Reducing Food Loss Waste Global Action Agenda - 1

REDUCING FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE
Setting a Global Action Agenda
With support from
KATIE FLANAGAN, KAI ROBERTSON, AND CRAIG HANSON
Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda i

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Katie Flanagan is an Associate with The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support of The Rockefeller
the Food Program at WRI. Foundation for making this report possible.
Contact: [email protected]
The authors are grateful to the following peers who provided critical reviews and
helpful suggestions to this report:
Kai Robertson is the Lead Advisor
for the Food Loss & Waste Protocol at WRI. Jane Ambuko (University of Nairobi), Sophie Attwood (WRI), Neil Barrett (Sodexo),
Contact: [email protected] Walter Belik (University of Campinas, São Paulo), Jan Broeze (Wageningen University
& Research), Chris Brown (Olam), Andrea Cattaneo (FAO), Javiera Charad (Nestlé),
Emily Ching-Cheng Chang (National Taiwan University), Austin Clowes (WRI),
Craig Hanson is Vice President for Food, Brecht De Roo (Cargill), Shenggen Fan (IFPRI), Edda Veturia Fernández Luiselli
Forest, Water & the Ocean at WRI. (independent expert and biologist), Xiaoyi Gao (All China Environment Federation),
Contact: [email protected] Elise Golan (USDA), Liz Goodwin (WRI), Jonas Loholm Hamann (Danfoss), Lisa Kitinoja
(Postharvest Education Foundation), Esben Larsen (WRI), Brian Lipinski (WRI), Mark
Little (Tesco), Innocentia Modau (WWF-SA), Viviane Romeiro (WRI), Geeta Sethi (World
Contributions by Elizabeth Balkan (NRDC),
Bank), Tatjana von Bormann (WWF-SA), and Joachim von Braun (University of Bonn).
JoAnne Berkenkamp (NRDC), Yvette Cabrera
(NRDC), Rafael Flor (The Rockefeller Founda-
The authors thank Alex Martin for copyediting, LSF Editorial for proofreading, and
tion), Darby Hoover (NRDC), Betty Kibaara
Jen Lockard for publication layout and design. We would like to acknowledge Emily
(The Rockefeller Foundation), Amos Kisilu
Matthews, Emilia Suarez, Gregory Taff, and Romain Warnault for their support in the
(The Rockefeller Foundation), Kagwiria
research and review process.
Koome (The Rockefeller Foundation), Claire
Kneller (WRAP), Dirk Maier (Iowa State
University), Cassie McGee (Iowa State
University), Clementine O’Connor (UNEP),
Steve Sonka (University of Maryland), Andrea Consortium for Innovation
in Post-Harvest Loss
Spacht Collins (NRDC), Dipti Thapa (World and Food Waste Reduction
Bank), and Toine Timmermans (Wageningen

University & Research).
Consortium for Innovation in
Post-Harvest Loss and Food Waste Reduction
Design and layout by:

Jen Lockard
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Foreword
3 Executive Summary
17 Introduction
21 Chapter 1. What Is the Food Loss and

Waste Challenge?
37 Chapter 2. Why Does It Matter?
49 Chapter 3. What Is Causing It?
59 Chapter 4. What Should Be Done

About It?
75 Chapter 5. What Progress Has Been

Made So Far?
93 Chapter 6. What Needs to Happen Next?
108 References
117 Appendix A. Definitions of “Destinations”
118 Appendix B. List of Sources in Figure 1.11
122 Appendix C. Examples of Interventions

per Underlying Driver
128 Endnotes
iv WRI.org
FOREWORD
How is the world going to feed nearly 10 billion The issue is now on the minds of public and private
people while also advancing economic development sector leaders. Ambitions have been raised. Steps
and meeting the challenge of climate change? This are being taken. What we need now, though,
has become one of the paramount questions of is a shared vision of what needs to happen to get
our time. Reducing food loss and waste is part the world on track to halving food loss and waste.
of the answer. We need a Global Action Agenda.
Tackling the issue of food loss and waste can In this report, we offer that agenda. First, we
generate a “triple win.” Reductions can save money encourage countries and companies to adopt the
for farmers, companies, and households. Wasting global SDG 12.3 target as their own, measure their
less food means we can feed more people. And food loss and waste (since what gets measured
reductions can alleviate pressure on climate, as well gets managed), and take action on the hotspots
as on water and land. identified. Although simple, this “Target-Measure-
Act” approach is proving effective. Second, we
Fortunately, a modern movement around food loss identify a short-list of “to do’s” for each type of
and waste reduction is emerging. In 2015, nations actor in the food supply chain. If you don’t know
of the world adopted the Sustainable Development which actions to take, start with this list and go
Goals (SDGs)—including “Target 12.3,” which calls from there. Third, to scale up the impact and
for halving the rate of food loss and waste by 2030. pace of these actor-specific interventions, we
In 2016, a group of leaders came together to form recommend 10 interventions that tackle food loss
the Champions 12.3 coalition to help inspire and waste across the entire supply chain, target
ambition and motivate action toward this SDG a handful of food loss and waste hotspots, and help
target. Numerous organizations, including those set the enabling policy and financial conditions
we lead, have launched initiatives to address this that are necessary for success.
important issue. And recent landmark studies such
as the World Resources Report Creating a Sustain- We hope this report will inspire you to play a role in
able Food Future and the EAT-Lancet Commission’s helping create a sustainable food future. The need is
Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems make urgent—because food is a terrible thing to waste.
the case that halving the rate of food loss and waste
is necessary if the world is to sustainably feed the
planet over coming decades.
Andrew Steer Rajiv J. Shah Steve Sonka Dirk Maier

President President Fellow Professor
World Resources The Rockefeller Ed Snider Center Iowa State University
Institute Foundation for Enterprise and Director
Markets, University Consortium for Innovation
of Maryland in Postharvest Loss and
Food Waste Reduction
Rhea Suh Inger Andersen Louise O. Fresco Marcus Gover

President Executive Director President Executive CEO
Natural Resources UNEP Board WRAP
Defense Council Wageningen
(NRDC) University & Research
Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 1

2 WRI.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reducing food loss and waste can help meet the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, contribute to the Paris
Agreement on climate change, and sustainably feed the planet
by 2050. This report lays out a Global Action Agenda that will
help reduce food loss and waste and achieve SDG 12.3. This action
agenda includes a Target-Measure-Act approach, an actor-specific
“to-do” list, and 10 “scaling interventions” designed to take the
approach and to-do list to scale.

EAT-Lancet Commission (Willett et al. 2019) both
HIGHLIGHTS identify halving food loss and waste as a critical
element in achieving a sustainable food future. The
▪ Numerous studies find that the world experiences
significant levels of food loss and waste, with losses “near
private sector is also making changes to tackle food
loss and waste, with over 30 of the world’s largest
the farm” predominant in lower-income regions and waste global companies having set targets in line with SDG
“near the plate” predominant in higher-income regions. 12.3 (Flanagan et al. 2018). In short, reducing food
▪ Halving the rate of food loss and waste is an important “no
regrets” strategy that would contribute to achieving the
loss and waste is rapidly rising on public and private
sector agendas as a strategy to help fix an inefficient
UN Sustainable Development Goals, meeting the goals of food system for the sake of people and the planet.
the Paris Agreement on climate change, and sustainably
feeding the planet.
About this report
▪ This report, based on extensive desk-based research
and input from partner organizations, proposes a Global This report lays out a Global Action Agenda for
Action Agenda to reduce food loss and waste. It involves reducing the rate of food loss and waste and thereby
three main components. achieving SDG 12.3. The action agenda includes
▪ Governments and companies should follow the “Target-
Measure-Act” approach: Adopt a target to halve food loss
a Target-Measure-Act approach, an actor-specific
“to-do” list, and 10 “scaling interventions” designed
and waste by 2030, measure how much and where food to take the approach and to-do list to scale.
is being lost and wasted, and take action on the hotspots.
▪ Alltheiractors in the food supply chain should kick-start

actions by pursuing a “to-do” list tailored to their
The Global Action Agenda is designed to guide
businesses, governments, civil society, and other
specific roles. actors in the food supply chain who can play
▪ Governments and business leaders should pursue 10
“scaling interventions” that have the potential to rapidly
a role in tackling food loss and waste, individually
and collectively.
scale, accelerate, and broaden deployment of the Target-
Measure-Act approach and the actor-specific interventions. This report was jointly prepared by WRI with sup-
port from The Rockefeller Foundation, and in
collaboration with food loss and waste experts from
Background the Consortium for Innovation in Postharvest Loss
and Food Waste Reduction, Iowa State University,
Reducing food loss and waste is an impor-
the University of Maryland, the Natural
tant strategy to help meet the UN Sustain-
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), United Nations
able Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030,
Environment Programme (UNEP), Wageningen Uni-
contribute to the Paris Agreement on
versity & Research, the Waste & Resources Action
climate change, and sustainably feed the
Programme (WRAP), and the World Bank.
planet by 2050. SDG 12 aims to ensure “sustain-
able consumption and production patterns,” and
one of its targets (SDG 12.3) calls for halving rates What is the food loss and waste challenge?
of food loss and waste. This in turn would con- A significant amount of food intended for
tribute to meeting a number of other SDGs, such human consumption is never eaten. In
as those on hunger, poverty, and health. Recent 2011, the Food and Agriculture Organization of
modeling efforts indicate that halving food loss the United Nations (FAO) launched a landmark
and waste rates would yield significant reductions publication, Global Food Losses and Food Waste:
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because more Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO 2011), with
efficient use of food would reduce the need for land the headline finding that one-third of all food is lost
conversion for additional food production and slow or wasted between the farm and the plate. Despite
the rate of increase in fertilizer applications and its uncertainties, this figure remains the only global
methane emissions from food in landfills (Search- estimate currently available. Our assessment of
inger et al. 2018; Willett et al. 2019). Moreover, more subcontinental and commodity-specific
a recent World Resources Report (Searchinger studies conducted since then suggests that the
et al. 2018) and a just-released report from the FAO data are broadly correct.
4 WRI.org
Figure ES-1 | Distribution of Food Loss and Waste by Region and Stage in the Food Supply Chain, 2007
Percent share of tonnage per region

5
58 42 35 24 19 11
16
21
16 7
Consumption 19
3 36
15 9 33
10 9
2 23
5 20
20
Distribution 9 10
and market
Processing 6 33 33
36
32
Handling 6 29 29
and storage
21
Production
North Africa,
North America Industrialized South and Sub-Saharan
Europe West and Latin America
and Oceania Asia Southeast Asia Africa
Central Asia
35% 34%
31% 31% 36% 34% 26% 36%
Share of total food available that is lost or wasted

Notes: Values displayed are of food loss and waste as a percent of food supply, defined here as the sum of the “Food” and “Processing” columns of the FAO Food Balance Sheet.
Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: WRI analysis based on FAO (2011).
The distribution of food loss and waste Why does it matter?

across the food supply chain varies by
Food loss and waste matters in terms of
region of the world. Food loss and waste at the
the environment, economy, food security,
point of consumption in homes and restaurants
jobs, and ethics. The environment: The food
appears to be a hotspot of food loss and waste
that is lost and wasted each year accounts for an
in high-income regions, whereas losses during
estimated 8 percent of annual GHG emissions,
handling and storage are a hotspot in low-income
consumes a quarter of all water used by agriculture,
regions. On-farm production losses (i.e., during and
and requires an agricultural area the size of China.
just after harvest) are an issue in all regions (FAO
The economy: The annual market value of lost and
2011) (Figure ES-1).
wasted food is estimated at an astounding $940
billion globally (FAO 2015a). Food security: More
The world is calling for halving the rate of
than 1 billion metric tons of food per year is never
food loss and waste. In September 2015, nations
consumed in a world where one in nine people
of the world formally adopted a set of 17 Sustain-
are still undernourished (FAO et al. 2018). Jobs:
able Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030
Reducing food loss and waste could play a modest
Agenda for Sustainable Development—global goals
role in job creation across the supply chain, ranging
to end poverty and hunger, protect the planet, and
from smallholder processing facilities close to the
ensure prosperity for all. SDG 12 seeks to “ensure
farm to technology start-up companies that help
sustainable consumption and production patterns.”
redistribute food that would otherwise be wasted.
The third target under this goal, Target 12.3, calls
Ethics: Reducing food loss and waste is considered
for halving “per capita global food waste at the
by many people as simply “the right thing to do.”
retail and consumer levels and reduc[ing] food
losses along production and supply chains, includ-
ing post-harvest losses,” by 2030 (UN 2017).

The benefits of reducing food loss and waste structure, inadequate equipment, and suboptimal
can be significant. For instance, reducing the packaging. The managerial drivers are inadequate
current rate of food loss and waste by 50 percent by food management practices, skills, or knowledge;
2050 would have the following results: inflexible procurement practices; poor supply and
▪
demand forecasting and planning; and marketing
It would close the gap between food needed in strategies. The behavioral drivers are norms and
2050 and food available in 2010 by more than attitudes, lack of awareness, and concerns about
20 percent (Searchinger et al. 2018). possible risks. The structural drivers are conditions
▪
in demographics, climate, policies and regulations,
It would avoid the need to convert an area of economics, and financing that lead to food loss
natural ecosystems roughly the size of Argen- and waste. These 15 underlying drivers need to be
tina into agricultural land between 2010 and addressed if food loss and waste is to be reduced.
2050 (Searchinger et al. 2018).
▪
The underlying drivers of food loss and
It would lower GHG emissions by 1.5 gigatons waste are closely interrelated. An instance of
of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2e) per year food loss or waste is often driven by more than one
by 2050, an amount more than the current driver (e.g., rice losses may occur due to inadequate
energy- and industry-related emissions of Japan storage bags, which, in turn, may be caused by
(Searchinger et al. 2018). a grower’s lack of access to credit to purchase
better bags). Moreover, while an underlying driver
What is causing food loss and waste? may affect one stage of the food supply chain, the
generation of loss and waste might actually occur
Understanding why food loss and waste
at a different stage. For instance, orders modified
occurs (whether intentionally or not) is
last-minute by food retailers at the distribution and
important to successfully reducing it. The
market stage of the food supply chain can result in
most immediate reasons food leaves the human
fruits and vegetables being left in the farm field,
food supply chain (the “direct causes”) tie back
leading to losses during production.
to concern about a food’s safety or suitability for
consumption, or there being no perceived use or
Among the various underlying drivers,
market for it. This may be due to deterioration or
some are more relevant in certain regions.
suboptimal quality, or issues such as the food’s
For example, lack of infrastructure is typically a
appearance, excess supply, and seasonal produc-
more significant driver in low-income countries,
tion fluctuations. Leading to these direct causes
whereas social norms and attitudes such as the
are a number of “underlying drivers.” These can be
acceptability of not eating all the food on one’s
technological, managerial, behavioral, or structural
plate are often a driver in high-income countries.
in nature. The technological drivers are poor infra-
6 WRI.org
Reducing food losses close to the farm (during Take action. What ultimately matters is
production as well as handling and storage) can be action. However, there is no proverbial
a result of “good economic development.” As econo- ACT “silver bullet” action for reducing food loss
mies develop and underlying drivers shift, food loss and waste. Rather, reducing it at scale will
may give way to food waste closer to the plate. require numerous actors in the food supply
chain to implement a variety of context-
What should be done about it? specific interventions. Figure ES-2 provides
a priority to-do list for each type of actor to
Governments and companies should pursue
get started reducing food loss and waste.
a simple but effective “Target-Measure-Act”
Governments, companies, farmers, citizens,
approach to reducing food loss and waste:
and others should immediately get moving
on implementing their respective to-do lists.
Set targets. Targets set ambition, and
ambition motivates action. Governments
Experiences from reduction initiatives that
TARGET and companies should therefore adopt
are making progress provide a number of
an explicit food loss and waste reduction
insights on taking action:
goal aligned with SDG 12.3—a 50 percent
reduction by 2030.
▪ Awareness is a start (but only a start).
Measure your food loss and waste. The

adage “what gets measured gets managed” ▪ Make the “business case” to motivate actors (so
they see reducing food loss and waste as in their
MEASURE holds true for food loss and waste as well.
self-interest).
Quantifying food loss and waste within bor-
ders, operations, or supply chains can help
decision-makers better understand how ▪ Recognize that there is no silver bullet (a num-
ber of interventions are typically required).
much, where, and why food is being lost
or wasted. This information provides an
evidence-based foundation for prioritizing ▪ Which interventions are relevant vary between
and within countries (especially depending on
interventions to reduce food loss and waste,
the level of economic development).
and helps entities monitor whether they are
on track to realizing their target. Govern-
ments and companies should therefore ▪ Beware of knock-on effects across the supply
chain (reductions at one stage might merely
start to measure their food loss and waste
trigger loss and waste elsewhere).
and monitor progress over time.
▪ Collaboration between actors is crucial

(especially when pursuing a “whole supply
chain” approach).

Figure ES-2 | Priority “To Dos” by Actor (Not Exhaustive)
HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

PRODUCTION AND STORAGE AND PACKAGING AND MARKET CONSUMPTION
Crop farmers ▪ Improve harvesting practices (e.g., ensure product is harvested at the right maturity and use
appropriate harvesting equipment to maximize yield while minimizing crop damage).
▪ Improve skills or use tools to better schedule harvesting (including accessing better data on weather).
▪ Engage customers to(e.g.,explore
Engage customers wholesalers, retailers) to communicate implications of order changes.
▪ Identify financially viable alternative
changes in quality specifications to enable more of what is harvested to be sold.
▪ processing, donation, secondary surplus markets or use for crops otherwise left in the field (e.g., value-added
markets).
Fishers ▪ Use fishing gear designed for target species to reduce bycatch.
▪ Identify (or create) markets for unavoidable bycatch (e.g., animal feed or processed products).
Ranchers and ▪ Build capacity in practices to reduce losses (e.g., reduce milk spills, minimize contamination).
animal farmers ▪ from animals.best practices in animal welfare to avoid stress and injuries that can reduce the shelf life of meat
Implement
Source: Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, 2019); Clowes et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); Food Loss and Waste Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative (2017);
Gunders and Bloom (2017); Hegnsholt et al. (2018); HLPE (2014); ReFED (2016); Gooch et al. (2019); WWF-US (2018).
8 WRI.org
Figure ES-2 | Priority “To Dos” by Actor (Not Exhaustive), continued

Primary
producers
▪ ments,
Crop farmers: Improve training in best practices (e.g., handling to reduce damage, drying, fumigation treat-
and on-farm processing). Establish aggregation centers that provide adequate storage and preservation
options, such as cooling chambers.
▪ beaches
Fishers: Improve temperature management, handling, and preservation techniques (e.g., fenced-off landing
or drying racks to improve the quality of fish and to minimize losses).
▪ centers withandcooling
Ranchers animal farmers: Improve handling and preservation options (e.g., establish milk collection
tanks). Improve conditions during transportation of food-producing animals from farm
to markets.
Packinghouses ▪ Adopt best practices to provide the clean, cool, and/or dry conditions required to reduce postharvest losses.
▪ Reexamine handling and storage practices to reduce damage (e.g., use liners in wood and basket containers,
reduce the size of sacks or crates to minimize product damage).
▪ Build near-farm facilities to convert unmarketable crops and by-products into value-added products.
Storage providers ▪ Use storage containers that protect against temperature variations, humidity and precipitation, and insect and
rodent infestation.
▪ Adopt low-cost storage and handling technologies (e.g., hermetic grain storage bags, plastic or metal silos,
plastic crates) that prevent spoilage and increase shelf life.
▪ Work with intended users and community experts to design and produce locally relevant storage solutions.
Transportation ▪ Improve handling practices during loading and unloading.
and logistics
providers
▪ Use technology innovations to improve the flow of information (e.g., about road and traffic conditions, as well as
timing of pickup and delivery) to optimize movement of food.
▪ Introduce (or expand) energy-efficient, clean, low-carbon cold chains from farm to wholesalers.
▪ Work upstream with customers to provide planning tools and handling and storage technologies that help them
reduce losses.
▪ Create access to alternative markets for products that cannot be marketed.


Processors and Operations-related:

manufacturers ▪ Improve training of staff to reduce technical malfunctions and errors during processing.
▪ Reengineer production processes and product design to reduce waste during product line changeovers.
▪ Introduce software and related information and communications technologies to optimize operations (e.g., to
identify waste, track temperature and ensure freshness, assess ripeness, better balance demand and supply
forecasts, and accelerate delivery of food).
Customer-related:
▪ Use product sizes and packaging that reduce waste by consumers (e.g., accommodate desire for smaller or
customizable portions).
▪ Standardize date labels (e.g., eliminate “sell by” and use only “use by” for perishable items and “best before” for
others) to reduce consumer confusion.
▪ Develop new food products or secondary uses (e.g., animal feed or other value-added products) from what can-
not be marketed (e.g., spent grains, fruit trimmings, vegetable peels).
▪ Seek donation of excess food that is still safe to consume (e.g., revise vendor agreements with retailers to allow
for donation instead of mandatory destruction).
Slaughterhouses ▪ Ensure that proper temperature management conditions are maintained.

▪ Follow best practices in cleaning and sanitation to reduce losses due to contamination.
▪ Fully leverage potential for using animal by-products to safely manufacture other products (e.g., animal feed
supplements).
▪ Identify and address management practices that lead to avoidable losses (e.g., using remote video auditing to
assess whether best practices are being implemented).
Packaging
providers
▪ Invent, design, produce, and mainstream packaging options or coatings (e.g., resins used on pouches or on
foods) that extend a product’s shelf life (although consideration should be given to the impact of the packaging,
and efforts should be made to create reusable and recyclable packaging, as discussed in Box 4.3).
▪ Offer packaging that is resealable to allow for incremental consumption and to extend how long the remainder
of a product stays suitable for consumption.
▪ Provide commercial customers with a greater variety of packaging sizes to help shoppers purchase the amount
appropriate for their needs.
▪ Adjust packaging so it is easier for consumers to empty all the contents.
10 WRI.org

Wholesalers ▪ Build capacity for better handling and storage practices to reduce mistakes that result in food loss.
▪ Expand cold storage systems during wholesale and logistics to protect products vulnerable to heat damage.
▪ or short-liferescue
Find food partners or establish online marketplaces that facilitate sale or donation of rejected shipments
products.
▪ Use backhauling (or other logistics solutions) to enable return of reusable storage containers or rescue of
surplus food for people in need.
▪ Invest in technologies to track temperature and ensure freshness, streamline routing, track movement of goods
in and out of warehouses, and monitor food loss and waste.
Retailers Operations-related:
(formal) ▪ Improve training of staff in temperature management, product handling, and stock rotation.
▪ Optimize inventory management systems (and increase flexibility in supplier contracts) to better match fore-
casting and ordering.
▪ Review cosmetic specifications and accept a wider diversity of produce.
Consumer-related:
▪ Enable consumers to purchase smaller or customized portions (e.g., through bulk bins or staffed seafood and
meat counters).
▪ Adjust promotions to avoid excessive purchase of additional items (e.g., offer half off or mix-and-match deals
rather than two-for-one offers).
▪ Redesign in-store merchandising to avoid excessive handling of products by consumers (e.g., sort by stage of
maturity), and to achieve the desired appearance of abundance but with less damage and excess product (e.g.,
through smaller bins and bowls).
▪ Educate consumers about better food management (e.g., proper storage, meal planning, understanding date
labels, safe food handling, cooking tips).
Retailers
(informal)
▪ Participate in groups or associations of informal operators to access guidance and training in best practices in
food handling and storage.
▪ Take advantage of municipal support to access clean water, storage areas, equipment that improves food safety,
and training in how to reduce food contamination.
▪ Use practices that minimize damage such as handling produce gently, stacking properly (e.g., to avoid bruising
delicate produce), marking cases to track inventory, and rotating stock following a “first-in–first-out” method.
▪ Ensure that displays allow air to be circulated and temperature conditions to be appropriate for product to
remain fresh (e.g., high-ethylene producers should be kept away from ethylene-sensitive commodities).
▪ Avoid sprinkling unclean water on products (to minimize wilting and shriveling) as such practices result in
unsafe foods shunned by buyers.


Households ▪ Buy only what you expect to eat: check refrigerator and cupboards before shopping, use a shopping list, and
plan meals in advance.
▪ Know the difference between “use by” (which is about food safety) and “best before” (which is about quality
and still safe to eat after this date).
▪ Freeze or preserve food before it spoils, and find out how to best store different foods so they stay fresh and
safe longer.
▪ Find creative ways to use leftover ingredients and products past their peak quality (e.g., in soups, sauces,
smoothies), as well as to cook the parts you may not normally eat (e.g., stems, cores).
▪ Organize the kitchen and refrigerator so that items do not get lost and spoil.
Restaurants ▪ Engage staff on food waste reduction (e.g., explain why reduction is important, give tips on waste reduction,
reward staff who deliver against targets).
▪ Shift away from preparation methods such as batch cooking, casserole trays, and buffets to reduce over-
production and repurpose excess food (e.g., offer customers “doggy bags,” safely incorporate unused items into
other dishes, sell excess food at a discount, donate unsold food).
▪ Revisit inventory management and purchasing practices (as well as menus) to better fit needs based on
historical trends and waste data.
▪ Use scales in the kitchen to weigh food and track items most commonly wasted (and estimate the financial cost
of food disposed, thus creating a financial signal to waste less).
▪ Consider whether portions served exceed what can be eaten, and rethink promotions that encourage over-
purchasing by customers.
Hotels ▪ Engage staff on food waste reduction (e.g., explain why reduction is important, give tips on waste reduction,
and reward staff who deliver against targets).
▪ Rethink the buffet (e.g., shift certain items to à la carte near end of mealtimes, reduce the size of dishes used
in buffets).
▪ Reduce overproduction by producing smaller quantities of items consistently left on the plate.
▪ Repurpose excess food (e.g., by safely incorporating unused items into other dishes, or by donating it).
▪ Communicate to guests about food waste and encourage them to take only as much as they need.
Catering/food
service
▪ Engage staff on food waste reduction (e.g., explain why reduction is important, give tips on waste reduction,
▪ Reduce the amount overproduced (e.g., by producing smaller quantities of items that are consistently
underconsumed).
▪ Evaluate contractual obligations between clients and suppliers that generate waste and overproduction (e.g.,
contracts that stipulate that all hot dishes must be available for the full-service period).
Public and private

institutions (e.g.,
schools, hospitals,
government
▪ Reduce the amount overproduced (e.g., by producing smaller quantities of items that are consistently under-
consumed), and repurpose excess food (e.g., by safely incorporating unused items into other dishes, or by
canteens) donating it).
▪ Introduce techniques to minimize people taking overly large portions (e.g., trayless dining, flexible portion sizes,
pay-by-weight pricing system, smaller plates).
▪ Revisit inventory management and procurement practices (as well as menus) to better fit needs based on
12 WRI.org

Policymakers ▪ Embed into agricultural extension services (and in farmer subsidy programs) food loss reduction awareness,
technical assistance, and financial aid.
▪ Develop, facilitate, promote, and/or improve climate-smart infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity, irrigation,
community storage) and access to it, especially for smallholder farmers who live far from markets.
▪ Increase investment in agricultural research related to postharvest loss and provide incentives for the adoption
of postharvest technologies (e.g., zero-rates tax on imported postharvest technologies, incentives for local
manufacturers of postharvest technologies, subsidies for postharvest technologies).
▪ Implement policies to prevent unfair trading practices (e.g., last-minute order cancellations and unilateral
or retroactive changes to contracts).
▪ Remove barriers to food redistribution via policies (e.g., liability limitations, tax breaks) that make it easier
for food suppliers to donate safe (but unsold) food to charities or to those in need.
▪ Support policies to standardize food date labeling practices to reduce confusion about product safety and
quality, and improve consumer understanding of the meaning of date labels.
▪ Include food waste reduction lessons in school curricula and include food waste reduction training in public
procurement programs.
▪ Provide municipal support for informal retailers to access clean water, storage areas, equipment that improves
food safety, and training in how to reduce food contamination.
▪ Make measurement and reporting of food loss and waste by large companies mandatory.
Financiers ▪ Increase the number of philanthropic institutions funding food loss and waste prevention activities.
▪ Create financing instruments and product lines (e.g., funds, bonds, loans) dedicated to reducing food loss
and waste.
▪ Increase start-up financing for new technologies and business models that would reduce food loss and waste,
as well as financing to scale up proven technologies and models.
▪ Increase
and waste.
development cooperation between high-income and low-income countries targeting food loss
▪ Introduce “pay-as-you-go” programs to make technologies affordable for smaller operations (e.g., for solar-
powered refrigeration units and mobile processing).
Innovators and
intermediaries
▪ Develop and improve availability of processing and preservation facilities (including aggregation centers
and mobile low-carbon options).
(e.g., brokers,
consolidators,
▪ Develop alternative outlets during peak season through organizing export opportunities to markets with other
seasonalities.
digital solution
developers)
▪ For unmarketable crops, improve flow of information to find alternative buyers, promote financially viable
alternative markets, or develop new outlets (e.g., as processed foods, industrial products, animal feed).
▪ Apply innovations to reduce delays for imported products during the point of exit and entry, which extends
the shelf life of perishable products.
▪ Leverage technology and digital solutions to rethink and better coordinate key processes between suppliers
and customers in a more organized and informed way.
Researchers ▪ Research new and innovative technologies to preserve food quality and extend shelf life.
▪ whole food utilization.products from perishable food commodities, such as fruits and vegetables, to promote
Develop innovative
▪ Undertake research to fill data gaps and standardize reporting of food loss and waste data in order to better
compare results, create benchmarks, and provide clearer direction for stakeholders.
▪ Assess impact of interventions to improve evidence base of what works and the return on investment.
▪ Develop sector-specific guidance that provides the motivation and technical information for businesses to
take action (e.g., promote industry roadmaps for food loss and waste reduction).
Civil society ▪ Raise awareness and shift social norms so that food loss and waste is considered “unacceptable” for all,
including higher-income consumers.
▪ Encourage public and private sector leaders to pursue the Target-Measure-Act strategy.
▪ Act as a channel for the sharing and reporting of food waste data and progress.

What progress has been made so far? technologies, policies, and business practices have
been designed along the food supply chain to tackle
Progress has been made toward
food loss and waste (Figure ES-3).
implementing some aspects of Target-
Measure-Act. In terms of setting targets,
50 percent of the world’s population now lives in What needs to happen next?
a country that has set an explicit, public target Despite the progress to date, much more
aligned with SDG 12.3 (Flanagan et al. 2018). must be done and done much faster if
In addition, 32 of the world’s 50 largest food SDG 12.3 is to be met. Most of the specific
companies (by revenue) independently have set— interventions on the to-do lists are already tech-
or participate in programs that have set—a food nically possible. The problem is that too few actors
loss and waste reduction target consistent with SDG are deploying them. Why? In some cases, it may be
12.3 (Flanagan et al. 2018). In terms of measure- lack of awareness, concern, or focus regarding food
ment, countries representing 12 percent of the loss and waste. In others, it may be lack of ability
world’s population measure food loss and/or waste or resources (e.g., technical, financial). And in still
within their borders, and more than 30 of the others, it may be lack of collaboration across a large
world’s largest companies are now measuring food number of actors needed to effect change. What is
loss and waste within their operations. In terms of needed next is a series of “scaling interventions”
taking action, over the past few years a number of that address these bottlenecks.
Figure ES-3 | Emerging Developments to Reduce Food Loss and Waste across the Supply Chain

▪ Information and com-

munication technol-
▪ Low-cost handling and ▪ Unsold produce is
storage technologies being turned into
▪ Governments are
enacting policies to
▪ Apps for redistributing
surplus food from food
ogy (ICT) is supplying are gaining traction upcycled products. encourage and even service and restau-
smallholders with in Africa. ▪ Technology innova- require redistribution rants are becoming
technical information ▪ Technology innovations in packaging are of surplus food. more widespread.
to reduce production
losses.
tions to reduce losses
during transportation
being used to extend
product shelf life.
surplus food from
▪ Retailers and food
manufacturers are
▪ ICTincreasingly
platforms are
being
of fresh produce are
emerging.
▪ Innovations to post-
pone spoilage
retailers are growing
in number.
streamlining food
date labels.
used to connect farm-
ers with markets to
▪ Investment in storage
infrastructure
are emerging. ▪ Accelerator programs
for food loss reducing
▪ Awareness-raising
campaigns are being
respond more quickly is growing. technologies are being launched.
to changes in supply
and demand.
established. ▪ The hospitality sector
is starting to take
▪ Legislation is targeting
contract behavior that
action.
exacerbates produc-
tion losses.
▪ Imperfect produce is
increasingly available
for sale.
Cross-Cutting Actions
▪ Some countries are establishing national strategies to tackle food loss and waste.
▪ National-level public-private partnerships are beginning to emerge.
▪ Online databasesfunding
New sources of are becoming available for reduction of food loss and waste.
▪ been established. and hubs to support exchange of information and solutions have
Source: WRI analysis.
14 WRI.org
To address this, we propose 10 such scaling 6. S
hift consumer social norms. Leveraging the
interventions that have the potential to latest findings of behavioral science, engage
accelerate and broaden deployment of the grassroots campaigns, social media, religious
Target-Measure-Act approach and of the communities, and others to make “wasting
actor-specific interventions. Three of them food” as unacceptable as littering now is in
take a whole supply chain approach, four of them many countries.
target specific hotspots of food loss and waste,
and three more enhance enabling conditions 7. G
o after GHG emissions reductions. Use sector-
for reducing food loss and waste. They may not led programs to tackle food loss and waste
constitute a comprehensive set, but they are a good from beef, dairy, and rice head on, and get the
starting point for making progress. reduction of food loss and waste into nationally
determined contributions to the Paris Agreement
Whole supply chain approaches on climate change.
1. Develop national strategies for reducing
food loss and waste. Increase the number of Enabling approaches
countries with national strategies, as these can 8. Scale up financing. Develop funds and financing
be an important catalyst for Target-Measure- products dedicated to investing in innovation
Act at the country level—aligning public policy, and scaling up enterprises, technologies, and
private sector action, and farmer-to-consumer programs that would reduce food loss and waste.
behavior toward a shared goal.
9. O
vercome the data deficit. Over the next five
2. C
reate national public-private partnerships. years, a concentrated push to measure food loss
Increase the number of country-level public- and waste is needed to overcome this data deficit
private partnerships dedicated to achieving in time to support achievement of SDG 12.3.
SDG 12.3.
10. A
dvance the research agenda. More research
3. Launch a “10x20x30” supply chain initiative. is still needed to answer multiple “next genera-
Launch a voluntary private sector campaign tion” questions that would, in turn, help refine
where at least 10 corporate “power players” food loss and waste reduction strategies and
commit to Target-Measure-Act themselves and advance implementation of the global agenda.
then engage their own 20 largest suppliers to do
the same and achieve a 50 percent reduction in A call to action
food loss and waste by 2030.
The Target-Measure-Act approach, com-
bined with the actor-specific interventions
Hotspot-specific approaches
and the 10 scaling interventions, comprise
4. Invigorate efforts to strengthen value chains
our proposed Global Action Agenda.
and reduce smallholder losses. Invigorate efforts
Momentum is growing, but the world has much
to help smallholder farmers reduce food losses
more to do. Only 11 years remain to achieve the
during production and storage.
targets of the SDGs, and food loss and waste is
still pervasive. Actors ranging from governments,
5. L
aunch a “decade of storage solutions.” Kick-
businesses, farmers, consumers, and everyone
start a focused collaboration among storage
in between can play a role in the Global Action
providers, cold chain alliances, financiers, and
Agenda. With worldwide participation, we just
governments to get income-sensitive, climate-
might realize a future where no food fit for con-
smart storage technologies into the hands
sumption goes to waste.
of farmers and distribution networks around
the world.

INTRODUCTION
How can the world nutritiously feed nearly 10 billion people by the
year 2050 in a manner that advances human well-being while also
reducing the food system’s impact on the environment, particularly
on climate change? This is one of the paramount questions of the
first half of this century. Successfully answering it means the world
will achieve a sustainable food future. Unsuccessfully doing so
means disaster for food security, the climate, and people.

