010). A large span of initiatives in the retail sector was found by Kotzab et al. (2011), yet they also found a rather narrow and short-term view on these issues and nearly no orientation towards long-term initiatives. These retailers see advantages in communicating sustainability to their stakeholders, but at the same time they are looking for tools and measures allowing them to visualize benefit, progress, and performance in relation to widely accepted sustainability standards and public/government targets for recirculation (Bobe and Dragomir, 2010). Retailers’ optimization has been and still are practiced through category management (O’Brien, 2012), which attempts to find the right balance in, for example, product range, new product promotions, in point of sale advertising, and in shelf design. Incentives for doing category management are, on one hand, due to economic optimization, and, on the other to gain insights on a specific market that will ultimately be beneficial for suppliers (Aastrup et al., 2010). From a retailer’s point of view, waste is part of the planning, and the inappropriateness of having unsold goods is a greater disadvantage than to discard goods, which have exceeded their best before date. As mentioned earlier category management is a matter of knowledge and access to information, although there is no clear optimal way of doing this or clarity in variables to measure and share. From retailers point of view it is at matter of having the optimal mix of product/brands on the shelf and the producer seek to optimize their own products/brand. Authorities are on the other hand worried about too much knowledge sharing leading to anticompetitive behavior that will harm consumers and argue for information firewalls (Nijs et al., 2014). Customers’ strong focus on freshness means that goods with long shelf life are a bad signal to send and it often results in discards quite some time before the expiration date. The EU regulation on ‘‘best before’’ date is a balance between the dual purpose of food security and food waste reduction and solving this point at customer education through awareness campaigns. Although fresh bread can last for several days it is thrown away if unsold on expiration day. Retailers have introduced discounts on goods that are close to expiration date, if necessary through automated reduction of the price at the check-out counter, and it could be supplemented with creative recipe databases building on ‘‘empty the refrigerator’’ ideas. Discounts on food items are often offered in large quantities, such as ‘‘three for two’’ deals or ‘‘economy size.’’ These economysized packages can often become a source of food waste in single households due to too large quantities, and not enough time to consume them before their expiry date. Approximately 60 per cent of single Danes demand smaller packaging in supermarkets, especially for meat, vegetables, and sandwich foods (Danmarks Radio, 2012). Single households make up 37 per cent of all households in Denmark (OECD, 2010). It is these households that create the most food waste when compared to households with several occupants (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2011). However, most consumers do not see themselves as ‘‘food wasters,’’ therefore as Beck et al. (2011) argue it is hard to fight food waste through targeted campaigns about morals or savings, as it may not institute much change. Food waste from the retail and wholesale sectors is generally handled as mixed municipal solid waste. However, these stakeholders can also choose to separate the waste themselves before collection by a private company (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). The hidden potential for nutrient cycling and energy harvesting within the food system through the use of in-vessel dual
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
biogas and composting facilities has yet to be realised. This process presents dual benefits and relatively loss-free nutrient cycling. However, incineration is currently the most affordable option for post processing of food waste. The processing of one tonne of waste costs approximately 67€, while incineration costs 60€ per tonne in Copenhagen, and 33.50€ outside of the Copenhagen (CONCITO, 2011). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to commercial kitchens A lot of food served in canteens is made in another kitchen. This causes food waste because these kitchens are unaware of the amount to make, especially in buffet style canteens. This waste may be reduced by bringing production closer to customers and by serving food in measured portions, rather than a buffet. Initiatives to donate uneaten food from hotels, canteens, and commercial kitchens to the homeless have already been implemented. However, there are some limitations reducing the impact on food waste from this sector. For example, donated food must remain unopened and must not exceed last selling day. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to consumers and households The criterion of shelf impact is a matter of a packaging design able to get consumers’ attention in-store. The majority of the items on the shelf get no visual attention at all (Clement et al., 2013), meaning these products have not been considered as an opportunity for a purchase. In general, consumers do not have a complete overview of their purchase as they enter a supermarket; they get inspired, disturbed or confused by what they see on the shelf. Furthermore, the actual decision may be taken solely on visual cues. The study by Clement et al. (2013) was made in a large Danish supermarket and found same tendency as earlier studies, that a majority (85 per cent) of consumers make a decision without having the product in hand or having picked up any alternative item (Urbany et al., 1996) and 90 per cent of consumers make a purchase after only having examined the front of the packaging (Dickson and Sawyer, 1990). A common habit for choosing the largest or highest quantum seems to play a decisive role in-store. Subsequently consumers acknowledge this ‘‘silly behaviour,’’ but in the moment of the decision they use their gut feeling for making a good purchase and the need for ‘‘value for money’’ most often overrules any rationality. Consumers simply choose with their eyes and larger packaging with larger shelf impact captures consumers’ in-store attention, although it often ends up as food waste at home. Inappropriate packaging size causes food to be thrown away because the total amount cannot be consumed before the product gets spoiled. The solution lies in the direction of accommodate package sizes to suit the needs of customer segments using different types of shops e.g. e-shops. Other ideas are to create packages with separate compartments and less sales on large amounts of a product might also contribute to a reduction in food waste. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to food waste processors and treatment
299
optimization becomes too complicated and plays minor role in packaging discourse (Bech-Larsen, 1996). Uneatable food thrown away rather than recycled and therefore not utilized to its full potential as a limited resource of the food system, does also count as food loss. Collection of organic waste from households is too costly to sort mechanically which makes digestation processes cost effective and many households separate organic waste incorrectly. On the other hand there is potentiality for the retail sector for use of well-sorted and safe food waste to feed pigs and poultry. Health and safety currently sets the restrictions on such use, on which both industry and research should contribute for further development. Further utilization is the potential use of disposed food in anaerobic digestation processes (biogas and compost outputs). Solutions, incentives, and obstacles Sharing knowledge and obtaining fruitful insights from stakeholder groups discussing packaging waste reduction and material minimization have challenges and benefits. Basically, there is a discrepancy between a well-planned recycling system with standardized packaging and minimized diversity in use of material. On the other hand, there is also a need for differentiation through packaging shape, size, and other visible elements. Shared information and knowledge In Denmark relatively little information on food waste in shops is shared among stakeholders. Within each stakeholder group in the food supply chain sporadic knowledge and data of food waste is available. Stakeholders lose the broader perspective when a narrow-minded view on values related to the next link in the supply chain is applied. Industrial kitchens and wholesalers have available data on food waste, yet a standardisation of data from primary producers is not available or non-existent for the moment, making total amounts difficult to estimate (Kjær and Werge, 2010). This calls for a common agreement on how to generate data and which data to share in a standardized form such as data on specific foods wasted, as well as total amount of food wasted. Because of communication between actors, choices made by stakeholders ultimately affect the choices made by other stakeholders’ up- or downstream in the food value chain. This is due to the high connectivity and interdependencies of all actors within the food system. Thus, no single stakeholder can be blamed for the generation of food waste, as every stakeholder has played a role it its creation. Insights and shared knowledge in a standardized form among the stakeholder groups in food supply chain is placed among other initiatives for reaching that target the ambitious 2025 goal of food waste reduction. Whether the goals are reachable at the EU National and/or regional level within 2020 or 2025 is still a matter of debate. An uncertainty over just how much food is wasted and its potential to be post-processed through animal feed, digestation or compost has to be solved. Without those amounts the true environmental impact on the food system and the best way to prevent the waste is difficult to estimate. Broadening legislation
