Food Waste

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/PB60

Key Points

This briefing assesses interventions to prevent edible food waste. While there is some uncertainty, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) estimates that in 2021 the UK wasted 10.7 million tonnes of food, worth over £22 billion. Food waste accounts for 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). If food waste were a country, it would be the world’s third largest emitter after China and the USA.  

There are hundreds of potential interventions to reduce food waste. However, as most are not supported by evidence, and few legislative approaches have been implemented, policymakers seeking to tackle the issue would need to act with limited knowledge.  

While efforts have focussed on reducing downstream, especially household food waste, evidence suggests changes across the supply chain are needed. Studies note that achieving reductions in one part of the supply chain may require expenditure or profit losses elsewhere.  

Measures at the farm-level will be required to reduce total food waste levels. The evidence base for short food supply chains in reducing food waste on farms is limited. Some argue that Whole Crop Purchasing is preferable to “Wonky Veg” initiatives, although more studies are needed.  

Several studies demonstrate that information sharing and collaboration across the supply chain could improve forecasting accuracy, avoid overproduction, and reduce food waste. Various supply chain techniques and technologies could improve information sharing, inventory management, and forecasts. However, publicly available evidence that these measures can cost-effectively reduce food waste in practice is lacking. Academics and other commentators also argue that suppliers need incentives and support to implement measures like accurate forecasting and measuring food waste. 

Most published studies test interventions downstream. Nutritional guidelines and changing portion and plate sizes/types have been shown to reduce downstream food waste. However, the evidence base is limited for many widely recommended measures, including information and awareness campaigns; social norm or nudge interventions; apps; and smart kitchen devices. Effective interventions mostly achieve reductions smaller than the 50% required to meet UN Sustainable Development Goal 12.3.  

Evidence suggests applying date labels consistently (and only when necessary) could reduce food waste. However, improvements in consumer understanding would also be necessary.  

Academic and other commentators note that the benefits of food packaging may have been overstated. There is a lack of evidence that intelligent and other packaging technologies reduce food waste, although zero packaging approaches can be effective.  

WRAP and others have reported several successes through the voluntary approach to food waste prevention. However, academic and NGO commentators have argued that the evidence base for voluntary approaches is limited. WRAP reports that significant progress is still required in measuring and reducing food waste and that some governmental interventions are needed.  

Mandatory food waste measurement and reporting is widely regarded as a pre-requisite for designing and evaluating interventions. Several studies also argue that legislative measures are necessary to address cosmetic standards and “unfair trading practices” that cause food waste, and that governmental interventions are needed for large-scale reductions in hospitality and food services waste. Experts have also recommended requiring companies to conduct food waste minimisation plans and reforming date labels and food safety.  

Studies have found subsidies for anaerobic digestion (AD) have encouraged landfill diversion and disincentivised redistribution for human consumption.  

Some recommend legal measures to support redistribution, such as Good Samaritan laws. However, evidence is lacking that these measures reduce food waste. Several academics have argued that redistribution should be time-limited, noting that the waste hierarchy prioritises preventing surplus over redistribution. 

Separate collection may prevent food waste. Evidence suggests that providing people with feedback on how much waste they are producing is a weaker intervention and WRAP concludes that more studies are needed. Studies show that food waste taxes like Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) may prevent food waste in the short-term, but without new regulations they are unlawful in England.  

Acknowledgements

POSTbriefs are based on literature reviews and interviews with a range of stakeholders and are peer reviewed. POST would like to thank interviewees and peer reviewers for kindly giving up their time during the preparation of this briefing, including:    

• Dr Megan Blake, University of Sheffield 

• Defra* 

• Professor Rita de la Feria, University of Leeds 

• Dr Mattias Eriksson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 

• FareShare* – Ali Gourlay, Danika Drury 

• Feedback* – Martin Bowman, Jessica Sinclair Taylor 

• The Food Standards Agency (FSA)* – Professor Robin May 

• Green Alliance* – Libby Peake 

• The Groceries Code Adjudicator* 

• Hubbub – Tessa Tricks 

• Dr Lisa Johnson, Food Loss and Waste Expert, Lisa K. Johnson Consulting* 

• The National Farmers’ Union (NFU)* – Philippa Arnold, Rupert Weaver, Annabel Bagshaw, Charlotte Nott 

• Professor Simon Pearson, University of Lincoln 

• Dr Craig Purshouse, University of Liverpool 

• Dr Christian Reynolds, City, University of London 

• Sainsbury’s – Charis Richardson 

• Waitrose – Benjamin Thomas 

• WRAP* – Hamish Forbes 

• WWF – Lilly Da Gama 

• Professor William Young, University of Leeds* 

*Denotes people and organisations who acted as external reviewers of the briefing.