The answer requires implementing a “menu of (Searchinger et al. 2018). In a world where one in
solutions” that simultaneously (a) closes the gap nine people already suffer from undernourishment
between the food needed by 2050 and that avail- and 2 billion suffer from micronutrient deficiencies
able today, and (b) significantly reduces greenhouse (FAO et al. 2018), such amounts of unconsumed
gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture and related food would be a travesty—and a symptom of a food
land-use change by 2050 in order to meet the Paris system that is not performing as it could. Further-
Agreement on climate change. One critical menu more, the annual GHG emissions associated with
item for achieving both is to reduce the current all this lost and wasted food could grow from
rate of food loss and waste by 50 percent. Recent 4.4 gigatons at present to 6.2 gigatons by 2050
modeling1 found that doing so would close the (Searchinger et al. 2018). This is the equivalent
food gap by more than 20 percent (Figure I.1) and of adding another Brazil—the world’s sixth-
reduce the food system’s projected GHG emissions largest emitter—to the world’s emissions (Carbon
by 10 percent (Figure I.2).2 Thus, among the menu Brief 2018).
items, reducing food loss and waste has a sizable
impact. The EAT-Lancet Commission Report (Wil- In some instances, some food loss and waste
lett et al. 2019) similarly highlighted the important may be unavoidable. From farmers all the way
role of reducing food loss and waste in achieving a to consumers, people will make rational decisions
sustainable food system. like plowing back into the soil diseased produce
or not implementing reduction approaches where
Failure to act will make the challenge of achieving the costs outweigh the benefits. Some food loss
a sustainable food future immensely harder. If and waste will always be with us. That said,
current rates continue, the amount of food loss and dramatically reducing food loss and waste
waste will grow from today’s 1.3 billion metric tons is possible and would generate many social,
per year (FAO 2011) to 2.1 billion tons by 2030 economic, and environmental benefits.
(Hegnsholt et al. 2018) and even more by 2050
Figure I.1 | R educing Food Loss and Waste Can Play an Important Role in Closing the Food Gap Between 2010
and 2050 Without Expanding Cultivated Area
25,000
Achieve
replacement-
Crop Production (Trillion Calories per Year)
Phase out crop- level fertility rates

based biofuels
20,000 Necessary Reduce food
loss and waste Shift diets
productivity
gains
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2010 Increase food Reduce growth in demand for food 2050
(Base year) production and other agricultural products (Baseline)
without
expanding
agricultural land
Note: Includes all crops intended for direct human consumption, animal feed, industrial uses, seeds, and biofuels.
Source: Searchinger et al. (2018).
18 WRI.org
This report, Reducing Food Loss and Waste:
▪ Chapter 4: What Should Be Done About It?
▪
Setting a Global Action Agenda, offers a suite of
recommendations for how the world can cut the Chapter 5: What Progress Has Been Made
rate of food loss and waste in half. It elaborates on So Far?
▪
this agenda by answering the following questions:
▪
Chapter 6: What Needs to Happen Next?
Chapter 1: What Is the Food Loss and
Waste Challenge? With this report, we aspire to catalyze ambition,
▪
mobilize action, and accelerate progress toward
Chapter 2: Why Does It Matter? halving the rate of food loss and waste—an
▪
aspiration critical for people and the planet.
Chapter 3: What Is Causing It?
Figure I.2 | R educing Food Loss and Waste Can Play an Important Role in Eliminating the Projected 15 Gt of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture and Land-Use in 2050 (CO2 equivalent)
15
Agricultural GHG Emissions (Production + Land-Use Change), Gt CO2e/Year (2050)
Reduce food
14 loss and waste
13
Shift diets
12
Phase out crop-
11 based biofuels
10 Achieve Increase
replacement- crop yields
9 level fertility rates Increase pasture
Plant existing productivity
8 cropland more Reduce enteric fermentation
frequently Improve wild Improve manure management
fisheries Increase
7 management aquaculture Increase nitrogen use efficiency
productivity
Reduce emissions Improve rice management and breeds
6 from manure Reduce energy emissions
left on pasture
5 Restore peatlands
80 Mha
4 of reforestation
3
585 Mha
2 of reforestation
0
2050 Reduce growth in Increase food Increase Reduce GHG Protect and 2050
(Baseline) demand for production fish supply emissions from restore natural (Target)
food and other without agricultural ecosystems
agricultural products expanding production
agricultural land
Note: Solid areas represent agricultural production emissions. Hatched areas represent emissions from land-use change.
Source: Searchinger et al. (2018).

CHAPTER I
WHAT IS THE FOOD LOSS

AND WASTE CHALLENGE?
Food loss and waste is an issue of epic proportions. This chapter
defines food loss and waste, summarizes what and where food is
being lost and wasted, and compares recent regional quantifications
with more historic global estimates.

SUMMARY POINTS
▪ The 2011 landmark publication by the

Food and Agriculture Organization of
during handling and storage are a
hotspot in low-income regions, and
▪ When it comes to food-related green-
house gas emissions, beef, dairy, and
the United Nations (FAO), Global Food on-farm production losses (i.e., during rice are the GHG hotspots of food loss
Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and just after harvest) are an issue in and waste.
▪ Anandassessment
and Prevention, found that one-third of multiple places.
of more subcontinental
▪
all food is lost or wasted between the
farm and the plate. This astounding When it comes to tonnage of food loss commodity-specific studies
amount poses a sizable challenge to and waste (and micronutrient losses), conducted since the FAO (2011) report
the world’s food system. Despite its fruit and vegetable losses are a major suggests that the FAO data may be
uncertainties, this figure remains the hotspot, particularly close to the farm broadly correct, and that several
only global estimate currently available. throughout Asia and sub-Saharan stages of the food supply chain are
Africa and close to the plate in indus- hotspots of food loss and waste,
▪ Definitions of “food loss and waste”
vary. This report recommends that
trialized countries. Roots and tubers
stand out, too, during the production
including production (just about every-
where), handling and storage (in South
“food loss and waste” be defined as and the handling and storage stages of Asia and Africa), and consumption (in
food (and its associated inedible parts) the food supply chain in sub-Saharan high-income countries but at a risk of
that is intended for human consump- Africa. increasing elsewhere, too).
▪ When ▪ Despite
tion but that leaves the food supply
chain somewhere between being it comes to caloric losses, all these data points, there
ready for harvest or slaughter and cereals are a hotspot, especially in is still a shortage of quantification
being consumed. Europe and North America (during of food loss and waste. A big effort
consumption) and throughout Asia to quantify and make publicly available
▪ The distribution of food loss and waste
across the food supply chain varies
(during the production and the han-
dling and storage stages). Roots and
data on food loss and waste—
by country, food category, private
by region of the world. Food loss and tubers in sub-Saharan Africa (during sector supply chain, and more—
waste at the point of consumption in the production and the handling and is urgently needed since such data
homes and restaurants appears to be storage stages) also appear to be a are needed for identifying hotspots
a hotspot of food loss and waste in hotspot of caloric losses. of food loss and waste and for
high-income regions, whereas losses prioritizing interventions.
22 WRI.org
In 2011, the Food and Agriculture Organization accuracy of the 2011 report, the report and studies
of the United Nations (FAO) released a landmark conducted since indicate there is a significant
publication, Global Food Losses and Food Waste: opportunity to reduce current levels of food loss
Extent, Causes and Prevention. This report intro- and waste.
duced the astonishing finding that one-third of all
food is lost or wasted between the farm and the What Is Food Loss and Waste?
fork. As the first major attempt to generate quanti-
When it comes to understanding the nature and
tative evidence on a global scale, it made headlines
scale of the food loss and waste challenge, this is a
and brought worldwide attention to the challenge of
common first question. For a number of reasons,
food loss and waste.
no single definition of food loss and waste has been
consistently used.
What is really known, though, about the scale and
nature of food loss and waste? Not as much as one
The landmark 2011 FAO report defined “food
would hope or as decision-makers need, it turns
loss and waste” as “the edible parts of plants and
out. Although a lot has been written about food
animals produced or harvested for human con-
loss and waste since 2011, most of the global
sumption but not ultimately consumed by people.
and continental quantitative analyses rely on the
It represents a decrease in the mass, caloric, and/or
original data from the FAO 2011 study—despite the
nutritional value of edible food intended for human
fact that it has a number of uncertainties (Box 1.1).
consumption at any stage in the food value chain.”
That said, these data remain the only global figures
Box 1.2 summarizes the specifics of what it covered.
currently available—although a number of national,
The quantitative data derived from FAO (2011) and
corporate, and commodity-specific assessments
used in this chapter are based on this definition.
have since been conducted. Regardless of the
BOX 1.1 | UNCERTAINTIES IN THE FAO 2011 DATA
The data presented in FAO’s 2011 crops, stages of the food supply chain, considered for human consumption,
report provide valuable insight into and even countries. For example, an approach that can affect the
estimated levels of food loss and the figure that 25 percent of cereals accuracy of the figures.
waste and serve as a good starting are wasted during the consumption
point. However, they have several
sources of uncertainty:
stage in Europe is based on one study
conducted in the United Kingdom
▪ Age of the study. The data used
in FAO (2011) are from 2007. They are
that measured how much bread was thus now more than a decade old
▪ Inconsistent data sources.
For many food categories and geo-
wasted at the household level (HLPE
2014). There were no data points on
and may not accurately represent
current conditions.
graphies, directly measured food loss household food waste for Africa and
and waste data were not available.
Rather, the report’s data were based
Latin America, and only one data
point on household food waste for
▪ “Destinations” included. Moreover,
the study “counted” as food loss
on national food balance sheets. Asia, so assumptions were made for and waste food intended for human
Figures from this source are reported household waste for these continents. consumption that ended up as animal
by government agencies. But not Using studies from a small number feed. Some more recent develop-
all governments report figures, and of countries and extrapolating these ments in quantification, however, do
sometimes their quantification results to an entire region (which not count food diverted to animal feed
methods and definitions vary. The includes countries quite different from as loss or waste.
result is a summing up of tonnage each other) may mean that regional
across quite different data sources. results are not representative of each Thus, as the report itself cautioned,
country within that region. the data are imperfect and the
▪ Extrapolation from small number
of studies. Where relevant, directly ▪ Use of conversion factors. The
results should be treated accordingly
(Gustavsson et al. 2013).
measured data were not available, the research used proxy conversion
study had to use assumptions and factors to estimate the part of an
estimations based on comparable agricultural product that is typically

Variations on the definition of food loss and waste
BOX 1.2 | WHAT THE 2011 FAO REPORT
diverge along several dimensions:
AND DATA COVER
The 2011 FAO report includes food but not associated

▪ Material type. Some definitions include only
the portion of plants, animals, and fungi typi-
inedible parts (e.g., pits, rinds). The quantitative cally eaten by people. Others include the associ-
figures using this definition cover the following ated inedible parts, such as pits or stones, rinds,
seven basic commodities and their derived products: and bones. Whereas the former keeps the focus
(1) cereals; (2) roots and tubers; (3) fruits and
vegetables; (4) oilseeds, pulses, and nuts; (5) meat; on “food” intended for consumption, the latter
(6) fish and seafood; and (7) milk and eggs. Food loss recognizes that “inedible parts” also have value,
and waste apply to food products in the supply chain and parts considered inedible by some people
starting from the moment that crops are ready for (e.g., chicken feet, blood, fruit rinds, eggshells)
harvest in the field, plantation, or orchard; animals may be considered food by others. Including
are on the farm―in the field, sty, pen, shed, or coop―
“associated inedible parts” also has the practi-
ready for slaughter; milk has been drawn from the
udder; aquaculture fish are mature in the pond; and cal benefit of simplifying quantification of food
wild fish have been caught in the net. Thus, losses loss and waste, since the associated inedible
or unrealized yields while the crop or animal was parts do not need to be separated from the food
growing are not included. The supply chain ends at during measurement.
the moment food products are consumed by people,
discarded, or otherwise removed from the food chain
intended for direct human consumption. ▪ Destinations. A “destination” is where the
food ends up if it is not eaten by people. (See
For the 2011 report, food that was originally meant Appendix A for definitions of all 10 possible
for human consumption but is removed from the destinations.) Some definitions include food
food chain is considered food loss or waste, even that ends up being fed to animals, converted
if it is then used as animal feed or bioenergy. The
into energy, and/or other end uses that still
data do not include by-products (“inedible parts”)
such as bones, organs, skins, seeds, peels, hulls, or create some sort of value. Other definitions only
bran; surplus food that is redirected to food banks include destinations that do not generate any
and subsequently eaten by people; food grown human value (e.g., landfill, sewer).
intentionally for animal feed, seed, or industrial
use; and overconsumption beyond recommended
caloric needs. ▪ Quantity versus quality. Some definitions of
food loss and waste consider only the quantity
The FAO 2011 data did not assess where the food (measured in kilograms or U.S tons) of food
went when it exited the food supply chain. By that leaves the supply chain. Other definitions
inference, then, it includes all possible destinations: include losses in quality, such as the loss of
animal feed; bio-based materials and biochemical nutritional or economic value. Such qualitative
processing; codigestion and anaerobic digestion;
features, however, have been difficult to quan-
composting and other aerobic processes; controlled
combustion; land application; landfill; crops not tify in a systematic way.
▪
harvested or plowed in; refuse, discards, and litter;
and sewer and wastewater treatment. Preharvest versus postharvest. Some
defintions of food loss and waste include losses
The FAO 2011 data did not quantify qualitative losses that occur “preharvest,” before the crop has
(e.g., nutritional value), either.
been harvested or the animal slaughtered.
Source: FAO (2011). This includes unrealized yields due to weather,
pests, or suboptimal management while
the crops or livestock were growing. Not
meeting full yield potential, however, is a food
production issue, not an issue of maximizing
the consumption of food already grown. Some
definitions count only losses that occur “post-
harvest,” after harvest or slaughter. This does
24 WRI.org
not include losses occuring during the harvesting There appears to be a convergence toward this
process. Other definitions, including the one definition. For instance, the forthcoming Food
used by FAO (2011), count food loss from the Loss Index (led by FAO), the Food Waste Index
point when the crop is ready to harvest or the (led by UNEP), and the European Union Commis-
animal is ready for slaughter. This includes sion definition of “food loss and waste” include all
losses during the process of harvesting (e.g., destinations except for food that ends up as animal
grains not captured by harvesting equipment). feed, gets converted into biomaterials, or is not
▪
harvested (or plowed into the soil) (Fabi and Eng-
Loss versus waste. Some definitions lish 2018; European Commission 2019). All three
make a distinction between “food loss” and include food and associated inedible parts (Figure
“food waste.” One distinction is premised on 1.1). One reason they do not include “not harvested”
intentionality (Fabi and English 2018). “Food is that government agencies currently tend to
loss” occurs when food unintentionally leaves collect data at the farm gate, which by definition
the supply chain (e.g., it spills, it is eaten by excludes any crops left in the field. But companies
pests); it is a technology, infrastructure, or en- and research institutions are starting to gather this
vironmental issue. “Food waste,” on the other pre–farm gate information, so this data gap should
hand, occurs due to the intentional act of a be reduced over time.
person (e.g., negligence or consious decision to
throw away food); it is a human behavior issue. Some may argue that any food (and associated
This distinction may be relevant for informing inedible parts) converted into something of value
reduction strategies because the interventions to people—typically energy or a soil amendment—
to address technology gaps will be different should not be considered loss or waste. There are
from those to address consumer behaviors. several counterpoints, however, to this perspective.
Intentionality, however, can be difficult to First, because converting food into energy or into
discern when conducting quantification. The a soil amendment is not the original intended use
other distinction is premised on where in the of food, it represents a reduction in food supply
supply chain food exits. In this case, “food loss” relative to food demand. More food therefore needs
occurs from the farm up to but not including to be grown—in a world already facing land and
the retail store, while “food waste” occurs at greenhouse gas emissions constraints. Second, such
the retail store all the way to the household, nonfood destinations are a relatively inefficient
restaurant, or other point of consumption (FAO use of the resources already expended. Clearing
2011). This distinction is easier to identify when land, applying fertilizers and water, harvesting
quantifying than discerning intentionality. crops, and processing it into food is not the most
resource-efficient means of generating energy or a
For practical purposes and for tracking progress soil amendment; there are more direct and efficient
toward reducing food loss and waste, this report ways to do so. Third, a global target to reduce food
considers food loss and waste to be food (and its loss and waste (see Chapter 2) falls under a global
associated inedible parts) that is intended for human goal about resource-use efficiency (i.e., “sustainable
consumption but that leaves the food supply chain consumption and production”). Considerations of
somewhere between being ready for harvest or resource-use efficiency are therefore relevant when
slaughter (herein referred to as the “production” defining food loss and waste. Of course, generating
stage of the food supply chain) and being consumed. some value out of food loss and waste is better than
As in FAO (2011), the “production” stage includes generating no value at all. Thus, there has emerged
losses that occur during the process of harvesting a general consensus toward a hierarchy of destina-
or slaughtering, but does not include preharvest tions or alternative uses of food that leaves the
losses.3 Quantification should focus first on weight, human food supply chain (Figure 1.2).
but one could include more qualitative factors if
and when feasible. All possible destinations should
count, except food and associated inedible parts
diverted to animal feed or biomaterials (which is
a common end use of inedible parts).4

Figure 1.1 | “Material Types” and “Destinations”: FAO (2011) versus Recommendation versus EU/FLI/FWI
FAO 2011 FLW Study Recommendation EU Commission, Food

Loss Index, Food Waste
Index (Proposed)
FOOD AND FOOD AND

FOOD ONLY INEDIBLE PARTS INEDIBLE PARTS
Animal feed Animal feed Animal feed
Biomaterial/ Biomaterial/ Biomaterial/

processing processing processing
Co/anaerobic Co/anaerobic Co/anaerobic

digestion digestion digestion
Compost/aerobic Compost/aerobic Compost/aerobic
Controlled Controlled Controlled

combustion combustion combustion
Land application Land application Land application
Landfill Landfill Landfill
Not harvested Not harvested Not harvested
Refuse/discards Refuse/discards Refuse/discards
Sewer Sewer Sewer
26 WRI.org
Figure 1.2 | A Hierarchy of Destinations
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

PREVENTION OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
Redistribution to people Potential food

loss and waste
Destination
Animal feed
High valorizaton
Biomaterial/
processing
Co/anaerobic
digestion
Compost/aerobic
Some valorizaton
Land application
Not harvested
With energy recovery Controlled

Without energy recovery combustion
Landfill
No valorizaton
Sewer
Refuse/discards

What Is Being Lost and Wasted? from differences in intrinsic water and caloric con-
tent. A significant share of the weight in fruits and
Once we recognize their uncertainties, what do the
vegetables is water, whereas cereals are drier and
data in the 2011 FAO report appear to tell us about
more energy-dense than fruits and vegetables.
the nature, scale, and distribution of food loss and
waste around the world?
By food category Figure 1.3 | S hare of Food Group Lost or Wasted

Each major food group is subject to food loss and (2007)
waste (Figure 1.3). According to the FAO (2011)
data, roots and tubers (which include potatoes, 80
sweet potatoes, cassava, yams, and other root-based 70
foods) and fruits and vegetables experience the
60
Percent by Weight
highest rates of loss and waste. When viewed as a
proportion of the 1.3 billion metric tons estimated 50
to be lost and wasted globally (Figure 1.4), fruits 40
and vegetables are the commodity group that makes
30
up the largest share of total annual food loss and
waste. When analyzed in terms of caloric content, 20
however, cereals (which include grains and bread) 10
comprise the largest share. This variance results
0
Roots and Fruits Cereals Fish and Meat Milk Oilseeds
Tubers and Seafood and Pulses
Vegetables
Figure 1.4 | Share of Global Food Loss and Waste by Commodity (2007)
Cereals
8 2 4 1
19 7 Roots and Tubers
4
3 Fruits and Vegetables
8
Oilseeds and Pulses
LOSS AND LOSS AND
WASTE BY WEIGHT WASTE BY KCAL Meat
53
100% = 1.3 BILLION TONNES 13 100% = 1.5 QUADRILLION KCAL Milk
20
Fish and Seafood
44
14
28 WRI.org
By geography Figure 1.6 | P er Capita Food Loss and Waste
FAO (2011) estimated that just over half of total by Region (2007)
food loss and waste (by weight) occurs in the devel-
oped world―North America and Oceania,5 Europe,
and the industrialized Asian nations of China, North America
Japan, and South Korea. Low- and other middle- and Oceania
income countries account for 43 percent of the loss
(Figure 1.5). On a per capita basis, North America,
Oceania, and Europe stand out (Figure 1.6). South
and Southeast Asia are responsible for the least Europe
amount of food loss and waste (by weight) on a per
capita basis, although detailed data are missing at
the consumption stage.
Industrialized
Asia
Figure 1.5 | S hare of Global Food Loss and Waste

by Region (2007)
Latin America
Industrialized Asia
7
Europe
8
28 orth America
N
and Oceania North Africa, West
9 and Central Asia
S outh and
100% = 1.3 BILLION TONNES Southeast Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
orth Africa, West
N Sub-Saharan
19 Africa
17 and Central Asia
12 Latin America
South and
Southeast Asia
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Kilograms per Capita

By stage in the food supply chain during handling and storage. Very little, 4 percent,
occurs during processing and packaging. Around
As Table 1.1 describes, food loss and waste can
15 percent occurs during distribution and market.
occur at any stage of the food supply chain, albeit
A sizeable 30 percent occurs during consumption—
in different manners.
at a restaurant, food service environment, or the
home (Figure 1.7).
FAO (2011) estimated that globally, 30 percent of
all food loss and waste (by weight) occurs during
the production stage. Another 21 percent occurs
Table 1.1 | E xamples of Food Loss and Waste along the Food Supply Chain (Not Exhaustive)

During or immediately after After leaving the farm for During industrial or During distribution to In the home or business
harvesting on the farm handling, storage, and domestic processing and/or markets, including at of the consumer, including
transportation packaging wholesale and retail markets restaurants and caterers
▪ Fruits discarded due to ▪ Harvested food eaten

bruising during picking by pests
▪ Milk spilled during
pasteurization and
▪ Food sorted out due
to quality
▪ Food sorted out due
to quality
▪ Crops sorted out post- ▪ Harvested food processing ▪ Safe food disposed ▪ Food purchased but
harvest for not meeting degraded by fungus ▪ Food sorted out as not because of going past not eaten
cosmetic standards or disease suitable for processing sell-by date before ▪ Food cooked but
▪ Crops left behind in ▪ Fish that are spilled or ▪ Livestock trimming being purchased not eaten
fields due to poor
mechanical harvesting
degraded after landing during slaughtering
and industrial
▪ Food spilled or
damaged in market
or drops in prices processing
▪ Fish discarded during
fishing operations
▪ Fish spilled or
damaged during
canning or smoking
Figure 1.7 | Distribution of Total Global Food Loss and Waste across the Food Supply Chain (2007)
100
30
90
80
100% = 1.3 billion tonnes
70
21
60
50
4
40 15
30
30
20
10
0
Production Handling Processing Distribution Consumption
and Storage and Packaging and Market
30 WRI.org
Figure 1.8 | Distribution of Food Loss and Waste by Region and Stage in the Food Supply Chain, 2007
Percent share of tonnage per region

5
58 42 35 24 19 11
16
21
16 7
Consumption 19
3 36
15 9 33
10 9
2 23
5 20
20
Distribution 9 10
and market
Processing 6 33 33
36
32
Handling 6 29 29
and storage
21
Production
North Africa,
North America Industrialized South and Sub-Saharan
Europe West and Latin America
and Oceania Asia Southeast Asia Africa
Central Asia
35% 34%
31% 31% 36% 34% 26% 36%
Share of total food available that is lost or wasted

Notes: Values displayed are of food loss and waste as a percent of food supply, defined here as the sum of the “Food” and “Processing” columns of the FAO Food Balance Sheet.
Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
The distribution of food loss and waste across Canada, for example, 24 percent of all food that is
the food supply chain, however, varies by region lost and wasted is lost during production, compared
of the world and indicates possible “hotspots” with 14 percent in the home (Gooch et al. 2019).
(Figure 1.8). The two stages with the greatest Consumption, therefore, appears to be a hotspot in
variance between regions are consumption and the high-income regions, storage a hotspot in low-
handling and storage stage. High-income regions income regions, and production losses an issue just
appear to have a relatively high share of food loss about everywhere.
and waste occurring at the consumption stage. In
fact, there is a 10-fold difference in share of loss By objective
and waste at this stage between North America
In terms of selected objectives of food loss and
and sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast, low-income
waste reduction, several hotspots seem to exist
regions appear to have a higher share of loss and
(Figure 1.9).6
waste during the handling and storage stage, with
a sixfold difference in share of food loss and waste
Tonnage (SDG Target and micronutrients):
at this stage between sub-Saharan Africa and North
When it comes to reducing the absolute tonnage
America. The share of food loss and waste that
of food loss and waste, FAO (2011) data suggest
occurs at the start of the food supply chain, the
fruit and vegetable losses are a major hotspot,
production stage, is quite similar among regions,
particularly close to the farm (i.e., production as
between 29 and 36 percent, with the exception of
well as handling and storage) throughout Asia and
North America and Oceania. More recent studies
sub-Saharan Africa and close to the plate (i.e.,
also appear to confirm that losses during produc-
market, consumption) in industrialized countries.
tion are not restricted to low-income countries. In

Roots and tubers stand out, too, during the emissions come from growing rice (Searchinger
production and storage stages in sub-Saharan et al. 2018). These hotspots of greenhouse gas
Africa. Tonnage is important because the SDG 12.3 emissions translate into being hotspots for
target metric7 is based on mass (per capita)— emissions associated with food loss and waste
to meet the target, reductions in tonnage are (Figure 1.10). Therefore, it is not surprising that
needed. Moreover, tonnage arguably could be FAO’s categories of “meat” (which includes beef)
considered a proxy for loss of micronutrients,8 and “cereals” (which includes rice) are the green-
given that those food categories with high tonnage house gas hotspots of food loss and waste (Figure
losses—fruits and vegetables as well as roots and 1.9), even though meat and dairy constituted only
tubers (see Figure 1.4)—tend to be those that are an estimated 4 percent and 8 percent, respectively,
high in vitamins and minerals. Efforts to improve of food loss and waste globally by tonnage.
micronutrient availability might therefore consider
prioritizing the tonnage hotspots of food loss and Some combinations of geography, stage in the
waste. Reducing the loss and waste of fruits and supply chain, and food category hit more than one
vegetables will become even more important over objective. In particular, cereals at the consumption
the coming decades if recommendations to increase stage in industrialized Asia and North America
dietary intake of fruits and vegetables for the sake appear to be hotspots for both caloric losses and
of improving human health (Willett et al. 2019) greenhouse gas emissions. Roots and tubers in
are heeded. Otherwise the quest to improve health sub-Saharan Africa appear to be a hotspot for both
might lead to an increase in food loss and waste. caloric losses and tonnage (and thus micronutrients
as well).
Calories: When it comes to reducing the loss
of calories (an important macronutrient), the global When it comes to reducing inefficient use of water
data suggest that cereals are a hotspot. This makes for agriculture, fruits and vegetables on average
intuitive sense given the relatively high energy will be a hotspot given their water-intensity per
density of grains and their derivative products metric ton. However, because the data used for
like bread and pasta versus other food categories. Figure 1.9 come only at the near-continental scale,
High caloric loss and waste hotspots appear one cannot draw conclusions about water hotspots.
to be cereals in Europe (during consumption), For example, abundant extraction of water in one
industrialized Asia (during production and storage), part of Latin America (e.g., a portion of Brazil)
North America (during consumption), and South may not lead to water resource constraints since
and Southeast Asia (during production and storage). the agricultural region may have plenty of rainfall,
Roots and tubers close to the farm in sub-Saharan whereas abundant extraction of water in another
Africa also appear to be a hotspot of caloric losses.9 area of the continent (e.g., a portion of Chile) may
lead to water resource constraints. More local data
Climate: When it comes to reducing food-related are needed. Whereas greenhouse gas emissions
greenhouse gas emissions, meat (in particular have local causes but global consequences, water
ruminant meat such as beef) has by far the highest extraction has local causes and local consequences.
greenhouse gas footprint per kilogram of food,
followed by dairy (Ranganathan et al. 2016). This What Do More Recent Data Suggest?
is because nearly 50 percent of direct agricultural
The quantifications above are primarily based on
production emissions are caused by ruminants
the 2011 FAO report. Recognizing its limitations,
(i.e., cattle, goats, sheep) via enteric fermentation
we looked at more subcontinental and commodity-
(i.e., methane generated in their stomachs) and
specific studies conducted since then to identify
their manure (Figure 1.10). Additional emissions
to what degree they corroborate or deviate from
are associated with land-use change to create
the patterns first identified by FAO in 2011 on
pastures for beef cattle and dairy cows. Among
quantitative loss and waste.10 A wide but noncom-
plant-based foods, rice has a high footprint, given
prehensive review of published studies11 suggests
the methane released from paddies. In fact, about
several insights:
17 percent of all direct agricultural production
32 WRI.org
Figure 1.9 | Hotspots of Food Loss and Waste per Objective
Handling Processing Distribution

Production Consumption
Meat Fruits and Vegetables

Europe
Cereals
Industrialzed Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables

Asia
Meat Cereals Cereals
North America Meat Cereals
Southern and Fruits and Vegetables

Southeastern
Asia Cereals Tons
Calories
Roots and Tubers GHGs
Sub-Saharan
Africa Calories and GHGs
Meat Tons and GHGs
Note: Not all regions had hotspots that crossed our threshold of scale.
▪ The numbers are wide ranging but “in

the ballpark.” Some of the more recent data
Figure 1.10 | A nnual Agricultural Production
Emissions (Percent), Million Metric
sources indicate food loss and waste figures that Tons CO2e
are lower than those in FAO (2011) for similar
combinations of food category, geography, Soil Fertilization
and stage in the value chain. The share of total Energy 100% = 9,024
food produced that is lost during production in
Rice Methane 100% = 9,024
Europe is an example. Some studies indicate
figures that are higher, such as cereal losses Manure Management
100% = 6,769 14
during processing in sub-Saharan Africa. Quite Ruminant Waste on Pastures
100% = 6,769
a few indicate figures where FAO (2011) is Ruminant Enteric Fermentation 18
13
within the range of these other studies (Figure 14
1.11). But when taken as a whole, these more 22
Plant-based food with highest 9
recent studies arguably indicate that the FAO greenhouse gas footprint 16 7
(2011) figures are “in the ballpark.” per kilogram 9
7
Meat with highest greenhouse 38
gas footprint per kilogram 33
2010 base year 2050 baseline

projection
Note: The 2050 baseline projection contains a number of assumptions, which are
listed in the source. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: Searchinger et al.

Figure 1.11 | Results of Multiple Food Loss and Waste Quantification Studies since FAO (2011)
North America A B A A A C
Fruits and Vegetables
Europe E D D
Fruits and Vegetables
Europe
Various food products F G
Sub-Saharan Africa I L
K H
Cereals M
J K
Sub-Saharan Africa N
Fruits and Vegetables O
Latin America PQ Q
Various food products P Q
Sub-Saharan Africa U
X W T V W
Cereals R Y S
Latin America
Various food products
Sub-Saharan Africa Production

Cereals
Latin America Handling and Storage
Processing
North America
Fruits and Vegetables and Packaging
Distribution and Market
Sub-Saharan Africa
Cereals Consumption
Sub-Saharan Africa L1
Fruits and Vegetables M1 FAO (2011) Estimate
Latin America
Percentage of Food Produced 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

That Is Lost and Wasted
North America, Australia A B C

Europe F E D
Percentage of Total 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Food Loss and Waste
Note: Each letter represents a study that estimates food loss or waste at a particular stage of the supply chain. The same letter repeated represents different estimates contained
within the same study. The list of studies cited in this chart can be found in Appendix B.
Source: WRI analysis of various studies.
▪ Production is a hotspot. A survey of more

than 30 recent studies prepared since 2011
for rice at harvesting, and for sorghum at
harvesting and handling (APHLIS 2016).
(the majority of which focus on country and A study by the International Food Policy
commodity combinations from sub-Saharan Research Group (IFPRI) across several crops
Africa) found that losses during harvesting and five low- and middle-income countries
are a common point across crop commodities. found that the majority of food losses—between
Data from the African Postharvest Losses 59 and 86 percent—happen on the farm (the
Information System (APHLIS), for instance, study included preharvest losses) (Delgado
show that food loss for maize is concentrated et al. 2017). Some recent studies indicate that
at production (e.g., harvesting) and storage, high losses during the production stage may
34 WRI.org
not be restricted to low-income countries. and wasted from the farm gate to the home,
In Australia’s recently published national 79 percent is wasted during the consumption
baseline, for instance, production was respon- stage (WRAP 2017a). Although FAO (2011)
sible for 31 percent of the country’s total food indicated much lower rates of food waste
loss and waste (Arcadis 2019). In the United during consumption in low-income countries,
Kingdom, a recent study found that around 1.6 that analysis relied upon very few, and in some
million metric tons of food is wasted during regions zero, data points. Therefore, one can-
production, which is more than the amount of not necessarily conclude that food waste at
food wasted in the hospitality and food service consumption is only a problem in high-income
and retail sectors combined (WRAP 2019b). countries. It might be an issue in some low-
The drivers of on-farm losses likely differ, income regions, or a growing one as these
however, with lack of technologies and lack of countries urbanize and develop. There is a risk
appropriate harvesting techniques being drivers that as countries develop, their overall rate of
in low-income countries and lack of economi- food loss and waste (as a share of total food
cally viable labor supplies or market demand produced) may stay the same but where the
being drivers in high-income countries. loss and waste occurs will shift from “close to
▪
the farm” to “close to the plate” (as Figure 1.8
Handling and storage is a hotspot. Data would suggest). More quantification of food
sources beyond FAO (2011) indicate that storage waste at the consumption stage is needed in
is often a hotspot of food losses. For example, these markets.
▪
an assessment of 45 different crops over 100
regions of India found that poor storage was the Big push on data needed. Despite all
hotspot of losses for cereals, pulses, oilseeds, these data points, there is still insufficient
fruits, vegetables, and poultry (Jha et al. 2015). quantification of food loss and waste based
In particular, the main driver of these storage on solid methods. Without more such data, it
losses was lack of cold chain infrastructure, will be difficult to drive action and target inter-
including lack of low-cost cold storage facilities ventions toward hotspots where the most food
for villages. APHLIS indicates that, for nine is lost and wasted. In late 2019, FAO will
cereal crops across eight countries in sub- publish updated global and regional estimates
Saharan Africa, handling and storage was the of food loss. However, these numbers will not
stage with the highest share of losses in 2016 be comparable to the 2011 FAO estimates be-
(8 percent of total crop produced). This figure cause the scopes (in terms of stages of the food
matches the FAO (2011) estimate of 8 percent supply chain and destinations of food loss and
for cereals in sub-Saharan Africa. While other waste) are different.12 Of the various studies
meta-analyses affirm that grains and cereals currently available, many use different scopes,
suffer higher losses during handling and stor- which makes results difficult to compare.
age, they also show that fresh produce suffers Moreover, too few use direct measurement.
higher losses during processing and packaging A meta-analysis of postharvest loss studies
(Sheahan and Barrett 2017). It is therefore from around the world from 2006 to 2017
important to keep in mind the crop and local found that the methods used to measure quan-
context when assessing the hotspots of loss. titative losses included surveys via interviews
▪
and questionnaires (41 percent) and mixed
Consumption is important, too. Data methods (37 percent), while only 7 percent
about food waste during the consumption stage were direct measurements alone (Kitinoja et al.
(e.g., at the home or restaurant, or in a food ser- 2018). Sheahan and Barrett (2017), likewise,
vice environment) from high-income countries found that only 20 percent of food loss and
appear to confirm relatively high rates at this waste studies they evaluated used empirical
stage. For instance, Australia recently reported field data. A big effort to quantify and make
that 41 percent of the country’s food loss and publicly available data on food loss and waste—
waste occurs at the consumption stage (Arcadis per country, food category, private sector entity
2019). For the United Kingdom, of all food lost (and its supply chain)—is urgently needed.

CHAPTER 2
WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Reducing food loss and waste can generate a range of benefits
for people and the planet. This chapter explores these benefits.