The environmental impact from packaging is obvious for most stakeholders, as it becomes the visible waste after the product is used. As long as the functionality is clearly related to appropriate handling and protection packaging is not seen as pure waste, whereas double packaging like a toothpaste tube packed in cardboard is considered inappropriate. Focus on minimizing and reducing packaging material is seen as a core challenge, whereas leveraging different packaging parameters against each other for
Standardization and regulations for food safety can lead to increased food waste. For example, the current EU legislation on the shelf life of eggs permits a seven-day timeframe between the last day that they eggs can be sold to consumers and the last day the eggs are of the highest quality direct consumer utilization, and not for reasons of food safety. Although this legislation has been created in order to prevent salmonella in countries where
300
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
refrigeration of eggs does not occur, this is not an issue of high concern for Denmark, as eggs are refrigerated (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). However, EU legislation notes that after expiry of the ‘‘sell by’’ date for consumers’ eggs can no longer be sold for direct human consumption (EC, 2013). Current EU legislation implemented by Denmark, as by all of the other Member States of the EU, bans the feeding of by-products to animals from the retail and wholesale sector (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). A precondition for food waste/loss use as feed is that traceability is preserved along the chain according to the General Food Law principles (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) and safety according to the Feed Hygiene requirements (Regulation (EC) No 183/2005) and the only way to achieve this is to ensure that, at any point of the chain, food waste/loss remains under the scope of the food law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002). Therefore, careful consideration of the classification of, for example, former foodstuffs as waste have to take place in order to ensure that the resource is optimally used (EC, 2013). There is no all-inclusive legislation on food waste in Denmark or at the EU level. Nonetheless, there are pieces of legislation that affect the generation and reduction of food waste and the generation of this food waste. Thus, the need for a better understanding of overall food waste and avoidable food waste is seriously critically needed in order to meet the ambitious targets, as any national figures are relative estimates (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Nonetheless, substantial steps to influence private actors throughout the food supply chain are being made. These include ‘‘Stop Spild af Mad’’ and the Danish Government’s Food Waste Charter. Furthermore, some private firms have acknowledged the social, environmental and economic consequences of food waste and have instituted their own initiatives. However, a lack of well-targeted incentives to reduce food waste prevents systemic change from occurring over the course of the whole food system. Packaging as a part of a solution The greatest existing knowledge base of food waste is on household level. Most efforts both from government and civil society are targeting consumption behaviours of households, as they create the largest percentage of food waste in the food supply chain. However, consumers make purchasing decisions and ultimately determine what to eat they can only make decisions by what is available to them by the retailer. On a large scale, the packaging concept of accessibility has been related to ‘‘easy to open’’ packaging, and how manufacturers can develop and improve access to the product. This issue primarily addresses elderly or disabled consumers (Yoxall and Janson, 2008), yet accessibility is also a matter of getting the right volume of a particular product. Broadening the concept of accessibility might become fruitful for eliciting food waste and such change in packaging size might reduce waste and contribute to the sustainable use of resources. Two starting points for initiating this process emerge from this review: First, reduce waste through the design of better and smarter packaging to keep food fresher for longer and protected while accommodating various consumer demands such as portion size and variety. Second, investigate in detail the interdependencies between food waste and packaging design when introducing circular economy principles for the food system. Thinking circular instead of linear One of the major challenges for redesigning the entire food system to promote a circular economy is that packaging solutions are designed and implemented in the food sector, but it is the waste sector that has the role of handling the produced waste. An urgent issue to resolve in this context is to secure new packaging designs
and new supply chain solutions for the entire food system point in the direction of circular economy and at the same time ensure that these solutions reduce the total life cycle impact that a given redesign represents. Circular economy or cradle-to-cradle thinking in relation to the food sector is less straight forward than other sectors because the food is by nature downgraded after consumption and processing and cannot be recycled as for instance like the components of a car, a computer or an office chair (Ellen McArthur Foundation, 2013). This is further challenged by the food sector and waste sector have widely different business logic (institutional, professional, and economic) and they only sparsely connect to develop collaborative solutions. The two sectors are connected through retailers where consumers purchase what they later consume and in the end turn into waste in their households (Gilbert, 1999). The retail sector therefore plays the crucial role as the link between stakeholders in the supply chain system and their logic on one side, and consumers, authorities, and waste-handlers with a different logic on the other (Durieu, 2003). However, in order to develop sustainable solutions that point in the direction of circular economy such collaboration is absolutely urgent and necessary as new and better solutions in one part of the system may produce worse outcome for the entire system in term of total impact in a life cycle assessment (LCA). Thus, besides investigating the total environmental impact of the existing food and waste system, it is important to develop a number of scenarios for a future circular economy based system and create LCA models from these scenarios. In turn, this could reveal that potential of food waste as an energy resource vis-à-vis biogas and a soil implement vis-à-vis compost. In order for products to be designed for recycling, consumers, distributors, manufacturers, and logistics services are all necessary actors to be considered when improving the system; each actor has a clear business case and motivation for participating. Mapping these systemic interdependencies and uncovering potential areas of synergies and conflicts are an important assignment for sustainable development. A revised business model is necessary to support the reduction of edible food waste. Discussion and final remarks Food waste is a serious challenge. This paper substantiates how it can be solved sustainably through a multi-stakeholder collaboration. One point of departure to this issue is the implementation of food systems thinking by all actors. From here, better targeting of initiatives, research, and interventions can take place. Agri-food systems develop within a finite and sometimes shrinking resource base. Therefore, they need to make use of natural resources in ways that are environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable. Growth of agri-food systems must be inclusive and target objectives beyond production, including efficiencies along the food chains. They must also promote sustainable practices and diets. (FAO, 2013b,c). The narrow Danish approach taken in this article serve as an example for a broader holistic approach to the reduction of food waste within the food system, which can only be achieved through the collaboration with both public and private entities, as well as changes in consumer behaviour. Moreover, the interrelation between food waste minimization and packaging, and access to efficient packaging materials and machinery from primary production to the end consumer. References Aastrup, J., Bjerre, M., Kornum, N., Kotzab, H., 2010. The Danish retail market: overview and highlights. Eur. Retail Res. 24 (1), 195–222.
