The very extent of food losses and waste invites to consider them not as an accident but as an integral
part of food systems. Food losses and waste are consequences of the way food systems function,
technically, culturally and economically. The report analyses food losses and waste in a triple perspective: a systemic perspective, a sustainability perspective, including the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability, and a food security and nutrition perspective, looking at how food losses and waste relate to the various dimensions of food security and nutrition.
Main findings – Scope and extent of food losses and waste
1. Food losses and waste have been approached by two different angles: either from a waste
perspective, with the associated environmental concerns, or from a food perspective, with the associated food security concerns. This duality of approaches has often led to confusions on the definition and scope of food losses and waste, contributing to unreliability and lack of clarity of data.
2. The report adopts a food security and nutrition lens and defines food losses and waste (FLW) as
“a decrease, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption,in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of the cause”.
For the purpose of terminology, the report makes the distinction between food losses,occurring before
consumption level regardless of the cause , and food waste, occurring at consumption level regardless of the cause. It further proposes to define food quality loss or waste (FQLW) which refers to the decrease of a quality attribute of food (nutrition, aspect, etc.), linked to the degradation of the product, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption.
3. There are numerous studies on FLW with diverse scopes and methodologies, making them difficult to compare. At the global level, recent studies use the data compiled for the FAO report published in 2011, which estimated global FLW at one third of food produced for human consumption in mass (equivalent to 1.3 billion tonnes per year), or one quarter as measured in calories.
4. The distribution of FLW along the food chain varies greatly by region and product. In middle and
high- income countries, most of the FLW occur at distribution and consumption; in low income
countries , FLW are concentrated at production and post-harvest. Per-capita FLW peaks at 280–
300 kg/cap/year in Europe and North America and amounts to 120–170 kg/cap/year in sub- Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia.
5. Different definitions, different metrics, different measurement protocols and the lack of standards
for data collectionadapted to different countries and products, makes it difficult – and sometimes impossible–
to compare studies, systems and countries. There is also no agreed method to evaluate the quality of data, method and numbers produced. This situation is a huge barrier to understanding and identifying the causes and extent of FLW, the potential for solutions, the priorities for action and the monitoring of progress in reducing FLW. This is why there are currently strong calls for the development of global protocols to measure FLW, taking into account the large number of variables and country specificities, towards a harmonization of definitions and measurement methods, with a view to improve the reliability, comparability and transparency of data
Consumers will have to play a great role in the reduction of FLW. Household waste results from a complex set of drivers and factors such as income level, household size, urbanization,infrastructure,the structure of the food supply chain, food cultures,trust in businesses and institutions(including infood safety regulations), and awareness levels, etc.Reduction of consumer waste will result from more sustainable buying, cooking and eating behaviour. Different type of interventions can support this, such as awareness – raising campaigns, experimental interventions, social community approaches,education of young urban and rural people, and women empowerment. Attempts to restore the true value of food,and to restore consumers’ recognition of how food is produced and valued in the supply chain,will also lead to reduced consumer waste, as rural–urban movements such as the Slow Food presidiums can show, or as “pick and pay” self-picking initiatives demonstrate.