SUMMARY POINTS
▪ Food loss and waste matters in terms

of the environment, economy, food
▪ Inandterms of jobs, reducing food loss
waste might play a modest role in
▪ The benefits of reducing food loss
and waste can be significant.
security, jobs, and ethics, job creation across the supply chain, For instance, reducing the current
and reducing it helps address multiple ranging from jobs for smallholders in rate of food loss and waste by 50
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). processing close to the farm to jobs in percent by 2050 would achieve the
▪ Inandterms following goals:

technology start-up companies.
of the environment, food loss
waste is responsible for an esti-
mated 8 percent of annual greenhouse
▪ Inandterms of ethics, reducing food loss
waste is considered by many
□ Close the gap between food
needed in 2050 and food available
gas emissions, consumes a quarter of people as simply “the right thing in 2010 by more than 20 percent.
all water used by agriculture each year, to do.”
□ Avoid the demand to convert
▪ Infoodterms
and requires agricultural area the size
of China to grow food that ultimately is of the SDGs, reducing an area of natural ecosystems
not eaten by people. loss and waste can help meet roughly the size of Argentina into
various globally agreed aspirations, agricultural land between 2010
▪ In terms of the economy, at a global
level, the annual market value of food
including SDG 1 (no poverty),
SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 12 (sustain-
and 2050.
that is lost and wasted is estimated to able consumption and production), □ Lower greenhouse gas emissions
be an astounding $940 billion. and SDG 13 (climate action), among by 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (Gt CO2e) per year by
▪ In1 billion
others.
terms of food security, more than 2050, an amount more than the
metric tons of food is lost and current energy- and industry-
wasted per year in a world where one related emissions of Japan.
in nine people is still undernourished.
The huge scale of food loss and waste around the

world matters because of its impact on the environ-
▪ It consumes about one-quarter of all water used
by agriculture each year (Kummu et al. 2012).
ment, economy, and food security. Likewise, In water-stressed areas, this inefficient use can
addressing food loss and waste is important exacerbate the pressure (although in areas with
because of its potential to support jobs, meet an abundant supply of water, impacts of food
a moral imperative for some, and contribute loss and waste on water may hardly be felt).
▪
to achieving multiple Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). It requires land area the size of China to be
grown (FAO 2013).
▪
Environment
It accounts for 23 percent of total global fertil-
Food loss and waste has huge impacts on the izer use. This is an issue not only because fertil-
environment, putting pressure on a number of izers are an expense to farmers but also because
planetary boundaries (Figure 2.1): fertilizers contain finite natural resources (e.g.,
▪ phosphorous) and can have a negative impact

It generates about 8 percent of global green- on the environment (e.g., on water quality)
house gas emissions annually (FAO 2015a). (Kummu et al. 2012).
This includes the carbon dioxide and nitrous
oxide emissions arising from the land-use Reducing food loss and waste would lower these
change, fertilizer applications, and energy environmental impacts by essentially reducing the
use associated with growing food that is lost amount of food otherwise needed to be produced to
and wasted, as well as the methane emissions adequately feed a growing human population. This
released when food decays in landfills and else- means using fewer natural resources such as water
where. If food loss and waste were a country, it and land, applying less fertilizer, and emitting
would be the third-largest emitter after China
and the United States.
38 WRI.org
Figure 2.1 | Where Food Loss and Waste Pushes against Planetary Boundaries
Beyond Zone of Uncertainty (High Risk)

8% of greenhouse gases
In Zone of Uncertainty (Increasing Risk) comes from food that is
Climate
Below Boundary (Safe) Change lost or wasted
Biosphere Genetic
Boundary Not Yet Quantified Integrity Diversity Novel
entities
Functional
Diversity
? ?
Land area the size Stratospheric
of China is used to grow Ozone Depletion
Land-System
food that is lost or wasted Change
1/4 of freshwater used ?

by agriculture goes to food Freshwater Atmospheric
Use Aerosol Loading
that is lost or wasted
Phosphorus
23% of fertilizer Ocean
Nitrogen
goes to food that is Biochemical Acidification
lost or wasted Flows
Note: Novel entities are defined as new substances, new forms of existing substances, and modified life forms that have the potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological
effects. Functional and genetic diversity refers to all living species on Earth, not just those species used for food.
Sources: Steffen et al. (2015); FAO (2015a, 2013); Kummu et al. (2012).
smaller amounts of greenhouse gases. Reducing business-as-usual scenario identified by WRI,

food loss and waste can therefore support a number the World Bank, UNEP, and others in Creating
of environmental goals. For example, reducing a Sustainable Food Future (Searchinger et al.
food loss and waste can be an important—albeit 2018), such a halving would reduce greenhouse gas
currently underutilized—contributor to meeting emissions by 1.5 Gt CO2e per year by 2050.13 This
the Paris Agreement on climate change. Just a amount is more than recent energy and industry
dozen countries currently include the reduction of emissions from Japan.14 Such a halving also would
food loss and waste in their nationally determined avoid the conversion of 278 million hectares of
contributions (Climate Watch 2019); more should natural ecosystems into agricultural land between
do so. Reducing food loss and waste also can help 2010 and 2050. This is an area roughly the size of
countries conserve freshwater resources and lower Argentina.15 Since habitat conversion is the number
water pollution caused by excess fertilizer runoff. one cause of biodiversity loss (Millennium Ecosys-
The EAT-Lancet Commission (Willett et al. 2019) tem Assessment 2005), halving food loss and waste
estimates that halving food loss and waste by 2050 can be a strategy for addressing the current biodi-
could reduce freshwater use by about 13 percent. versity crisis. The EAT-Lancet Commission (Willett
et al. 2019) estimates that doing so could reduce
Reducing current rates of food loss and waste by projected biodiversity losses by up to 33 percent
50 percent also would have significant benefits for relative to its business-as-usual scenario.
climate, land, and biodiversity. Relative to the 2050

Economy Similarly, businesses can lose money when food is
wasted. For example, if a food manufacturer pro-
Food loss and waste has significant economic
cures milk from dairies but some of that milk spoils
impacts. At a global level, the annual market value
or spills during processing, then the manufacturer
of food that is lost and wasted is estimated to be an
will not earn a market return on that portion of its
astounding $940 billion (FAO 2015a).16 National
purchased raw milk. If the bakery in a supermarket
impacts have been calculated, too. In Mexico, for
bakes bread vastly in excess of demand and it
instance, food loss and waste is estimated to cost
remains unsold, then the retailer does not capture
$25 billion, or around 2.5 percent of the country’s
a financial return on the ingredients, energy, and
gross domestic product (GDP) (World Bank Mexico
staff time spent baking that bread (Hanson and
2019). In India, one study estimated that food loss
Mitchell 2017). Data on economic impacts by sector
results in economic losses of $15 billion,
are thin. One quantification, however, found that
or around 6.2 percent of India’s GDP for the
food wasted in the hospitality and food service
agriculture sector for 2012–13 (Jha et al. 2015, in
sectors in the United Kingdom alone to be £2.5
FAO 2017a). The economic costs of wasting food
billion per year (WRAP 2013). Because of these
are also felt by households. An average family of
economic impacts, there can be a financial case for
four in the United States spends $1,800 per year
governments and companies to take steps to reduce
on food that is wasted (Gunders and Bloom 2017).
their food loss and waste (Box 2.1). Interviews with
In Canada, the annual cost of avoidable food waste
store managers by Hanson and Mitchell (2017)
amounts to just over CD$1,700 per household
suggest that some businesses believe such measures
(Gooch et al. 2019).
may bring both financial and more indirect benefits
to their operations (Box 2.2).
40 WRI.org
BOX 2.1 | A FINANCIAL CASE FOR REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
Since significant financial resources and waste. For example, an analysis implementing these activities was
are used to grow, harvest, store, of 1,200 sites of 700 food companies £168,500. The resulting financial
process, transport, market, and in 17 countries found that 99 percent benefits were £1.3 million for the city
purchase food, it seems obvious of sites had a positive return on their government from avoided waste
that when food is lost and wasted, investment in food loss and waste disposal costs and £14.2 million
some entity (or several entities) reduction efforts, and half of the in prevented food purchase costs
along the food supply chain is losing sites yielded at least a $14 return for local residents, bringing the total
out and not recouping a return on for every $1 invested (Hanson and financial benefits to the city and
some investment it has made. One Mitchell 2017). Companies included in its residents to £15.5 million. This
might therefore wonder why many this analysis represented a range of means that for every £1 the city
businesses do not work to reduce sectors across the food value chain, government invested, it saved £8.
their food loss and waste. including food manufacturing, retail, When including the benefits to
hospitality, and food service. households, every £1 invested by
One reason is that the costs of food the government generated £92 in
loss and waste are often hidden There also is some evidence that benefit to the city and the residents
within operational budgets, are national and city governments can of participating boroughs (Hanson
spread out along the supply chain save money through reducing food and Mitchell 2017).18
between different actors, or are loss and waste. In 2007, for example,
accepted as “the cost of doing the UK government launched a Looking further upstream, analyses
business” (Hanson and Mitchell 2017). nationwide initiative to reduce are indicating some financial returns
Another reason is that reducing household food waste, a cornerstone of investing in technologies and
food loss and waste often requires of which was the “Love Food, Hate practices to reduce food losses near
up-front expenditures. It takes money Waste” awareness-raising and the farm. For instance, one study in
to conduct a food loss and waste behavior change campaign run Kenya found that farmers who used
inventory to identify where and how by the Waste & Resources Action metal silos to prevent grain losses
much food is being lost and wasted, Programme (WRAP). By 2012—just saved an average of 150–200 kg of
to determine what actions to take, and five years later—it had achieved a grain, worth approximately US$130
to implement those actions. These 21 percent reduction in household (Gitonga et al. 2013). Adopters of metal
costs can include expenditures on food waste relative to 2007 levels, silos also spent less on insecticides
staff, consultants, new equipment, although reductions leveled off after and were able to store maize for an
process redesigns, or other activities. 2012 (WRAP 2012).17 Over the five-year average of nine weeks longer than
Furthermore, measures to reduce food period, the total cost of implementing nonadopters, meaning they were able
loss and waste may incur additional initiative-related activities was £26 to sell their surplus maize when prices
operational costs, such as changing million, while the total financial were higher as opposed to selling
packaging material, packaging foods benefits to the government and directly after harvest, when prices
into smaller portions, or increasing citizens attributable to the initiative tend to be low (Gitonga et al. 2013).
the frequency of ordering and of was £6.6 billion. The resulting In West and Central Africa, hermetic
distribution transportation (Tromp benefit-cost ratio was 250 to 1, a very storage bags generated a 29 percent
et al. 2016). Another concern among substantial return on the investment internal rate of return over a five-year
some business managers may be that made (Hanson and Mitchell 2017). period (Sonka et al. 2015). A modeling
encouraging customers to waste less study in Nigeria concluded that
food may result in a decline in sales. WRAP also implemented a variety scaling use of plastic crates to protect
Thus, some business managers may of measures, similar to those used tomatoes during transportation could
believe or conclude that the costs of nationally, in six boroughs in result in a 36 percent reduction in
taking action outweigh the benefits London in 2012 over the course tomato losses. The investment would
(Hanson and Mitchell 2017). of six months. Activities included have a four-month payback period
awareness-raising, outreach to and an internal rate of return of 34
An emerging body of data indicates, residents, and practical tips on percent after three years (Gromko and
however, possible financial food management. These initiatives Abdurasalova 2018).
benefits to farmers, companies, resulted in a 15 percent decrease
city governments, and national in household food waste (Quested
governments in reducing food loss and Ingle 2013). The total cost of

BOX 2.2 | FOOD RETAILER AND Food Security and Nutrition
MANUFACTURER MOTIVATIONS FOR Food loss and waste is important in relation to
PARTICIPATING IN FOOD WASTE food security and nutrition. More than 820 million
REDUCTION PROGRAMS people are undernourished today (FAO et al. 2018),
yet more than 1 billion metric tons of food intended
for human consumption never gets consumed
(FAO 2017b). Of course, not all of the food that is
Some food manufacturers and businesses may be
concerned that helping customers reduce their food lost or wasted would likely reach those in need.
waste may result in customers buying less food For instance, it would be difficult and expensive
overall, which could result in less food sales and to transport perishable surplus food sufficiently
falling revenues. If so, then why do food retailers and in time or across long distances—such as from a
manufacturers participate in food loss and waste wasteful consumer in a high-income country to a
reduction programs?
hungry person in a faraway low-income country.
First, according to interviews, store managers How reduced food loss and waste might translate
indicated that such programs help them extend into improved food security is complex. That said,
product shelf life (for instance, through improved reductions can help increase the amount of food
packaging) and reduce product losses, both in stores that remains available for human consumption,
and along their supply chains, which results meaning that more people could be fed from a given
in financial benefits to the stores.
level of agricultural output.
Second, an econometric study indicated that a
reduction in food sales at UK retailers during a At the global level, one modeling study (Search-
2007–12 study period did not necessarily translate inger et al. 2018) found that reducing the rate of
into a one-to-one reduction in revenue. Rather, food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2050 would
consumers plowed approximately 50 percent of their
savings back into retail purchases, often on higher- close the gap between food available in 2010 and
value food items (referred to as “trading up”) or on that needed in 2050 by more than 20 percent. This
other nonfood items (WRAP 2014). is a substantial amount. Curtailing food loss and
waste also would have long-term benefits for global
Third, interviewees cited several nonfinancial food security by relieving pressure on the natural
benefits to engaging in food waste reduction resources on which future food production ulti-
programs. These included increasing employee
pride, fulfilling a sense of ethical responsibility, and mately depends (HLPE 2014).
strengthening customer relationships. Hegnsholt et
al. (2018) noted that companies that are effective at At a local level, reducing food loss and waste can
addressing societal challenges tend to be rewarded improve the local availability of food. For example,
with customer loyalty. Likewise, donating surplus improving storage facilities can reduce food losses
food to charities can strengthen a company’s brand,
public reputation, and employees’ pride in where and increase the amount of food available for
they work. farmers to consume or to sell at market. For
instance, one study found that the use of hermetic
Source: Hanson and Mitchell (2017). storage technologies for grains in two regions
in Tanzania led to a 33 percent reduction in the
number of food-insecure households during the
lean season, and that hunger levels dropped by
one-third immediately after farmers began using
the improved storage technologies (WFP 2019).
Reducing food losses on the farm and during
handling and storage also can increase incomes,
which could be used by farmers to support paying
for family needs such as food, education, and health
care (HLPE 2014). In India, interventions that
provided precooling and cold storage facilities to
banana growers reduced losses by 20 percent and
resulted in farmers receiving three times higher
42 WRI.org
value for their produce (Danfoss 2019). In high-
BOX 2.3 | REDISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS
income countries and urban areas, redistributing
surplus food from restaurants and retailers to food
FOOD AND FOOD SECURITY
banks can support those in need. It is important
to note, however, that redistributing surplus food
provides little incentive to change the practices that
Donating surplus food to charity—instead of
disposing of it—can help people in need. For
often lead to the generation of surplus food, or to instance, a study by the Natural Resources Defense
improve long-term food access for households and Council in Nashville, Denver, and New York City
communities (Box 2.3). found that the surplus food from the grocery, retail,
restaurant, and food service sectors in these three
The link between food loss and waste, on the one cities could provide an additional 68 million meals
annually to those in need. The study found that food
hand, and food security, on the other, is about not donation at this scale could enable Denver and
only hunger but also food safety. Human health can Nashville to meet an additional 46 and 48 percent,
be impacted when food contamination and spoil- respectively, of their meals gap (Berkenkamp and
age go undetected. For example, aflatoxin—a toxin Phillips 2017).
produced by certain fungi that are found on crops
such as maize—is one of the most naturally occur-
Redistribution of surplus food presents a way to
feed people and use food that would otherwise be
ring carcinogenic substances found and can lead to wasted. However, although redistribution represents
slow-developing esophageal and liver cancers (WFP a short-term solution to hunger, it does not address
2019). Aflatoxin poisoning can occur when people hunger’s root causes or provide a long term-solution
consume poorly stored crops. One study estimated to food insecurity. Likewise, redistribution does not
that 4.5 billion people in low-income countries are encourage a shift in practices that led to the surplus
in the first place.
at risk of exposure to aflatoxins (Villers 2014). The
World Bank estimates that unsafe food costs low-
income countries around $110 billion each year due
to medical expenses and losses in productivity—
costs that could be reduced by improving the
handling of food across the supply chain (Jaffee
et al. 2018). The risk of contamination increases Research suggests that significant amounts of
significantly when farmers dry their crops on the nutrients are lost when such food is lost or wasted.
ground. Implementing practices such as drying One study in the United States found that food
crops on tarps instead is a low-cost approach wasted at the retail and consumption stages on an
to reducing this risk, and reduces food losses average day in 2012 contained the recommended
(WFP 2019). daily allowance of dietary fiber for 74 million adult
women (Spiker et al. 2017). In the United Kingdom,
One aspect of food security that warrants more the typical food waste created by one person in
attention is the impact of food loss and waste on one year could provide the nutrients and energy
nutrition (HLPE 2014). Food loss and waste is often required for six weeks of the year for the average
measured in weight and therefore does not account adult woman (Cooper et al. 2018). The Global Panel
for the nutritional content of different foods. Foods on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition
such as fish and seafood, for instance, represent a (2018) reports that if rates of food loss and waste
small portion of food loss and waste by weight but increase by around one-third by 2030 (due to rising
provide essential protein and micronutrients for the incomes, urbanization, and failure to take decisive
hundreds of millions of people for whom seafood steps to reduce food loss and waste), significant
is the primary source of protein. Furthermore, nutrient “disappearance” would occur. In particu-
nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables, and dairy lar, as a percentage of nutrients available, between
products are highly perishable—unless suitably 18 percent and 41 percent of vitamins and minerals
preserved or processed—and thus are dispropor- such as vitamin A, folate, calcium, and iron would
tionately vulnerable to food loss and waste. no longer be available for human consumption
(Global Panel 2018).

Reducing food loss and waste therefore can be a feed, now operates in 12 countries and expects
lever in creating a more nutrition-sensitive food to employ over 100 people by the end of 2019
system and can increase the availability of nutrients (Protix 2019).
essential for a healthy life. For example, in the Kano
region of Nigeria, where 42 percent of children Evidence is also emerging from low-income
are vitamin A deficient, a 35 percent reduction in countries. For example, qualitative data from
postharvest loss of tomatoes would result in addi- The Rockefeller Foundation’s YieldWise Initiative
tional availability of Vitamin A for up to 1.1 million found that a number of individuals employed
Nigerian children per day (GAIN Health n.d.). by nongovernmental organization (NGO)
implementers have successfully transitioned into
Jobs working for companies that provide technologies
and technical assistance to the smallholder farmers
Reducing food loss and waste might play a modest
they previously trained and advised (Rockefeller
role in creating jobs. For example, ReFED’s Road-
Foundation 2019). As well as creating jobs, activities
map to Reduce U.S. Food Waste (ReFED 2016)
that reduce food loss and waste can also add value
estimates that, if the roadmap’s 27 solutions were
to food products along the value chain, which can
implemented, an additional 15,000 jobs would
create additional income for workers. For example,
be created and sustained in the United States.
Psaltry, a cassava processing company based in
The majority of these jobs would be created in the
Nigeria, provides locally sourced cassava products
recycling sector, due to opening of more composting
and starch for the industrial sector to create
and anaerobic digestion facilities to process
products as diverse as confectionary and building
increased amounts of food scraps. The donation
materials. The company reduces postharvest losses
and storage sector, which includes food recovery
by strategically placing its processing facility, which
organizations, has the next highest potential
employs over 300 people, close to smallholder
to create jobs, followed by food donation trans-
farms. The company sources material directly from
portation. Australia’s Fight Food Waste Cooperative
smallholder farmers, encouraging farmers to
Research Centre estimates that reducing food waste
commercialize their cassava production and
in Australia by 30 million metric tons could directly
earning farmers additional income (Psaltry 2019).
and indirectly generate up to 5,200 jobs, mostly in
rural areas (Fight Food Waste CRC 2018).
That said, the impact of reducing food loss and
waste on the net number of jobs is an under-
Start-up companies that tackle food loss and waste
researched area. Data on job creation often does
upstream in the food supply chain can be a source
not consider how many jobs may be lost if food
of job creation, too. For example, Protix, a company
loss and waste were reduced. For example, if
that uses food waste to feed insects, which in turn
on-farm losses are substantially reduced through
are processed into high-value protein for animal
44 WRI.org
mechanization, less labor may be needed. More states that “whenever food is thrown out it is as if
quantitative research is needed on the relationship it were stolen from the table of the poor” (Francis
between the reduction of food loss and waste, on 2015). Judaism condemns wastefulness in prin-
the one hand, and job creation, on the other. ciples such as bal tashchit (“Do not destroy”), which
essentially prohibits any wasteful negative effects
Ethics on the natural environment. At many Buddhist
retreats, Buddhists follow the practice of eating
For many people, food loss and waste matters
meals “orioki” style, taking “just enough” food.
because it is an ethical or moral issue. Some people
Hinduism teaches that no one should be hungry
were raised by their parents to “eat everything on
and that people should help those who are hungry;
your plate because there are people in the world
Mahatma Gandhi once said that “God comes to the
who are starving.” The fact that so much food is lost
poor in the form of food” (Food Waste Weekend
or wasted while so many people are undernourished
2018).
is considered by many to be an ethical travesty.
It is only in relatively recent human history that
Ethical considerations regarding food loss and
significant numbers of people have been able
waste appear to resonate with the business commu-
to afford to waste food. This may go some way
nity as well. Interviews with business leaders found
to explaining why, in a number of high-income
that reducing food loss and waste is often framed
countries, senior citizens waste significantly less
in ethical terms, and that reducing food loss and
food than other age groups (Quested et al. 2013).
waste is simply “the right thing to do” (Hanson and
In a number of countries—such as Bangladesh,
Mitchell 2017). Tesco’s CEO, Dave Lewis, illustrated
Ethiopia, India, and Pakistan—the cultural memory
this point in a speech to The Consumer Goods
of when food was scarce is still quite strong (Gjerris
Forum in mid-2016: “Why wouldn’t we want to
and Gaiani 2014).
have a look at this [reducing food loss and waste]?
We can look at it through commercial sensibility,
The importance of not wasting food is also hinted
because waste ultimately has to be paid for, so if we
at by several of the world’s major religions. The
eradicate it we can lower our costs. We might even
Qur’an states this most explicitly: “Do not waste.
be able to improve the margins if that’s the thing
He does not love the wasteful” (Qur’an 6:141). The
that really drives us. But there’s also a bigger goal
Bible also contains a few references to food waste.
which is how we might make a contribution to that
For example, after the Feeding of the 5,000, Jesus
massive inequality that exists already in terms of
told his disciples, “Collect the pieces that are left
those who have food and those that don’t. Both of
over so that nothing is wasted” (John 6:12). The
them, I think, are enough for us as an industry to
importance of preventing food waste has also been
motivate ourselves, engage ourselves, and innovate
expressed in ethical terms by Pope Francis, whose
against this need” (Lewis 2016).
Laudato Si’, an encyclical on the environment,

SDGs consumer levels and reduc[ing] food losses along
production and supply chains, including post-
Food loss and waste is an important issue for the
harvest losses,” by 2030 (UN 2017).
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Figure
2.2). In September 2015, countries of the world
Reducing food loss and waste can help meet other
formally adopted a set of 17 SDGs as part of the
goals, too, albeit sometimes in a more indirect
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—global
manner. For instance, reducing on-farm food losses
goals to end poverty and hunger, protect the planet,
can improve incomes for farmers and thereby
and ensure prosperity for all populations and
tackle poverty (SDGs 1 and 8). Diverting to those
generations (UN 2017). Most directly, reducing
in need food that otherwise would have been wasted
food loss and increasing waste reduction can help
can help address hunger (SDG 2). Reducing food
achieve SDG 12, which seeks to “ensure sustainable
waste going to landfills can help cities become
consumption and production patterns.” The third
more sustainable (SDG 11). Reducing food loss and
target under this goal, Target 12.3, calls for halving
waste can help address climate goals by reducing
“per capita global food waste at the retail and
emissions from landfills and all the emissions
Figure 2.2 | Reducing Food Loss and Waste Can Help Achieve Multiple SDGs (Not Exhaustive)
SDG 2 Zero Hunger: Improved storage and

handling facilities help smooth seasonal
SDG 1 No Poverty / SDG 2 Zero Hunger: shortfalls and preserve nutritional quality,
Reducing losses means that farmers have more thereby stabilizing food supplies.
food available for market and to feed themselves.
SDG 15 Life on Land: Reducing food loss
SDG 3 Good Health: Reducing quality losses
and waste reduces the need to convert
means that food retains more nutritional value.
more natural ecosystems into cropland
17 1 Some food loss reduction practices, such as
or grazing pastures.
16 2 drying crops on tarps, can reduce the risk of
contamination from aflatoxins.
SDG 14 Life under Water: Reducing food 15 3
losses at sea means reducing bycatch. SDG 3 Good Health/SDG 4 Quality Education/
Wasted food uses significant amounts SDG 5 Gender Equality: Reducing food waste
14 4
of fertilizers, which contribute to eutro- could reduce unnecessary household spending
phication caused by agricultural run-off. on food and free up money for health, education,
13 5 and other household benefits.
SDG 13 Climate Action: Reducing food
loss and waste reduces the amount of
12 6
greenhouse gas emissions associated SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation: Better
with clearing land, growing, processing, utilizing food already grown reduces pressure
and disposing of food that is not eaten. 11 7 on freshwater consumption by agriculture and
10 8 increases efficiency of water use.
9
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth:
SDG 12 Sustainable Consumption and Farmer income and prosperity can be increased
Production: Meeting the food loss and waste when they reduce on-farm losses and thereby
reduction target would improve the sustain- sell more food.
ability of food consumption and production.
SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities:

Reducing food waste in landfills can reduce
landfill disposal fees for households and local
authorities. It also can enable cities to meet
waste, sustainability, and hunger goals.
46 WRI.org
associated with clearing land and growing food that In short, reducing food loss and waste is one of
is ultimately not consumed (SDG 13). Moreover, a handful of strategies that can hit numerous SDGs
reducing food loss and waste can play a role in at the same time. As such, it should be considered
protecting biodiversity by reducing pressure to a “no regrets” move for farmers, consumers,
convert natural land-based ecosystems into farm- businesses, and governments.
land (SDG 15) and by reducing bycatch (SDG 14).

CHAPTER 3
WHAT IS CAUSING IT?

Understanding the causes of food loss and waste is a prerequisite
for identifying appropriate solutions. This chapter identifies the
direct causes and underlying drivers of food loss and waste.

Food leaves the human food supply chain—inten-
SUMMARY POINTS tionally and unintentionally—as a result of a range
of interrelated factors. Understanding these factors,
▪ Understanding why food loss and waste occurs (whether
intentionally or not) is important to successfully reducing it.
and identifying which are relevant per circum-
stance, is important if public and private sector
▪ The most immediate reasons food leaves the human food

supply chain (the “direct causes”) tie back to concern
actors are to successfully prevent and reduce food
loss and waste.
about a food’s safety or suitability for consumption, or
there being no perceived use or market for it. This may be Direct Causes
due to deterioration or suboptimal quality, or issues such
as the food’s appearance, excess supply, and seasonal The most immediate reasons food leaves the human
production fluctuations. food supply chain relate to concerns about a food’s
▪ Leading to these direct causes are a number of “underly-
ing drivers.” These can be categorized as technological,
safety or suitability for consumption, or to there
being no perceived use or market. There are four
managerial, behavioral, or structural. The technological primary “direct causes”:
drivers are poor infrastructure, inadequate equipment, and
suboptimal packaging. The managerial drivers are inad-
equate food management practices, skills, or knowledge;
inflexible procurement practices; poor supply and demand
▪ Deterioration. The food item’s quality has
been compromised. For example, it may be
forecasting and planning; and marketing strategies. The bruised, spoiled, spilled, diseased, eaten by
behavioral drivers are norms and attitudes, lack of aware- pests, or cooked improperly.
ness, and concerns about possible risks. The structural
drivers are conditions in demographics, climate, policies
and regulations, economics, and financing that lead to food
loss and waste. These 15 underlying drivers need to be
▪ Suboptimal quality. The food item is below
desired quality in terms of taste, nutritional
addressed for food loss and waste to be reduced. content, or other salient feature. This may also
include parts considered “trim” or inedible in
▪ The underlying drivers of food loss and waste are closely
interrelated. An instance of food loss and waste often has
the particular cultural context, such as bones
more than one driver (e.g., rice losses may occur due to and rinds, or because the food is not at the ideal
inadequate storage bags, which, in turn, may be caused stage of maturity (either immature or too ripe)
by a grower’s lack of access to credit to purchase better for consumption or for the intended market.
bags). Moreover, while an underlying driver may occur
during one stage of the food supply chain, the generation
of loss and waste might actually occur at a different stage.
For instance, orders modified last-minute by food retailers
▪ Appearance. The food item has cosmetic
defects, such as blemishes, scars, or scratches,
at the distribution and market stage of the food supply which affect its perceived value. Or the food
chain can result in fruits and vegetables being left in the item has attributes that are not accepted by the
farm field, leading to losses during the production stage. market such as undesirable size, shape, weight,
▪ Among the various drivers, some are more relevant in cer- color, or mislabeled packaging.
▪
tain regions. For example, lack of infrastructure is typically
a more significant driver in low-income countries, whereas Lack of a buyer/user. This includes too
social norms and attitudes such as the acceptability of much of a food product grown relative to cur-
not eating all the food on one’s plate are often a driver in rent market demand, inadequate access to
high-income countries. Reducing food losses close to the
markets, inability to get food to market, non-
farm (during production as well as handling and storage)
can be a result of “good economic development.” But as targeted animal or seafood species caught, too
economies develop and underlying drivers shift, food loss much food prepared, and food left on the plate.
may give way to food waste closer to the plate.
Direct causes can occur at any stage of the food
supply chain. For example, a farmer may leave
potatoes in the field that were damaged during
harvesting (i.e., deterioration) or that are too small
to meet the buyer’s specifications (i.e., appearance).
A food processor may discard chicken that fell on
the floor (i.e., deterioration), or it may have surplus
chicken without an identified use when a customer
50 WRI.org
cancels its order (i.e., lack of a buyer). An individual While diverse and interrelated, underlying drivers
may discard a perishable product that is past its fall into four generic categories. First are those that
date label (i.e., suboptimal quality), or dispose of are considered technological, including physical
uneaten food on the plate after a meal (i.e., lack of infrastructure such as roads and processing facili-
a user). ties, as well as equipment and packaging. Second
are those related to management approaches,
Underlying Drivers including skills and knowledge (or lack thereof).
Third are those related to social dynamics and
Developing strategies to prevent and reduce food
individual attitudes. Fourth are those that are more
loss and waste, however, needs to be informed
structural in nature, related to the demographic,
by more than an awareness that a food product
climatic, economic, and policy context of the
is declining in either quality or value. One needs
food system. Across these four categories, there
to understand what underpins such declines. We
are at least 15 kinds of specific underlying drivers
call these the “underlying drivers” of food loss and
(Figure 3.1).19
waste. In other words, the underlying drivers are
those factors that give rise to the direct causes. It is
Table 3.1 defines these underlying drivers and high-
these underlying drivers that food loss and waste
lights at which stage of the food supply chain food
reduction strategies need to address. One does not
loss and waste can occur due to that driver. This
develop a strategy to tackle the deterioration of food
table is a new framing and synthesis of the reasons
per se. Rather, one develops a strategy to tackle
for food loss and waste, building upon a number
what is causing that deterioration.
of previous studies that also categorized the causes
and drivers of food loss and waste.20
Figure 3.1 | Why Food Is Lost or Wasted Is Due to Multiple Underlying Drivers
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
■ Access ■ Economics ■ Demographics ■ Policies and ■ Climatic
to financing regulations conditions
TECHNOLOGICAL MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORAL
■ Poor infrastructure ■ Inadequate food management ■ Lack of awareness

■ Inadequate equipment
practices, skills & knowledge ■ Norms and attitudes
■ Inflexible procurement requirements
■ Suboptimal packaging ■ Concerns about
■ Poor supply/demand forecasting possible risks
and planning
■ Marketing strategies
Lead to food and its inedible parts exiting the food supply chain due to:
■ Deterioration
■ Suboptimal quality
■ Appearance
■ Lack of a buyer/user

Table 3.1 | nderlying Drivers of Food Loss and Waste and Where in the Supply Chain Loss and Waste Occurs
U
CATEGORY
(Not Exhaustive)
UNDERLYING DESCRIPTION
DRIVER
Poor Lack of or poor-quality infrastructure (public or private) along the food supply chain. Public infrastructure
Technological
infrastructure includes reliable power supplies, reliable communication, usable roads, and access to markets. Private
infrastructure includes storage facilities, cold chains, processing facilities, and distribution- or market-related
logistics (e.g., handling facilities).
Inadequate Lack of or suboptimal equipment along the food supply chain. This includes equipment used during harvesting
equipment (e.g., combines), storage (e.g., bags), distribution (e.g., pallet jacks), merchandising (e.g., displays), and food
preparation (e.g., stoves, refrigeration).
Suboptimal Suboptimal pack sizes, and insufficient packaging to protect products after harvest from deterioration
packaging and damage.
Inadequate food Lack of or inadequate management practices or use of equipment due to a lack of knowledge, skills, or
Managerial
management incentives. Among producers, this could include poor use of mechanical harvesters, improper use of fishing
practices, skills, gear, and inadequate animal care practices. Among households this includes a lack of knowledge about
and knowledge planning and preparing meals, as well as how to assess product freshness and interpret date labels.
Inflexible Contractual practices (e.g., last-minute order changes, take-back clauses) or quality and cosmetic standards
procurement (e.g., undesired attributes) that result in food leaving the supply chain. While some procurement requirements
requirements may reduce the amount of unusable food that is sent further down the supply chain, other requirements may
result in nutritious, edible food exiting the human food supply chain.
Poor supply Poor forecasting and information flow between buyer and supplier. At the farm, this includes suboptimal crop
and demand scheduling and forecasting. In the middle of the supply chain, this includes suboptimal inventory management.
forecasting and At the consumption stage, this includes buying and preparing more food than will be consumed.
planning
Marketing Promotions, merchandising displays, or other marketing strategies that increase the likelihood of product
strategies damage, surplus, or overpurchasing by consumers.
Norms and Norms and attitudes that influence food production and consumption behaviors and cause products to
Behavioral
attitudes be removed from the food chain at any stage. These include what types of foods are considered appealing
(e.g., whether certain parts of an animal are typically eaten), the preferred appearance of products (e.g., no
blemishes), showing off “abundance” to indicate wealth or hospitality, attitudes about food generally (e.g.,
dislike of leftovers, desire for variety, preference for “fresh”), and social values that accept resource waste and
its impacts.
Lack of Lack of awareness that food loss and waste happens and has an impact, and how one contributes to the
awareness problem. Farmers, business managers, and consumers often do not think they lose or waste food, but
measurement suggests otherwise. Lack of awareness also can include a limited understanding of how
reducing food loss and waste can provide direct (personal or business) benefits (e.g., enhanced product
freshness, reduced costs).
Concerns about Actual or perceived risks related to food safety (including food labeling), reputation, and liability. This includes
possible risks concerns about safe food consumption, or fear about liability linked to food donation.
52 WRI.org
U
(Not Exhaustive), continued
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN STAGES

CATEGORY
UNDERLYING
DRIVER
HANDLING/
HANDLING PROCESSING/
PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
STORAGE
AND STORAGE PACKAGING
AND PACKAGING AND
ANDMARKET
MARKET
Poor X X X X X
Technological
infrastructure
Inadequate X X X X X
equipment
Suboptimal X X X X
packaging
Inadequate food X X X X X
Managerial
management
practices, skills,
and knowledge
Inflexible X X X X
procurement
requirements
Poor supply X X X X X
and demand
forecasting and
planning
Marketing X X X
strategies
Norms and X X X X X
Behavioral
attitudes
Lack of X X X X X
awareness
Concerns about X X X X X
possible risks

U
CATEGORY
DRIVER
Demographics Household size, urbanization, and growth in the middle class (which is linked to higher disposable income)
Structural
impact food production and consumption. This includes reduced availability of labor to harvest food in the
production stage, which can increase food losses. The rise of the middle class can change how people acquire,
eat, and manage food (e.g., portion sizes, shopping habits, preference for “fresh”), which can increase the
likelihood of food waste.
Climatic Weather (e.g., rain, snow, ice, wind, cold, heat) and impacts from a changing climate affect growing conditions,
conditions which can result in damage to crops or surplus product. These conditions also affect other factors such as
the degree of damage by pests and diseases, and the ability to get a product to market (e.g., disruptions in
transportation networks).
Policies and Policies and regulations may be barriers, be poorly coordinated, or be absent, resulting in food leaving the food
regulations supply chain. Policy barriers may relate to food safety, food quality, labeling, packaging, trade and customs, tax
incentives, agricultural extension services, and use of unsold food for animal feed or energy.
Economics Costs of avoiding or reducing food loss and waste are (or are perceived to be) high in comparison to the
benefits that would be obtained. Growers, especially smallholders, may not invest in loss reduction practices
or technologies due to poverty. Growers may harvest crops prematurely (increasing the risk of food losses)
because they need cash or because market prices are currently high. Conversely, growers may not harvest
crops where the cost to do so exceeds the market price, and if alternative markets for second-grade products
are not profitable. A food processor may accept food loss and waste as the “cost of doing business” or because
disposal costs are low. In many countries, food comprises only a small share of household expenditures,
lowering the cost of waste and the perceived value of conserving food.
Access to Inability to access sufficient financing (e.g., investment, loans, grants) to purchase, implement, or scale
Financing technologies, capacity-building programs, and/or enterprises that would reduce food loss and waste.
Sources: WRI analysis based on Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, 2019); Clowes et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); Food Loss and Waste Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative
(2017); Gunders and Bloom (2017); Hegnsholt et al. (2018); HLPE (2014); ReFED (2016); Gooch et al. (2019); and WWF-US (2018).
54 WRI.org
U
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN STAGES

CATEGORY
UNDERLYING
DRIVER
HANDLING/
HANDLING PROCESSING/
PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION
STORAGE
AND STORAGE PACKAGING
AND PACKAGING AND
ANDMARKET
MARKET
Demographics X X
Structural
Climatic X X X X X
conditions
Policies and X X X X X
regulations
Economics X X X X X
Access to X X X X X
Financing

We make several observations about these under-
lying drivers of food loss and waste:
▪ Loss and waste can be driven by
multiple underlying drivers at once.
▪
A given instance of food loss and waste may
Underlying drivers can occur at mul- involve more than one driver. For example, loss
tiple stages. All the underlying drivers can of rice due to poor storage may be a result of
occur at more than one stage of the food supply inadequate storage containers (inadequate
chain (e.g., loss and waste can be generated by equipment) which, in turn, was caused by the
poor infrastructure at every stage in the chain), farmer not having access to credit to purchase
even though the actors involved may differ by better storage containers (access to financing).
stage (e.g., farmer during the production stage,
household during the consumption stage)
(Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 | E xample of Underlying Drivers in Tomato Supply Chain (Mexico)
Consumer demand (Poor supply

and demand forecasting)
No refrigeration (Poor infrastructure)
Damage in store (Inadequate food manage-

Poor handling (Inadequate food management ment practices, skills, and knowledge
practices, skills, and knowledge)
No refrigerated transport
(Poor infrastructure) Bought too much (Poor supply
and demand forecasting)
Didn’t store them right (Inadequate

food management practices, skills,
and knowledge)
Daily prices are too low (Economics) Weather and pests (Climatic conditions)
The movement of
tomatoes within
the food chain
Cost of harvest exceeds price farmer will get
for crop, can’t get labor (Economics) Reasons tomatoes
are wasted:
Lacks harvesting tools Structural
(Inadequate equipment)
Technological
Does not meet specifications Managerial
(Inflexible procurement requirements)
Source: WRI analysis based on the World Bank Mexico (2019).
56 WRI.org
▪ Some drivers are more relevant in
certain regions. Inadequate equipment, as
when it is at another stage. For example, rough
handling of fruit (inadequate food manage-
well as inadequate food management practices ment practices) during the production or
and skills, are arguably more prevalent in low- handling stages of the food supply chain can
and middle-income countries, whereas social reduce the fruit’s shelf life at the market or
norms that do not encourage food efficiency consumption stage, thereby increasing food
(e.g., overpurchasing of food) in the home waste at these latter stages. The impacts can go
are arguably more prevalent in high-income the other direction, too. For instance, orders
countries (Figure 3.3). canceled by retailers (inflexible procurement
requirements) at the market stage can result in
▪ An underlying driver occurring during

one stage of the food supply chain may
food being lost or wasted at the processing site
or all the way back at the farm.
result in the actual food loss and waste
occurring at a different stage. The food Understanding the underlying drivers at play for
supply chain is a complex system where a given instance of food loss and waste is a pre-
actions at one stage in the chain can affect food requisite for developing an effective food loss and
waste reduction strategy for that instance.
Figure 3.3 | Leading Underlying Drivers and Supply Chain Stage of Food Loss and Waste per Region
Inadequate Equipment
Inadequate Food
Management Practices,
Skills, and Knowledge
Norms and Attitudes
Production Handling Processing Distribution Consumption

Note: The map highlights by geographic region the leading underlying driver of food loss and waste for the supply chain stage that is estimated to account for the largest share
of food loss and waste in that region. Countries are grouped in the same regions as given in FAO (2011). Which food supply chain stage accounts for the highest share of food loss
and waste per region is based on FAO (2011). The leading driver of food loss and waste draws upon a review of HLPE (2014).
Source: WRI analysis based on FAO (2011) and HLPE (2014).

CHAPTER 4
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

ABOUT IT?
A simple three-step approach can set anyone on the path toward
reducing food loss and waste. This chapter explains that approach
and introduces a “to do” list for the principal types of actors in the
food supply chain.