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301 Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision. ESA Working Paper, Nr.12-03. FAO, Rome. Pp. Arla, 2012. Zero Waste. (accessed 07.07.13). Danmarks Radio, 2012. Singler smider tonsvis af mad ud. (retrieved 15.07.12). Dickson, P.R., Sawyer, A.G., 1990. The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. J. Mark. 54 (3), 42–53. Durieu, X., 2003. How Europe’s retail sector helps promote sustainable production. Ind. Environ. 26 (1), 7–9. EC, 2006. Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Related to Final Consumption of the EU-25. European Commission, Brussels. EC, 2010. Preparatory Study on Food Waste Across EU 27 October 2010. European Commission, Brussels (p. 213). EC, 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM (2011) 571. European Commission, Brussels. EC, 2012. Food Waste. (retrieved 22.11.12). EC, 2013. Advisory Group on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health – Working Group on Food Losses and Food Waste. (retrieved 12.10.13). ECONET, 2011. Organiske Restprodukter – En Vurdering af Potentiale og Behandlet Mængde. Miljøstyrelsen, Copenhagen. Ellen McArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. (retrieved 12.04.14). EP, 2011. How to Avoid Food Wastage: Strategies for a More Efficient Food Chain in the EU. European Parliament, Brussels. EP, 2012. European Parliament Resolution of 19 January 2012 on How to Avoid Food Wastage: Strategies for a More Efficient Food Chain in the EU. European Parliament, Brussels. Ettrup, B., Bjørn, B., 2002. Kortlægning af affald i dansk dagligvarehandel. Miljøstyrelsen, Copenhagen. FAO, 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO, 2013a. Food Wastage Footprint – Impacts on Natural Resources. FAO, Rome. FAO, 2013b. Sustainable Food Consumption and Production.
301
Jensen, J.D., 2011. Vurdering af det økonomiske omfang af madspild i Danmark. Fødevareøkonomisk instiut, Copenhagen. Kadiyali, V., Chintagunta, P., Vilcassim, N., 2000. Manufacturer-retailer channel interactions and implications for channel power: an empirical investigation of pricing in a local market. Mark. Sci. 19 (2), 127–148. Kjær, B., Werge, M., 2010. Forundersøgelse af Madspild i Danmark. Miljøstyrelsen, Copenhagen. Kornum, N., 1996. Forsyning og distribution af dagligvarer i Danmark – FDB og Dansk Supermarked som virksomhedseksempler. Paper presentation at Trafikdage, Aalborg. Kornum, N., 1998. Development of Retailer-Carrier Dyads and Structural InterLinkage with the Grocery Supply Chain. In: Paper published in Proceedings of NOFOMA 1998, pp. 189–203. Kotzab, H., Munch, H.M., de Faultrier, B., Teller, C., 2011. Environmental retail supply chains: when global Goliaths become environmental Davids. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 39 (9), 658–681. Kruse, F., 2011. Mindst holdbar til-mærkning skaber madspild. Samvirke, Hillerød (December edition). Kummu, M., Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010. Madspild koster danskerne 16 milliard. (retrieved 13.08.12). Landbrug og Fødevarer, Madspild. (retrieved 22.07.12). Marsden, T., Flynn, A., Harrison, M., 1997. Retailing, regulation and food consumption: the public interest in a privatised world? Agribusiness 13 (2), 211–226. Meulenberg, M., Viaene, J., 2002. Changing food marketing systems in western countries. In: Jongen, W., Meulenberg, M. (Eds.), Innovation of Food Production systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. Wageningen University and Research, Wagenigen, pp. 5–36. MFLF, 2011. Madspild i Danmark. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Copenhagen. Miljøministeret, 2012a. Kortlægning af dagrenovation i enfamilieboliger. Miljøministeret, Copenhagen. Miljøministeret, 2012b, Mindre Madspild. (retrieved 10.08.12). Morrison, C., 2001. Market and cost structure in the US beef packing industry: a plant-level analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83 (1), 64–76. Nijs, V.R., Misra, K., Hansen, K., 2014. Outsourcing retail pricing to a category captain: the role of information firewalls. Mark. Sci. 33 (1), 66–81. Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011. Initiatives on Prevention of Food Waste in the Retail and Wholesale Trades. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Nordic Council of Ministers, 2012. Prevention of Food Waste in Restaurants, Hotels, Canteens and Catering. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. O’Brien, J., 2012. Category Management in Purchasing: A Strategic Approach to Maximize Business Profitability. Kogan Page, London. OECD, 2010. Family Size and Household Composition. (retrieved 30.07.12). OECD/FAO, 2013. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2013–2022. OECD Publishing. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 3065–3081. Rema 1000, 2012. Meget Mindre Madspild. (retrieved 21.11.12). Stop Spild af Mad, 2012. Madspild i Tal. (retrieved 30.07.12). Tænk Forbrugerrådet, 2012. For Resten Danmark. (retrieved 16.08.12). Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Kalapurakal, R., 1996. Price search in the retail grocery market. J. Mark. 60 (2), 91–104. Weber, L., Mayer, K.J., Macher, J.T., 2011. An analysis of extendibility and early termination provisions: the importance of framing duration safeguards. Acad. Manage. J. 54 (1), 182–202 (NB – has to be changed in the text from (Weber, 2010) to (Weber, Mayer and Macher, 2011). Yoxall, A., Janson, R., 2008. Fact or friction: a model for understanding the openability of wide mouth closures. Pack. Technol. Sci. 21 (3), 137–147.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark Afton Halloran a,⇑, Jesper Clement c, Niels Kornum c, Camelia Bucatariu d,1, Jakob Magid b a
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Fredriksberg C, Denmark University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark c Center for Decision Neuroscience, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3C, 2000 Frederiksberg C, Denmark d Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Viale Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 October 2013 Received in revised form 1 May 2014 Accepted 8 September 2014
Keywords: Food and nutrition security Food waste Multi-stakeholder processes Natural resources Food systems Sustainability
a b s t r a c t Global food demand is driven by population and economic growth, and urbanization. One important instrument to meet this increasing demand and to decrease the pressure on food production is to minimize food losses and food waste. Food waste and loss is a major societal, economic, nutritional and environmental challenge. Using the case of Denmark, this paper analyses causes of food waste, and discusses how different stakeholders address the prevention and reuse of the €1.18 billion of annual edible food waste. Currently, the majority of food waste is still incinerated with energy recovery. However, improvements in technology have made it more efficient to utilize food waste for biogas and compost, which improves nutrient cycling through the food system. Major efforts to address food waste in Denmark have mainly been promoted through civil society groups with governmental support, as well as by industry. In order to better understand food waste and loss more research must be conducted on the total amount of food waste at every level of the food supply chain. Solutions can be found through improved communication, more efficient food packaging, and better in interpretation of food labels by consumers. Likewise, systems thinking may support an integrated agricultural and food system where food utilization is optimized and loss and waste of resources is reduced. In conclusion, sustainable solutions to the reduction of food waste in Denmark must include multi-stakeholders collaboration, especially public–private partnerships at the global level. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Global food demand is increasingly driven by population and economic growth, and urbanization. This trend is expected to continue over the coming decades, reaching a 60 per cent increase in the total current demand for food by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Additionally, emerging consumption patterns have implied a larger role for processed foods, creating new opportunities for value-added and income-generating activities. The minimization of food losses and waste can help to meet this increasing demand, and decrease pressure on food production. ⇑ Corresponding author. 1 Camelia Bucatariu is Policy Development Consultant at FAO working on food systems sustainability; policy/regulatory development; food loss/waste; strategy; resource use efficiency; green public procurement. Trained at EC and FAO and holds a Postgraduate Advanced Diploma in Policy development and European studies from European College of Parma with thesis cited in FAO/WHO. 2013. State of the art on the initiatives and activities relevant to risk assessment and risk management of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors: Bucatariu, C.A. 2011. Genetically modified organisms and nanotechnologies in food and feed: EU lessons learned [thesis]. Parma, Italy: European College of Parma Foundation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005 0306-9192/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Awareness of food losses and waste has grown at the international level: acknowledgement of food loss and waste was announced at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (known as Rio + 20) as a component of the Zero Hunger Challenge. Moreover, the 2013 comprehensive consultation conducted for the Post-2015 Agenda set the scene for goal identification. It contained Goal No. 5 on food and nutrition security, which included reduction of food loss and waste. Efforts are now concentrating on the identification of indicators that can be measured and monitored. In addition, the 2013 OECD/FAO Agricultural Outlook states that the expansion of agricultural production is likely to slow at least in the medium term, and that supply should keep up with demand at prices that are expected to remain relatively high (OECD/FAO, 2013). This paper uses the case of Denmark in order to understand how food waste can be reduced through the value chain. Denmark offers an interesting case study because of the relatively high degree of potential reduction in food waste. As a small country with a high degree of social capital defined by trust, we argue that within Denmark it is easier to encourage systemic change throughout the food supply chain. Denmark can also serve as an exemplary
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
295
test-site for innovation, evaluating what innovative elements in food waste prevention can be transferred to the EU and global context. We gather knowledge not previously published in one overall article and provide a snapshot of the current situation. We discuss the roles of various actors within the food system, their contributions, consequences, and available solutions to food waste.