In light of the variety of underlying drivers, what
SUMMARY POINTS should governments, companies, farmers, house-
holds, and others do to prevent and reduce food
▪ The three-step approach Target-Measure-Act is a useful
framework being used by governments and companies
loss and waste? Although there may be multiple
ways to frame it, we recommend a three-step
to guide food loss and waste reduction strategies. approach: (1) Target, (2) Measure, and (3) Act
□ Target: Setting a reduction target increases decision- (Figure 4.1). Although this framing could be
maker attention to the issue of food loss and waste— considered “generic,” it has been derived from
and attention is a prerequisite for taking action. studying what appears to be working in the realm
□ Measure: Measuring and analyzing how much and of food loss and waste reduction efforts. The
where food is being lost or wasted enables identification
authors have observed that the entities which
of the largest opportunities for reduction. Measurement is
important for developing the evidence base for prioritizing have made progress on reducing food loss and
food loss and waste reduction interventions and for waste within the past decade have followed this
tracking progress over time. approach, either explicitly or implicitly. Examples
□ Act: Taking action consists of identifying the specific include the United Kingdom (the nation that has
interventions that one should implement to reduce food made the most known progress in reducing food
loss and waste, and then implementing them. These
interventions include technologies, practices, programs, loss and waste since the mid-2000s), London (the
investments, and/or behavior changes that aim to reduce first major city to have achieved reductions in food
food loss and waste at one or more stages of the food waste), and a number of major food businesses
supply chain. (e.g., Kellogg Company, Nestlé, Olam, Sodexo,
▪ There is a role for everyone in the food system, from farmers
all the way to consumers, in reducing food loss and waste.
Tesco, Walmart). Moreover, Target-Measure-Act
is now the approach being pursued by additional
We propose a short list of priority “to dos” for each kind of countries and political blocs (e.g., the European
actor that will help them implement the “Act” portion of the Union’s strategy for fulfilling SDG 12.3 essentially
Target-Measure-Act framework. follows this approach) and by numerous companies,
▪ Experiences from reduction initiatives that are making
progress provide insights relevant to the action agenda:
including some of the largest food companies (by
sales) in the world (e.g., members of The Consumer
□ Awareness is a start (but only a start). Goods Forum, members of the Global Agribusiness
□ Make the “business case” to motivate actors (so they see Alliance). (We elaborate on these developments in
reducing food loss and waste as in their self-interest). Chapter 5.)
□ Recognize that there is no silver bullet (a number of
interventions are typically required).
□ Which interventions are relevant varies from country to Target
country and within countries (especially depending on Targets set ambition, and ambition motivates
the level of economic development). action. Setting a reduction target is a deliberate
□ Beware of knock-on effects across the supply chain
(reductions at one stage might merely trigger loss and
way of raising decision-maker attention to the issue
waste later). of food loss and waste—and attention is a typical
□ Collaboration among actors is crucial (especially when prerequisite for taking action.
one is pursuing a “whole supply chain” approach).
The most straightforward target to adopt—and
most aligned with the global agenda—is SDG 12.3:
Reduce food waste by 50 percent and reduce food
loss along the supply chain by 2030. Moreover, a
50 percent reduction target is increasingly being
proposed by studies modeling what it will take to
achieve a sustainable food future (see Searchinger
et al. 2018; and Willet et al. 2019). For some
entities, adopting this target simply consists of
“internalizing” the already-accepted SDGs. In
theory, this should apply to every national govern-
ment since all nations signed on to the SDGs. But
because the SDGs have 169 targets, Target 12.3
60 WRI.org
Figure 4.1 | A Strategy for Tackling Food Loss and Waste
TARGET
MEASURE
ACT

could get “lost” and not receive sufficient attention. categories most important to the well-being of
Therefore, we recommend that governments the country or performance of the company.
▪
explicitly and publicly articulate a 50 percent
food loss and waste reduction target in order to Lifecycle stage: The most complete target
emphasize attention and commitment to the issue. would cover all stages in the food supply chain,
Moreover, although not necessarily bound by the from production to consumption. But some
SDGs, companies should set similar targets to targets may cover just those stages of the food
reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent. supply chain where the business operates
(e.g., for a food manufacturer this might be
When setting a target, it is important for the entity the “processing” stage).
to define the scope of the target.21 The scope
includes several parameters: Measure
▪ Time period: The start date is often 2015

(year of SDG formulation) or a more recent
The old adage “what gets measured gets managed”
holds true for food loss and waste as well.
Quantifying food loss and waste within borders,
year, and the end date is typically 2030.
operations, or supply chains can help decision-
▪ Geographic boundary: For nations this

would be the country itself (unless subnational
makers better understand how much and where
food is being lost or wasted. Doing so enables
identification of “hotspots” that may provide the
states or cities want to set their own targets).
largest opportunities for (and thus benefits of)
For businesses, this could be operations within
reduction. Such information provides the evidence
one country or all global operations.
base for developing and prioritizing reduction
▪ Food category: The most complete target

would cover all food categories. Some targets,
strategies and interventions. Measurement also
is necessary if entities are to know whether or not
they are on track to realizing their target. When
however, cover certain dominant crop or food

conducted periodically, measurement enables
BOX 4.1 | RESOURCES TO GET
monitoring of progress over time—identifying when
STARTED WITH MEASUREMENT AND
and where interventions are having an impact and
PRIORITIZATION when and where corrective measures are needed.
Therefore, every government and company should
Various resources are available to help companies, start to measure its food loss and waste, and
governments, and others measure food loss and monitor progress and trends over time.
waste. Developed by the Food Loss and Waste
Protocol (2016), the Food Loss and Waste Accounting
and Reporting Standard provides globally applicable Some might suggest that one should measure first
guidance on developing a food loss and waste and set a reduction target based on this afterward.
inventory. It helps define the scope of measurement, However, because of SDG 12.3, the increasingly
gives guidance on 10 common quantification generally accepted target for reducing food loss
methods (offering a tool to identify which of the and waste has already been set. Moreover, it is
10 are appropriate for one’s circumstances), and
recommends how to report results. important to not let “the perfect become the enemy
of the good.” One does not necessarily need
Developed by FAO, the Food Loss Analysis Case Study complete or precise quantification in order to take
Methodology helps one understand the amount steps to minimize food loss and waste. One should
of losses and underlying drivers for a particular balance the costs and time of conducting food loss
commodity at critical loss points in a given country and waste measurement with the level of detail
(FAO 2019a). Additional resources on measurement
can be found through online platforms including needed—although many experiences indicate that
the Technical Platform on the Measurement and the benefits of measurement can greatly outweigh
Reduction of Food Loss and Waste (FAO 2019b), the costs (see Box 2.1). Box 4.1 outlines resources
the REFRESH Community of Experts (2019), and available to help start the measurement process and
Further with Food (2019). Various studies and data understand where to prioritize interventions.
points focused on quantifying field-level losses and
understanding the drivers of loss during primary
production (and beyond) have been produced by Act
organizations including Wageningen University
(Canali et al. 2014), World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US Setting targets and measuring food loss and waste
2018), the African Postharvest Losses Information are important. But what ultimately matters is
System (APHLIS 2019), the International Food action. “Act” consists of identifying the specific
Policy Research Institute (Delgado et al. 2017), GIZ interventions that entities should implement to
(Ostermann et al. 2015), YieldWise (Rockefeller reduce food loss and waste, and then implementing
Foundation 2019), and the Global Strategy to Improve
them. These interventions include technologies,
Agricultural and Rural Statistics (GSARS 2018).
practices, programs, investments, and/or behavior
Other guides on measurement include Why and How changes that explicitly aim to reduce food loss and
to Measure Food Loss and Waste: A Practical Guide, waste at one or more stages of the food supply
produced by the Commission for Environmental chain. Act is where the proverbial “rubber hits
Cooperation (focused on Mexico, Canada, and the the road.”
United States) (CEC 2019); Food Waste Reduction
Roadmap and Toolkit, published by WRAP (focused When it comes to taking action, many proven
on the food processing, retail, hospitality, and food
interventions exist. Figuring out which to employ
service sectors) (WRAP 2018a); A Food Loss and
Waste Quantification Handbook (aimed at providing should be informed by the results of measurement
guidance for the 21 member economies of the Asia- and an understanding of the underlying drivers. In
Pacific Economic Cooperation group) (Chang and other words, “measurement” ideally should inform
Hsu 2019a); and Food Waste Quantification Manual “action.” An action for all companies is to quantify
to Monitor Food Waste Amounts and Progression, food loss and waste in their own operations, map
developed through the EU FUSIONS project (focused their supply chain, determine hotspots, develop
on EU member states) (Tostivint et al. 2016).
food loss reduction policies, set targets and work-
plans, and ideally make public commitments to
monitor, measure, and reduce. By knowing where
and how much food is being lost and wasted, one
62 WRI.org
can identify the hotspots and prioritize those. By
BOX 4.2 | DATA SOURCES FOR
knowing why food is being lost and wasted, one
can identify interventions that address the specific
INTERVENTIONS
underlying driver(s). Appendix C summarizes some
promising, albeit not exhaustive, interventions per
driver. It also highlights which drivers tend to be
The interventions in Appendix C and in the rest of
this chapter were drawn from a review of academic
more salient in low-income versus middle- and literature, recommendations found in synthesis
high-income countries. These interventions were reports on food loss and waste, experiences from
identified from a variety of sources (Box 4.2). reduction efforts, as well as input from this report’s
partner organizations. Literature sources include
Because food loss and waste is so pervasive, there Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, 2019); Clowes et
al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); FAO (1989); Food Loss and
is a role for everyone in the food system when it Waste Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative
comes to taking action to reduce it. Figure 4.2 high- (2017); Gunders and Bloom (2017); Hegnsholt et
lights many of the important actors per stage of the al. (2018); HLPE (2014); ReFED (2016); Gooch et al.
food supply chain, as well as actors whose actions (2019); and WWF-US (2018). Field experience sources
cut across the stages. Although there are a number include the Courtauld Commitment, a variety of FAO
of interventions any particular actor could pursue
field studies, a number of business projects, and
YieldWise project results.
(depending on their circumstances and available
resources), the following identifies a priority to-do
list each type of actor could pursue first in order to
kick-start reductions in food loss and waste.
Figure 4.2 | Key Actors for Reducing Food Loss and Waste (Not Exhaustive)

During or immediately after After leaving the farm During industrial or During distribution to In the home or business
the harvesting on the farm for handling, storage, domestic processing markets, including at of the consumer, includ-
and transport and/or packaging wholesale and retail ing restaurants and
markets caterers
Crop farmers Primary producers Processors and Wholesalers Households

manufacturers
Restaurants
Fishers Packing houses Slaughterhouses Retailers (formal) Hotels
Catering /
food service
Ranchers and Storage providers Packaging providers Retailers (informal) Public and
animal farmers private institutions
Transportation and
logistics providers
Policymakers Financiers Researchers Civil Society

Production
Food losses during harvesting can result from any TARGET
number of factors, including damage incurred
during harvest, failure of harvesting methods to
capture all of the available crop, high production
(e.g., labor) costs relative to market prices, and lack
MEASURE
of an economically viable market for surplus food
(e.g., food does not meet cosmetic requirements
or is in excess if an order has been canceled),
among others. Relevant interventions tend to
ACT
be those that address the underlying drivers of
inadequate infrastructure, lack of equipment,
insufficient skills and knowledge, economic factors,
and climatic conditions. PRODUCTION AND STORAGE AND PACKAGING AND MARKET CONSUMPTION
ACTOR KEY “TO DO”
Crop farmers ▪ Improve harvesting practices (e.g., ensure product is harvested at the right maturity and use
appropriate harvesting equipment to maximize yield while minimizing crop damage).
▪ Improve skills or use tools to better schedule harvesting (including accessing better data on weather).
▪ Engage customers (e.g., wholesalers, retailers) to communicate implications of order changes.
▪ Engage customers to explore changes in quality specifications to enable more of what is harvested to be sold.
▪ processing,
Identify financially viable alternative markets or use for crops otherwise left in the field (e.g., value-added
donation, secondary surplus markets).
Fishers ▪ Use fishing gear designed for target species to reduce bycatch.
▪ (or create) markets for unavoidable bycatch (e.g., animal feed or processed products).
Identify
Ranchers and ▪ Build capacity in practices to reduce losses (e.g., reduce milk spills, minimize contamination).
animal farmers ▪ from animals.best practices in animal welfare to avoid stress and injuries that can reduce the shelf life of meat
Implement
64 WRI.org
Handling and storage
Food losses during handling and storage can result TARGET
from any number of factors, including careless
handling, pests, inadequate reduction of heat and
moisture during storage, vibration of vehicles on
bad roads, lack of cold chain infrastructure, delays
MEASURE
at border crossings, and disruptions due to weather,
among others. Relevant interventions tend to be
those that address the underlying drivers of poor
infrastructure, inadequate equipment, inadequate
ACT
implementation of practices, insufficient skills
and knowledge, procurement requirements, and
climatic conditions.
Primary
producers
▪ ments,
Crop farmers: Improve training in best practices (e.g., handling to reduce damage, drying, fumigation treat-
and on-farm processing). Establish aggregation centers that provide adequate storage and preservation
options, such as cooling chambers.
▪ beaches
Fishers: Improve temperature management, handling, and preservation techniques (e.g., fenced-off landing
or drying racks to improve the quality of fish and to minimize losses).
▪ centers withandcooling
Ranchers animal farmers: Improve handling and preservation options (e.g., establish milk collection
tanks). Improve conditions during transportation of food-producing animals from farm
to markets.
Packinghouses ▪ Adopt best practices to provide the clean, cool, and/or dry conditions required to reduce postharvest losses.
▪ Reexamine handling and storage practices to reduce damage (e.g., use liners in wood and basket containers,
reduce the size of sacks or crates to minimize product damage).
▪ Build near-farm facilities to convert unmarketable crops and by-products into value-added products.
Storage providers ▪ Use storage containers that protect against temperature variations, humidity and precipitation, and insect and
rodent infestation.
▪ Adopt low-cost storage and handling technologies (e.g., hermetic grain storage bags, plastic or metal silos,
plastic crates) that prevent spoilage and increase shelf life.
▪ Work with intended users and community experts to design and produce locally relevant storage solutions.
Transportation ▪ Improve handling practices during loading and unloading.
and logistics
providers
▪ Use technology innovations to improve the flow of information (e.g., about road and traffic conditions, as well as
timing of pickup and delivery) to optimize movement of food.
▪ Introduce (or expand) energy-efficient, clean, low-carbon cold chains from farm to wholesalers.
▪ Work upstream with customers to provide planning tools and handling and storage technologies that help them
reduce losses.
▪ Create access to alternative markets for products that cannot be marketed.

Processing and packaging
Food loss and waste during processing and TARGET
packaging can result from factors including poor
management of inventory, inaccurate forecasts,
human errors and interruptions during food
processing, residual food not used during product
MEASURE
line changeovers, and product or package defects.
Relevant interventions to reduce food loss and
waste at processing facilities tend to be those
that address the underlying drivers of inadequate
ACT
implementation of management practices, skills,
and knowledge, and poor supply and demand fore-
casting. Interventions by processing facilities that
can reduce loss and waste later in the food supply PRODUCTION AND STORAGE AND PACKAGING AND MARKET CONSUMPTION
chain (after food leaves the processing facility)

tend to involve improving packaging, adjusting
marketing strategies, and exploring economically
viable markets for food by-products.
Processors and Operations-related:

manufacturers ▪ Improve training of staff to reduce technical malfunctions and errors during processing.
▪ Reengineer production processes and product design to reduce waste during product line changeovers.
▪ Introduce software and related information and communications technologies to optimize operations (e.g., to
identify waste, track temperature and ensure freshness, assess ripeness, better balance demand and supply
forecasts, and accelerate delivery of food).
Customer-related:
▪ Use product sizes and packaging that reduce waste by consumers (e.g., accommodate desire for smaller or
customizable portions).
▪ Standardize date labels (e.g., eliminate “sell by” and use only “use by” for perishable items and “best before” for
others) to reduce consumer confusion.
▪ Develop new food products or secondary uses (e.g., animal feed or other value-added products) from what can-
not be marketed (e.g., spent grains, fruit trimmings, vegetable peels).
▪ Seek donation of excess food that is still safe to consume (e.g., revise vendor agreements with retailers to allow
for donation instead of mandatory destruction).
Slaughterhouses ▪ Ensure that proper temperature management conditions are maintained.

▪ Follow best practices in cleaning and sanitation to reduce losses due to contamination.
▪ Fully leverage potential for using animal by-products to safely manufacture other products (e.g., animal feed
supplements).
▪ Identify and address management practices that lead to avoidable losses (e.g., using remote video auditing to
assess whether best practices are being implemented).
Packaging
providers
▪ Invent, design, produce, and mainstream packaging options or coatings (e.g., resins used on pouches or on
foods) that extend a product’s shelf life (although consideration should be given to the impact of the packaging,
and efforts should be made to create reusable and recyclable packaging, as discussed in Box 4.3).
▪ Offer packaging that is resealable to allow for incremental consumption and to extend how long the remainder
of a product stays suitable for consumption.
▪ Provide commercial customers with a greater variety of packaging sizes to help shoppers purchase the amount
appropriate for their needs.
▪ Adjust packaging so it is easier for consumers to empty all the contents.
66 WRI.org
Distribution and market
Food loss and waste during wholesale and retail TARGET
can result from factors including poor handling,
not storing or transporting product at the right
temperature, equipment malfunctions, overstock-
ing due to an inadequate assessment of supply and
MEASURE
demand (or fear of empty shelves), and disposing of
unsold food, among others. Relevant interventions
tend to be those that address the underlying drivers
of inadequate skills and knowledge, poor supply
ACT
and demand forecasting, suboptimal packaging,
inadequate equipment, concerns about possible
risks, inflexible procurement requirements, and
marketing strategies. PRODUCTION AND STORAGE AND PACKAGING AND MARKET CONSUMPTION
Wholesalers ▪ Build capacity for better handling and storage practices to reduce mistakes that result in food loss.
▪ Find foodcoldrescue
Expand storage systems during wholesale and logistics to protect products vulnerable to heat damage.
▪ or short-life products.
partners or establish online marketplaces that facilitate sale or donation of rejected shipments
▪ Use backhauling (or other logistics solutions) to enable return of reusable storage containers or rescue of
surplus food for people in need.
▪ Invest in technologies to track temperature and ensure freshness, streamline routing, track movement of goods
in and out of warehouses, and monitor food loss and waste.
Retailers Operations-related:
(formal) ▪ Improve training of staff in temperature management, product handling, and stock rotation.
▪ Optimize inventory management systems (and increase flexibility in supplier contracts) to better match fore-
casting and ordering.
▪ Review cosmetic specifications and accept a wider diversity of produce.
Consumer-related:
▪ Enable consumers to purchase smaller or customized portions (e.g., through bulk bins or staffed seafood and
meat counters).
▪ Adjust promotions to avoid excessive purchase of additional items (e.g., offer half off or mix-and-match deals
rather than two-for-one offers).
▪ Redesign in-store merchandising to avoid excessive handling of products by consumers (e.g., sort by stage of
maturity), and to achieve the desired appearance of abundance but with less damage and excess product (e.g.,
through smaller bins and bowls).
▪ Educate consumers about better food management (e.g., proper storage, meal planning, understanding date
labels, safe food handling, cooking tips).
Retailers
(informal)
▪ Participate in groups or associations of informal operators to access guidance and training in best practices in
food handling and storage.
▪ Take advantage of municipal support to access clean water, storage areas, equipment that improves food safety,
and training in how to reduce food contamination.
▪ Use practices that minimize damage such as handling produce gently, stacking properly (e.g., to avoid bruising
delicate produce), marking cases to track inventory, and rotating stock following a “first-in-first-out” method.
▪ Ensure that displays allow air to be circulated and temperature conditions to be appropriate for product to
remain fresh (e.g., high-ethylene producers should be kept away from ethylene-sensitive commodities).
▪ Avoid sprinkling unclean water on products (to minimize wilting and shriveling) as such practices result in
unsafe foods shunned by buyers.

Consumption
Food loss and waste during consumption, whether TARGET
from a company’s or consumer’s perspective, can
result from inaccurately planning what will be
consumed, portion sizes that are too large, mistakes
during preparation, fears related to food safety,
MEASURE
and improper handling and storage, among other
factors. Relevant interventions tend to be those
that address the underlying drivers of inadequate
implementation of practices, inadequate skills and
ACT
knowledge, cultural norms and attitudes, concerns
about possible risks, lack of awareness, suboptimal
packaging, and marketing strategies.
Households ▪ Buy only what you expect to eat: check refrigerator and cupboards before shopping, use a shopping list, and
plan meals in advance.
▪ Know the difference between “use by” (which is about food safety) and “best before” (which is about quality
and still safe to eat after this date).
▪ Freeze or preserve food before it spoils, and find out how to best store different foods so they stay fresh and
safe longer.
▪ Find creative ways to use leftover ingredients and products past their peak quality (e.g., in soups, sauces,
smoothies), as well as to cook the parts you may not normally eat (e.g., stems, cores).
▪ Organize the kitchen and refrigerator so that items do not get lost and spoil.
Restaurants ▪ Engage staff on food waste reduction (e.g., explain why reduction is important, give tips on waste reduction,
reward staff who deliver against targets).
▪ Shift away from preparation methods such as batch cooking, casserole trays, and buffets to reduce over-
production and repurpose excess food (e.g., offer customers “doggy bags,” safely incorporate unused items into
other dishes, sell excess food at a discount, donate unsold food).
▪ Revisit inventory management and purchasing practices (as well as menus) to better fit needs based on
▪ Consider whether portions served exceed what can be eaten, and rethink promotions that encourage over-
purchasing by customers.
Hotels ▪ Engage staff on food waste reduction (e.g., explain why reduction is important, give tips on waste reduction,
▪ Rethink the buffet (e.g., shift certain items to à la carte near end of mealtimes, reduce the size of dishes used
in buffets).
▪ Reduce overproduction by producing smaller quantities of items consistently left on the plate.
▪ Communicate to guests about food waste and encourage them to take only as much as they need.
68 WRI.org
Catering/food
service
▪ Reduce the amount overproduced (e.g., by producing smaller quantities of items that are consistently
underconsumed).
▪ of food disposed,
Use scales in the kitchen to weigh food and track items most commonly wasted (and estimate the financial cost
thus creating a financial signal to waste less).
▪ Evaluate contractual obligations between clients and suppliers that generate waste and overproduction (e.g.,
contracts that stipulate that all hot dishes must be available for the full-service period).
Public and private

institutions (e.g.,
schools, hospitals,
government
▪ Reduce the amount overproduced (e.g., by producing smaller quantities of items that are consistently under-
consumed), and repurpose excess food (e.g., by safely incorporating unused items into other dishes, or by
canteens) donating it).
▪ Introduce techniques to minimize people taking overly large portions (e.g., trayless dining, flexible portion sizes,
pay-by-weight pricing system, smaller plates).
▪ Revisit inventory management and procurement practices (as well as menus) to better fit needs based on

Across the supply chain
Food loss and waste across multiple stages of the
TARGET
food supply chain can result from any number
of factors that broadly affect the food system,
including demographic shifts that influence
consumption habits, poorly coordinated policies
and regulations on issues such as food safety, MEASURE
difficulty accessing financing to invest in equipment
that reduces loss and waste, a lack of markets, or
insufficient motivation for action, among others.
Relevant interventions that can be undertaken ACT
by actors such as policymakers, financiers, inter-

mediaries, innovators, researchers, and civil society
tend to be those that address the underlying drivers PRODUCTION
HANDLING
AND STORAGE
PROCESSING
AND PACKAGING
DISTRIBUTION
AND MARKET CONSUMPTION
of poor infrastructure, policies and regulations,

access to financing, demographic shifts, economic
conditions, as well as norms and attitudes.
Policymakers ▪ Embed into agricultural extension services (and in farmer subsidy programs) food loss reduction awareness,
technical assistance, and financial aid.
▪ Develop, facilitate, promote, and/or improve climate-smart infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity, irrigation,
community storage) and access to it, especially for smallholder farmers who live far from markets.
▪ Increase investment in agricultural research related to postharvest loss and provide incentives for the adoption
of postharvest technologies (e.g., zero-rates tax on imported postharvest technologies, incentives for local
manufacturers of postharvest technologies, subsidies for postharvest technologies).
▪ Implement policies to prevent unfair trading practices (e.g., last-minute order cancellations and unilateral
or retroactive changes to contracts).
▪ Remove barriers to food redistribution via policies (e.g., liability limitations, tax breaks) that make it easier
for food suppliers to donate safe (but unsold) food to charities or to those in need.
▪ Support policies to standardize food date labeling practices to reduce confusion about product safety and
quality, and improve consumer understanding of the meaning of date labels.
▪ Include food waste reduction lessons in school curricula and include food waste reduction training in public
procurement programs.
▪ Provide municipal support for informal retailers to access clean water, storage areas, equipment that improves
food safety, and training in how to reduce food contamination.
▪ Make measurement and reporting of food loss and waste by large companies mandatory.
Financiers ▪ Increase the number of philanthropic institutions funding food loss and waste prevention activities.
▪ Create financing instruments and product lines (e.g., funds, bonds, loans) dedicated to reducing food loss
and waste.
▪ Increase start-up financing for new technologies and business models that would reduce food loss and waste,
as well as financing to scale up proven technologies and models.
▪ Increase
and waste.
development cooperation between high-income and low-income countries targeting food loss
▪ Introduce “pay-as-you-go” programs to make technologies affordable for smaller operations (e.g., for solar-
powered refrigeration units and mobile processing).
70 WRI.org
Innovators and
intermediaries
▪ Develop and improve availability of processing and preservation facilities (including aggregation centers
and mobile low-carbon options).
(e.g., brokers,
consolidators,
▪ Develop alternative outlets during peak season through organizing export opportunities to markets with other
seasonalities.
digital solution
developers)
▪ For unmarketable crops, improve flow of information to find alternative buyers, promote financially viable
alternative markets, or develop new outlets (e.g., as processed foods, industrial products, animal feed).
▪ Apply innovations to reduce delays for imported products during the point of exit and entry, which extends the
shelf life of perishable products.
▪ Leverage technology and digital solutions to rethink and better coordinate key processes between suppliers
and customers in a more organized and informed way.
Researchers ▪ Research new and innovative technologies to preserve food quality and extend shelf life.
▪ Develop innovative products from perishable food commodities, such as fruits and vegetables, to promote
whole food utilization.
▪ Undertake research to fill data gaps and standardize reporting of food loss and waste data in order to better
compare results, create benchmarks, and provide clearer direction for stakeholders.
▪ Assess impact of interventions to improve evidence base of what works and the return on investment.
▪ take actionsector-specific
Develop guidance that provides the motivation and technical information for businesses to
(e.g., promote industry roadmaps for food loss and waste reduction).
Civil society ▪ Raise awareness and shift social norms so that food loss and waste is considered “unacceptable” for all,
including higher-income consumers.
▪ Encourage public and private sector leaders to pursue the Target-Measure-Act strategy.
▪ Act as a channel for the sharing and reporting of food waste data and progress.
Source: Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, 2019); Clowes et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); Food Loss and Waste Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative (2017); Gunders and Bloom
(2017); Hegnsholt et al. (2018); HLPE (2014); ReFED (2016); Gooch et al. (2019); WWF-US (2018).

Insights to Consider and improved technical know-how with respect
to harvesting as well as handling and storage
Experiences of reduction initiatives that are
will be important interventions. In high-income
making progress have yielded several insights
countries, much of the food waste occurs at the
that are important for any of these actors to
consumption stage of the food supply chain.
consider when launching a food loss and waste
Thus, steps to shift consumer behavior will be
reduction effort:
important.
▪ Awareness is a start. Raising awareness

that there is a food loss and waste challenge ▪ Beware of knock-on effects across the
supply chain. Successfully implementing an
is a start. In some cases, key actors were
intervention at one stage of the food supply
not aware that they were experiencing food
chain may reduce food loss and waste there
loss and waste, or denied that they were. Sub-
but merely shift it to some other portion of
sequent measurement found otherwise.22 But
the chain. For example, if excess product by
awareness alone does not guarantee action.
producers or distributors is pushed into retail,
▪ Make the “business case.” Actors are more

likely to take action on food loss and waste
this may lead to losses in stores that cannot
sell the product or do not have sufficient time
to arrange for the product to be diverted to
if they see an economic or other benefit in
those in need before it spoils. To avoid this,
doing so. Identifying and communicating that
one should consider an intervention’s impact
“business case” (including how the benefits of
across the chain and find complementary inter-
action justify the costs of taking action) can
ventions to prevent such a shift.
therefore help motivate actors. The benefits
that resonate with the target audience, how-
ever, may vary from audience to audience.
For some, the business case is economic and
▪ Collaboration is crucial. In most cases,
implementing a “whole supply chain” approach
requires working with other entities, including
financial. For others, it may be rooted in food
suppliers, technical experts, and government
security or natural resource conservation.
authorities. No single entity has a broad enough
▪ There is no silver bullet. No single inter-

vention will solve the food loss and waste
reach to make a strategy for reducing food
loss and waste realize its potential. Thus,
companies collaborating with their suppliers,
challenge. Rather, it will require a multitude
suppliers with their farmers, governments with
of different interventions, implemented at
the private sector, and NGOs bringing actors
different stages of the food supply chain, and
from across the supply chain together, are
by different actors.
promising approaches in the fight against food
▪ Which interventions are relevant vary

by geography. The hotspots and under-
loss and waste. Such collaboration includes
voluntary agreements and supply relationships
across the value chain that rethink contractual
lying drivers of food loss and waste vary from
elements to support pragmatic solutions.
country to country, and within each of them,
Leveraging the power of data can help promote
for a number of reasons, particularly related to
collaboration since a deeper understanding can
a country’s level of economic development. In
be gained about how actions taken in one part
low-income countries, most food loss occurs
of the value chain can increase or reduce food
during production as well as on- and off-farm
loss and waste up or down the chain.
handling and storage (see Figure 1.8). Thus,
better infrastructure, low-cost technologies,
72 WRI.org
BOX 4.3 | T HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLASTIC PACKAGING AND FOOD WASTE
Plastics can play an important role finding that 62 percent of people were waste at the consumer level. Although
in preventing food loss and waste concerned about plastic packaging plastic packaging can extend storage
across the food supply chain. In (ThoughtWorks 2018). life, its impact is product-specific,
low-income countries, where high and some studies suggest that the
losses can occur during handling In what situations does the use benefits of plastic packaging can
as well as transport and storage as of plastic to reduce food loss and be overstated (Schweitzer et al.
a result of the use of inappropriate waste have a net benefit? This 2018), with adequate refrigeration
containers that cause damage to question is difficult to answer playing a more important role
produce (Lipinski et al. 2013), reusable because many plastics break (WRAP 2018b). Over one-quarter
plastic crates can reduce losses by down into unrecognizable pieces of avoidable food waste in the
25 percent (Kitinoja 2013). Hermetic relatively quickly, making it difficult United Kingdom is thrown away
storage bags, typically made from to determine what ends up in the in its packaging (Ventour 2008),
multiple layers of plastic, have also ocean (Hooper and Cereceda 2018). and increasing storage life will not
been shown to significantly reduce The evidence available suggests necessarily reduce the food waste
postharvest losses. In high-income that the majority of marine plastic of overstocked households (Canali
countries, consumer behavior is a originates on land as mismanaged et al. 2014). Packaging materials
leading underlying driver of food waste (Jambeck et al. 2015), and a such as glass, metal, and bio-based
waste, and the top reason for food U.S. analysis of plastic waste found packaging could provide alternatives
wastage in the home is that it is not food wrappers and containers to be to plastic packaging. However, the
eaten in time (WRAP 2012). Plastic the most common items (5 Gyres environmental impact of producing
packaging can extend the storage et al. 2017). This evidence suggests these materials can be higher than
life of food, with plastic packaging that consumer waste is more at risk that of plastics, so merely replacing
extending the shelf life of cucumbers, of entering the marine environment plastic packaging with other materials
for example, by 11 days (Maddox 2018). than plastic-based technologies that is not straightforward (Bertoluci
Increasing the amount of fresh prevent food losses close to the farm, et al. 2014).
produce that is plastic-packed such as plastic crates and hermetic
has therefore been proposed as storage bags. Furthermore, plastic An upcoming study suggests that
a means of reducing food waste crates have a significantly smaller buying loose, individual products
(AMERIPEN 2018). carbon footprint than corrugated opposed to prepackaged produce
cardboard alternatives, and, being can result in lower household food
However, the proliferation of plastic reusable, are less damaging to marine waste because consumers then tend
packaging and the impact plastics environments than single or limited- to buy only what they need (WRAP
can have on the marine environment use plastic alternatives (Singh et al. forthcoming). The study also suggests
when plastic enters the ocean 2006). Therefore, the use of plastic that by altering their commercial
has emerged as a high-profile early in the food supply chain appears practices, retailers can mitigate food
environmental issue in recent years. to have a net positive impact on food waste associated with loose produce
The disposal of plastics can also have and the environment. Thus, public both in-store and earlier in the supply
a negative impact on the terrestrial policies, such as the ban on plastic chain. This evidence suggests that
and groundwater ecosystems. A bags introduced in Kenya, that take although plastic packaging can play
recent study tested over 150 samples a blanket approach to curtailing a role in extending the shelf life of
of tap water from countries including plastics—impacting such upstream products, the root causes of why food
Germany, India, and the United States applications—can be detrimental is wasted in the home, such as a lack
and found that 81 percent of the (Jerving 2017). of planning and overbuying, need
samples contained microplastics to be tackled if food waste is to be
(Kosuth et al. 2018). Public concern The matter is less straightforward significantly reduced.
about plastic waste, in particular when considering the increased use
single-use plastics, is at an all-time of single-use plastic packaging that
high, with one survey of 2,000 people extends storage life to reduce food

CHAPTER 5
WHAT PROGRESS HAS

BEEN MADE SO FAR?
The world has been making some progress with the Target-
Measure-Act approach. This chapter summarizes salient
developments in tackling food loss and waste since the advent
of the SDGs in 2015.

SUMMARY POINTS
▪ Progress has been made toward

implementing a global agenda for
programs that have set, a food
loss and waste reduction target
□ More than 30 of the world’s largest
companies are now measuring
reducing food loss and waste. consistent with SDG 12.3. food loss and waste within their
▪ In terms of setting targets: ▪ In terms of measurement:

operations.
□ 50 percent of the world’s popula- □ Countries representing 12 percent ▪ Inof emerging

terms of taking action, a number
developments along the
tion lives in a country that has set of the world’s population measure
an explicit, public target aligned food loss and/or waste within their food supply chain over the past few
with SDG 12.3. borders. years indicate an increased focus by
□ 32 of the world’s 50 largest food decision-makers on food loss and
companies (by revenue) indepen- waste reduction (Figure 5.1).
dently have set, or participate in
Figure 5.1 | Emerging Developments to Reduce Food Loss and Waste across the Supply Chain

▪ Information and
communication
▪ Low-cost handling
and storage tech-
▪ Unsold produce is
being turned into
▪ Governments are
enacting policies to
surplus food from
technology (ICT) nologies are gaining upcycled products. encourage and even food service and
is supplying small- traction in Africa. ▪ Technology require redistribution restaurants are
holders with technical ▪ Technology innovations in of surplus food. becoming more
information to reduce innovations to packaging are being ▪ Apps for redistributing widespread.
production losses. reduce losses during used to extend surplus food from ▪ Retailers and food
▪ ICT platforms are transportation of product shelf life. retailers are growing manufacturers are
increasingly being fresh produce are ▪ Innovations to post- in number. streamlining food
used to connect emerging. pone spoilage ▪ Accelerator programs date labels.
farmers with markets
to respond more
▪ Investment in
storage infrastructure
are emerging. for food loss reducing ▪ Awareness-raising
technologies are campaigns are being
quickly to changes in is growing. being established. launched.
supply and demand. ▪ The hospitality
▪ Legislation is targeting
contract behavior
sector is starting
to take action.
that exacerbates
production losses.
▪ Imperfect produce is
increasingly available
for sale.
Cross-Cutting Actions
▪ Some countries are establishing national strategies to tackle food loss and waste.
▪ National-level public-private partnerships are beginning to emerge.
▪ New sources of funding are becoming available for reduction of food loss and waste.
▪ Online databases and hubs to support exchange of information and solutions have
been established.
76 WRI.org
Progress has been made toward implementing
BOX 5.1 | DATA SOURCES FOR
some of the strategies described in Chapter 4. This
chapter highlights—using the Target-Measure-Act
THIS CHAPTER
framework—some of the more salient developments
since the announcement of the SDGs in 2015 (Box
Examples of progress to date were found through
a literature review and internet searches in the
5.1). These developments both give reason to hope English language. Information also was gathered
that progress can be made and highlight the need from interviews with more than a dozen global
to dramatically accelerate efforts if SDG 12.3 is to experts. Restricting searches to the English language
be achieved. may have impacted the geographic spread of
examples, so specific effort was made to gather
input from experts working in low- and middle-
Target income countries, as these regions tend to be
Since the launch of the SDGs, an increasing number underreported when compared with efforts in high-
income countries. Despite all this input, the following
of governments and companies have set food loss summary is not intended to be exhaustive. This
and waste reduction targets for the first time. chapter charts progress since the announcement of
the SDGs in 2015. We chose this date because from
Governments that point onward the international community had a
specific food loss and waste reduction target.
The major development regarding targets has been
the adoption, in September 2015, by governments
around the world of the SDGs. The SDGs include
Target 12.3, which calls for halving “per capita
global food waste at the retail and consumer levels
and reduc[ing] food losses along production and
supply chains, including post-harvest losses,” by BOX 5.2 | DATA SOURCES FOR
2030 (UN 2017). This was the first-ever global THIS CHAPTER
commitment to reducing food loss and waste with
a numeric target—although the United Nations had In 1975, during its seventh session, the UN General
set a food loss reduction target in 1975 (Box 5.2). Assembly set a goal of reducing postharvest losses
by 50 percent by 1985. This target focused only on
losses (near the farm), not food waste (near the
A number of government bodies have internalized plate). In 1976, FAO’s Special Action Programme
SDG 12.3 by publicly setting food loss and/or waste identified three constraints on postharvest
reduction targets consistent with it. Australia, the loss prevention in developing countries: lack of
European Union, Japan, Norway, the United Arab information about the size and causes of the losses,
lack of infrastructure for implementing prevention
Emirates, and the United States have done so
measures, and lack of investment. By 1985, the target
(Figure 5.2). In 2014, as part of the Malabo was not met, and the constraints remain to this day.
Declaration, the African Union set a target of
reducing postharvest losses—which is currently Source: FAO (2018).
more of an issue in Africa than food waste—by 50
percent by 2025. Vietnam has a target to reduce
postharvest losses of agricultural and fishery prod-
ucts by 50 percent by 2020. China has a national
strategy for how to achieve each of the 169 SDG
targets and, in its 2016–20 Five-Year Plan, set a
quantitative target of reducing food losses by about
37 percent by 2020 (a rate consistent with achiev-
ing a 50 percent reduction in losses by 2030).
Thus, as of early 2019, countries comprising

50 percent of the world’s population have set an
explicit food loss and/or waste reduction target that
complements the more blanket adoption of SDG
12.3. (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2 | ational and Regional Governments with Specific Food Loss and Waste Reduction Targets Aligned
N
with SDG 12.3 (as of early 2019)
T arget Aligned with SDG

12.3 (loss only)
T arget Aligned with
SDG 12.3
o Specific Target
N
Aligned with SDG 12.3
Subnational governments are also setting goals in Companies

line with SDG 12.3. In 2018, London committed to
The private sector also has been adopting targets
a target of 50 percent food waste reduction by 2030
aligned with SDG 12.3:
(Greater London Authority 2018). In 2017, Dubai
expanded its work on food waste by launching a
zero-tolerance approach to food waste (Saseendran
2017). In 2015, New York City set a goal of reducing
▪ In 2015, The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF)
announced a “Food Waste Resolution,” which
calls for members to halve food waste within
the amount of waste, including food waste, disposed
their individual retail and manufacturing op-
of by households by 90 percent by 2030 (#OneNYC
erations by 2025. The CGF is a network of over
2018). In 2018, the Pacific Coast Collaborative—
400 retailers, manufacturers, service providers,
consisting of British Colombia, California, Oregon,
and other stakeholders and represents com-
and Washington, as well as the cities of Oakland,
bined annual sales of $2.8 trillion (Consumer
Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver,
Goods Forum 2015). We estimate that CGF
Canada—committed to halving food waste by 2030
members are responsible for at least 25 percent
(Pacific Coast Collaborative 2018). In 2018, 23
of all food sold in commercial markets around
cities and regions representing 150 million citizens—
the world.23
including Auckland; Catalonia; Paris; Philadelphia;
San Jose, California; Sydney; Tel Aviv; and Vancou-
ver, Canada—signed the “Advancing towards Zero
Waste Declaration,” through which they commit
▪ In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency an-
nounced the formation of the group “U.S. Food
to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills
Loss and Waste 2030 Champions.” The coali-
and incineration by at least 50 percent by 2030
(C40 2018).
78 WRI.org
tion is currently comprised of 23 U.S.-based 12.3 (Flanagan et al. 2018). This number of
companies that have made a public commit- companies setting targets since 2015 is an indication
ment to halve food loss and waste within their of growing momentum within the private sector
own operations by 2030. Members include on the food loss and waste agenda. However, the
some of the largest food retailers in the United majority of companies doing so have been food
States, such as Kroger, Walmart, and Wegmans, retailers and manufacturers with headquarters
food manufacturers such as Campbell Soup in Europe or North America. For Target 12.3’s
Company, Kellogg Company, PepsiCo, and ambitions to be achieved, companies from across
Unilever, as well as restaurants and food service the entire food supply chain and from around
providers including Aramark, Bon Appétit, the world will need to set food loss and waste
Hilton, Sodexo, and Yum! brands (USDA 2018). reduction targets.
▪ In 2017, the Global Agri-business Alliance

(GAA) announced a “Food and Agricultural
Measure
FAO’s Global Food Losses and Food Waste (2011)
Product Loss Resolution,” which calls for mem-
report estimated food loss and waste throughout
bers to halve food losses within their operations
the food supply chain, dividing the world into seven
(and pursue reductions in their supply chains)
near-continental regions. Much government action
by 2030. The GAA is a collaboration of nearly
to achieve SDG 12.3, however, will need to occur
20 companies involved in food and agricultural
at the country or even subnational level. Measure-
production, commodity trading, and processing.
ment, therefore, will be needed at that scale to be
Membership includes some of the world’s
actionable. Likewise, action by companies will need
largest food producers, such as Olam, and
to be informed by company-level or supply-chain-
numerous companies with operations through-
level quantification.
out Asia and Africa (WBCSD 2017).
▪ In 2018, a coalition of 17 Danish food retailers,

food manufacturers, and the nonprofit
Governments
Several developments since 2015 have advanced,
organization Stop Wasting Food formed or are advancing, progress on government measure-
“Denmark against Food Waste,” wherein the ment of food loss and waste:
companies committed to halving their food
waste by 2030 and to measuring and publishing
their food loss and waste data every year.
▪ To assist governments with monitoring progress
toward SDG 12.3, UN agencies have been devel-
The commitment includes Denmark’s largest oping national-level estimates of food loss
retailer, Salling Group, as well as Danish and food waste. FAO has been leading the
operations of Arla, Nestlé, and Unilever, among development of a “Food Loss Index” that will
others (Askew 2018). estimate food losses occurring within a country
▪
from farm gate up to, but not including, the
In 2019, eight food manufacturers and retailers retail level. The estimate for a country is based
committed to reduce food waste in their at a minimum on data about losses among 10
Canadian operations by 50 percent by 2025. key food commodities produced in that country.
The companies include Kraft Heinz Canada, In late 2018, the Food Loss Index was approved
Loblaw Companies Ltd., Maple Leaf Foods, by the Inter-agency and Expert Group (IAEG)
Metro Inc., Save-on-Foods, Sobeys Inc., on SDG Indicators to be an official indicator for
Unilever Canada, and Walmart Canada UN SDG monitoring. In complementary fash-
(National Zero Waste Council 2019). ion, UNEP has been leading the development of
a “Food Waste Index.” This index will be used
These commitments mean that 32 of the world’s by governments to estimate food waste within
50 largest food companies (by revenue) across their country from its manufacturing, retail,
the food supply chain independently have set, or hospitality, food service, and consumer sectors.
participate in programs that have set, a food loss The Food Waste Index will go before the IAEG
and waste reduction target consistent with SDG for approval in 2019.

▪ The European Union has issued estimates for
food loss and waste levels across its member
of Mexico established a base-year estimate for
food loss and waste for the country. In Mexico,
states—publishing its first baseline report at least 20 million metric tons of food per year
in 2010 (Monier et al. 2010) while providing is lost or wasted from the farm gate to the retail
a more comprehensive estimate in 2016 stage, with an additional 11 million tons per
(Stenmarck et al. 2016). In 2019, the European year from households and small businesses
Commission adopted a common definition and (World Bank Mexico 2019). In 2019, the Asia-
measurement methodology to support member Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which
states in quantifying food waste across the food comprises 21 member economies, published
supply chain. Based on a common definition handbooks on how to conduct food loss and
of food waste, the methodology is expected to waste quantification, as well as how to establish
enter into force in late 2019 following scru- public-private partnerships that support the re-
tiny by co-legislators, and will ensure coher- duction of food loss and waste along the supply
ent monitoring of food waste levels across the chain (Chang and Hsu 2019a, 2019b).
▪
European Union. Member states will monitor
their food waste levels from 2020 onward using In 2018, four African nations—Kenya, Tanzania,
this agreed methodology, with the first pub- Zambia, and Zimbabwe—completed the first
lished results expected by mid-2022 (European step of quantification of food loss and waste for
Commission 2019). single commodities. Kenya focused on maize,
▪
Tanzania on tomatoes, and Zambia and Zim-
A number of individual high-income countries babwe on milk. The analysis covered from the
have taken steps to start or improve their point of harvest to the point of (but not includ-
measurement of food loss and waste. The ing) processing. In 2018, the African Union
United Kingdom has been a leader in this Commission published its first Biennial Review
regard, having countrywide estimates of food Report, which tracks progress toward achieving
waste for 2007, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2018 the Malabo goals. The report shows that five
(WRAP 2018c). Japan has been collecting countries are on track to achieve the posthar-
post–farm gate food loss and waste data vest loss reduction target by 2025:
since 2001 (Lipinski 2017). Since 2015, the Malawi, Mauritania, Rwanda, Togo, and
United States has been estimating food loss Uganda (African Union 2018).
and waste—both per capita and in absolute
amounts (U.S. EPA 2016). In 2018, Denmark As of early 2019, a number of countries were mea-
updated its food waste statistics for households suring food loss and/or waste within their borders.
(The Local 2018). New Zealand also published These include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia,
estimates of its domestic household food waste Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
(Yates 2018). In 2019, Canada published its Norway, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, the United
first estimate (Gooch et al. 2019) and Australia Kingdom, and the United States—nations that are
announced its first nationwide baseline assess- home to 12 percent of the world’s population.
ment of food loss and waste (Arcadis 2019).
▪
Measurement by cities appears to be much less
A number of middle-income countries are advanced. Examples of those measuring include
starting to measure, too. Argentina, for Vancouver, Canada, which conducted baseline
instance, started work to measure its food loss research in 2015 into the amount of food waste
and waste—finding that up to 45 percent of generated by households (Metro Vancouver 2015).
fruits and vegetables are lost after harvesting In 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council
(Postharvest Network 2017). In 2019, the Saudi (NRDC), with support from The Rockefeller Foun-
Grains Organization and the Saudi Ministry of dation, estimated the amounts, sources, and types
Environment, Water, and Agriculture found of food going to waste in three U.S. cities: New York
food loss and waste levels of approximately City, Nashville, and Denver (Hoover 2017). UNEP
33 percent throughout the food supply chain, and WRAP have been supporting quantification
primarily at the production and consumption of household food waste in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
stages (SAGO 2019). In 2018, the government since 2017 (Savola Negaderha 2019).
80 WRI.org
BOX 5.3 | GLOBAL COMPANIES MEASURE
Companies AND MANAGE LOSSES
Companies have been making progress on
measuring their food loss and waste. In 2015, only From 2017 to 2018, Nestlé reduced its rejection of
a handful of companies were measuring, but by maize at its facilities in Nigeria from 17 percent
early 2019 at least 30 companies in the Forbes to 4 percent due primarily to improvements in
Global 2000 were measuring their food loss and postharvest management practices. In 2017, workers
waste. Not all companies, however, are publicly
hired by Nestlé’s suppliers to manually clean and
sort grains at warehouses were unable to sufficiently
reporting the results of their food loss and waste sort moldy grains (for mycotoxins) and clear dust
inventories.24 Lack of public reporting hinders (for aluminum phosphide residue). This resulted in
efforts to track industry progress over time, fill data a high rejection rate due to contamination. In 2018,
gaps in national inventories, share best practices, Nestlé rolled out a program to ensure that suppliers
and motivate other companies to measure. fully implemented its standard operating procedures
for warehouse grains management. Increased
compliance resulted in the rejection rate falling by
The rise in corporate measurement of food loss and more than 75 percent.
waste over the past few years began with companies
focusing solely internally. Such business-level data In 2018, Olam, in partnership with Wageningen
are valuable for identifying hot spots of food loss University & Research and the Sustainable Food
and waste within one’s own operations, as well as
Lab, measured how much rice was lost across
smallholder rice farms. Following a participatory
for starting to understand the underlying drivers. workshop and field trials, they calculated postharvest
But some companies are now pushing measure- losses to be 35 percent, equivalent to a loss of
ment up their supply chains, recognizing the need US$520 per hectare for the farmer and 97 million
for a “whole chain approach.” For example, in 2017 servings of rice, based on the volumes procured
Tesco announced partnership agreements with 27 by Olam in 2017 (Olam International 2018). Good
agricultural practice training is now being developed
of its largest food suppliers wherein the suppliers to emphasize harvesting and handling techniques
would measure food waste within their own to reduce losses. At its oil palm plantations, Olam
operations and publish the resulting inventories identified approximately 9 percent losses, which
by September 2018 (Tesco 2017). Similarly, Nestlé were primarily associated with manual harvesting
has been quantifying upstream food loss and waste, and collection of palm fruit bunches. To tackle these
working with suppliers to quantify losses from
losses, Olam has developed and is piloting Agripal,
a mobile app designed to reduce crop losses by
farm to factory on a commodity basis (Box 5.3). recording real-time data on harvested, collected,
However, to achieve the scale of reductions called and uncollected bunches with a geotagging
for by SDG 12.3, many more companies will need to functionality traced back to individual harvesters
follow suit and actively work with their suppliers to and exact locations.
measure food loss and waste. Sources: J. Charad, Nestlé, personal communication, 2019; and C. Brown,
Olam, personal communication, 2019.
Cross-cutting
Since the launch of the SDGs, there have been
several efforts to improve measurement to benefit
both governments and companies:
▪ The Food Loss and Waste Accounting

and Reporting Standard (FLW Standard).
▪ The Food Waste Atlas. Launched in 2018,
the atlas is a global repository of quantified
Launched in 2016, the FLW Standard provides food loss and waste data through which users
global requirements and guidance for quantify- can search by combinations of location, food
ing and reporting on the weight of food and/ category, and stage in the supply chain (Flana-
or associated inedible parts removed from the gan et al. 2018).26
▪
food supply chain (Food Loss and Waste Proto-
col 2016).25 The FLW Value Calculator. Launched in
2018, this online calculator enables companies,

governments, and other entities to estimate technical advice on postharvest loss reduction.
the environmental impacts (on greenhouse gas Interactive radio, television programs, and
emissions, water usage, etc.) and nutritional mobile videos provide farmers in Kenya,
impacts (macronutrients, micronutrients, etc.) Nigeria, and Tanzania with the information they
of food loss and waste by geography and by need and connect them with input suppliers
food commodity (Flanagan et al. 2018).27 (Farm Radio International 2018). Scientific
▪
Animators without Borders provides extension
Multiple quantification methods. For information via animated videos that are avail-
instance, FAO prepared its Food Loss Analysis able in a number of languages on topics such
Case Study Methodology, designed to help as how to build a solar grain dryer and how to
analysts quantify losses, loss points, and causes hermetically seal produce using locally avail-
in specific food supply chains in a country. able containers (SAWBO 2019).
▪
In 2018, IFPRI and the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research ICT platforms are increasingly being
(CGIAR) developed a food loss methodology used to connect farmers with markets
(including valuation of economic losses) to respond more quickly to changes in
involving self-reported surveys for commodi- supply and demand. For example, since
ties in specific countries. 2015, the business-to-business e-commerce
platform Freshdeal, operating in Europe, pairs
Act fresh produce sellers with buyers, enabling buy-
ers with emergency shortages of fresh produce
The public and private sector commitments to set
to quickly purchase stocks from farmers with
targets and measure suggest a growing momentum
unexpected surplus (Freshdeal 2019). Twiga
to address food loss and waste. At present, many
Foods, based in Kenya, also provides a
of these commitments are collective expressions of
mobile platform that links smallholder farmers
intent. However, intent needs to be translated into
to informal food vendors in urban areas. The
action and results if significant reductions in food
company operates a central packhouse with
loss and waste are to be achieved.
cold storage facilities and a fleet of vans that
allow for quick collection of produce, resulting
Efforts to address food loss and waste are not new,
in postharvest losses of only 5 percent,
and activity in many places has been ongoing for
compared to around 30 percent at informal
some time. The highlights below are organized
markets. Twiga Foods works with over 13,000
according to the stage in the food supply chain
farmers and 6,000 vendors across Kenya
where food loss and waste otherwise would have
(Twiga Foods 2018).
occurred. They are not exhaustive—and examples
from member countries of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development tend ▪ Legislation is targeting contract
behavior that exacerbates production
to dominate what can be discovered in publicly
losses. In 2018, the European Commission
available data—but rather are intended to give an
set new rules on unfair trading practices,
indication of some early-stage “trends” across a
prohibiting, for example, late payment for
range of geographies that have gained traction since
perishable food products, last-minute order
the launch of the SDGs.
cancellations, and retroactive changes to
contracts (European Commission 2018).
Production
▪ Information and communication tech-
nology (ICT) is supplying smallholders
▪ Imperfect produce is increasingly avail-
able for sale. Retailers, particularly larger
with technical information to reduce retailers that typically stock higher-grade
production losses. In 2018, Farm Radio produce, are increasingly selling, often at a
International, with the support of The Rock- discount, fruits and vegetables as “wonky”
efeller Foundation, launched a consortium of or “imperfect” food. Previously, this produce
local radio stations and nonprofits to deliver would have failed to meet retailer cosmetic
82 WRI.org
▪
standards due to blemishes or nonstandard
shapes, and thus would have been discarded by Investment in storage infrastructure is
farmers. Imperfect food labels are now avail- growing. For example, in 2018, the govern-
able in a number of countries, including Brazil, ment of India and the National Cold Chain
Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, and Development Board provided funding support
the United States. Likewise, some retailers are for developing more than 2,000 fruit and
committing to “whole crop” purchases. vegetable packinghouses by 2021 (Kulkarni
2017). In 2018, the “One District, One Ware-
Handling and storage house” project was launched by the government
▪ Low-cost handling and storage tech-

nologies are gaining traction in Africa.
of Ghana. The initiative aims to build 50 units
of 1,000-metric-ton warehouses in selected
districts that will provide storage for farmers
For decades there has been an interest in intro-
and their produce (GhanaWeb 2018). AgResults,
ducing storage technologies for smallholders in
which uses “pay-for-results” competitions
Africa. Over the past few years, some of these
to incentivize the private sector to invest in
technologies have gained traction. For example,
agricultural innovations, worked in Kenya to
by 2017 Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS)
incentivize the private sector to develop and
bags—a form of hermetically sealed, large,
sell on-farm storage devices. By 2018, it had
three-ply plastic storage bags for cowpeas and
reached nearly 329,000 smallholder farmers
other crops—had been distributed to more than
and sold over 1 million improved storage
12.5 million farmers (Purdue University 2018).
devices, resulting in approximately 413,000
The Postharvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition in
metric tons of improved storage capacity
Nigeria (PLAN-N) has started working with the
(AgResults 2018).
Lagos government and the Nigerian Ministry
of Agriculture to promote the use of plastic
Processing and packaging
▪
crates for postharvest handling to reduce
tomato losses. More than 80,000 of these Unsold produce is being turned into
crates have been purchased that together can upcycled products. A growing number of
hold 1.6 million kg of fresh tomatoes that are start-ups are turning leftover produce into
now more likely to reach the consumer (Gain juices, soups, sauces, and other “upcycled” food
Health n.d.). products. For instance, Unilever’s Hellman’s
▪
Red and Green Tomato Ketchup is saving an
Technology innovations to reduce losses estimated 2.5 million tomatoes every year that
during transportation of fresh produce would have otherwise been discarded during
are emerging. The mobile app Cheetah, processing for not being “red enough” (Unilever
for instance, allows food value chain players 2018). In Kenya, a new smallholder aggregation
such as growers and transporters to share and processing center for mangoes has been
information on shortcomings within the food established. The facility is equipped with low-
value chain, including delays and unforeseen cost storage technologies that enable farmers
costs such as the breakdown of vehicles due to aggregate their produce and negotiate better
to poor road conditions. This information can prices, as well as juice processing and drying
then be used to demand improvements to facilities that allow farmers to transform fresh
infrastructure, show traders the fastest route mangoes into value-added products such as
to market, and provide more accurate data on pulp, juices, and dried chips—which fetch a bet-
postharvest losses during handling and trans- ter price at market (Ambuko 2019).
▪
portation (Cheetah 2018). In Uganda, the Fruti-
Cycle Project provides biogas-powered tricycles Technology innovations in packaging
with cold storage units able to carry 300 kg are being used to extend product shelf
(Global Knowledge Initiative 2017). According life. Mitsubishi, for example, has developed
to its designers, the tricycle will provide more NutraSave, a resin that can be layered onto
than a 15 percent return on investment in the flexible packaging such as pouches and films to
second year of use (Bayer Foundations 2017). reduce oxygen absorption, thereby preserving

▪
food longer—even potentially doubling the
shelf life of some products (Packaging Strate- Accelerator programs for food loss
gies 2017). Royal DSM has created “Pack-Age,” reducing technologies are being estab-
a product for the cheese industry that allows lished. Maersk Growth has partnered with
cheese to mature without developing a rind Rockstart, a start-up accelerator, to create
that has to be thrown away, meaning the whole FoodTrack by Maersk, an accelerator program
cheese can be used (DSM 2018). for start-ups that are trying to reduce food loss.
▪
Graduates from the first program include
Innovations to postpone spoilage are Tsenso, a technology that monitors the temper-
emerging. For example, Apeel Sciences has atures at which a product was stored along the
developed a range of invisible, edible, all- whole supply chain to provide a more accurate
natural coatings that are applied to fresh shelf life indicator for food (Gunders 2018).
produce to extend shelf life. This coating acts
as a physical barrier that slows down the rate Consumption
of water loss, oxidation, and microbial activity
(Apeel Sciences 2019). Companies such as
Nanology, FreshPaper, and Bluapple have
▪ Apps for redistributing surplus food
from food service and restaurants
are becoming more widespread. Apps
started manufacturing discs and pods that go
that connect restaurants and food service
inside refrigerators or fruit bowls and absorb
companies with unsold or leftover food to
the gases that accelerate ripening, keeping fresh
customers who want it are emerging across
produce fresher for longer (Goodwin 2019).
the globe. No Food Waste, operating in India,
rescues food from weddings, parties, and other
Distribution and market
▪
functions and redistributes this food to the
Governments are enacting policies needy (No Food Waste 2019). Apps 11th Hour,
to encourage and even require operating in Singapore, and Too Good To Go,
redistribution of surplus food. Since 2015, operating in nine European countries, enable
countries including Argentina, France, Ghana, customers to pick up meals that are near their
and Italy have passed legislative measures and expiry from restaurants and food stalls at
tax incentive schemes that make redistribut- a discount.
▪
ing surplus food easier (Flanagan et al. 2018;
Lemos 2018; Zero Waste Europe 2016; Michail Retailers and food manufacturers
2019).28 In the United States, several states, are streamlining food date labels.
including Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Consumer confusion about date labels can be
Oregon, and Virginia (as well as the District an underlying driver of household food waste.30
of Columbia), now have tax incentives to Recognizing this, the CGF announced in 2017
encourage food donation (Gunders and Bloom a worldwide “Call to Action” to standardize
2017). The Czech Republic and France have food date labeling by 2020, calling for food
adopted legislation that requires large super- manufacturer and retailer CGF members to use
markets to donate unsold yet still safe and only one food date label per product—either
wholesome food to charities (Prague.tv 2017; one communicating food quality for nonperish-
Durandsmet 2018).29 able items or one communicating food safety
▪
for perishable items (Lipinski et al. 2017).
▪
Apps for redistributing surplus food
from retailers are growing in number. Awareness raising campaigns are being
Mobile apps such as FoodCloud and Food launched. The “Love Food, Hate Waste”
Rescue Hero are now helping accelerate the campaign created by WRAP for the UK market
redistribution of unsold food by connecting in 2007 has been adapted and introduced in
retailers with surplus food with those in need, other countries, including Australia, Canada,
with Food Rescue Hero even coordinating New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia (WRAP 2019a).
transport of the surplus and tracking the Since launching in the United States in 2016,
impact of this redistribution on hunger and
the environment (412 Food Rescue 2018).
84 WRI.org
the NRDC and Ad Council “Save the Food” private partnerships focused on reducing food
campaign has raised awareness of food waste loss and waste have been inspired by the first
as an issue from 32 percent in 2016 to such partnership—the Courtauld Commit-
47 percent by 2018 (Ipsos Public Affairs 2019). ment—launched in the United Kingdom more
Several other countries, including Brazil (Sem than a decade ago. In 2016, the USDA and
Desperdicio 2019), Germany (BMEL 2015), and EPA formed the Food Loss and Waste 2030
Mauritius (University of Mauritius 2018), as Champions group (USDA 2018). The Neth-
well as cities including Buenos Aires (Jaegerfelt erlands came next, launching in early 2017
2018) and Dubai (Saseendran 2017), have United against Food Waste, a public-private
launched public awareness campaigns, too. partnership that is part of the Dutch national
▪
agenda to halve food waste by 2030
The hospitality sector is starting to take (REFRESH 2018). In 2018, four EU REFRESH
action. For example, the AccorHotels chain pilot countries—Germany, Hungary, Spain,
has partnered with the redistribution app Too and China—launched voluntary partnerships
Good to Go since 2016, saving over 32,000 or national platforms that aim to reduce food
meals (Mullan 2018). In 2018, 130 chefs from loss and waste (REFRESH and WRAP Global
38 countries launched the “Chef’s Manifesto” 2019). This was followed by a coalition of
action plan, which provides practical guidance companies, government agencies, and non-
for chefs to reduce food waste in commercial governmental organizations recently launching
kitchens (SDG2 Advocacy Hub 2018). the “Food Loss and Waste Action Partnership—
Indonesia,” which is dedicated to reducing food
Across the supply chain loss and waste within the country (Flanagan
▪ Some countries are establishing

national strategies to tackle food loss
et al. 2018). In 2018, the Australian govern-
ment launched the 10-year Fight Food Waste
Cooperative Research Centre, a public-private
and waste. In 2018, the African Union
partnership that involves 46 industry and
Commission announced its “Continental Post
10 research partners to investigate methods
Harvest Management Strategy,” designed
to increase food donation as well as develop
to help member states develop policies and
household and business behavior change
strategies to address postharvest food losses
programs (Fight Food Waste CRC 2018).
across the food supply chain. Four African
nations recently completed their complementary
national postharvest food loss reduction
strategies: Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia, and Zim-
▪ New sources of funding are becoming
available for reducing food loss and
waste. In 2019, the World Bank launched
babwe. Tanzania’s is in process of being pre-
the first Sustainable Development Bond.
pared. Between 2017 and early 2019, Australia,
Swedish insurance and pensions group Folksam
Croatia, Germany, Portugal, and the United
is investing US$300 million in the three-year
Kingdom announced national strategies to tack-
bond (World Bank 2019). In 2016, The Rock-
le food loss and waste. In 2019, the U.S. Envi-
efeller Foundation launched YieldWise, a $130
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
million investment, to demonstrate practical
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the
approaches to halving food loss and waste by
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) an-
2030. The program focuses on reducing food
nounced a joint strategy to reduce food waste.
loss in Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania, as well
The strategy will focus on consumer education,
as food waste in Europe and North America
improving guidance on measurement, clarifying
(Rockefeller Foundation 2019). Early results
food date labels, and leveraging public-private
for reductions in food losses are promising (Box
partnerships (U.S. EPA 2019).
5.4). Public sector funding can also play a role
▪ National-level public-private partner-

ships are beginning to emerge. An
in supporting solutions to food loss and waste.
For example, in 2019, the Foundation for Food
and Agriculture Research (FFAR), a grant-
increasing number of national-level public-
making body established by the U.S. govern-

ment, funded the Consortium for Innovation in 2015, the largest known decline in food loss or
Post-harvest Loss and Food Waste Reduction, food waste at the national level in the world in
which aims to develop a scalable approach for recent history (WRAP 2018c).
▪
adoption of the YieldWise model (FFAR
2019a). The FFAR also provided funding to Between 2010 and 2015, food waste in Norway
Cornell University to develop a way to convert across industry, wholesale, retail, and house-
agricultural waste into snacks (FFAR 2019b). holds was reduced by 12 percent on a kilogram
▪
per person basis. This reduction followed
Online databases and hubs to support the launch of the From Waste to Resources
exchange of information and solutions program, which implemented a number of
have been established. In response to a G20 strategies to reduce food waste, including sim-
recommendation, FAO and IFPRI launched plifying date labels and educating consumers
the Technical Platform on the Measurement about date labels, meal planning, and proper
and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste in 2015 storage (Stensgård and Hanssen 2016).
▪
to facilitate information-sharing on practices
and solutions. In 2017 alone, the USDA, EPA, Between 2011 and 2017, Danish households
and a number of NGO and industry partners reduced avoidable food waste by an average of
launched Further with Food; Rethink Food 8 percent per capita (The Local 2018).
▪
Waste through Economics and Data (ReFED)
launched online the Innovator Database New Zealand ran a “Love Food, Hate Waste”
and the Policy Finder (ReFED 2018); and campaign between 2015 and 2018. The
Wageningen University & Research launched campaign specifically targeted demographic
the REFRESH Community of Experts (2019). groups with high levels of food waste, such as
In 2018, the IVL Swedish Environmental young people and families with young children,
Research Institute established the platform rather than the general population. Following
Reducing Food Waste, which compiles news the campaign, a garbage bin audit showed that
and information with the aim of encouraging 27 percent less food waste was sent to landfill
stakeholders in China to reduce food waste.31 by households aware of the campaign (Waste-
MINZ 2018).
▪
Evidence of Impact
Redistribution of surplus food to charities
In light of the above, evidence is emerging of
and others grew by 50 percent between 2015
actual reductions in the amount of food that is lost
and 2017 in the United Kingdom. The
and wasted.
combined increase totaled 14,500 metric tons,
the equivalent of an extra 35 million meals per
Governments year (WRAP 2018d).
▪
Data are available on the reduction of food loss and
waste for a small subset of efforts at the national Seoul, South Korea, implemented a pay-as-you-
or city level. Often these reductions are a result of throw policy in 2013 that requires Seoul’s 10
efforts by governments working in collaboration million residents to pay for the food they waste
with NGOs and/or businesses. There have been by weight. Between 2013 and 2017, Seoul’s
several notable examples of progress: overall food waste decreased by 10 percent.
The scheme is being rolled out to 16 other cities
▪ Between 2007 and 2012, the United Kingdom

implemented a targeted effort to reduce food
and provinces across the country (PBS News
Hour 2017).
waste in the home, restaurant, and food retail
(the market and consumption stages of the Companies
food supply chain). This effort resulted in a re-
A body of data is starting to emerge about the
duction in avoidable post-farm gate food waste
impact of recent business efforts to reduce food loss
of 19 percent in the United Kingdom (measured
and waste, with a number of examples:
in kilograms per person) between 2007 and
86 WRI.org
▪ In 2015, Walmart started implementing a
food waste reduction program in its Canadian
▪ For a number of years, the Kellogg Company
has implemented food loss and waste reduction
stores. Steps implemented included introducing activities, including working with TechnoServe
process improvements (e.g., improved ordering to reduce losses at the farm and simplifying
and forecasting), creating an “antiwaste” date labels. In 2017, Kellogg’s manufacturing
culture in stores, and increasing redistribution operations achieved an overall reduction in
efforts. In-store food waste was reduced by food waste of roughly 5 percent compared to
23 percent by year-end 2017 (Probert 2018). the year before (Kellogg Company 2019).
▪ Unilever reduced food waste in its manu-

facturing operations by 37 percent between 2016
▪ Between 2016 and 2017, Danone reduced
unrecovered food waste33 by nearly 11 percent
and 2017, with less than 1 percent of wasted globally. Reductions were achieved by providing
food now going to landfill (Unilever 2019). training to farmers to reduce milk losses,
▪
training staff on best practices to reduce waste
Between 2017–18 and 2019, Tesco halved the in company operations, and creating a food
amount of food safe for human consumption donation program (Danone 2017).
▪
going to energy recovery. Overall, this led to the
amount of food going to waste in Tesco’s UK Between 2015 and 2017, AMT Fruit, one of the
operations in 2019 falling by 17 percent (0.45 United Kingdom’s largest citrus specialists,
percent sales), compared to the previous year reduced overall operation food waste by
(Tesco 2019). 27 percent. This reduction was achieved by
▪
broadening product specifications, introducing
A 2018 study of food waste reduction programs new product lines that feature food produce
of 86 food service sites across six countries that previously would have fallen outside of
found that food service providers32 achieved on specifications, such as “giant” varieties, and
average a 36 percent reduction of food waste developing partnerships with food charities that
(measured by weight) over a 12-month time redistribute unsold food (AMT Fruit 2018).
▪
frame, and over three years the average site
reduced food waste by 44 percent (Clowes et In 2017, cruise ship operator Costa Cruises
al. 2018a). Steps leading to such reductions implemented a program to reduce food waste in
included introducing scales in kitchens that ship kitchens, the buffet, and customer plates
weigh and estimate the monetary value of food by 50 percent by 2020 across its entire fleet of
just before it is thrown into the garbage bin, ships. Steps taken to reduce food waste included
training chefs and staff, reducing menu items using scales to quantify the amount, type, and
that are consistently underconsumed, and monetary value of food waste generated in
repurposing leftovers for use in other menu kitchens, as well as launching a communication
items (Clowes et al. 2018a). initiative to encourage responsible consumption
▪
in buffets. By 2018, the company was already
A 2017 study of food waste reduction programs over halfway toward achieving its target
among 42 hotel sites across 15 countries found (Klupacs 2018).
▪
that, on average, hotels achieved a 21 percent
reduction of food waste (measured by weight) In 2017, IKEA launched its Food Is Precious
during the first 12 months of the programs initiative to reduce kitchen food waste in its in-
(Clowes et al. 2018b). A key action identified to store restaurants. The company implemented
reduce waste in hotels was rethinking the buffet, a number of steps across more than 100 sites,
which tends to be the source of a significant including setting a clear goal to reduce food
amount of waste within the hotel industry. waste by half, using smart scales to measure
Strategies to reduce waste in buffets include the type of food thrown away and the reason
providing individual servings rather than pans behind the waste, and engaging coworkers
of food, displaying messaging about food waste by appointing a Food Waste Champion in
near the buffet, and selling leftovers from the each store. Just 12 weeks into implementation,
buffet later in the day (Clowes et al. 2018b).

IKEA had seen an average waste reduction reduction as high as 54 percent after six months
of 20 percent, and some sites experienced a (IKEA 2019).
BOX 5.4 | EVIDENCE OF ON-FARM LOSS REDUCTION FROM THE YIELDWISE INITIATIVE IN KENYA,
NIGERIA, AND TANZANIA
The YieldWise Initiative in partnership Mangoes in Kenya fruit fly traps, she started to have
with the private sector and govern- While long a feature of Kenyan successful harvests of good quality
ment has supported more than agriculture, mango farming has mangoes and now generates a net
200,000 farmers in Kenya, Nigeria, expanded considerably in recent income of approximately KES 300,000
and Tanzania to improve in the years, with production increasing by (about $3,000) per harvest.
following areas: 36 percent between 2012 and 2016.
This rise in production has been The YieldWise Initiative has also
1. A ccess to appropriate loss-reducing accompanied by a 91 percent rise benefited the families of smallholder
technologies. in gross revenues, over the same farmers. As a result of increased
period, with 2016 revenues of nearly mango production and higher
2. A ccess to finance by collaborating 12,000 million Kenyan shillings (KES) earnings, program beneficiaries were
with financial institutions to (approximately $120 million). The rate better able to support their families,
develop credit products that can be of postharvest loss for mangoes in for example, by paying school fees and
accessed by farmers and farmer- Kenya is high, with estimates ranging university tuition for their children,
based organizations. from around 40 to 50 percent of accessing health care services, and
production (Ambuko 2016). improving their homes. Farmers
3. A ggregation and training of farmers reported that they have improved
and other supply chain actors in The YieldWise Initiative focused on their homes by plastering them and
postharvest management and expanding the effective use of the connecting to the electric grid where
facilitation of development of local loss-reducing technologies and available or placing solar panels
aggregation centers. practices, including fruit fly traps, on their roofs. Farmers also noted
tarps, crates, and cold storage units. an increase in their social standing
4. Access to markets by stimulating By mid-2018, nearly 21,000 smallholder and influence on their communities
demand, engaging actors across farmers had received training, and because of the respect they gained
the diverse ecosystem of buyers. individual loss-reducing technologies by having become more successful in
were used over 70,000 times by the production of mangoes and other
The early results are encouraging, these smallholder farmers. On crops they produce on their farms.
with catalytic demonstrations for average, a farmer who adopted one
maize, mangoes, and tomatoes YieldWise technology had a yield of A number of YieldWise program
indicating loss reduction of between approximately 90 more mangoes, an farmers have become leaders of
20 and 30 percent, while more increase of approximately 35 percent. farmer groups that meet on a regular
farmers are being connected to For each additional practice adopted, basis to exchange knowledge and
market channels and have been more than 45 additional mangoes per experiences, explore additional
provided with assured markets for tree made it to market. entrepreneurial activities, and
their produce. further improve the livelihoods of
Case studies have documented the their families. The quantitative data
Early evaluations of the three qualitative impact of the YieldWise show that participation in these
YieldWise initiatives have shown Initiative on individual smallholder groups was associated with better
that the projects have significantly farmers in three of Kenya’s counties. farming outcomes. For example, one
advanced the use of postharvest loss In Meru County, a female farmer who group of mango farmers is currently
reduction technologies and practices, has been farming for 30 years was pooling their resources to invest
while case study examples show a trained by the YieldWise program in placing a 40-foot container on
link between YieldWise activities and to control destructive pests that the property of the lead farmer to
enhanced well-being of individual had previously caused losses in aggregate their mangoes and precool
smallholder farmers. thousands of her mangoes. Using them for a buyer with whom they
88 WRI.org
BOX 5.4 | EVIDENCE OF ON-FARM LOSS REDUCTION FROM THE YIELDWISE INITIATIVE IN KENYA,
NIGERIA, AND TANZANIA (CONTINUED)
have a multiseason contract. They almost doubled to 24 percent among grown domestically. The demand gap
are sharing expenses, with farmers beneficiary farmers, and the use is primarily addressed with imported
paying 70 percent and the buyer of tarps for sun drying increased processed tomato products.
30 percent. The farmer group will to 88 percent. Over the project’s
own the container 100 percent and duration, postharvest losses were YieldWise has delivered training in
is equipping it with solar panels to substantially reduced. For example, loss-reducing practices that fosters
power the precooling system. In while the beneficiary farmer group value addition, improved agronomic
addition to mangoes, they intend reported losses of 19 percent, practices, and created market
to use the container to aggregate losses in the control farmer group access. About 86 percent of farmers
other produce they grow on their exceeded 39 percent, meaning that who participated in these programs
farms, including high-value crops the YieldWise beneficiary farmers reported that they apply what they
such as avocados. This highlights the lost approximately half less than learned from this training, and 61
scalability of the YieldWise program the control group. Beyond these percent of farmers strongly agree that
and its whole-farm impact on the benefits, farmers who adopted postharvest loss has been reduced
other crops smallholder farmers grow. improved storage technologies such as a result of the training provided.
as hermetic bags and plastic silos The group of farmers who received
Maize in Tanzania reported improvement in the quality training had significantly higher yields
Maize is a food staple of major of maize stored for consumption, with than did those in the control group,
importance for Tanzania’s economy, maize remaining free from pesticides, as well as suffering fewer losses
cultivated by most farmers both to aflatoxin, and damage by pests during transportation thanks to a
ensure household food sufficiency (WFP 2019). modest increase in the use of plastic
and for commercial purposes. This crates and sales to aggregation
importance is illustrated by the fact Tomatoes in Nigeria centers, which reduced transportation
that maize occupies 45 percent of Nigeria is the second-largest distance. Of participating farmers,
the country’s cultivated land, making producer of tomatoes in Africa, 56 percent strongly agreed that
Tanzania East Africa’s largest maize with approximately 1.8 million their profits improved as a result
producer. metric tons of fresh tomato fruits of YieldWise training. Furthermore,
produced for domestic consumption intervention farmers also saw a
Starting in 2016, the YieldWise annually. Tomatoes are a major food significant decrease in postharvest
Initiative introduced smallholder component used by every household, losses. In 2016, 37 percent of the
farmers to a series of postharvest contributing to the national food tomatoes harvested were lost at
loss reduction technologies, including security program. They have the postharvest, while in 2017 that
mechanized dehusking, mechanized added advantage of being an annual number dropped to 17 percent—
threshing, tarp use, and improved crop with high yield—making it a crop meaning losses were reduced by
storage practices. By the end of of high economic potential to farmers. 54 percent.
2016, more than 25,000 smallholder However, the national demand of
farmers had been trained in the use about 2–3 million metric tons annually
of at least one of these technologies. results in a demand gap of about
The use of mechanical dehusking 500,000 metric tons for tomatoes
Sources: Genesis Analytics (2018); Ipsos Tanzania (2017); Pyxera Global (2019); Vandercasteelen (2019).