priorities in other sectors (FAO, 2011). Kjær and Werge (2010) note that food wasted in Denmark is largely avoidable or partially avoidable. In other words they acknowledge some food waste will always occur and 100 per cent utilization is unrealistic.
Terms, definitions and identification of food waste
Until recently, food waste has been largely ignored due to the abundance of food. This has led to major amounts of waste, mainly at primary production and consumer levels (European Parliament, 2011). Food consumption has been identified as one of the most resource demanding and polluting activities within a household (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Even with substantial technological improvements to keep food lasting longer over the course of the food supply chain an unnecessary amount of food is still wasted. Moreover, a clear understanding of the actual scale of food waste at both global and at national levels is lacking (Parfitt et al., 2010). A variety of supply chain actors influence the decision-making processes of other actors in the supply chain making food loss a dynamic flow. Consequently, actors’ flow-related decisions become interdependent and by that the network structure influence food losses. The structure of the food supply chain in Denmark has in last decade of the twentieth century been characterized by consolidations in the primary sector and a reduction of enterprises in the processing industry. This consolidation is characterized by a reduction in the numbers of firms on each level in the supply chain, and with minor reduction in the number of links in the chain (Baker, 2003). Besides fruits and vegetables, the wholesale link in the food supply chain has been made redundant and has become embedded in a retailers’ business strategy or producers’ business strategy. Kadiyali et al. (2000) also found this tendency emphasizing the significant increase of power at the retail level. The question of who holds the bargaining power is more a matter of economy and having exclusive access to information (Nijs et al., 2014). FAO (2011) find food losses as a direct cause of lack of coordination between actors within the food system together with cultural, social and economic factors. Moreover, a clear understanding of the actual scale of food waste at both global and at national levels is lacking (Parfitt et al., 2010). We discuss the aspects of knowledge sharing further in relation to actors in food waste, the contributing factors to food waste, and the consequences associated with these factors. Fig. 2 provides an overview of the types of wasted food products at different levels in the value chain. Beyond the direct reason for food waste several actors within the food supply chain contribute indirectly to food waste by influencing consumer behaviour for example through packaging sizes, sale promotions or discounts. A lack of systemic evidence blurs the image of what actually causes food waste and prevent significant national and global changes, as well as potential to measure reductions (Parfitt et al., 2010). Moreover, knowledge of how to prevent food waste throughout the food system is relatively limited. Worldwide 30 per cent of cereals, 40–50 per cent of root crops and fruits & vegetables, 20 per cent of oilseeds and meat & dairy, and 30 per cent of fish end up lost or wasted along the food supply chain (FAO, 2011). Farm to fork losses have an €1.1 billion annual economic cost in Denmark, which is in line with the European average. Sixty-six per cent of food is wasted from farm to retail (Jensen, 2011; Mogensen et al., 2011). When converted into food waste per person, each European wastes 280 kg/year, 185 kg of which derives from farm to retail and 95 kg from households (FAO, 2011).
All food systems rely upon natural resources such as water and land. Moreover, a significant amount of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, energy, and labour are used to produce, then process, transport, distribute, store, and make food available for human consumption. Consequently, food waste is a waste of land, water, energy and inputs, as well as an unnecessary contributing factor to climate change (FAO, 2011; FAO, 2013a,b; Kummu et al., 2012). At all levels of the food supply chain greenhouse gases (GHG) are emitted (Garnett, 2011), making food consumption one of the largest direct and indirect contributors to climate change (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Food losses or waste refers to the food lost or wasted along the food supply chain providing edible products for human consumption. According to the FAO Save Food initiative, food loss and waste ‘‘is measured only for products that are directed to human consumption, excluding feed and parts of products which are not edible’’ (FAO, 2011). The cause of food waste The perception of food waste depends on the definition of food waste itself. Food waste dichotomises into two categories (Fig. 1): Edible food waste and non-edible food waste. Within the EU, food waste is generally understood to mean all of the foodstuffs discarded from the food supply chain still perfectly edible and fit for human consumption. These products are ultimately eliminated and disposed of for economic or aesthetic reasons, or because of the closeness to the ‘use by’ or ‘best before’ date. Consequently, this generates negative externalities from an environmental point of view, and causes increases in overall economic costs and a loss of revenue for businesses (European Parliament, 2011). Due to the products natural appearance and design, waste can also be a consequence of consumption habits like peeling a banana or eating a potato with the skin on. Food waste occurs at all levels of the food system in the form of edible crops left in the field, losses through transport, food discarded in packaging or poor stock management (Parfitt et al., 2010). While much of this waste is inevitable, the majority of food waste is preventable. On a per-capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries. It is estimated that the per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and NorthAmerica is 95–115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa or in South/Southeast Asia is only 6–11 kg/year. Food waste in developed countries, like Denmark, is generally related to consumer behaviour, as well as to policies and regulations that address
Raw materials with the potential to be eaten by humans
Food with the potential to be eaten
Inedible fraction removed within the supply chain
Actors and trends that influence food losses
Primary sector – food producers Food eaten
Food waste
Fig. 1. Wasted resources in the food production system.