A Critical Caveat waste (i.e., the Food Loss Index and the Food Waste
Index). But it is important to note that the first
The dearth of examples is evidence that too few
figures of the Food Loss Index, to be released in
governments and businesses have yet completed
late 2019, will not be comparable to the earlier FAO
both a base-year quantification of food loss and
(2011) figures because the scope of what is being
waste and a follow-up quantification (i.e., a “before”
estimated (in terms of stages of the food supply
and “after” measurement). This is somewhat under-
chain, commodities, destinations of food loss and
standable given the novelty of the modern food loss
waste, and the calculation method used) is differ-
and waste movement; most countries and compa-
ent.34 Likewise, member states of the European
nies are just starting.
Union will start reporting their national food loss
and waste figures by the end of 2022. Once these
More concerning, though, is the proverbial ticking
measurements are under way, base-year figures
clock when it comes to the SDGs. With just 11 years
are completed, and a subsequent measurement
to go, no one is yet able to determine by how much
occurs, the world should start to have an indica-
the world overall has reduced food loss and waste
tion of national and global progress in reducing
since the advent of the SDGs. This is because global
food loss and waste. However, significant effort is
base-year data (for example, food loss and waste in
still needed, and civil society and NGOs working
2015) have not yet been reported and no follow-up
on food loss and waste can play an important role
quantification of global food loss and waste levels
in encouraging companies and governments to set
has been conducted since FAO’s 2011 report. This
targets and measure food loss and waste, holding
data gap is serious and needs to be addressed.
them accountable to these commitments. As more
and more companies quantify their food loss and
Over time, as more and more countries conduct
waste, the private sector will be better able to iden-
national food loss and waste inventories, a global
tify whether the sum of their actions is also adding
picture should emerge. Moreover, as discussed
up to meaningful reductions of food loss and waste.
earlier, FAO and UNEP are working to develop
But all this measurement is not a foregone conclu-
national-level estimates for both food loss and food
sion. A concentrated effort is still needed.
90 WRI.org
CHAPTER 6
WHAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN NEXT?
If SDG 12.3 is to be achieved, much more needs to be done to scale
efforts to reduce food loss and waste. This chapter introduces
10 scaling interventions that could accelerate and broaden
deployment of solutions.

SUMMARY POINTS
▪ This report introduces a Global Action

Agenda Agenda as a promising
3. L aunch a “10x20x30” supply chain initia-
tive. Launch a voluntary private sector
7. Go after greenhouse gas emissions
reductions. Use sector-led programs to
approach to accelerate the reduction campaign where at least 10 corporate tackle food loss and waste from beef,
of food loss and waste at scale. “power players” commit to Target- dairy, and rice head on, and get the
▪ One
Measure-Act themselves and then reduction of food loss and waste into
component of this agenda is the engage their own 20 largest suppliers nationally determined contributions to
Target-Measure-Act approach, as to do the same, with a shared goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
outlined in Chapter 4. halving their food loss and waste
▪ Athesecond component of this agenda is
suite of to-do lists of specific inter-
by 2030. Enabling approaches
8. S cale up financing. Develop funds
ventions for each of the major actors in Hotspot-specific approaches and financing products dedicated to
the food supply chain, as also outlined 4. Invigorate efforts to strengthen value investing in enterprises, technologies,
in Chapter 4. chains and reduce smallholder losses. and programs designed to reduce food
Invigorate efforts to help smallholder loss and waste.
▪ Ais third component of this agenda
a set of 10 scaling interventions
farmers reduce food losses during
production and storage. 9. O vercome the data deficit. Over the next
designed to ramp up across multiple five years, launch a concentrated push
actors and geographies deployment of 5. Launch a “decade of storage solutions.” to measure food loss and waste and
Target-Measure-Act and the to-do list Kick-start a focused collaboration overcome this data deficit in time to
of specific interventions. Some of these among storage providers, cold chain support achievement of SDG 12.3.
engage supply chains, some target alliances, financiers, and governments
specific hotspots identified in Chapter to get income-sensitive, climate-smart 10. A dvance the research agenda. Target
1, and others support enabling condi- storage technologies into the hands research on multiple “next generation”
tions for reducing food loss and waste. of farmers and distribution networks questions that would, in turn, help
around the world. refine food loss and waste reduction
Whole supply chain approaches strategies and advance implementa-
1. Develop national strategies for reducing 6. S hift social norms. Leverage the latest tion of the global agenda.
food loss and waste. Increase the num- findings of behavioral science, engage
ber of countries with national strategies,
as these can be an important catalyst
grassroots campaigns, social media,
religious communities, and others to
▪ Actors ranging from governments,
businesses, farmers, consumers, and
for Target-Measure-Act at the country make “wasting food” as unacceptable everyone in between can play a role
level—aligning public policy, private as littering now is in many countries. in the Global Action Agenda. With
sector action, and farmer-to-consumer worldwide participation we just might
behavior toward a shared goal. realize a future where no food fit for
consumption goes to waste.
2. C reate national public-private partner-
ships. Increase the number of country-
level public-private partnerships
dedicated to achieving SDG 12.3.
Food loss and waste is a major global challenge interviews suggest that the world still has a long
(Chapter 1) that must be addressed for a range of way to go. More must be done, and done much
reasons (Chapter 2). It has a variety of causes and faster, if SDG 12.3 is going to be met.
underlying drivers (Chapter 3). Fortunately, many
interventions exist for reducing food loss and waste; The solutions to food loss and waste will vary
there is a to-do list for each major type of actor in depending on the specific context. This report sug-
the food supply chain (Chapter 4). Some govern- gests a Global Action Agenda as one possible
ments and businesses are already making progress strategy to help accelerate progress toward achiev-
at implementing some of these interventions ing SDG 12.3. Chapter 4 introduces two compo-
(Chapter 5). However, the evidence and practitioner nents of this agenda. One is the simple yet widely
applicable request for entities to Target-
Measure-Act. A second component is the suite of
94 WRI.org
to-do lists of high-impact interventions for each players” commit to Target-Measure-Act them-
major actor in the food supply chain. These are selves and then engage their own 20 largest
specific interventions that actors can take to kick- suppliers to do the same.
start immediate progress in reducing food loss and
waste. But a third component is also needed: Hotspot-specific approaches
a suite of scaling interventions designed to ramp
4. I nvigorate efforts to strengthen value
up implementation of these specific ones.
chains and reduce smallholder losses.
Invigorate efforts to help smallholder
Most of the specific interventions on the to-do lists
farmers reduce food losses during production
already exist; the issue is that too few are deploying
and storage.
them. Why? In some cases, it may be lack of aware-
ness, concern, or focus regarding food loss and
5. L
aunch a “decade of storage solutions.”
waste. In others, it may be a lack of ability or
Kick-start a focused collaboration among storage
resources (e.g., technical, financial). And in
providers, cold chain alliances, financiers, and
still others, it may be lack of collaboration across
governments to get income-sensitive, climate-
a large number of actors to effect the needed
smart storage technologies into the hands
change. The scaling interventions seek to address
of farmers and distribution networks around
these bottlenecks.
the world.
With input from interviews of representatives
6. S
hift consumer social norms. Leveraging
from the private sector, governments, and research
the latest findings of behavioral science, engage
institutions, we have identified 10 possible scaling
grassroots campaigns, social media, religious
interventions that have the potential to accelerate
communities, and others to make “wasting
and broaden deployment of the Target-Measure-Act
food” as unacceptable as littering now is in
approach and deployment of the needed actor-
many countries.
specific interventions. Three of them take a whole
supply chain approach, four of them target specific
7. G
o after greenhouse gas emissions
hotspots of food loss and waste, and three more
reductions. Use sector-led programs to tackle
enhance some of the enabling conditions for
food loss and waste from beef, dairy, and rice
reducing food loss and waste. They may not
head on, and get the reduction of food loss and
constitute a comprehensive set, but they are a start.
waste into nationally determined contributions
to the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Whole supply chain approaches
1. Develop national strategies for reducing Enabling approaches
food loss and waste. Increase the number of
8. S
cale up financing. Develop funds and
countries with national strategies, as these can be
financing products dedicated to investing
an important catalyst for Target-Measure-Act at
in innovating and scaling up enterprises, tech-
the country level—aligning public policy, private
nologies, and programs designed to reduce food
sector action, and farmer-to-consumer behavior
loss and waste.
toward a shared goal.
9. O
vercome the data deficit. Over the next five
2. C
reate national public-private partner-
years, a concentrated push to measure food loss
ships. Increase the number of country-level
and waste is needed to overcome this data deficit
public-private partnerships dedicated to
in time to support achievement of SDG 12.3.
achieving SDG 12.3.
10. A
dvance the research agenda. More
3. Launch a “10x20x30” supply chain
research is still needed to answer multiple
initiative. Launch a voluntary private sector
“next generation” questions that would, in
campaign where at least 10 corporate “power

turn, help refine food loss and waste reduction supported, and realized in the country. As such,
strategies and advance implementation of the national strategies are able to engage nearly all
global agenda. relevant actors within a nation.
Not all countries, companies, and other entities To date, some nations have publicly reaffirmed their
need to pursue all 10 interventions. For some commitment to SDG 12.3 (see Figure 5.2). But only
entities, lack of resources and capacity may be a a subset of these have developed national strategies
constraint. For others, not every intervention may to reduce food loss and waste. For example, the
be relevant to their context. Rather, each entity can United Kingdom’s “Food Waste Reduction Road-
take this list of scaling interventions as a starting map” lays out activities, milestones, and guidance
point for inspiration. for the private sector to Target-Measure-Act on
food waste, complemented by government policy
Whole Supply Chain Approaches support. The Netherlands is also building a national
strategy. If many more nations were to create
The following set of scaling interventions aims to
national strategies, allocate adequate finances, and
get large portions of the food supply chain actively
pursue implementation, progress toward SDG 12.3
engaged in, and collaborating on, the Target-
would be accelerated.
Measure-Act approach. As discussed in Chapter
4, achieving SDG 12.3 will necessitate involve-
Africa provides an immediate opportunity for
ment of a lot of actors. No single institution can
progress. The African Union’s new Continental
achieve change alone. The following three scaling
Post Harvest Management Strategy (see Chapter 5)
interventions have the potential for impact in their
serves as a framework under which member states
own right, yet they also could be combined—with
can develop their own national strategies to address
scaling interventions 2 and 3 contributing to scaling
postharvest food losses. And the African Union
intervention 1.
Commission is encouraging member states to do
so. Thus far, five member states—Ethiopia, Kenya,
1. Develop and implement national strategies for Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—have taken
reducing food loss and waste steps to create national strategies. These national
National governments are the ones that approved strategies endorse the Malabo Declaration food loss
the SDGs. Thus, it is only rational that national reduction target, include baseline measurement of
governments should have strategies for achieving losses in priority crops, and recommend a suite of
the various SDG targets. National strategies have interventions tailored to addressing the hotspots
the potential to align public policies, private sector per country. Yet this leaves 50 African countries
actions, farmer practices, and consumer behavior without national postharvest loss strategies. Many
toward a shared goal—all at scale. If adequately of these governments need technical and financial
supported and monitored for follow through (and assistance to develop national strategies. Getting
not just a document sitting on a shelf), a national each African nation to have its own government-
strategy can be an important cross-cutting catalyst endorsed, expert-informed, multistakeholder-
for Target-Measure-Act at the country level. developed, national postharvest food loss reduction
strategy would be an important step forward for
A robust national strategy should affirm commit- the continent.
ment to SDG 12.3, outline a roadmap for achieving
the target, identify supporting policy frameworks 2. Create national-level public-private partnerships
and incentives (both existing and new), define One promising way of implementing Target-
who needs to do what, allocate adequate financial Measure-Act at scale—and for supporting national
resources, set milestones, and establish a mecha- strategies—is to establish national-level public-
nism by which progress can be monitored and private partnerships dedicated to halving food loss
corrective action taken. In particular, it should and waste. Such partnerships could involve the
articulate which of the actor-specific interventions national agriculture and environment agencies,
described in Chapter 4 are to be prioritized, food businesses (e.g., producers, manufacturers,
retailers, restaurants, and hospitality companies)
96 WRI.org
active in the country, NGOs that tackle food loss
and waste, and research institutions that bring
▪ They are capable of reaching all the way
“up” the supply chain to farmers (e.g., food
topical expertise. Partnerships are important manufacturers and retailers engaging their food
because reducing food loss and waste requires suppliers) and all the way “down” the supply
actions from actors across the entire food supply chain to consumers (e.g., retailers and govern-
chain (from farm to plate), as well as supportive ment agencies engaging households).
▪
public policies. No single institution can drive a
50 percent economy-wide reduction on its own. They popularize the Target-Measure-Act
approach. Partnerships that have emerged
National-level public-private partnerships help to date have adopted SDG 12.3, started to
address hotspots of food loss and waste by engaging measure, and started identifying actions
actors in a manner that enables generic interven- to take.
▪
tions (e.g., increase adoption of low-cost storage
technologies) to be tailored to the national context They enable sharing of best practices and
and hotspots. In other words, a public-private part- common messaging throughout the national
nership need not “begin with the answers.” Rather, food supply chain on the importance of tackling
the partnership implements a process by which food loss and waste.
members jointly figure out the interventions that
are most appropriate for their national hotspots. The countries most likely to establish such public-
Partnership participants voluntarily commit to private partnerships may be those with domestic
SDG 12.3, conduct food loss and waste measure- operations of some members of the CGF and/or
ment inventories (publicly reporting results over the Global Agribusiness Alliance. As described in
time), and take action to address the hotspots. Chapter 5, these business associations already have
Public reporting is important for communicating global food loss and waste reduction targets aligned
progress and identifying shared hotspots (and thus with SDG 12.3, and many members have already
possibilities for collective action). Participants started measurement and action in at least some
share the ambition, jointly learn how to measure, of their operations. Therefore, the domestic opera-
and collaborate on strategy development tions should (in theory) already have corporate
and implementation. headquarter support for engagement in a national
public-private partnership.
Public-private partnerships are a promising
approach for a number of reasons: Public-private partnerships have an emerging
▪
track record. As discussed in Chapter 5, a handful
They are demonstrating success. For example, of countries have launched such initiatives already
the United Kingdom’s partnership is a major (e.g., the Netherlands, United Kingdom, United
reason why the country has reduced its avoid- States). This early movement can be built upon.
able post-farm gate food waste by 19 percent on Many more such partnerships could follow suit.
a per capita basis since 2007 (WRAP 2018a). If public-private partnerships emerged in the
▪
following additional countries, then 20 of the
They bring the private sector on board, which world’s largest agriculture exporters would be
is critical in markets where the private sector is covered, representing 45 percent of the world’s
a major player in food production, distribution, population: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, China,
and sales. Food loss and waste reduction targets France, India, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,
will not be met in those markets without Poland, Thailand, and Turkey (FAO 2018).
engaging the private sector, both incumbent
large players and disruptive start-up companies. 3. Launch a “10x20x30” supply chain initiative
▪ They bring the public sector on board, which

is critical in that public policies, infrastruc-
One of the hotspots identified in Chapter 1 is food
losses during production (in many countries)
as well as during handling and storage (especially
ture, incentives, and data often are required to
in low-income countries). One way of motivating
catalyze the systemic change needed to achieve
action among food producers and of bringing
large-scale reduction of food loss and waste.

financial and capacity-building resources to them sustainability agendas, such as efforts to eliminate
is for their downstream direct and indirect buyers deforestation from soft-commodity supply chains
to be engaged in a supply chain program focusing (e.g., the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 initiative).
on food loss reduction. To this end, we propose a
“10x20x30” supply chain initiative as one potential Hotspot-Specific Approaches
approach.
A second set of scaling interventions targets some
of the key hotspots of food loss and waste identified
10x20x30 would involve at least 10 of the world’s
in Chapter 1. Three hotspots are stages in the food
largest food companies committing to implement
supply chain that have high rates of food loss and
the Target-Measure-Act approach, with each
waste in various geographies: production (par-
engaging at least 20 of their largest suppliers to
ticularly smallholders in low-income countries),
do the same—with a shared goal of halving their
handling and storage (especially in low-income
food loss and waste by 2030. Besides taking action
countries), and consumption (particularly in high-
themselves, the 10 would provide awareness-
income countries). Another hotspot is food catego-
raising, technical assistance, and a sharing platform
ries that contribute the most to climate change.
for their suppliers to help them succeed. Such an
initiative could have widespread impact. Having
the 10 come from a variety of geographic markets 4. Invigorate efforts to strengthen value chains
would reduce overlap in supply chains. Thus, and reduce smallholder losses
for the first time, a wide range of suppliers from As Chapter 1 identifies, losses during production
around the world would be aggressively reducing and on-farm storage are a hotspot. A dedicated
on-farm and near-farm food losses. Up to 200 more effort is therefore needed to help reduce on-farm
companies would embark on the path to tackling food losses, especially reaching smallholders in
food loss and waste. regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
This approach leverages the relative market One need is improved knowledge and skills in
concentration and power of a few companies to harvesting and storage. This can be delivered, for
catalyze change “up” the supply chain and across instance, via public or private sector-led outreach,
geographies. These power players are among the local in-person training programs, and/or access
largest companies in the food and agriculture to ICT-delivered knowledge and training. Another
sector. They occupy market positions where they need is access to low-cost technologies such as
are the “pinch point” in the supply chain—having improved harvesting equipment, storage units (e.g.,
many suppliers yet relatively few competitors. hermetically sealed bags, storage bins), cold or dry
This concentrated position gives them market storage, and low-tech food processing units. A third
power. In many markets the power players will need is access to small-scale financing to support
be food retailers, while in others they might be use of these technologies. And a fourth need is
branded food manufacturers. market incentives that encourage farmers to adopt
practices and technologies that reduce loss.
This approach essentially is a scaling up of what
Tesco pioneered in 2017 when it secured the Efforts to assist smallholders with productivity
commitment of 27 of its major suppliers to Target- and efficiency improvements are not new. But if
Measure-Act. The fact that all suppliers completed SDG 12.3 is to be achieved, these efforts need to be
and reported their base-year food loss and waste invigorated. Several possible approaches can
inventories within one year of the start of the be followed:
program indicates that the market power of the
entity requesting the commitment, and the training
provided to the suppliers, can lead to follow ▪ Embed training in reducing harvesting and on-
farm storage losses into existing smallholder
through. Such supply chain commitments that capacity-building programs that are focused
“flow up” to suppliers have precedence in other on improving smallholder profitability
and livelihoods. Current programs may not
give food loss the attention it deserves, and
98 WRI.org
extension agents may need additional training This entails a collaboration among storage solution
and retooling. Embedding it into existing providers, the Global Food Cold Chain Council,
programs circumvents the need to create some- financiers, and governments to get income-
thing “new.” sensitive, climate-smart storage technologies into
▪
the hands of farmers and distribution networks
Prepare information about how to address on- (as well as households) around the world.
farm and storage food losses (as well as other
information of farmer interest such as market Informed by experiences of the YieldWise Initiative
prices and how to access markets) and deliver and other efforts, we suggest the following steps for
this information to smallholders via apps, text making this a reality:
▪
messages, radio, extension officers, farmer-
to-farmer demonstration programs, or other Raise awareness about what storage tech-
appropriate routes. nologies and practices are available and are
▪
appropriate for what conditions via media,
In places where smallholders are generating public and private sector-led outreach pro-
crop surpluses, increase investments in value grams, and other avenues.
▪
chain infrastructure (e.g., storage, processing)
and value chain efficiency (e.g., data and Build capacity or “know-how” for using
analytics, transport). Such investments enable these technologies via aggregated smallholder
smallholders to access more formal markets farmer training.
▪
and start to transition from the subsistence to
the market economy. With this transition can Stimulate private sector investment in
come increased profitability, access to resources, solutions, akin to the prize competitions
and ability to invest in food loss reduction. of AgResults.
▪ Aggregate smallholders when delivering the

items above. When farmers form groups, it is
▪ Improve financial access to storage solutions
via approaches like special credit rates, govern-
easier and less expensive for them to access ment subsidies for storage technologies,
training, technologies, financing, and markets and “lease-to-own” programs for villages
than this would be for them as individuals. and other communities.
5. Launch a “decade of storage solutions”

Although hotspots of food loss and waste will vary
▪ Link anchor buyers to smallholder
farmers, which can facilitate each of the
four approaches above.
between countries and commodities, global esti-
mates of food loss and waste (see Figure 1.9) show
that handling and storage is a hotspot of food loss 6. Shift consumer social norms
and waste, particularly in low-income countries. Although the scaling interventions above would
Practices and technologies exist to improve reach many actors in the food supply chain, few
handling and storage. The key is to make these of them would directly engage consumers. Yet as
technologies available, affordable, and climate- countries develop and urbanize, food loss and waste
friendly (e.g., not powered by coal-fired electricity), appears to “shift” downstream toward the con-
and to ensure people have the know-how to sumption stage of the food supply chain, meaning
use them. that food waste in the home, office, and restaurants
will likely become a bigger problem in the future.35
Efforts to improve storage and handling have A common theory as to why this is the case is that
been ongoing for decades. But given that this is the “value of food” has declined and food is no
such a hotspot and given the urgency of meeting longer considered scarce, at least in many high-
SDG 12.3, a concentrated effort to ensure all have income countries (Parfitt et al. 2010). There the
adequate storage is needed. Thus, we suggest that amount households spend on food has been in
the 2020s become a “decade for storage solutions.” decline; the average household in the United States,
for example, spent 43 percent of its income on

food in 1945 but just 9 percent in 2015 (USDA ERS shifting to more healthy and sustainable diets.
2019). It is therefore no surprise, according to However, too few food waste reduction inter-
this theory, that food waste in the household is so ventions apply lessons from behavioral science.
▪
high in the United States, because wasting food is
now relatively cheap. By contrast, in Cameroon— Identify and cultivate influential
a country with estimated low rates of waste at messengers. One lesson from behavioral
consumption—food comprises 46 percent of total science is that people tend to model their
household expenditures (USDA ERS 2019). behavior on that of people they identify closely
with or hold in esteem. Therefore, those seeking
Apart from raising the price of food (which would to reduce consumer food waste should carefully
have negative impacts for the poor and which few, consider the appropriate messengers (who will
if any, politicians would support), what can be done likely differ from market to market).
▪
to address food waste at the consumption stage?
Scale up grassroots movements. In a
One approach is to raise awareness of the issue, number of countries, bottom-up, domestic-led
ringing the proverbial “alarm bell” about the campaigns by civil society organizations such
amount consumers waste and communicating the as Feedback and Stop Wasting Food (Denmark)
financial costs to households (and wider environ- have raised public awareness of food loss and
mental and food security impacts). However, waste and developed “spokespeople” whom
behavioral science indicates that, while education the public respects or listens to (e.g., celebrity
campaigns may raise awareness of an issue, chefs) in an effort to start shifting behavior.
increasing knowledge by itself does not necessarily Going forward, more grassroots movements
translate into changed behavior (Samson 2015). like these are needed in more countries, and
Other factors play a role in shifting behavior and they need to know which interventions are most
social norms, including (but not limited to) how effective at changing behavior (e.g., messages,
easy or difficult it is to adopt the desired new messengers, tactics). One way to achieve this
behavior, how the person thinks peers will perceive would be to support a network of national civil
him or her, and who the messenger is (Samson society organizations wherein participants from
2015). Accordingly, behavior change may require 100+ countries receive training from already
a range of different steps, like publicizing attractive established campaigns. In this manner, trans-
role models or making individual food waste more ferring practices and messages can be done at
publicly visible to others, providing people with scale and can be tailored to local conditions.
▪
tools to make preplanning food purchasing easier,
or giving people tips on how to properly store food. Engage the “next generation” through
social media. Social media has emerged as a
These insights indicate that more needs to be done vehicle for rapidly raising societal problems to
to translate increased awareness into long-term the forefront of public consciousness and dis-
changes in consumer behavior and ultimately social course, illustrated by movements that started
norms. The aspiration should be that norms in on social media, such as the #MeToo move-
high-income countries (and increasingly in growing ment and the #ALSIceBucketChallenge. The
urban populations everywhere) are shifted so that cause of food waste reduction could leverage
wasting food becomes considered “unacceptable.” this vehicle, as well, particularly as a means of
Among others, five approaches to advancing this engaging the younger generation(s) most tuned
are worth further exploration: in to social media. Perhaps their behavioral
▪
patterns could be influenced now such that, as
Adopt insights from behavioral science. they mature, “not wasting food” is considered
The growing field of behavioral science, which the mainstream norm.
▪
includes behavioral economics and “nudge
theory,” is being applied to influence human Engage religious communities. As
behavior on a growing range of issues, including discussed in Chapter 2, there is an ethical case
for reducing food loss and waste, and the
100 WRI.org
importance of not wasting food is highlighted
by several of the world’s major religions. With
84 percent of the global population identified BOX 6.1 | COUNTRIES WITH FOOD LOSS
as “religious” (Hackett et al. 2015), there is a AND WASTE REDUCTION IN THEIR NDCS
currently untapped opportunity for faith leaders (AS OF EARLY 2019)
to engage on this issue—urging the faith
community to reduce food loss and waste on
ethical and religious grounds. It is no surprise Belize: Reduce postharvest losses and improve crop
that many food rescue organizations have roots and livestock husbandry practices.
in the faith community. However, engagement Bhutan: Promote climate-resilient agriculture
needs to go beyond food redistribution, with and achieve food and nutrition security through
faith leaders more proactively integrating establishing, among other things, cold-storage
“waste no food” messages into their teachings facilities at the subnational level.
and communication with members. One “big
Burkina Faso: Improve food processing and
idea” would be to organize an interfaith cam-
preservation methods.
paign on reducing consumer food waste among
the world’s largest religions. Such an interfaith Chad: Develop storage and conservation units to
effort could reach billions of people. limit high postharvest losses as a cross-cutting
priority to adapt to climate change.
7. Go after greenhouse gas emissions reductions Côte d’Ivoire: Develop efficient mechanization
Chapter 1 (see Figure 1.9) identifies a number of of agriculture and improvement of packaging,
hotspots of food loss and waste in terms of green- harvesting, and conservation infrastructure. Develop
storage and conservation units to limit high post-
house gas emissions. These hotspots include meat harvest losses.
(especially beef), dairy, and rice. One focused way
to go after these emissions is to have the industry Egypt: Establish logistics centers for grain trade and
sectors for these specific food categories embark storage to help achieve food security.
on initiatives to reduce food loss and waste from
farm to plate. For example, the Global Dairy
Ethiopia: Improve traditional methods that prevent
deterioration of food and feed in storage facilities
Platform—the association of dairy suppliers around in order to ensure a secure food supply in case of
the world—could commit to SDG 12.3 and start extreme weather events.
a program that engages dairies and processors
with awareness-raising, loss measurement tools, Ghana: Promote innovations in postharvest storage
guidance on which interventions to implement, and food processing and forest products in 43 (out
of 216) administrative districts.
case examples, a loss and waste reduction reporting
platform, and periodic assessments of progress. Honduras: Improve storage, processing, and
The Sustainable Rice Platform could do the same preservation systems of agricultural production.
for rice. For beef, a natural convener of an SDG
12.3 program could be the Global Roundtable for Maldives: Establish food storage facilities and
Sustainable Beef or a coalition of a handful of the
distribution centers to increase accessibility
and reduce the risk of food shortages during
world’s largest beef processors. extreme events.
Another approach to go after greenhouse gas Rwanda: Set a target to provide all farmers with
emissions is to get the reduction of food loss and access to postharvest treatment and storage, and to
waste incorporated into national climate strategies, reduce postharvest losses to 1 percent by 2030 from
10.4 percent, 27.4 percent and 8.3 percent in 2014 for
particularly in a country’s nationally determined maize, beans, and rice, respectively.
contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement on
climate change. An NDC consists of the pledges a Uganda: Expand postharvest handling and storage
country made to the Paris Agreement to reduce its facilities and access to markets.
national greenhouse gas emissions. These pledges
Sources: Nationally determined contribution of each of the above
include an articulation (with varying degrees of countries (2016, 2017), accessed via Climate Watch (2019).
specificity) of measures to be pursued by that
country and actors within it. NDCs are important course, the types of needed investments will vary
because they help set a country’s priorities when in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. For
it comes to its national climate change strategy, example, investments in technologies to reduce
policies, and investments. food loss and waste in low- and middle-income
countries should be sensitive to the needs of small-
As of February 2019, just a dozen countries had holder farmers. Table 6.1 lists possible investable
included some form of food loss and waste reduc- innovations that would help reduce food loss, with
tion in their NDCs (Box 6.1). There is significant many of the solutions also benefiting smallholders.
scope for more countries to do the same. Priority
countries include major beef and dairy producers More financing is needed that is dedicated to
(e.g., Argentina, Australia, Brazil, EU members, the innovating and scaling promising technologies,
United States), major rice producers and consum- enterprises, and programs that target the reduction
ers (e.g., China, India, much of Southeast Asia), and of food loss and waste. The amount of public,
countries in sub-Saharan Africa that produce a lot private, and philanthropic investment in reducing
of root-based foods. All countries with large GHG food loss and waste currently does not match
emissions from organic material (much of it food) the scale of the challenge or the ambition of SDG
in landfills could add “reducing organic material in 12.3. Moreover, matching the scale of the food loss
landfills” to their NDCs, too. and waste challenge will require a shift in funding
priorities. To date, much funding that affects
A push from government agencies and civil society food loss and waste arguably is primarily focused
organizations could encourage more governments on broader goals (e.g., rural infrastructure,
to add food loss and waste to their respective NDCs. electrification) that in turn may have a knock-on
For instance, those involved in the NDC Partner- positive effect on reducing food loss and waste.
ship could make a concentrated effort to do this More could be achieved, however, if more invest-
during 2019 and 2020. Countries can add targets ments directly targeted food loss and waste.
and interventions to their NDCs at any time.
The year 2020, however, is a Paris Agreement Here are some suggestions for dramatically
milestone year (five years after the agreement) increasing such financial investment:
▪
and thus an important political window for raising
NDC ambitions. Private philanthropy should increase
its grantmaking to food loss and waste
Enabling Approaches initiatives. Despite all the social and environ-
mental benefits of reducing food loss and waste,
A third set of scaling interventions aims to enhance
surprisingly few foundations invest in this
several enabling conditions for reducing food loss
thematic area. More philanthropies should
and waste: finance, measurement, and research.
add the reduction of food loss and waste
to their portfolios, supporting civil society
8. Scale up financing organizations, research institutions, and early-
Many of the interventions that target the hotspots stage entrepreneurs in their efforts. Reducing
of food loss and waste need more financing. For food loss and waste could appeal to foundations
example, innovations in food storage technologies targeting issues such as tackling climate change,
in Africa and rollout of food waste reduction tech- food insecurity, rural economic development,
nologies in Europe need more financial support. water use efficiency, and related themes.
▪
This increase in financing will need to come in a
variety of forms. Some solutions are very early in Development banks should launch
development and thus need grant, de-risked, or financial instruments dedicated to
venture capital investment. Other solutions have reducing food loss and waste and
been successfully piloted but now need more incorporate the reduction of food loss and
commercial-oriented capital to go to scale. Of waste into their investment portfolio objectives.
102 WRI.org
Table 6.1 | A Range of Investable Solutions to Postharvest Loss That Also Benefit Smallholders
PACKAGING AND PROCESSING STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
• COOPERATIVE PACKAGING SOLUTIONS could provide packaging • CRATES ADAPTED FOR SMALLHOLDER SUPPLY CHAINS can
services closer to farms, reducing loss. be optimized for different forms of transportation (i.e., trucks, carts,
• MODULAR FACTORIES provide lower-cost, on-demand storage, bicycles, and pack animals), improving handling and transportation and
packaging, and processing services to rural areas. reducing PHL.
• NEAR-FARM MOBILE PROCESSING can extend the shelf life of • MICRO–COLD TRANSPORTATION provides cold chain solutions that
products and ease transportation challenges. allow smallholders to transfer products in stable conditions.
• MOBILE PACKHOUSES AND PRE-COOLING provide a way for • ADAPTABLE REEFER CONTAINERS can accommodate smaller
smallholders to get produce to markets without spoilage and volumes of produce, allowing smallholders to transport goods at
without the need for large capital outlay. optimal temperatures.
• DEHYDRATION TECHNOLOGY improves drying efficiency and • PROVIDING COLD CHAIN AS A SERVICE TO SMALLHOLDERS
quality of products. enables reduced spoilage.
• MICRO-WAREHOUSING AND SHIPPING provides options for storage
and transportation of smaller volumes of produce.
• EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS enables storage of crops at lower
temperatures, without electricity, and at a lower-cost.
CROSS-CUTTING
DATA COLLECTION AND

ENABLING INNOVATIONS LIFE SCIENCES ENERGY
MONITORING
• Farm-to-plate virtual marketplaces enable • Biodegradable coatings are an • Early warning systems for • Battery technologies
the direct connection of producers and affordable technology that can plant disease and pests provide reliable on-
purchasers, easier aggregation of produce, extend shelf life, particularly prevent PHL through the demand energy services
and reduction of inefficiencies in the supply where cold storage and collection and use of better to rural areas to support
chain. transportation is not feasible. data (i.e., satellite imagery and energy intensive activities
• Creating specialty marketing for PHL-prone • Research on the use of on-farm reporting). that reduce PHL, such
crops means that new markets are able to microbes for agriculture is • Improved traceability as cold storage and
absorb the increased volume of goods. increasing and could provide technologies allow for greater processing.
• First-loss capital guarantee for PHL means postharvest solutions to accountability within the • On-farm solar preservation
that investments made to smallholders or extend shelf life. supply chain to incentivize can provide energy to
SMEs to reduce PHL are less risky. actors to reduce inefficiencies. smallholders that will
allow them to adopt
• Mobile education centers help smallholders practices, such as on-farm
in remote areas receive extension services. cooling, that reduce PHL.
• Behavioral economics for agriculture
incentivizes behaviors that lead to reductions
in PHL.
Note: PHL = postharvest losses; SMEs = small and medium-sized enterprises.

Source: Adapted from Global Knowledge Network (2017).
The World Bank’s recent launch of a $300 (food loss and waste quantity and, where possible,
million Sustainable Development Bond focused quality) is needed to overcome this data deficit in
on reducing food loss and waste is a novel time to support achievement of SDG 12.3.
example (World Bank 2019).
▪
This concentrated push should consist of at least
Financial institutions should launch one four components:
▪
or more major blended finance funds
dedicated to food loss and waste. These Roll out the Food Loss Index and Food
funds would be a pool of capital that invests in Waste Index. Country-level estimates of
technologies, entrepreneurs, and programs that food loss and waste using both indices need to
reduce food loss and waste or convert it into take place. This would provide a harmonized
value-added products. The funds could involve baseline, a midperiod check-in, and an end-of-
development banks, commercial banks, and period assessment. Only through this approach
philanthropic institutions. will the world know whether or not the SDG
▪
12.3 target has been reached. It would be a
Private financial institutions should travesty if all the interventions in this report
launch “investment roundtables” or are implemented but the world is still unable
competitions that bring together financiers to determine whether or not the target has
and innovators in an efficient process to match been met.
▪
investments with promising technologies and
enterprises. For example, in 2018, Rabobank Get more than 200 companies reporting.
hosted “Food Loss Challenge—Asia,” an invest- More than 200 of the world’s largest companies
ment competition for start-up enterprises in the food sector need to be measuring and
focused on food loss reduction (Rabobank reporting their food loss and waste within their
2018). These types of investment roundtables own operations, and over time up their supply
should be scaled up. chains. Only at this scale can one say measure-
▪
ment has started to be mainstreamed in the
Financial institutions should support private sector.
▪
project preparation facilities. Increased
support is needed for making projects invest- Report completed inventories. As all of
ment-ready. Interviews with financial institu- these countries and companies measure their
tions indicate that ideas that cross prospective food loss and waste, they should make the
financiers’ desks may be promising but too results publicly available and easily accessible
often lack a credible approach to convert them (e.g., on the internet). Doing so would enable
into a viable business case or investment. In identification of success stories, benchmarking
other words, there is a shortage of “bankable” against peers and sectors, and better under-
projects. Project preparation facilities could standing of one’s supply chains. Posting
address this problem—identifying candidate completed inventories on the Food Waste Atlas
food loss and waste investments, screening (see Chapter 5) is a straightforward way to do
the candidates, and helping prepare a subset this in a consistent and transparent manner.
▪
to become “investment-ready.”
Incentivize measurement. More entities
9. Overcome the data deficit will measure if they are incentivized to do it.
For instance, development cooperation could
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 5, the amount
provide financial and technical support to low-
of quantified data on food loss and waste remains
income countries to conduct their measure-
insufficient. This shortcoming risks hindering
ments. Lending institutions could make “before
efforts to refine hotspot identification, hone
and after” measurement of food loss and waste
reduction strategies, and monitor progress. Over
a requirement for farmers, businesses, and
the next five years, a concentrated push to measure
104 WRI.org
Table 6.2 | Important Questions for Reducing Food Loss and Waste (Not Exhaustive)
Technology:
Food Loss
▪ What technologies offer the biggest promise (in terms of impact, scale, and market readiness) for food loss
reduction at the “production” and “storage” stages of the food supply chain?
▪ How does one accelerate their scaling?
Technology:
Food Waste
▪ What technologies offer the biggest promise (in terms of impact, scale, and market readiness) for food waste
reduction at the “market” and “consumption” stages of the food supply chain?
▪ How does one accelerate their scaling?
Cold chains ▪ How can the world accelerate deployment of climate-smart cold chains in low-income countries?
Economics ▪ What pricing signals and incentive structures (or lack thereof) are driving the economics of food loss
and waste?
▪ What interventions to reduce food loss and waste would provide (or are providing) the biggest return
on investment?
Finance ▪ What types of financing are needed to scale up adoption of leading food loss and waste reduction practices
and technologies?
Public policy ▪ What inclusive, cost-effective public policies (e.g., regulations, incentives) hold the most promise for reducing
food losses in low-income countries?
▪ What inclusive, cost-effective public policies (e.g., regulations, incentives) hold the most promise for reducing
food waste in middle- and high-income countries?
Smallholders ▪ What specific types of infrastructure, technical assistance, and/or financial assistance do farmers in low-
income countries need (or are already working) to implement practices that would dramatically reduce on-farm
and near-farm losses?
▪ How does one effectively build capacity for smallholders to implement food loss reduction practices?
Consumers ▪ What can the latest insights from behavioral science tell us about how to shift social norms and long-term
behavior of consumers when it comes to food waste?
Other actors ▪ What role can cities and civil society play in reducing food loss and waste?
Measurement ▪ What do the new quantifications of food loss and waste (e.g., by companies, by countries) that are becoming
public tell us about the hotspots and trends in food loss and waste?
▪ How are qualitative losses, such as micronutrient losses, and the impact of these losses on food security and
food safety best measured?
governments receiving financing for agriculture- 10. Advance the research agenda
related projects. Governments could mandate
Despite the body of knowledge that already exists
that all companies in the food sector above a
on food loss and waste, more research is still
certain size measure and report their food loss
needed to support overall achievement of SDG 12.3.
and waste. Retailers and manufacturers could
This is an important role for public and private
provide technical (and financial) support to
research institutions to play over the coming
their suppliers on what to measure and how
decade, and these institutions need support in
to measure it.
this effort. Answering the nonexhaustive list of
questions in Table 6.2 would help refine strategies a Target-Measure-Act approach, actor-specific
for reducing food loss and waste and help advance to-do lists, and a suite of scaling interventions.
implementation of the global agenda. Combined, these hit priority hotspots and articulate
who needs to do what.
A Call to Action
Momentum is growing, but the world has much
SDG 12.3 is a historic opportunity for the world
more to do. Only 11 years remain to achieve the
to curtail food loss and waste at scale and reap
targets of the SDGs, and food loss and waste is
numerous food security, economic, and environ-
still pervasive. Actors ranging from governments,
mental benefits. These benefits will contribute to
businesses, farmers, consumers, and everyone
many other SDGs and the Paris Agreement
in between can play a role in the Global Action
on climate change.
Agenda. With worldwide participation, we
just might realize a future where no food fit for
This report introduces a Global Action Agenda to
consumption goes to waste.
accelerate the reduction of food loss and waste
across actors and geographies. This agenda involves
106 WRI.org
APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS OF “DESTINATIONS”
“Destination” refers to where food and/or the associated inedible parts
go when removed from the food supply chain. There are 10 possible
▪ Composting/aerobic processes. Breaking down material via
bacteria in oxygen-rich environments. Composting refers to the
destinations according to the FLW Standard: production of organic material (via aerobic processes) that can be
used as a soil amendment.
▪ orAnimal Feed. Diverting material from the food supply chain (directly
after processing) to animals. (This excludes crops intentionally
grown for bioenergy, animal feed, seed, or industrial use.)
▪ Controlled combustion. Sending material to a facility that is spe-
cifically designed for combustion in a controlled manner, which may
include some form of energy recovery (this may also be referred to
▪ Bio-based Materials/Biochemical Processing. Converting
material into industrial products. Examples include creating fibers
as incineration).
for packaging material, creating bioplastics (e.g., polylactic acid),

making “traditional” materials such as leather or feathers (e.g.,
▪ Land Application. Spreading, spraying, injecting, or incorporating
organic material onto or below the surface of the land to enhance
for pillows), and rendering fat, oil, or grease into a raw material to soil quality.
make products such as soaps, biodiesel, or cosmetics. Biochemical
processing does not refer to anaerobic digestion or production of
bioethanol through fermentation.
▪ Landfill. Sending material to an area of land or an excavated site
that is specifically designed and built to receive wastes.
▪ Codigestion/anaerobic digestion. Breaking down material via

bacteria in the absence of oxygen. This process generates biogas
▪ Not harvested/plowed in. Leaving crops that were ready for
harvest in the field or tilling them into the soil.
and nutrient-rich matter. Codigestion refers to the simultaneous an-
aerobic digestion of food loss and waste and other organic material
in one digester. This destination includes fermentation (converting
▪ Refuse/discards/litter. Abandoning material on land or disposing
of it in the sea. This includes open dumps (i.e., uncovered, unlined),
carbohydrates—such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose—via open burn (i.e., not in a controlled facility), the portion of harvested
microbes into alcohols in the absence of oxygen to create products crops eaten by pests, and fish discards (the portion of total catch
such as biofuels). that is thrown away or slipped).
▪ Sewer/wastewater treatment. Sending material down the sewer

(with or without prior treatment), including material that may go to a
facility designed to treat wastewater.
APPENDIX B. LIST OF SOURCES IN FIGURE 1.11
EXAMPLE FOOD TYPE / GEOGRAPHY SOURCE
STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: PRIMARY PRODUCTION

A Tomatoes, peaches, romaine lettuce, processing potatoes / Arizona, Florida, Idaho, World Wildlife Fund-US (2018)
New Jersey (United States)
B Vegetables and berries / Vermont (United States) Neff et al. (2018)
C Cabbage, yellow squash, zucchini, green peppers, cucumbers, eggplants / Johnson et al. (2018)
North Carolina (United States)
D Lettuce, strawberries / United Kingdom WRAP (2017b)
E Salads, mushrooms, other vegetables / United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Czech G’s Fresh (2018)
Republic, Senegal
F Direct measurement of carrots, onions, wheat, rye, green peas, field peas, and farmed Franke et al. (2016)
rainbow trout or char. Surveys and literature reviews to estimate losses of over 30
other food and animal products.
Data point shows average losses across Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
G Potatoes, chorizo / United Kingdom Branston (2018)
H Maize, rice, sorghum, millet, wheat, barley, fonio, oats, teff / Botswana, Burkina Faso, APHLIS (2016)
Ethiopia, Malawi, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Uganda
Data point represents the average losses across all crops and countries.
I Maize / Uganda FAO (2017c)
J Maize / Nigeria Oguntade (2013)
K Maize and sorghum / Burkina Faso FAO (2017d)
L Maize / Malawi Ambler et al. (2018)
M Maize / Kenya FAO (2014)
N Tomatoes / Nigeria, Rwanda Kitinoja et al. (2019)
O Tomatoes / Kenya Owino et al. (2015)
P Mangoes and tomatoes / Guyana, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago FAO (2015b)
Data point shows average losses for each crop across the three countries.
Q Potatoes / Ecuador and Peru Delgado et al. (2017)

Beans / Guatemala and Honduras
Maize / Guatemala and Honduras
Data points show average losses per crop.
108 WRI.org
APPENDIX B. LIST OF SOURCES IN FIGURE 1.11 (CONTINUED)
STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: HANDLING AND STORAGE
R Maize / Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda Kaminski and Christiaensen

(2014)
S Maize, rice, sorghum, millet, wheat, barley, fonio, oats, teff / Botswana, Burkina Faso, APHLIS (2016)
T Maize / Nigeria Oguntade (2013)
U Rice / Kenya Mutungi et al. (2012)
V Maize / Uganda FAO (2017c)
W Maize, rice / Democratic Republic of Congo FAO (2017e)
X Teff / Ethiopia Minten et al. (2016)
Y Maize / Kenya FAO (2014)
Z Potatoes / Ecuador and Peru Delgado et al. (2017)

STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: PROCESSING AND PACKAGING
A1 Pearl millet, maize, sorghum / Tanzania Abass et al. (2014)
B1 Rice / Kenya Mutungi et al. (2012)
C1 Rice / Burkina Faso FAO (2017d)
D1 Potatoes / Ecuador and Peru Delgado et al. (2017)

E1 Mangoes / Guyana, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tomatoes / Guyana, St. Lucia, FAO (2015b)
Trinidad and Tobago
Data point shows average losses for each crop across the three countries.
STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: PROCESSING AND PACKAGING
F1 Tomatoes, peaches, processing potatoes / Arizona, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey World Wildlife Fund-US (2018)
(United States)
STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: DISTRIBUTION AND MARKET
G1 Maize, rice, sorghum, millet, wheat, barley, fonio, oats, teff / Botswana, Burkina Faso, APHLIS (2016)
H1 Maize, rice / Democratic Republic of Congo FAO (2017e)
I1 Maize / Nigeria Oguntade (2013)
J1 Teff / Ethiopia Minten et al. (2016)
K1 Dessert bananas, plantains / Kenya FAO (2014)
L1 Tomatoes / Nigeria and Rwanda Kitinoja et al. (2019)
M1 Tomatoes / Kenya Owino et al. (2015)
N1 Cabbage, tomatoes, carrots / Tanzania Dome and Prusty (2017)
O1 Mangoes / St. Lucia, Tomatoes / Guyana, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago FAO (2015b)
Data point shows average losses per crop.
STAGE OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: CONSUMPTION
A Approximately 58 percent of commodities entering the Canadian food system / Gooch et al. (2019)
Canada
Data point represents total of household food waste, food service, and hospitality as a
percentage of total food lost and wasted from primary production up to and including
the household.
B All food categories / Australia Arcadis (2019)

the household.
110 WRI.org
C All food categories / United States ReFED (2016)

the household.
D All food categories / United Kingdom WRAP (2017a)

Data point represents total of household food waste, food service, and hospitality as
a percentage of total food lost and wasted from the farm gate (not including primary
production) up to and including the household.
E All food categories / 28 EU countries Stenmarck et al. (2016)

the household.
F 21 food product groups / Norway Stensgård and Hanssen (2016)

Data point represents total of household food waste as a percentage of total food lost
and wasted from primary production up to and including the household.
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTIONS PER UNDERLYING DRIVER
CATEGORY
DRIVER
Poor Lack of or poor-quality infrastructure (public or private) along the food supply chain. Public infrastructure
Technological
infrastructure includes reliable power supplies, reliable communication, usable roads, and access to markets. Private
infrastructure includes storage facilities, cold chains, processing facilities, and distribution- or market-related
logistics (e.g., handling facilities).
Inadequate Lack of or suboptimal equipment along the food supply chain. This includes equipment used during harvesting
equipment (e.g., combines), storage (e.g., bags), distribution (e.g., pallet jacks), merchandising (e.g., displays), and food
preparation (e.g., stoves, refrigeration).
Suboptimal Suboptimal pack sizes, and insufficient packaging to protect products after harvest from deterioration and
packaging damage.
Inadequate food Lack of or inadequate management practices or use of equipment due to a lack of knowledge, skills, or
Managerial
management incentives. Among producers, this could include poor use of mechanical harvesters, improper use of fishing
practices, skills, gear, and inadequate animal care practices. Among households this includes a lack of knowledge about
and knowledge planning and preparing meals, as well as how to assess product freshness and interpret date labels.
Inflexible Contractual practices (e.g., last-minute order changes, take-back clauses) or quality and cosmetic standards
procurement (e.g., undesired attributes) that result in food leaving the supply chain. While some procurement requirements
requirements may reduce the amount of unusable food that is sent further down the supply chain, other requirements may
result in nutritious, edible food exiting the human food supply chain.
112 WRI.org
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTIONS PER UNDERLYING DRIVER (CONTINUED)
MARKETS
CATEGORY
UNDERLYING WHERE
EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTIONS (NOT EXHAUSTIVE)
DRIVER MOST
SALIENT
Poor ▪ Improve general infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity access). Low-income

▪ Build processing
Technological
infrastructure Improve (e.g., more energy-efficient, low-carbon) and expand cold chains. countries
▪ value-added products
facilities to convert unmarketable crops and by-products into
(e.g., near-farm mobile processing units).
▪ age containers, or rescue logistics
Use backhauling or other solutions to enable the return of reusable stor-
of surplus food for people in need.
Inadequate ▪ Improve availability of harvesting and handling equipment that reduces damage. Low-income
equipment ▪ and ensureaccess
Improve to storage equipment (e.g., through cost-sharing cooperatives),
these are available to smallholders as well (e.g., crates that are suited
countries
for smaller volumes of product).

▪ Invest in equipment (e.g., merchandising displays, kitchen products) that extend
the quality and freshness of perishable foods.
Suboptimal
packaging
▪ Improve packaging design and materials to reduce risk of damage or spoilage, and
to keep food fresher for longer while balancing other ecological considerations
High-income
countries
related to packaging.
▪ Improve packaging to allow for incremental consumption (while the remainder
stays secure from spoilage).
▪ Provide consumers with smaller package options.
▪ Allow consumers to customize portions through bulk bins, half orders, or
optional refills.
Inadequate food ▪ Use proven models to encourage more sustained adoption of practices that Low- and
Managerial
management reduce food loss during the production stage (e.g., harvesting and handling high-income
practices, skills, practices, protecting crops against pests and diseases to reduce losses during countries
and knowledge and after harvest).
▪ Use fishing gear recommended for target species to reduce bycatch.
▪ Standardize procedures for staff (e.g., develop a common inventory management
process) and invest in ongoing training to reduce human errors that lead to loss
and waste.
▪ Reengineer production processes and product designs (e.g., to reduce waste
during product line changeovers in processing facilities).
▪ Improve practices through software and related ICT (e.g., to analyze waste and
suggest reduction tactics, to track temperature and ensure freshness, to assess
ripeness, to accelerate delivery of food to consumers, to rescue surplus food).
▪ Standardize date labels (e.g., “use by,” “best before,” “sell by”) and educate
consumers about label definitions.
▪ Educate consumers about meal planning, food storage, food handling, food
preparation, and use of leftovers.
Inflexible
procurement
▪ Increase
supply.
flexibility in contract terms to better manage variability in demand and High-income
countries
requirements ▪ Broaden cosmetic standards to encompass a wider array of physical attributes. with powerful
▪ Build secondary markets for items that do not meet highest cosmetic standards
and/or for alternative fish species.
retailers
CATEGORY
DRIVER
Poor supply- Poor forecasting and information flow between buyer and supplier. At the farm, this includes suboptimal crop
Managerial
and-demand scheduling and forecasting. In the middle of the supply chain, this includes suboptimal inventory management.
forecasting and At the consumption stage, this includes buying and preparing more food than will be consumed.
planning
Marketing Promotions, merchandising displays, or other marketing strategies that increase the likelihood of product
strategies damage, surplus, or overpurchasing by consumers.
Norms and Norms and attitudes that influence food production and consumption behaviors and cause products to
Behavioral
attitudes be removed from the food chain at any stage. These include what types of foods are considered appealing
(e.g., whether certain parts of an animal are typically eaten), the preferred appearance of products (e.g., no
blemishes), showing off “abundance” to indicate wealth or hospitality, attitudes about food generally (e.g.,
dislike of leftovers, desire for variety, preference for “fresh”), and social values that accept resource waste and
its impacts.
Lack of Lack of awareness that food loss and waste happens and has an impact, and how one contributes to the
awareness problem. Farmers, business managers, and consumers often do not think they lose or waste food, but meas-
urement suggests otherwise. Lack of awareness also can include a limited understanding of how reducing
food loss and waste can provide direct (personal or business) benefits (e.g., enhanced product freshness,
reduced costs).
Concerns about Actual or perceived risks related to food safety (including food labeling), reputation, and liability. This includes
possible risks concerns about safe food consumption, or fear about liability linked to food donation.
114 WRI.org
MARKETS
CATEGORY
UNDERLYING WHERE
DRIVER MOST
SALIENT
Poor supply- ▪ Improve communication and change incentives among business units to reduce Low- and
Managerial
and-demand decisions that inadvertently create waste; e.g., holding on to safety stock to ensure high-income
forecasting and in-stock availability even though the majority of that stock may go to waste. countries
planning ▪ Introduce technologies and business-to-business partnerships to improve supply-
demand forecasting and information flow among all actors in the supply chain.
▪ Use software or other tools that help farmers better schedule planting
and harvesting.
Marketing
strategies
▪ Adjust pricing and promotion strategies (e.g., quantity discounts) to avoid lower
prices leading to overpurchasing.
High-income
countries
▪ Adjust promotions to avoid excessive purchase of additional items (e.g., offer half
off or mix-and-match rather than two-for-one deals).
▪ Develop a clear promotion planning process to reduce the likelihood of waste (e.g.,
consider whether special packaging during a promotion will result in wasted food
after the promotion ends).
▪ Redesign in-store merchandising to achieve the desired appearance of abundance
but with less damage and excess product (e.g., through smaller bins and bowls, or
other props).
Norms and ▪ Conduct consumer education campaigns about food loss and waste to shift social High-income
Behavioral
attitudes attitudes (e.g., to general public, to schools). countries and

▪ Encourage diners to take home leftovers in low-impact containers. urban centers
▪ cafeterias, and other foodservice
Implement techniques that reduce waste (e.g., trayless dining) in lunchrooms,
settings.
▪ Promote the value of food so that the cultural mindset is less likely to accept
wasted food.
Lack of
awareness
▪ Conduct food loss and waste inventories (or “audits”) to identify the quantity and
hotspots of food loss and waste, and communicate the results.
Low- and
high-income
▪ Engage employees and supply chain actors about food loss and waste (how much
is it, why it matters, who is responsible, what they can do) and provide relevant
countries
tools to track and reduce it.
Concerns about
possible risks
▪ Pass “Good Samaritan” laws that reduce or eliminate liability of those donating
food, and raise awareness of such liability protection.
High-income
countries and
▪ Improve consumer understanding of the meaning of date labels (and which are
about food safety).
urban centers
▪ Improve consumer understanding of how to reduce risk of spoiled food (and how
to accurately identify it).
CATEGORY
DRIVER
Demographics Household size, urbanization, and growth in the middle class (which is linked to higher disposable income)
Structural
impact food production and consumption. This includes reduced availability of labor to harvest food in the
production stage, which can increase food losses. The rise of the middle class can change how people acquire,
eat, and manage food (e.g., portion sizes, shopping habits, preference for “fresh”), which can increase the
likelihood of food waste.
Climatic Weather (e.g., rain, snow, ice, wind, cold, heat) and impacts from a changing climate affect growing condi-
conditions tions, which can result in damage to crops or surplus product. These conditions also affect other factors such
as the degree of damage by pests and diseases, and the ability to get a product to market (e.g., disruptions in
transportation networks).
Policies and Policies and regulations may be barriers, be poorly coordinated, or be absent, resulting in food leaving the food
regulations supply chain. Policy barriers may relate to food safety, food quality, labeling, packaging, trade and customs, tax
incentives, agricultural extension services, and use of unsold food for animal feed or energy.
Economics Costs of avoiding or reducing food loss and waste are (or are perceived to be) high in comparison to the
benefits that would be obtained. Growers, especially smallholders, may not invest in loss reduction practices
or technologies due to poverty. Growers may harvest crops prematurely (increasing the risk of food losses)
because they need cash or because market prices are currently high. Conversely growers may not harvest
crops where the cost to do so exceeds the market price, and if alternative markets for second-grade products
are not profitable. A food processor may accept food loss and waste as the “cost of doing business” or because
disposal costs are low. In many countries, food comprises only a small share of household expenditures,
lowering the cost of waste and the perceived value of conserving food.
Access to Inability to access sufficient financing (e.g., investment, loans, grants) to purchase, implement, or scale tech-
financing nologies, capacity-building programs, and/or enterprises that would reduce food loss and waste.
116 WRI.org
MARKETS
CATEGORY
UNDERLYING WHERE
DRIVER MOST
SALIENT
Demographics ▪ Use policy and economic levers to reduce labor shortages (e.g., in farming, among Low- and
Structural
truck drivers). high-income

▪ Support population in gaining relevant skills that avoid food waste (e.g., incorpo-
rate in education curriculum lessons in food preparation and planning).
countries
▪ Make packaging adjustments for smaller households.

Climatic
conditions
▪ Use ICT to gather better data on weather (e.g., to inform planting and harvesting, to
predict consumer demand).
Low- and
high-income
▪ Use storage containers that protect against variations in temperature and precipi-
tation.
countries
▪ Expand cold storage systems during wholesale and logistics to protect products
vulnerable to heat damage.
Policies and
regulations
▪ Embed into agricultural extension services (and in farmer subsidy programs) food
loss reduction awareness, technical assistance, and financial aid.
Low- and
high-income
▪ Introduce tax incentives for donating unsold but still safe food to food
rescue organizations.
countries
▪ Pass laws that increase the cost of discarding food.

▪ Adjust procedures
Amend laws to allow unsold food to be used in animal feed.
▪ Adopt policies that atencourage
“ports of entry” to reduce wait times and risk of spoilage.
▪ membership for smaller producers, improved trade linkages (e.g., organized group
improved availability of, and access to, markets).
▪ by incentivizing and providing support for foodimprove
Develop policies that help small businesses their operations (e.g.,
handling practices that reduce
contamination).
Economics ▪ Conduct benefit-cost analyses of food loss and waste reduction programs to
discern the financial return on investment (relevant for farmers, companies, govern-
Low- and
high-income
ment agencies, households). countries
▪ Launch communications campaign about the financial returns of food loss and
waste reduction efforts.
▪ Together with the community and relevant actors in the supply chain, create or
expand financially viable markets (e.g., secondary surplus markets, donation,
value-added processing) for products that would otherwise be lost or wasted.
Access to
financing
▪ Create funds (and associated project preparation facilities) dedicated to reducing
food loss and waste.
Low-income
countries
▪ Introduce financial product lines in commercial and development banks focused
on food loss and waste reduction technologies and programs.
▪ Introduce “pay-as-you-go” programs to make technologies marketed to large-
scale commercial operations affordable for smallholder operations (e.g., for solar-
powered refrigeration units).
Sources: WRI analysis based on Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, 2019); Clowes et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); Food Loss and Waste Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative
(2017); Gooch et al. (2019); Gunders and Bloom (2017); Hegnsholt et al. (2018); HLPE (2014); ReFED (2016); and WWF-US (2018).
ENDNOTES
1. The modeling was led by WRI and the French Agricultural 7. See Chapter 2.
Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), and
supported by the World Bank, UNEP, the UN Development 8. Tonnage could be a proxy for loss of micronutrients due to
Programme, and the French National Institute the quantitative loss of fruits and vegetables (for instance).
for Agronomic Research (INRA). It would not be a proxy for qualitative losses that can lead to
losses in micronutrients.
2. The modeling for Figures 1.1 and 1.2 was conducted out to 2050
in order to give an indication of the relative scale of impact of 9. Our analysis does not address whether or not too many
a wide variety of strategies on ability to achieve a sustainable calories of certain food categories are currently being grown
food future (reducing food loss and waste being one of the relative to nutrition criteria. For that, see the EAT-Lancet
strategies). Elsewhere, this report discusses reducing food Commission Report (Willett et al. 2019). Rather, we focus on
loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030 in order to meet the loss and waste of food that is actually produced.
target set by the Sustainable Development Goals.
10. Although qualitative loss and waste is important, we focus
3. This definition is in line with the recommendations of the FLW here on quantitative loss and waste since that was the focus
Standard. Counting losses from the point of harvest/slaughter of FAO (2011). The purpose of this section is to assess whether
is also used by other researchers. The database APHLIS also or not FAO (2011) data are broadly correct.
includes losses that occur during harvesting.
11. Studies consulted are listed in Appendix B.
4. Understanding the amount sent to every destination is valu-
12. For example, the new estimates will only cover food lost from
able for decision-making purposes, but when aiming for the
the farm gate up to, but not including, the retail level—as
common 50 percent reduction target suggested by Sustain-
opposed to covering the whole supply chain as the FAO (2011)
able Development Goal 12.3 (see Chapter 2), excluding “animal
estimates did. The new estimates will exclude food intended
feed” and “biobased materials” is practical and consistent
for human consumption going to animal feed and bio-based
with the recommendations of Champions 12.3. See Champions
materials, whereas the FAO (2011) estimates included food
12.3 (2017).
going to both of these destinations.
5. The FAO report did not separate data between North America
13. Many models that project future environmental impacts
and Oceania.
of the global food system, including the recent World
6. Figure 1.9 is based on authors’ calculations based on data from Resources Report (Searchinger et al. 2018) and the EAT-Lancet
FAO (2011) and the FLW Value Calculator. FAO (2011) gives data Commission (Willett et al. 2019), project outward to 2050. They
on food loss and waste in metric tons distributed across seven do not project outward to 2030, the year that the SDGs are
near-continental geographies, five stages of the food supply due. Although these models provide an indication of the
chain, and seven food categories. Our “hotspot” analysis for positive benefits of halving food loss and waste by 2050,
tons disaggregates the data into all possible combinations global ambitions should aim to halve food loss and waste
of those three dimensions. Our analysis for calories converts by 2030 if the world is to meet the SDG target for food loss
the tonnage data into calories using FAO Food Balance Sheet and waste.
conversion factors (e.g., x calories per ton of cereal). Our
14. See “List of Countries by Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” https://
analysis for greenhouse gas emissions converts the tonnage
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_
data into tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using con-
gas_emissions, based on data compiled by WRI.
version factors in the FLW Value Calculator (2018) (e.g.,
x tons of CO2e per ton of meat). These conversion factors may 15. See “List of Countries and Dependencies by Area,” https://
underestimate the emissions arising from land-use change en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_
(thus meat emissions may be even higher than in the FLW by_area, based on data from the UN Statistics Division.
Calculator). For each of these three dimensions (i.e., tonnage,
calories, greenhouse gas emissions), our threshold for includ- 16. A global figure that shows the net cost of food loss and waste
ing it as a “hotspot” was >50,000 tons (at one stage of the (i.e., the gross cost minus the cost of reducing food loss and
supply chain or two adjacent stages), >50 billion calories (at waste) could not be found. The figure of US$940 billion is
one stage of the supply chain or two adjacent stages), and therefore a gross cost. Figures for the net benefits of reducing
>30,000 tons of CO2e. food loss and waste are available for a number of companies,
outlined in Box 2.1.
118 WRI.org
17. Between 2012 and 2015 efforts did not result in further reduc- Greenyard Frozen, G’s Fresh, Hilton Foods, Icelandic Seachill,
tions (either in absolute metric tons or on a per-person basis), IKEA, Kellogg Company, Kepak Meat Division, Kerry Food,
suggesting that the proverbial “low-hanging fruit” reductions Kroger, Lidl, Morrison’s, Moy Park, Muller Milk & Ingredients,
were already realized or that some other factor was at play, Nestlé, Noble, Ocado, Oruna, Premier Foods, Richard Hochfield
making further reductions difficult (WRAP 2018c). Despite Ltd., Royal Ahold Delhaize, Sainsbury’s, Samworth Brothers
this leveling off, figures on UK food waste, restated in 2018, Ltd., Tesco, 2SFG, Unilever, and Walmart (in Canada, Japan,
showed that the United Kingdom saw a reduction in avoidable United Kingdom, United States) (Lipinski et al. 2016; Lipinski et
household food waste of 23 percent, and a reduction in total al. 2017; Flanagan et al. 2018).
avoidable post-farm gate food waste of 19 percent (measured in
kilograms per person) between 2007 and 2015 (WRAP 2018c). 25. The FLW Standard was developed by the Food Loss and Waste
Protocol, a multistakeholder effort convened by WRI and
18. This city example is the only one the authors could find to date involving the CGF, FAO’s Save Food Initiative, the EU FUSIONS
that has enough data to calculate benefit-cost ratios. initiative, UNEP, the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), and WRAP.
19. This synthesis drew heavily on the organization of causes
used in HLPE (2014), which identified three different “levels of 26. Prepared by WRAP and WRI, with financial support from the
causes” (micro, meso, and macro). “Micro level” refers to the Walmart Foundation and WRAP; www.thefoodwasteatlas.org.
causes of food loss and waste at each particular stage of the
food supply chain where loss and waste results from actions 27. Prepared by the WBCSD with technical input from Quantis
or nonactions of individual actors at a stage, in response (or and WRI; www.flwprotocol.org/why-measure/food-loss-and-
not) to external factors (e.g., rough, careless handling; poor waste-value-calculator/.
management of temperature conditions; inadequate facilities;
28. In 2019, Argentina, through the country’s National Plan for the
poor planning; excess portions). “Meso level” causes include
Reduction of Food Losses and Waste, brought in new legisla-
secondary causes or structural causes of food loss and waste
tion that protects businesses from the risk of prosecution
(e.g., lack of private and public infrastructure, confusion
when redistributing unsold food, providing they comply with
around food date labeling). “Macro level” causes account
existing food safety laws (Michail 2019). In 2017, Ghana passed
for how food losses and waste can be explained by more
the National Food Donor’s Encouragement Bill, which creates
systemic issues (e.g., policies, laws, and regulations). These
a legal framework for food donation, establishes compliance
overlap with the drivers in Figure 3.1 that are “structural.”
and liability standards, and encourages donation through tax
20. WRI analysis based on Canali et al. (2014); CEC (2017, 2018, deductions. In 2016, Italy passed legislation making food dona-
2019); Clowes et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019); Food Loss and Waste tions easier, including provisions that businesses will not face
Protocol (2016); Global Knowledge Initiative (2017); Gooch et al. sanctions for giving away food past its sell-by date and that
(2019); Gunders and Bloom (2017); Hegnsholt et al. (2018); HLPE businesses will pay less waste tax the more they give away
(2014); ReFED (2016); and WWF-US (2018). (Zero Waste Europe 2016). Denmark has taken a number
of legislative measures to decrease food waste, including
21. For suggestions on how to define one’s scope to align with changing taxation and rules to facilitate donations by food
SDG 12.3, see Champions 12.3 (2017). retailers of nonanimal food to charities (Lipinski et al. 2017).
22. This experience was shared by leaders of initiatives such as 29. In 2018 the Czech Republic amended its Food Act to require all
the Courtauld Commitment and some private sector programs. supermarkets over 400 square meters in size to donate unsold
but still consumable food to charities (Prague.tv 2017). In 2016,
23. This percentage is based on author calculations of what France adopted legislation that requires French supermarkets
percentage of global food sales all CGF companies make up of to donate unsold yet still safe and wholesome food to charities
an estimate of total global food sales at the retail/consumer (Durandsmet 2018).
level. A market research firm provided the estimate for global
food sales, and the CGF provided the estimate of CGF member 30. One study found that confusion around date labels was
food sales, which were verified via corporate annual reports. responsible for around 20 percent of household food waste
(WRAP 2011).
24. As of February 2019, the companies that do publicly report
their food loss and waste inventories are Aeon, A. Gomez Ltd., 31. For these online hubs, see FAO (n.d.); ReFED (2018); REFRESH
Allied Bakeries, AMT Fruit Ltd., Aramark, Arla, Avara, Bakkavor Community of Experts (2019); and Reducing Food Waste (2018).
Group, Branston, Campbell Soup Company, Cranswick, Danone,
DPS, Espersen, Froneri, General Mills, Glinwell, Greencore, 32. Food service providers prepare food at industrial scale for
corporate offices, government operations, universities and
schools, prisons, and other large-scale canteens.
33. Meaning waste that ends up in a landfill, is incinerated without

any energy recovery, or is discharged into wastewater.
34. In late 2019, FAO will be publishing updated global and

regional estimates of food loss. However, these numbers will
not be directly comparable to the 2011 estimates for several
reasons. Among them is that the scope is different. For
example, the new estimates will only cover food lost from
the farm gate up to, but not including, the retail level—as
opposed to covering the whole supply chain, as the FAO (2011)
estimates did. The new estimates will exclude food intended
for human consumption going to animal feed and bio-based
materials, whereas the FAO (2011) estimates included food
going to both of these destinations.
35. This observation is illustrated by Figure 1.8. The total share of