The primary sector contains producers of basic food products. These producers range from large-scale commercial producers to
296
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
Primary sector
Economic index
Major types of wasted food
Vegetables
Food processors
Dairy products Meat
Wholesalers and retailers
Commercial kitchens
Consumers and households
Food waste processors
Vegetables Cereals
Vegetables Cereals Meat
Vegetables Cereals Dairy products Meat
Vegetables Cereals Dairy products Meat
1 0,5 (not relevant)
eatable
0
Volume index
1 0,5
uneatable eatable
0
Actors
Farmers Horticultures
Slaughterhouses Dairies Manufactures
Distributers Supermarkets Shops
Canteens Restaurants
Consumers Citizens
Public and private waste handlers
Fig. 2. The major types of food products wasted at different stages in the value chain roughly shown as index. Source: CONSITO, 2011 and Jensen, 2011.
family farmers. The Danish food supply chain is characterized by a relatively high percentage of small firms with less than 50 employees in the primary sector (Baker, 2003). A significant amount of potentially edible products are lost in the primary sector, including dead or discarded animals and wasted grain in the field. In Denmark, 541,000 tonnes of food are lost in this sector per year. This total amount surpasses that of household food waste (CONSITO, 2011). A large percentage of food wasted in this sector is due to standardisation in terms of sizing, quality and varieties demanded by stakeholders in later parts of the chain, for example wholesalers, large kitchens, and retailers. Food processors Food processors contribute rather minimally food waste. Although very little data is available on this group of actors estimates show that edible food waste is only 1–2 per cent of total production (Mogensen et al., 2011). Processing of milk and dairy products contribute an estimated 71,000 tonnes of food waste annually, while meat and meat products, as well as fruit and vegetable processing contributes roughly 34,000 and 30,000 tonnes respectively (Jensen, 2011). However, some of this food waste is inedible, and should rather be classified as bi-products (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Wholesalers and retailers Danish hypermarkets, warehouses, mini-markets, discount stores and supermarkets create 45,676 tonnes of food waste per year. The majority of the food waste in the wholesale and retail sector is from fruits and vegetables, bread and yoghurt (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). On average retailer creates approximately 165–562 kg of food waste per every €130,000 of turnover (Ettrup and Bjørn, 2002). Small and large supermarkets dominate the Danish retail sector. However, discount stores are comprising a substantial and growing market share. Wholesale and grocery retailing are dominated by three groups; Coop Denmark, Dansk Supermarked Gruppen, and Dagrofa. These groups control about 87 per cent of total grocery turnover (Aastrup et al., 2010). Small and specialized stores like butchers, green grocers and bakeries play a minor role in the Danish retail sector (Baker, 2003) and by that an insignificant role in food waste.
Commercial kitchens Commercial kitchens are defined as any kitchen that makes food for a group of people and generates over 100 kg of food per week. This type of kitchen is found in hotels, workplaces with canteens, and institutions like child care facilities, hospitals, or universities. The total food waste created in workplace canteens in Denmark is 33,138 tonnes per year. Forty-two per cent of this amount originates from public services (ECONET, 2011). Consumers and households Food products contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions (European Comission, 2006). However, a study of Danish consumers found that Danes do not associate food waste with negative environmental impacts or climate change (Beck et al., 2011). However, the EU Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to final consumption the category ‘‘food and drink, tobacco and narcotics’’ is responsible for 20–30 per cent of total environmental impacts (from cradleto-grave) in the EU. These impacts are categorized as abiotic depletion, acidification, ecotoxicity, global warming, eutrophication, human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and photochemical oxidation (European Commission, 2006). Within the consumption category of ‘‘food and drink, tobacco and narcotics’’ the entire life cycle of meat and meat products (cradle-to-grave) carry the largest environmental burden, and contribute to an estimated 4–12 per cent share of global warming. These impacts are assumed to increase due to integration of new member states (ibid.). Of the various actors who contribute to food waste, Danish households create 50 per cent of the total amount, or approximately 237,000 tonnes annually (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Edible and inedible food waste makes up nearly half of Danish household waste. According to a 2012 study on the contents of family’s wastebaskets1 total annual edible food waste was found to be 42 kg, and another 34 kg was found to be inedible (Miljøministeret, 2012a). A Danish household generates 1.42 kg per week of vegetable waste, of which 1.1 kg is unprocessed and 0.32 is processed food waste. This amounts to 1.46 kg of inedible food waste thrown out per week (ibid.). 1 This research did not take into account for edible food waste poured down the sink like milk or sauce. Thus, this study shows only what ends up in the wastebasket.
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
In economic terms, Danish households are the largest culprits of food waste. Household food waste amounts to €2.15 million per year (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010). Approximately 20 per cent of the food Danes buy end up in the waste bin. This equates to enough food for one million Danes a year (ibid.). On average, Danish households waste €390 of edible food annually (Tænk Forbrugerrådet, 2012), with €125 of this total amount produced over the course of the Christmas holiday. Similar amounts of waste are also produced during the Easter holidays (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010 in Stop Spild af Mad, 2012). Use of ‘‘best before,’’ was adopted by the EU in 1979. However, it was poorly translated into Danish and has caused confusion amongst consumers ever since (Kruse, 2011). Danish consumers, like most European consumers, are uncertain of how to read and interpret the ‘‘best before’’ dates on packaging (ibid). As a consequence, many consumers throw food away when they are uncertain whether if it safe or not to eat (Beck et al., 2011). In one study by Beck et al. (2011), half of the consumers interviewed interpreted ‘‘best before’’ label as ‘‘inedible after.’’ Culturally, not all food waste is considered unacceptable; while it may not be acceptable to throw unopened packages of food away, uneaten food from a plate is often perceived as more socially acceptable. Since meat still is the centre of most Danish dishes, foodstuffs with a lower status, like bread and vegetables, are easier and more culturally acceptable to throw away. Additionally, most leftovers are forgotten in the refrigerator and thrown out if they have not been consumed after four days (ibid.). Food waste processors Biological treatment of food waste is only available in a few places, but it is only a viable solution if the treatment facility can handle packaged food. Instead, most food waste is incinerated with energy recovery. Retail and wholesale sectors have agreements with private waste companies to transport their waste to an incineration facility. Waste for recycling is the responsibility of the retail sector. On the other hand, waste for incineration is the responsibility of the local government, which directs the waste to a specific incineration plant (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). Due to EU regulations the system for separate collection of food waste from restaurants and canteens to animal feed no longer exists, as it has been withdrawn in 2003 (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2012). Regulations and private/public initiatives As the understanding of the food waste issue has grown, so have international, regional and national targets to reduce food waste. This review will make reference to these targets as they were expressed, acknowledging that they represent differences in quantity and timeframes for achievement. Starting from 2011, targets for reduction of food loss and food waste have been put forward by European Institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament, such as halving edible food waste by 2020 or 2025 respectively (EC, 2012; EP, 2012). However, progress on the knowledge at the EU level, as well as the global level have put into question the feasibility and coherence of such targets considering that there is still a need to improve quantification of food loss and waste along with monitoring and identification of feasible medium to long-term solutions. In the beginning of 2012 the European Parliament passed a resolution to target the reduction of food waste. Consequently, the European Commission called on member states to reduce food waste by 50 per cent before 2025 pushing ahead by 5 years the target set by the European Commission in 2011 (EP, 2012). According
297
to the European Commission, a lack of knowledge of European food waste is a major barrier to any possible future solutions: ‘‘More information on the issue [is] necessary to determine the scale of the problem and to identify appropriate measures that could be taken’’ (EC, 2010:11). As a European Union member state, Denmark is subject to the current European Commission efforts to reduce in country food waste by 50 per cent before 2020 as set by the 2011 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011). Private initiatives in Denmark Research on food waste in Denmark has typically taken the ‘‘garbage can’s point of view.’’ Thus, there is a relatively good understanding of the composition of the food that is wasted (Beck et al., 2011). However, recognition of the social, economic and environmental costs of food waste has been developing over recent years through push from civil society and government. Action against food waste began predominantly as a consumer movement in Denmark. Leading this movement is ‘‘Stop Spild af Mad’’ (Stop Wasting Food) with the aim of raising awareness about food waste (www.stopspildafmad.dk). The movement is supported by Danish consumers, Members of the European Parliament, Members of Danish Parliament, top Danish chefs, and food personalities. The Danish Consumer Council (www.tænk.dk) has also initiated a campaign to increase consumer awareness of food waste. Public initiatives in Denmark A variety of governmental initiatives have surfaced over the previous years. These include a stakeholder conference connecting public and private stakeholders, as well as a series of studies on food waste throughout the Danish food system. In 2011 the Danish Ministry of the Environment established a voluntary ‘‘Initiative Group Against Food Waste’’ where stakeholders representing the public and private sectors could work together to achieve reduced food waste in the Danish food system. From these meetings the ‘‘Charter on Less Food Waste’’ was created and signed by 19 major stakeholders such as various supermarket chains, restaurants, ministries, and hotel chains (Miljøministeret, 2012b). Knock-on effect on industry The private sector has also begun to look at the role they play the creation of food waste; Arla Foods, Denmark’s largest dairy producer, adopted a zero waste vision to reduce consumer food waste by 50 per cent by 2020. This is to be accomplished through the better design of packaging and portion sizes, as well as assisting consumers to better plan food purchasing. Additionally, Arla Foods plan to use food waste from production level as animal feed or in biogas production (Arla, 2012). In another private sector initiative, the discount food store REMA 1000 stopped its buy ‘3 for 2’ sales in 2008 and now only sells by the piece in an attempt to reduce food waste (Rema 1000, 2012). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions In a saturated food market measured in volumetric growth (Marsden et al., 1997) and with fewer and more dominant firms, cost savings through economies of scale and scope is one way to increase profits (Morrison, 2001). Another is a value-added approach through increased quality (Meulenberg and Viaene, 2002), product innovation, or through the discovery of new channels (Hughes, 2002). Little economic incentive to reduce food waste exists within the current food supply chain (Jensen, 2011). This might derive from a general lack of information, as well as
298
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
incentives for retailers to order the correct amounts of food because they often can send it back to producers and wholesalers without severe repercussions (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). Moreover, few retailers promote staff participation in training schemes, advanced vocational training, and workshops. Few staff acts as disseminators and role models in the responsible handling of food. Finally, there are currently few financial incentives for households to reduce their food waste (Jensen, 2011). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to primary agricultural producers The significant volume of raw products lost in this sector makes it relevant to look for ways to minimize the waste. On the production level in the food supply chain there is a need for coordinating activities to achieve the ‘‘just in time’’ demand (Kornum, 1996; Kornum, 1998). This is the case especially for agricultural products, like milk, fruit and meat; these products have to be delivered in fresh conditions (Boon, 2001). An uncertainty in daily quantity ordering for these types of products leads to varied daily production and with the risk of overproduction to ensure supply. In order to optimize and to avoid waste it requires coordination, which again implies insights with production and logistic, and at best a horticultural knowledge sharing towards marketing and selling giving insights into later parts of the supply chain. Lack of loyalty and trust between retailers and producers lead to breach of contract (Weber, 2010) and longer contract periods and contract farming are suggestions from FAO (2011). Price reduction on day-old bread or close to expiry date is not only a problem for retailers. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to food processors A large portion of food waste generated at the primary production level originates from sizing demands. Due to marketing mechanisms and demands from retailers, fruits and vegetables, which do not fit into the required sizing demands often will not make it into the market (MFLF, 2011). At the supermarket level most fruits and vegetables are sold by the piece and not by weight, unless packaged. This means that under- and oversized-produce cannot be sold to supermarkets and are often discarded automatically at the production level (ibid.). The regulation on quality standards (Commission Regulation N°1221/2008) provides marketing standards for certain fruits and vegetables. These standards are rules related to e.g. size, shape, and how fruits and vegetables should look like. These standards are not based on safety criteria and it causes loss of food products that could have been eaten. Abolishment of such rules could decrease the amount of food waste, and the number of products for which quality standards are set has in EU recently been reduced from 36 to 10. Optimization for transport focuses mainly on material suitable for handling, size in relation to modular systems, and weight reduction. However the criterion protection has a direct influence on food waste. It concerns the balance between over-packaging versus under-packaging and loss of goods, which in economic terms is the monetary value, lost in wasted goods during distribution and product sales. It has been estimated that for developing countries up to 50 per cent of food produced is lost due to poor packaging. Moreover, up to 10 per cent of all fruit and vegetables shipped in the EU are destroyed along the way. Enormous resources go into producing, transporting, storing these goods, which are lost mainly because of inadequate packaging (EC, 2012).
Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to wholesalers and retailers European leading retailers have already adapted sustainability in their business strategy with some national differences (Bobe and Dragomir, 2010). A large span of initiatives in the retail sector was found by Kotzab et al. (2011), yet they also found a rather narrow and short-term view on these issues and nearly no orientation towards long-term initiatives. These retailers see advantages in communicating sustainability to their stakeholders, but at the same time they are looking for tools and measures allowing them to visualize benefit, progress, and performance in relation to widely accepted sustainability standards and public/government targets for recirculation (Bobe and Dragomir, 2010). Retailers’ optimization has been and still are practiced through category management (O’Brien, 2012), which attempts to find the right balance in, for example, product range, new product promotions, in point of sale advertising, and in shelf design. Incentives for doing category management are, on one hand, due to economic optimization, and, on the other to gain insights on a specific market that will ultimately be beneficial for suppliers (Aastrup et al., 2010). From a retailer’s point of view, waste is part of the planning, and the inappropriateness of having unsold goods is a greater disadvantage than to discard goods, which have exceeded their best before date. As mentioned earlier category management is a matter of knowledge and access to information, although there is no clear optimal way of doing this or clarity in variables to measure and share. From retailers point of view it is at matter of having the optimal mix of product/brands on the shelf and the producer seek to optimize their own products/brand. Authorities are on the other hand worried about too much knowledge sharing leading to anticompetitive behavior that will harm consumers and argue for information firewalls (Nijs et al., 2014). Customers’ strong focus on freshness means that goods with long shelf life are a bad signal to send and it often results in discards quite some time before the expiration date. The EU regulation on ‘‘best before’’ date is a balance between the dual purpose of food security and food waste reduction and solving this point at customer education through awareness campaigns. Although fresh bread can last for several days it is thrown away if unsold on expiration day. Retailers have introduced discounts on goods that are close to expiration date, if necessary through automated reduction of the price at the check-out counter, and it could be supplemented with creative recipe databases building on ‘‘empty the refrigerator’’ ideas. Discounts on food items are often offered in large quantities, such as ‘‘three for two’’ deals or ‘‘economy size.’’ These economysized packages can often become a source of food waste in single households due to too large quantities, and not enough time to consume them before their expiry date. Approximately 60 per cent of single Danes demand smaller packaging in supermarkets, especially for meat, vegetables, and sandwich foods (Danmarks Radio, 2012). Single households make up 37 per cent of all households in Denmark (OECD, 2010). It is these households that create the most food waste when compared to households with several occupants (Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2011). However, most consumers do not see themselves as ‘‘food wasters,’’ therefore as Beck et al. (2011) argue it is hard to fight food waste through targeted campaigns about morals or savings, as it may not institute much change. Food waste from the retail and wholesale sectors is generally handled as mixed municipal solid waste. However, these stakeholders can also choose to separate the waste themselves before collection by a private company (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). The hidden potential for nutrient cycling and energy harvesting within the food system through the use of in-vessel dual
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
biogas and composting facilities has yet to be realised. This process presents dual benefits and relatively loss-free nutrient cycling. However, incineration is currently the most affordable option for post processing of food waste. The processing of one tonne of waste costs approximately 67€, while incineration costs 60€ per tonne in Copenhagen, and 33.50€ outside of the Copenhagen (CONCITO, 2011). Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to commercial kitchens A lot of food served in canteens is made in another kitchen. This causes food waste because these kitchens are unaware of the amount to make, especially in buffet style canteens. This waste may be reduced by bringing production closer to customers and by serving food in measured portions, rather than a buffet. Initiatives to donate uneaten food from hotels, canteens, and commercial kitchens to the homeless have already been implemented. However, there are some limitations reducing the impact on food waste from this sector. For example, donated food must remain unopened and must not exceed last selling day. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to consumers and households The criterion of shelf impact is a matter of a packaging design able to get consumers’ attention in-store. The majority of the items on the shelf get no visual attention at all (Clement et al., 2013), meaning these products have not been considered as an opportunity for a purchase. In general, consumers do not have a complete overview of their purchase as they enter a supermarket; they get inspired, disturbed or confused by what they see on the shelf. Furthermore, the actual decision may be taken solely on visual cues. The study by Clement et al. (2013) was made in a large Danish supermarket and found same tendency as earlier studies, that a majority (85 per cent) of consumers make a decision without having the product in hand or having picked up any alternative item (Urbany et al., 1996) and 90 per cent of consumers make a purchase after only having examined the front of the packaging (Dickson and Sawyer, 1990). A common habit for choosing the largest or highest quantum seems to play a decisive role in-store. Subsequently consumers acknowledge this ‘‘silly behaviour,’’ but in the moment of the decision they use their gut feeling for making a good purchase and the need for ‘‘value for money’’ most often overrules any rationality. Consumers simply choose with their eyes and larger packaging with larger shelf impact captures consumers’ in-store attention, although it often ends up as food waste at home. Inappropriate packaging size causes food to be thrown away because the total amount cannot be consumed before the product gets spoiled. The solution lies in the direction of accommodate package sizes to suit the needs of customer segments using different types of shops e.g. e-shops. Other ideas are to create packages with separate compartments and less sales on large amounts of a product might also contribute to a reduction in food waste. Contributing factors, consequences and solutions related to food waste processors and treatment
299
optimization becomes too complicated and plays minor role in packaging discourse (Bech-Larsen, 1996). Uneatable food thrown away rather than recycled and therefore not utilized to its full potential as a limited resource of the food system, does also count as food loss. Collection of organic waste from households is too costly to sort mechanically which makes digestation processes cost effective and many households separate organic waste incorrectly. On the other hand there is potentiality for the retail sector for use of well-sorted and safe food waste to feed pigs and poultry. Health and safety currently sets the restrictions on such use, on which both industry and research should contribute for further development. Further utilization is the potential use of disposed food in anaerobic digestation processes (biogas and compost outputs). Solutions, incentives, and obstacles Sharing knowledge and obtaining fruitful insights from stakeholder groups discussing packaging waste reduction and material minimization have challenges and benefits. Basically, there is a discrepancy between a well-planned recycling system with standardized packaging and minimized diversity in use of material. On the other hand, there is also a need for differentiation through packaging shape, size, and other visible elements. Shared information and knowledge In Denmark relatively little information on food waste in shops is shared among stakeholders. Within each stakeholder group in the food supply chain sporadic knowledge and data of food waste is available. Stakeholders lose the broader perspective when a narrow-minded view on values related to the next link in the supply chain is applied. Industrial kitchens and wholesalers have available data on food waste, yet a standardisation of data from primary producers is not available or non-existent for the moment, making total amounts difficult to estimate (Kjær and Werge, 2010). This calls for a common agreement on how to generate data and which data to share in a standardized form such as data on specific foods wasted, as well as total amount of food wasted. Because of communication between actors, choices made by stakeholders ultimately affect the choices made by other stakeholders’ up- or downstream in the food value chain. This is due to the high connectivity and interdependencies of all actors within the food system. Thus, no single stakeholder can be blamed for the generation of food waste, as every stakeholder has played a role it its creation. Insights and shared knowledge in a standardized form among the stakeholder groups in food supply chain is placed among other initiatives for reaching that target the ambitious 2025 goal of food waste reduction. Whether the goals are reachable at the EU National and/or regional level within 2020 or 2025 is still a matter of debate. An uncertainty over just how much food is wasted and its potential to be post-processed through animal feed, digestation or compost has to be solved. Without those amounts the true environmental impact on the food system and the best way to prevent the waste is difficult to estimate. Broadening legislation
The environmental impact from packaging is obvious for most stakeholders, as it becomes the visible waste after the product is used. As long as the functionality is clearly related to appropriate handling and protection packaging is not seen as pure waste, whereas double packaging like a toothpaste tube packed in cardboard is considered inappropriate. Focus on minimizing and reducing packaging material is seen as a core challenge, whereas leveraging different packaging parameters against each other for
Standardization and regulations for food safety can lead to increased food waste. For example, the current EU legislation on the shelf life of eggs permits a seven-day timeframe between the last day that they eggs can be sold to consumers and the last day the eggs are of the highest quality direct consumer utilization, and not for reasons of food safety. Although this legislation has been created in order to prevent salmonella in countries where
300
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301
refrigeration of eggs does not occur, this is not an issue of high concern for Denmark, as eggs are refrigerated (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). However, EU legislation notes that after expiry of the ‘‘sell by’’ date for consumers’ eggs can no longer be sold for direct human consumption (EC, 2013). Current EU legislation implemented by Denmark, as by all of the other Member States of the EU, bans the feeding of by-products to animals from the retail and wholesale sector (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2011). A precondition for food waste/loss use as feed is that traceability is preserved along the chain according to the General Food Law principles (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) and safety according to the Feed Hygiene requirements (Regulation (EC) No 183/2005) and the only way to achieve this is to ensure that, at any point of the chain, food waste/loss remains under the scope of the food law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002). Therefore, careful consideration of the classification of, for example, former foodstuffs as waste have to take place in order to ensure that the resource is optimally used (EC, 2013). There is no all-inclusive legislation on food waste in Denmark or at the EU level. Nonetheless, there are pieces of legislation that affect the generation and reduction of food waste and the generation of this food waste. Thus, the need for a better understanding of overall food waste and avoidable food waste is seriously critically needed in order to meet the ambitious targets, as any national figures are relative estimates (Kjær and Werge, 2010). Nonetheless, substantial steps to influence private actors throughout the food supply chain are being made. These include ‘‘Stop Spild af Mad’’ and the Danish Government’s Food Waste Charter. Furthermore, some private firms have acknowledged the social, environmental and economic consequences of food waste and have instituted their own initiatives. However, a lack of well-targeted incentives to reduce food waste prevents systemic change from occurring over the course of the whole food system. Packaging as a part of a solution The greatest existing knowledge base of food waste is on household level. Most efforts both from government and civil society are targeting consumption behaviours of households, as they create the largest percentage of food waste in the food supply chain. However, consumers make purchasing decisions and ultimately determine what to eat they can only make decisions by what is available to them by the retailer. On a large scale, the packaging concept of accessibility has been related to ‘‘easy to open’’ packaging, and how manufacturers can develop and improve access to the product. This issue primarily addresses elderly or disabled consumers (Yoxall and Janson, 2008), yet accessibility is also a matter of getting the right volume of a particular product. Broadening the concept of accessibility might become fruitful for eliciting food waste and such change in packaging size might reduce waste and contribute to the sustainable use of resources. Two starting points for initiating this process emerge from this review: First, reduce waste through the design of better and smarter packaging to keep food fresher for longer and protected while accommodating various consumer demands such as portion size and variety. Second, investigate in detail the interdependencies between food waste and packaging design when introducing circular economy principles for the food system. Thinking circular instead of linear One of the major challenges for redesigning the entire food system to promote a circular economy is that packaging solutions are designed and implemented in the food sector, but it is the waste sector that has the role of handling the produced waste. An urgent issue to resolve in this context is to secure new packaging designs
and new supply chain solutions for the entire food system point in the direction of circular economy and at the same time ensure that these solutions reduce the total life cycle impact that a given redesign represents. Circular economy or cradle-to-cradle thinking in relation to the food sector is less straight forward than other sectors because the food is by nature downgraded after consumption and processing and cannot be recycled as for instance like the components of a car, a computer or an office chair (Ellen McArthur Foundation, 2013). This is further challenged by the food sector and waste sector have widely different business logic (institutional, professional, and economic) and they only sparsely connect to develop collaborative solutions. The two sectors are connected through retailers where consumers purchase what they later consume and in the end turn into waste in their households (Gilbert, 1999). The retail sector therefore plays the crucial role as the link between stakeholders in the supply chain system and their logic on one side, and consumers, authorities, and waste-handlers with a different logic on the other (Durieu, 2003). However, in order to develop sustainable solutions that point in the direction of circular economy such collaboration is absolutely urgent and necessary as new and better solutions in one part of the system may produce worse outcome for the entire system in term of total impact in a life cycle assessment (LCA). Thus, besides investigating the total environmental impact of the existing food and waste system, it is important to develop a number of scenarios for a future circular economy based system and create LCA models from these scenarios. In turn, this could reveal that potential of food waste as an energy resource vis-à-vis biogas and a soil implement vis-à-vis compost. In order for products to be designed for recycling, consumers, distributors, manufacturers, and logistics services are all necessary actors to be considered when improving the system; each actor has a clear business case and motivation for participating. Mapping these systemic interdependencies and uncovering potential areas of synergies and conflicts are an important assignment for sustainable development. A revised business model is necessary to support the reduction of edible food waste. Discussion and final remarks Food waste is a serious challenge. This paper substantiates how it can be solved sustainably through a multi-stakeholder collaboration. One point of departure to this issue is the implementation of food systems thinking by all actors. From here, better targeting of initiatives, research, and interventions can take place. Agri-food systems develop within a finite and sometimes shrinking resource base. Therefore, they need to make use of natural resources in ways that are environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable. Growth of agri-food systems must be inclusive and target objectives beyond production, including efficiencies along the food chains. They must also promote sustainable practices and diets. (FAO, 2013b,c). The narrow Danish approach taken in this article serve as an example for a broader holistic approach to the reduction of food waste within the food system, which can only be achieved through the collaboration with both public and private entities, as well as changes in consumer behaviour. Moreover, the interrelation between food waste minimization and packaging, and access to efficient packaging materials and machinery from primary production to the end consumer. References Aastrup, J., Bjerre, M., Kornum, N., Kotzab, H., 2010. The Danish retail market: overview and highlights. Eur. Retail Res. 24 (1), 195–222.
A. Halloran et al. / Food Policy 49 (2014) 294–301 Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision. ESA Working Paper, Nr.12-03. FAO, Rome. Pp. Arla, 2012. Zero Waste.
301
Jensen, J.D., 2011. Vurdering af det økonomiske omfang af madspild i Danmark. Fødevareøkonomisk instiut, Copenhagen. Kadiyali, V., Chintagunta, P., Vilcassim, N., 2000. Manufacturer-retailer channel interactions and implications for channel power: an empirical investigation of pricing in a local market. Mark. Sci. 19 (2), 127–148. Kjær, B., Werge, M., 2010. Forundersøgelse af Madspild i Danmark. Miljøstyrelsen, Copenhagen. Kornum, N., 1996. Forsyning og distribution af dagligvarer i Danmark – FDB og Dansk Supermarked som virksomhedseksempler. Paper presentation at Trafikdage, Aalborg. Kornum, N., 1998. Development of Retailer-Carrier Dyads and Structural InterLinkage with the Grocery Supply Chain. In: Paper published in Proceedings of NOFOMA 1998, pp. 189–203. Kotzab, H., Munch, H.M., de Faultrier, B., Teller, C., 2011. Environmental retail supply chains: when global Goliaths become environmental Davids. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 39 (9), 658–681. Kruse, F., 2011. Mindst holdbar til-mærkning skaber madspild. Samvirke, Hillerød (December edition). Kummu, M., Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. Landbrug og Fødevarer, 2010. Madspild koster danskerne 16 milliard.