food produced that is lost or wasted is roughly the same per
region, hovering between 31 and 36 percent (except for South
and Southeast Asia). Yet the share of food loss and waste
occurring at the consumption stage is much higher in high-
income regions than in low-income ones.
120 WRI.org
REFERENCES
Abass, A.B., G. Ndunguru, P. Mamiro, B. Alenkhe, N. Mlingi, and Bayer Foundations. 2017. “Aspirin Social Innovation Award.” https://
M. Bekunda. 2014. “Post-harvest Food Losses in a Maize-Based aspirin-social-awards.org. Accessed December 19.
Farming System of Semi-arid Savannah Area of Tanzania.” Journal of
Stored Products Research 57: 49–57. Berkenkamp, J., and C. Phillips. 2017. Modeling the Potential to
Increase Food Rescue: Denver, New York City and Nashville. New
African Union. 2018. “African Union Launches Africa Agriculture York: Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/
Transformation Scorecard (AATS)—A Revolutionary New Tool to resources/food-matters-what-we-waste-and-how-we-can-expand-
Drive Agricultural Productivity and Development.” January 29. amount-food-we-rescue.
https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20180129/african-union-launches-
africa-agriculture-transformation-scorecard-aats-%E2%80%93. Bertoluci, G., Y. Leroy, and A. Olsson. 2014. “Exploring the
Environmental Impacts of Olive Packaging Solutions for the
AgResults. 2018. AgResults Kenya On-Farm Storage Challenge European Food Market.” Journal of Cleaner Production, no. 64:
Project: Summary Report. https://tanagerintl.org/wp-content/ 234–43.
uploads/2019/01/AgResults-Kenya-Project-Summary-Report_Final.
pdf. BMEL (German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture). 2015. “Too
Good for the Bin: An Initiative of the Federal Government to Avoid
Ambler, K., A. de Brauw, and S. Godlonton. 2018. “Measuring Food Waste.” February 13. https://www.bmel.de/EN/Food/Value-Of-
Postharvest Losses at the Farm Level in Malawi.” Australian Journal Food/_Texte/ZgfdT.html.
of Agricultural and Resource Economics 62 (1): 139–60.
Branston. 2018. Food Waste Inventory: January to December 2017.
Ambuko, J. 2016. “The Plight of Smallholder Mango Farmers in Kenya https://sustainability.tescoplc.com/media/1014/branston_2409.pdf.
during the Peak Season.” Hortfresh Journal. http://hortfreshjournal.
com/203-2/. C40. 2018. “C40: 23 Global Cities and Regions Advance towards Zero
Waste.” https://www.c40.org/press_releases/global-cities-and-
Ambuko, J. 2019. “To Put More Money in Mango Farmers’ Pockets, regions-advance-towards-zero-waste. Accessed January 3.
We Must Fully Embrace Value Addition.” Daily Nation, January 26.
https://www.nation.co.ke/business/seedsofgold/fully-embrace- Canali, M., K. Östergren, P. Amani, L. Aramyan, S. Sijtsema, O.
value-addition/2301238-4951438-rtrxvh/index.html. Korhonen, et al. 2014. Drivers of Current Food Waste Generation,
Threats of Future Increase and Opportunities for Reduction. Bologna,
AMERIPEN (American Institute for Packaging and the Environment). Italy: EU FUSIONS.
2018. “Quantifying the Value of Packaging as a Strategy to Prevent
Food Waste in America.” https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ameripen. Carbon Brief. 2018. “The Carbon Brief Profile: Brazil.” March 7. https://
org/resource/resmgr/files/AMERIPEN-WhitePaper-FoodWast.pdf. www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-brazil.
AMT Fruit. 2018. Food Waste Inventory: January to December 2017. Chang, Ching-Cheng, and Shih-Hsun Hsu. 2019a. A Food Loss and
https://sustainability.tescoplc.com/media/1026/amt-fruit-ltd_2409. Waste Quantification Handbook for APEC Economies. A report
pdf. published by APEC Secretariat under SOM Steering Committee on
Economic and Technical Cooperation (SCE), Agricultural Technical
Apeel Sciences. 2019. “Working with Nature.” https://apeelsciences. Cooperation (ATCWG), and Policy Partnership on Food Security
com/science/. Accessed January 4. (PPFS). http://apec-flows.ntu.edu.tw/upload/Publication/File/APEC-
FLW%20Handbook-2018-v3%20(CLEAN)-20190422-circulation.pdf.
APHLIS (African Postharvest Losses Information System). 2016.
“Country Tables.” Accessed March 12. https://www.aphlis.net/en/ Chang, Ching-Cheng, and Shih-Hsun Hsu. 2019b. A Final Report of
page/0/country-tables#/datatables/country-tables?lang=en&metri APEC Multi-year Project: Strengthening Public-Private Partnership
c=prc&crop=3&year=2016. to Reduce Food Losses in the Supply Chain. A report published by
APEC Secretariat under SOM Steering Committee on Economic and
APHLIS. 2019. “APHLIS+.” Accessed May 23. https://www.aphlis.net/ Technical Cooperation (SCE), Agricultural Technical Cooperation
en#/. (ATCWG), and Policy Partnership on Food Security (PPFS). http://
apec-flows.ntu.edu.tw/upload/Publication/File/FLW%20final%20
Arcadis. 2019. National Food Waste Baseline Final Assessment report_0215-COA-circulation.pdf.
Report. Executive Summary. https://www.environment.gov.au/
system/files/pages/25e36a8c-3a9c-487c-a9cb-66ec15ba61d0/files/ CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2017.
national-food-waste-baseline-executive-summary.pdf. Characterization and Management of Food Loss and Waste in North
America. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Askew, K. 2018. “‘It’s Going to Require Openness and Courage’:
Nestlé, Unilever, Arla, Salling Join Danish Push to Halve Food Waste.”
Food Navigator.com, August 16. https:// www.foodnavigator.com/
Article/2018/08/16/Danish-push-to-halve-food-waste.
CEC. 2018. “CEC Launches Expert Group to Better Measure Food Durandsmet, F. 2018. “3 Ways France Is Leading the Food Waste
Loss and Waste in North America,” May 22. http://www. cec.org/ Agenda.” Winnow Solutions, June 19. http://blog.winnowsolutions.
news-and-outreach/press-releases/cec-launches-expert-group- com/3-ways-france-is-leading-the-food-waste-agenda.daily.
bettermeasure-food-loss-and-waste-north-america.
European Commission. 2018. “Tackling Unfair Trading Practices in
CEC. 2019. Why and How to Measure Food Loss and Waste: A Practical the Food Supply Chain.” Press release, April 12. http://europa.eu/
Guide. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. rapid/press-release_MEMO-18- 2703_en.htm.
Champions 12.3. 2017. “Guidance on Interpreting Sustainable European Commission. 2019. “Preventing Food Waste, Promoting
Development Goal Target 12.3.” https://champs123blog.files. Circular Economy: Commission Adopts Common Methodology to
wordpress.com/2017/10/champions-12-3-guidance-on-interpreting- Measure Food Waste across the EU.” Press release, May 6. http://
sdg-target-12-3.pdf. europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-2391_en.htm.
Cheetah. 2018. “Taking on a Billion-Dollar Problem in Africa.” http:// European Parliament and Council. 2018. “Directive of the European
cheetah.ujuizi.com/. Accessed December 19. Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive
2008/98/EC on Waste.” May 30. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Climate Watch. 2019. “NDC-SDG Linkages.” https://www. content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32018L0851.
climatewatchdata.org/ndcs-sdg?goal=12. Accessed May 31.
Fabi, C., and A. English. 2018. Methodological Proposal for Monitoring
Clowes, A., P. Mitchell, and C. Hanson. 2018a. The Business Case SDG Target 12.3: The Global Food Loss Index Design, Data Collection
for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Catering. Washington, DC: Methods and Challenges. Rome: FAO.
Champions 12.3.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1989.
Clowes, A., P. Mitchell, and C. Hanson. 2018b. The Business Case for Prevention of Post-harvest Food Losses: Fruits, Vegetables and Root
Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Hotels. Washington, DC: Champions Crops. Training manual. Rome: FAO.
12.3.
FAO. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and
Clowes, A., P. Mitchell, and C. Hanson. 2019. The Business Case Prevention. Rome: FAO.
for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Restaurants. Washington, DC:
Champions 12.3. FAO. 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources.
Rome: FAO.
Consumer Goods Forum. 2015. “Consumer Goods Industry
Commits to Food Waste Reduction.” June 24. http://www. FAO. 2014. Food Loss Assessments: Causes and Solutions Case
theconsumergoodsforum.com/consumer-goods-industry-commits- Studies in Small-Scale Agriculture and Fisheries Subsectors. Rome:
to-food-waste-reduction. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-at145e.pdf.
Cooper, K.A., T. Quested, H. Lanctuit, D. Zimmermann, N. Espinoza- FAO. 2015a. Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change. Rome: FAO.
Orias, and A. Roulin. 2018. “Nutrition in the Bin: A Nutritional and
Environmental Assessment of Food Wasted in the UK.” Frontiers in FAO. 2015b. Food Loss and Waste in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Nutrition 5: 19. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4655e.pdf.
Danfoss. 2019. “The Agricultural Giant Has Awakened.” February 26. FAO. 2017a. Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition: Asia
https://www.danfoss.com/en/service-and-support/case-studies/cf/ and the Pacific. Bangkok: FAO.
the-agricultural-giant-has-awakened/.
FAO. 2017b. “Food Loss and Food Waste.” http://www.fao.org/food-
Danone. 2017. One Planet, One Health: Annual Financial Report. Paris: loss-and-food-waste/en/. Accessed August 25.
Danone.
FAO. 2017c. Food Loss Analysis for Identification of Critical Loss
Delgado, L., M. Schuster, and M. Torero. 2017. “The Reality of Food Points and Solutions of Maize, Sunflowers and Beans Value Chains in
Losses: A New Measurement Methodology.” IFPRI Discussion Paper. Uganda. Rome: FAO, IFAD, and WFP. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7619e.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. pdf.
Dome, M.M., and S. Prusty. 2017. “Determination of Vegetable FAO. 2017d. Food Loss Food Loss Analysis for Identification of Critical
Postharvest Loss in the Last-Mile Supply Chain in Tanzania: A Loss Points and Solutions of Sorghum, Maize and Cowpea Value
Lean Perspective.” International Journal of Logistics Systems and Chains in Burkina Faso. Rome: FAO, IFAD, and WFP. http://www.fao.
Management 27 (2): 133–50. org/3/a-i7615e.pdf.
DSM. 2018. “Pack-Age.” December 4. https://www.dsm.com/

markets/food-specialties/en/products/dairy/PackAge.html.
122 WRI.org
FAO. 2017e. Food Loss Food Loss Analysis for Identification of Critical 412 Food Rescue. 2018. Impact Report. April 5. https://412foodrescue.
Loss Points and Solutions of Maize and Rice Value Chains in the org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UPDATED-June-2018-Digital-412-
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rome: FAO, IFAD, and WFP. http:// Food-Rescue-Impact-Report.pdf.
www.fao.org/3/a-i7618e.pdf.
Francis. 2015. Encyclical Letter Laudato si’ of the Holy Father Francis.
FAO. 2018. World Food and Agriculture: Statistical Pocketbook 2018. 1st ed. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor.
Rome: FAO.
Franke, U., H. Hartikainen, L. Mogensen, and E. Svanes. 2016. Food
FAO. 2019a. “Food Loss Analysis E-Learning Course: Community of Losses and Waste in Primary Production: Data Collection in the
Practice on Food Loss Reduction (CoP).” Accessed May 23. http:// Nordic Countries. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
www.fao.org/food-loss-reduction/resources/flaelearning/en/.
Freshdeal. 2019. “Freshdeal: About.” https://www.freshdeal.com/
FAO 2019b. “Background: Technical Platform on the Measurement about. Accessed January 3.
and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste.” Accessed May 23. http://
www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/background/en/. Further with Food. 2019. “Further with Food: Center for Food Loss and
Waste Solutions.” https://furtherwithfood.org/. Accessed May 23.
FAO. n.d. “Community of Practice on Food Loss Reduction Forum.”
Accessed May 23, 2019. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-reduction/ G’s Fresh. 2018. Food Waste Inventory: September 2017 to August
forum/en/. 2018. https://sustainability.tescoplc.com/media/1024/gs-
fresh_-2509.pdf.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2018. The State of Food Security
and Nutrition in the World 2018: Building Climate Resilience for Food GAIN Health (Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition). n.d. “Key
Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO. Achievements.” https://www.gainhealth.org/programs/postharvest-
loss-alliance-for-nutrition/#key-achievements. Accessed April 1.
Farm Radio International. 2018. “Reducing Food Waste with New
Partnerships in Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanzania.” June 6. https:// Genesis Analytics. 2018. End of Project Evaluation for the Scale-Up
farmradio.org/reducing-food-waste-with-new-partnerships-in- Phase of the YieldWise Initiative (Mango, Kenya): Final Evaluation
nigeria-kenya-and-tanzania/. Report. Nairobi.
FFAR (Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research). 2019a. GhanaWeb. 2018. “One District One Warehouse to Be Ready in May
“Innovative Consortium Reduces Post-harvest Loss and Food 2019.” November 27. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/
Waste.” April 17. https://foundationfar.org/2019/04/17/innovative- business/One-District-One-Warehouse-to-be-ready-in-
consortium-reduces-post-harvest-loss-and-food-waste/. May-2019-704117.
FFAR. 2019b. “FFAR Awards $540,000 Grant to Minimize Food Gitonga, Z.M., H. De Groote, M. Kassie, and T. Tefera. 2013. “Impact
Waste.” March 25. https://foundationfar.org/2019/03/25/ffar-awards- of Metal Silos on Households’ Maize Storage, Storage Losses and
540000-grant-to-minimize-food-waste/. Food Security: An Application of a Propensity Score Matching.” Food
Policy 43: 44–55.
Fight Food Waste CRC. 2018. “Our Programs and Projects.” https://
fightfoodwastecrc.com.au/our-programs-and-projects/. Accessed Gjerris, M., and S. Gaiani. 2014. “Food Waste and Consumer Ethics.” In
March 29. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, 1000–1006. Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Springer.
5 Gyres, Clean Production Action, Surfrider Foundation, and
UPSTREAM. 2017. “Better-Alternatives Now List (B.A.N. 2.0).” https:// Global Knowledge Initiative. 2017. Innovating the Future of Food
static1.squarespace.com/static/5522e85be4b0b65a7c78ac96/t/5ac Systems. http://globalknowledgeinitiative.org/wp-content/
bd346562fa79982b268fc/1523307375028/5Gyres_BANlist2.pdf. uploads/2016/09/GKI-Innovating-theFuture-of-Food-Systems-
Report_October-2017.pdf.
Flanagan, K., A. Clowes, B. Lipinski, L. Goodwin, and R. Swannell.
2018. SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2018 Progress Report. Global Panel. 2018. Preventing Nutrient Loss and Waste across the
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Food System: Policy Actions for High-Quality Diets. Policy brief no. 12.
London: Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition.
Food Loss and Waste Protocol. 2016. Food Loss and Waste
Accounting and Reporting Standard. Washington, DC: World Gooch, M., D. Bucknell, D. LaPlain, B. Dent, P. Whitehead, A. Felfel,
Resources Institute. http://flwprotocol.org/wp-content/ L. Nikkel, and M. Maguire. 2019. The Avoidable Crisis of Food
uploads/2017/05/FLW_Standard_final_2016.pdf. Waste: Technical Report. Oakville, ON: Value Chain Management
International and Second Harvest.
Food Waste Weekend. 2018. “Hindu Sermon.” Accessed March 29.
http://foodwasteweekend.org/hindu/.
Goodwin, L. 2019. “Monster Avocados and Bread Beer: 12 Hoover, D. 2017. Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the
Technologies Fighting Food Waste.” World Resources Institute blog, City Level. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council. https://
February 28. https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/02/monster-avocados- www.nrdc.org/resources/food-matters-what-we-waste-and-how-
and-bread-beer-12-technologies-fighting-food-waste. we-can-expand-amount-food-we-rescue.
Greater London Authority. 2018. London Environment Strategy. IKEA. 2019. “At IKEA More than 3 Million Precious Meals Did Not Go
London: Greater London Authority. https://www.london.gov.uk/ to Waste.” February 14. https://newsroom.inter.ikea.com/news/all/
moderngov/documents/s70409/Appendix%202%20Draft%20 at-ikea-more-than-3-million-precious-meals-did-not-go-to-waste/
London%20Environment%20Strategy.pdf. Accessed January 15. s/04d3349d-50ce-4850-a600-8d6f26895450.
Gromko, D., and G. Abdurasalova. 2018. “Climate Change Mitigation Ipsos Public Affairs (on behalf of the Ad Council). 2019. Food Waste
and Food Loss and Waste Reduction: Exploring the Business Case.” Continuous Tracking Survey. Unpublished raw data from April 2016 to
CCAFS working paper no. 246. Wageningen, the Netherlands: December 2018.
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS). Ipsos Tanzania. 2017. “Evaluation of the YieldWise Initiative.”
Unpublished project review produced on behalf of The Rocke-
GSARS (Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics). feller Foundation.
2018. Guidelines on the Measurement of Harvest and Post-harvest
Losses. Rome: GSARS. Jaegerfelt, P. 2018. “Buenos Aires: Changing Food Waste Attitudes
and Behavior.” June 26. https://goexplorer.org/buenos-aires-
Gunders, D. 2018. “First Class of Food Waste Fighters Graduate from changing-food-waste-attitudes-and-behavior/.
Maersk Accelerator.” Forbes, July 9. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
danagunders/2018/07/09/maersk-graduates-first-food-waste- Jaffee, S., S. Henson, L. Unnevehr, D. Grace, and E. Cassou. 2018. “The
fighters-from-accelerator/#3aa7149cba56. Safe Food Imperative: Accelerating Progress in Low- and Middle-
Income Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Gunders, D., and J. Bloom. 2017. Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to
40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. New York: Natural Jambeck, J., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T.R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady,
Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/ R. Narayan, and K. Lavender Law. 2015. “Plastic Waste Inputs from
wasted-how-america-losing-40-percent-its-food-farm-fork-landfill. Land into the Ocean.” Science 347, no. 6223 (2015): 768–71.
Gustavsson, J., C. Cederberg, U. Sonesson, and A. Emanuelsson. Jerving, S. 2017. “Kenya’s Plastic Bag Ban Complicates USAID-
2013. The Methodology of the FAO Study: Global Food Losses and Promoted Technology.” Devex, October 5. https://www.devex.com/
Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. SIK report no. 857. http:// news/sponsored/kenya-s-plastic-bag-ban-complicates-usaid-
www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:944159/FULLTEXT01.pdf. promoted-technology-91119.
Hackett, C., P. Connor, M. Stonawski, V. Skirbekk, M. Potancoková, Jha, S., R. Vishwakarma, T. Ahmad, A. Rai, and A. Dixit. 2015.
and G. Abel. 2015. The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Report on Assessment of Quantitative Harvest and Post-harvest
Projections, 2010–2050. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Losses of Major Crops and Commodities in India. Ludhiana:
ICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project on Post-harvest
Hanson, C., and P. Mitchell. 2017. The Business Case for Reducing Technology, ICAR-CIPHET. http://www.ciphet.in/upload/sphl/MOFPI
Food Loss and Waste. Washington, DC: Champions 12.3. percent20REPORT1.pdf.
Hegnsholt, E, S. Unnikrishnan, M. Pollmann-Larsen, B. Askelsdottir, Johnson, L.K., R.D. Dunning, J.D. Bloom, C.C. Gunter, M.D. Boyette,
and M. Gerard. 2018. Tackling the 1.6 Billion-Ton Food Loss and Waste and N.G. Creamer. 2018. “Estimating On-Farm Food Loss at the Field
Crisis. Boston Consulting Group. http://image-src.bcg.com/Images/ Level: A Methodology and Applied Case Study on a North Carolina
BCG-Tackling-the-1.6-Billion-Ton-Food-Waste-Crisis-Aug-2018%20 Farm.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 137: 243–50.
%281%29_tcm38-200324.pdf.
Kaminski, J., and L. Christiaensen. 2014. “Post-harvest Loss in Sub-
HLPE (High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). Saharan Africa: What Do Farmers Say?” Global Food Security 3:
2014. Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food 149–58.
Systems. Report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Kellogg Company. 2019. “Reducing Food Loss and Waste.” http://
Rome: FAO. crreport.kelloggcompany.com/reducing-food-loss-and-waste.
Accessed January 3.
Hooper, D., and Cereceda, R. 2018. “What Plastic Objects Cause the
Most Waste in the Sea?” Euronews, April 20. https://www.euronews. Kitinoja, L. 2013. “Returnable Plastic Crate (RPC) Systems Can
com/2018/04/20/what-plastic-objects-cause-the-most-waste-in- Reduce Postharvest Losses and Improve Earnings for Fresh
the-sea-. Produce Operations.” PEF white paper 13–01.
124 WRI.org
Kitinoja, L., V.Y. Tokala, and A. Brondy. 2018. “A Review of Global Metro Vancouver. 2015. “Love Food Hate Waste.” May 7. http://www.
Postharvest Loss Assessments in Plant-Based Food Crops: Recent metrovancouver.org/media-room/media-releases/solid-waste/394/
Findings and Measurement Gaps.” Journal of Postharvest Technology Love%20Food%20Hate%20Waste.
6 (4): 1–15.
Michail, N. 2019. “Argentina’s Food Waste Law Incentivizes Industry
Kitinoja, L., O. Motunrayo Odeyemi, S.M. Neeru Dubey, and G. Singh. to Donate Surplus.” Food Navigator LatAm.com, April 17. https://www.
2019. “Commodity System Assessment Studies on the Postharvest foodnavigator-latam.com/Article/2019/04/17/Argentina-s-food-
Handling and Marketing of Tomatoes in Nigeria, Rwanda and waste-law-incentivizes-industry-to-donate-surplus.
Maharashtra, India.” Journal of Horticulture and Postharvest Research
2: 1–14. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human
Well-Being. Washington, DC: Island.
Klupacs, E. 2018. “Winnow and Costa Cruises Team Up to Halve Food
Waste by 2020 in Industry First.” Winnow Solutions, February 5. Minten, B., E. Engida, and S. Tamru. 2016. How Big Are Post-harvest
https://blog.winnowsolutions.com/winnow-and-costa-cruises-to- Losses in Ethiopia? Evidence from Teff. ESSP working paper 93.
halve-food-waste. Rome: IFPRI.
Kosuth, M., S.A. Mason, and E.V. Wattenberg. 2018. “Anthropogenic Monier, V., S. Mudgal, V. Escalon, C. O’Connor, T. Gibon, and G.
Contamination of Tap Water, Beer, and Sea Salt.” PLoS ONE 13 (4): Anderson. 2010. Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU27. Final
e0194970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194970. report. Brussels: European Commission.
Kulkarni, V. 2017. “Apeda to Spend ₹100 cr to Set Up More Mullan, L. 2018. “AccorHotels Partners with Too Good to Go in Bid to
Packhouses.” Hindu Business Line, September 6. https://www. Reduce Food Waste.” Food Drink & Franchise, May 13. https://www.
thehindubusinessline.com/economy/. fdfworld.com/hotels-hospitality/accorhotels-partners-too-good-go-
bid-reduce-food-waste.
Kummu, M., H. de Moel, M. Porkka, S. Siebert, O. Varis, and P.J. Ward.
2012. “Lost Food, Wasted Resources: Global Food Supply Chain Mutungi, C., J. Makindara, R. Magoma, and H. Affognon. 2012.
Losses and Their Impacts on Freshwater, Cropland, and Fertiliser “Postharvest Losses in Africa: Analytical Review and Synthesis:
Use.” Science of the Total Environment 438: 477–89. The Case of Tanzania.” https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/285594110_Postharvest_losses_in_Africa_-_
Lemos, L. 2018. “How Governments around the World Are Analytical_review_and_synthesis_The_case_of_Tanzania.
Encouraging Food Waste Initiatives.” Winnow Solutions, March 7.
http://blog.winnowsolutions.com/how-governments-around-the- National Zero Waste Council (Canada). 2019. “Food Industry
world-are-encouraging-food-waste-initiatives. Leaders Commit to Tackle Food Waste in Canada.” January 17.
http://www.nzwc.ca/additional-info/media/Documents/20190117-
Lewis, D. 2016. “No Time to Waste.” Speech delivered by Dave Lewis NZWCPCMediaRelease-IndustryFoodWasteCommitment.pdf.
(Group CEO of Tesco) at Consumer Goods Forum Annual Summit,
Cape Town, South Africa, June 15. Nationally Determined Contribution of Belize. 2016. https://www4.
unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/Search.aspx?k=Belize.
Lipinski, B., C. Hanson, J. Lomax, L. Kitinoja, R. Waite, and T. Accessed March 27.
Searchinger. 2013. “Reducing Food Loss and Waste.” Working paper.
Installment 2 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: Nationally Determined Contribution of the Kingdom of Bhutan. 2017.
World Resources Institute. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
Bhutan%20First/Bhutan-INDC-20150930.pdf. Accessed March 27.
Lipinski, B., C. O’Connor, and C. Hanson. 2016. SDG Target 12.3 on
Food Loss and Waste: 2016 Progress Report. Washington, DC: World Nationally Determined Contribution for Burkina Faso. 2016.
Resources Institute. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
Burkina%20Faso%20First/INDC%20BURKINA%20FASO%20280915.
Lipinski, B., A. Clowes, L. Goodwin, C. Hanson, R. Swannell, and P. pdf. Accessed March 27.
Mitchell. 2017. SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2017 Progress
Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Nationally Determined Contribution for the Republic of Chad. 2017.
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
The Local. 2018. “Danish Consumers Reduced Food Waste by 14,000 Chad%20First/INDC%20Chad_Official%20version_English.pdf.
Tonnes in Six Years.” April 18. https://www.thelocal.dk/20180418/ Accessed March 27.
danish-consumers-reduced-food-waste-by-14000-tonnes-in-6-
years. Nationally Determined Contribution for Côte d’Ivoire. 2016.
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
Maddox, P. 2018. “The Unintended Consequences of a War on C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire%20First/INDC_CI_22092015.pdf.
Plastic.” April 19. http://www.wrap.org.uk/blog/2018/04/unintended- Accessed March 27.
consequences-war-plastic.
Nationally Determined Contribution for the Arab Republic Pacific Coast Collaborative. 2018. “PCC West Coast Reduction
of Egypt. 2017. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/ Commitment.” https://pacificcoastcollaborative.org/wp-content/
PublishedDocuments/Egypt%20First/Egyptian%20INDC.pdf. uploads/2018/09/PCC-West-Coast-Food-Waste-Reduction-
Accessed March 27. Commitment-FINAL-FINAL-formatted-1.pdf.
Nationally Determined Contribution of the Federal Democratic Packaging Strategies. 2017. “Extending Shelf Life while Reducing
Republic of Ethiopia. 2017. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ Preservatives.” September 17. https://www.packagingstrategies.
ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Ethiopia%20First/INDC- com/articles/89938-extending-shelf-life-while-reducing-
Ethiopia-100615.pdf. Accessed March 27. preservatives?v=preview. Accessed January 4.
Nationally Determined Contribution for the Republic of Ghana. 2016. Parfitt, J., M. Barthel, and S. Macnaughton. 2010. “Food Waste within
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/ Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to
Ghana%20First/GH_INDC_2392015.pdf. Accessed March 27. 2050.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 365 (1554): 3065–81.
Nationally Determined Contribution for Honduras. 2016.
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/ PBS News Hour. 2017. “These Policies Helped South Korea’s Capital
Honduras%20First/Honduras%20INDC_esp.pdf. Accessed March 27. Decrease Food Waste.” March 19. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/
show/policies-helped-south-koreas-capital-decrease-food-waste.
Nationally Determined Contribution for the Maldives. 2016. https://
www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/ Postharvest Network. 2017. “Stop Food Loss and Waste: Dutch
Maldives%20First/Maldives%20INDC.pdf. Accessed March 27. Innovations for Efficient Food Chains in Emerging Markets.”
December 22. http://postharvestnetwork.com/postharvest-
Nationally Determined Contribution for Rwanda. 2015. https:// network-break-out-session-stopfood-waste-2/.
www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
Rwanda%20First/INDC_Rwanda_Nov.2015.pdf Accessed March 27. Prague.tv. 2017. “Stores Must Donate Unsold Food.” December 14.
https://prague.tv/en/s72/Directory/c209-Shopping/n11937-Stores-
Nationally Determined Contribution of Uganda. 2016. https://www4. must-donate-unsold-food.
unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Uganda%20
First/INDC%20Uganda%20final%20%2014%20October%20%202015. Probert, A. 2018. “Zero Food Waste by 2025 as Walmart Canada
pdf. Accessed March 27. Delivers $15M Commitment.” Greener Ideal, April 20. https://
greenerideal.com/news/zero-food-waste-2025-walmart-canada-
Neff, R.A., E.K. Dean, M.L. Spiker, and T. Snow. 2018. “Salvageable delivers-15m-commitment/.
Food Losses from Vermont Farms.” Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development 8 (2): 1–34. Protix. 2019. “A 100-Year Journey.” https://protix.eu/protix-journey/
protix-history/. Accessed January 15.
No Food Waste. 2019. “How It Works.” https://www.nofoodwaste.in/
about-us/how-it-works/. Accessed January 3. Psaltry. 2019. “About Us.” http://psaltryinternational.com/about-us/.
Accessed April 1.
Oguntade, A.E. 2013. Food Losses in Cassava and Maize Value Chains
in Nigeria: Analysis and Recommendations for Reduction Strategies. Purdue University. 2018. “Chemical-Free, Low-Cost Crop Storage
Berlin: GIZ. https://www.giz.de/fachexpertise/downloads/giz2013- Bags That Preserve Food Longer Now Commercially Available.”
en-reducing-food-losses-improve-food-security.pdf. February 21. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/
Q1/chemical-free,-low-cost-crop-storage-bags-that-preserve-food-
Olam International. 2018. Olam International Limited Annual Report longer-now-commercially-available.html.
2018. https://www.olamgroup.com/content/dam/olamgroup/
investor-relations/ir-library/annual-reports/annual-reports-pdfs/ Pyxera Global. 2019. “YieldWise Initiative Lessons Learned.”
olam-annual-report-fy18_strategy_report.pdf. Unpublished project review produced on behalf of The Rockefeller
Foundation.
#OneNYC. 2018. “Vision 3 Goal: Zero Waste.” https://onenyc.
cityofnewyork.us. Accessed December 17. Quested, T., and R. Ingle. 2013. “West London Food Waste Prevention
Campaign Evaluation Report.” Oxon: Waste & Resources Action
Ostermann, H., M. Will, and K. Hell. 2015. Rapid Loss Appraisal Tool Program.
(RLAT)—RLAT in Practice: A Toolbox for Maize. Bonn and Eschborn,
Germany: GIZ. Quested, T.E., E. Marsh, D. Stunell, and A.D. Parry. 2013. “Spaghetti
Soup: The Complex World of Food Waste Behaviours.” Resources,
Owino, W., V. Afari-Sefa, and N. Nenguwo. 2015. Postharvest Conservation and Recycling 79: 43–51.
Loss Assessment of Vegetables in Kenya. Abstract # ADMI002.
First International Congress on Postharvest Loss Prevention.
https://postharvestinstitute.illinois.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2017/05/2015Proceedings.pdf.
126 WRI.org
Ranganathan, J., et al. 2016. “Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Searchinger, T., R. Waite, C. Hanson, and J. Ranganathan. 2018.
Future.” Working paper. Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Food Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed
Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. http://www. Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050—Synthesis Report, December.
worldresourcesreport.org. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Reducing Food Waste. 2018. “Launch of Food Waste Reduction Sem Desperdicio. 2019. “Semdesperdicio.” https://www.
China Action Platform at the 2018 China Sustainable Consumption semdesperdicio.org. Accessed January 4.
Roundtable.” June 8. https://eu-refresh.org/launch-food-waste-
reduction-china-action-platform-2018-china-sustainable- SDG2 Advocacy Hub. 2018. “The Chefs’ Manifesto: Join Our
consumption-roundtable. Community Today.” http://www.sdg2advocacyhub.org/
chefmanifesto. Accessed December 10.
ReFED (Rethink Food Waste through Economics and Data). 2016.
A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20 Percent. https://www. Sheahan, M., and C.B. Barrett. 2017. “Food Loss and Waste in Sub-
refed.com/. Saharan Africa.” Food Policy 70: 1–12.
ReFED. 2018. “The Food Waste Innovator Database.” https://www. Singh, S., V. Chonhenchob, and J. Singh. 2006. “Life Cycle Inventory
refed.com/tools/innovator-database/. Accessed December 19. and Analysis of Re‐usable Plastic Containers and Display‐Ready
Corrugated Containers Used for Packaging Fresh Fruits and
REFRESH. 2018. “Dutch Taskforce Connects Initiatives against Food Vegetables.” Packaging Technology and Science: An International
Waste.” https://eu-refresh.org/dutch-taskforce-connects-initiatives- Journal 19, no. 5: 279–93.
against-food-waste. Accessed February 19.
Spiker, M.L., A.B. Hazel, S. Hiza, M. Sameer, M. Siddiqi, and R.A. Neff.
REFRESH Community of Experts. 2019. Homepage. http://www. 2017. “Wasted Food, Wasted Nutrients: Nutrient Loss from Wasted
refreshcoe.eu/. Accessed January 8. Food in the United States and Comparison to Gaps in Dietary
Intake.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 117 (7):
REFRESH and WRAP Global. 2019. “Building Partnerships, Driving 1031–40.
Change: A Voluntary Approach to Cutting Food Waste.” http://tinyurl.
com/va2019fw. Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer,
E.M. Bennett, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human
Rockefeller Foundation. 2019. “YieldWise Food Loss: Overview.” Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347 (6223): 1259855.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/initiatives/
yieldwise/. Accessed December 13. Stenmarck, Å., C. Jensen, T. Quested, and G. Moates. 2016. Estimates
of European Food Waste Levels. European Union. doi:10.13140/
SAGO (Saudi Grains Organization). 2019. “Baseline for Food Loss RG.2.1.4658.4721. Accessed January 4.
and Waste in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Preliminary Results.”
In press. Stensgård, A.E., and O.J. Hanssen. 2016. “Food Waste in Norway.”
Report no. OR, 17.
Samson, A., ed. 2015. The Behavioural Economics Guide 2015. http://
www.behavioraleconomics.com/BEGuide2015.pdf. Tesco. 2017. “Tesco Suppliers Join Forces to Tackle Global Food
Waste.” September 20. https://sustainability.tescoplc.com/
Saseendran, S. 2017. “#ZeroFoodWaste: Dubai Wages War against news/2017/food-waste-suppliers-champions-123-dave-lewis-tesco/.
Food Waste on World Food Day.” Gulf News, October 15. https://
gulfnews.com/news/uae/society/ zerofoodwaste-dubai-wages- Tesco. 2019. “Tesco Calls for More Businesses to Publish Food Waste
war-against-food-waste-on-world-foodday-1.2106098. Data as Amount of Food Wasted in Tesco Is Down 17%.” May 14.
https://www.tescoplc.com/news/news-releases/2019/tesco-calls-
Savola Negaderha. 2019. “Savola Negaderha: Overview.” for-businesses-to-publish-food-waste-data-food-wasted-in-tesco-
https://www.savolaworld.com/en/programs/negaderha. down-17/.
Accessed January 3.
ThoughtWorks. 2018. “Conscious Consumption Replaces
SAWBO (Scientific Animators without Borders). 2019. “Video Library.” Decadent Waste Society as Britain Is on the Brink of a Food
https://sawbo-animations.org/index.php?clk=Agriculture. Accessed Revolution.” September 10. https://www.thoughtworks.com/news/
January 15. groceryretail2030.
Schweitzer, J.P., S. Gionfra, M. Pantzar, D. Mottershead, E. Watkins, Tostivint, C., K. Östergren, T. Quested, H. Soethoudt, A. Stenmarck,
F. Petsinaris, P. ten Brink, et al. 2018. Unwrapped: How Throwaway E. Svanes, and C. O’Connor. 2016. Food Waste Quantification Manual
Plastic Is Failing to Solve Europe’s Food Waste Problem (and to Monitor Food Waste Amounts and Progression. EU FUSIONS.
What We Need to Do Instead). Brussels: Institute for European http://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Food%20
Environmental Policy. waste%20quantification%20manual%20to%20monitor%20food%20
waste%20amounts%20and%20progression.pdf.
Tromp, S.-O., R. Haijema, H. Rijgersberg, and J.G.A.J. van der Vorst. WasteMINZ. 2018. Love Food Hate Waste Campaign Evaluation.
2016. “A Systematic Approach to Preventing Chilled-Food Waste at Auckland, New Zealand: WasteMINZ. https://lovefoodhatewaste.
the Retail Outlet.” International Journal of Production Economics 182: co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FINAL-WasteMINZ-National-
508–18. Food-Waste-Prevention-Study-2018.pdf.
Twiga Foods. 2018. “IFC and TLcom Invest $10M in Twiga Foods, WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2017.
an m-Commerce Start-Up Supporting Kenyan Farmers.” Press “Private Sector Food Producers Line Up behind First Ever Global
release, November 15. https://twiga.ke/2018/11/15/press-release-ifc- Initiative to Cut Food Losses.” Accessed December 19. https://www.
and-tlcom-invest-10m-in-twiga-foods-an-m-commerce-start-up- wbcsd.org/Programs/Food-Land-Water/Food-Land-Use/Climate-
supporting-kenyan-farmers/. Smart-Agriculture/News/first-ever-global-initiative-to-cut-food-
losses.
UN (United Nations). 2017. Sustainable Development Goals. http://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development- WFP (World Food Programme). 2019. Zero Food Loss Initiative
goals. Update, no. 2 (January). Accessed May 31. https://mailchi.
mp/3ebb7e3656b5/zero-food-loss-initiative-update-january-
Unilever. 2018. “Putting the Green in Tomato Sauce.” January 8. 2019?e=3bf444f99a.
https://www. unilever.com/news/news-and-features/Feature-
article/2018/putting-the-greenin-tomato-sauce.html. Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S.
Vermeulen, et al. 2019. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet
Unilever. 2019. “Reducing Food Loss and Waste.” https://www. Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.”
unilever.com/sustainable-living/reducing-environmental-impact/ Lancet 393 (10170): 447–92.
waste-and-packaging/reducing-food-loss-and-waste/. Accessed
April 1. World Bank. 2019. “World Bank and Folksam Group Join Global
Call to Action on Food Loss and Waste.” March 20. https://www.
University of Mauritius. 2018. “Food Loss & Food Waste Reduction worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/03/20/world-bank-and-
and Recovery Initiative.” March 14. http://www.uom.ac.mu/index. folksam-group-join-global-call-to-action-on-food-loss-and-waste.
php/104-events/278-food-loss-food-waste-reduction-and-recovery-
initiative-of-the-faculty-of-agriculture-february-2018-march-2019. World Bank Mexico. 2019. Conceptual Framework for a National
Strategy for Food Loss and Waste for Mexico. Washington, DC:
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2018. “U.S. Food World Bank. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Conceptual_
Loss and Waste 2030 Champions.” November 6. https:// www.usda. Framework_for_a_National_Strategy_on_Food_Loss_and_
gov/oce/foodwaste/Champions/index.htm. Waste_for_Mexico.pdf
USDA ERS (United States Department of Agriculture Economic WWF-US (World Wildlife Fund–United States). 2018. No Food Left
Research Service). 2019. “USDA ERS—International Consumer and Behind, part 1, Underutilized Produce Ripe for Alternative Markets.
Food Industry Trends.” May 7. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1170/files/original/
international-markets-us-trade/international-consumer-and-food- WWF_No_Food_Left_Behind_111018.pdf?1542040595.
industry-trends/.
WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme). 2011. “Consumer
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Insight: Date Labels and Storage Guidance.” http://www.wrap.org.
“United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal.” uk/content/consumer-insight-date-labels-and-storage-guidance.
Overviews and Factsheets. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-
management-food/united-states-2030-food-loss-and-waste- WRAP. 2012. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK.
reduction-goal. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-food-and-drink-
waste-uk-2012.
U.S. EPA. 2019. “Winning on Reducing Food Waste Federal
Interagency Strategy.” April 9. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable- WRAP. 2013. An Overview of Waste in the UK Hospitality and Food
management-food/winning-reducing-food-waste-federal- Service Sector. Banbury, UK: WRAP.
interagency-strategy.
WRAP. 2014. Econometric Modeling and Household Food Waste.
Vandercasteelen, J. 2019. “Survey Report: Post-harvest Loss http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Econometrics%20Report.
Intervention in Tanzania.” Unpublished survey review produced for pdf.
the Farm to Market Alliance.
WRAP. 2017a. The Courtauld Commitment 3: Delivering Action on
Ventour, L. 2008. The Food We Waste. Banbury, UK: WRAP. Waste (Final Report). Banbury, UK: WRAP. http://www.wrap.org.uk/
sites/files/wrap/Courtauld_Commitment_3_fi-nal_report_0.pdf.
Villers, P. 2014. “Aflatoxins and Safe Storage.” Frontiers in
Microbiology 5: 158. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00158. WRAP. 2017b. Food Waste in Primary Production. Banbury, UK: WRAP.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/food-waste-primary-production-
preliminary-study-strawberries-and-lettuces.
128 WRI.org
WRAP. 2018a. The Food Waste Reduction Roadmap Toolkit. Banbury,
UK: WRAP.
WRAP. 2018b. Evidence Review: Plastic Packaging and Fresh Produce.

Banbury, UK: WRAP.
WRAP. 2018c. “WRAP Restates UK Food Waste Figures to Support

United Global Action.” May 22. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/
wrap-restates-uk-food-waste-figures-support-united-global-action.
WRAP. 2018d. “UK Food Redistribution on the Increase.” July 16.

http://www.wrap. org.uk/content/uk-food-redistribution-increase.
WRAP. 2019a. “What We Do.” Accessed May 31. http://www.wrap.org.

uk/about-us/what-we-do.
WRAP. 2019b. Food Waste in Primary Production in the UK. Banbury,

UK: WRAP.
WRAP. Forthcoming. “Morrisons’ Plastic-Free Trial.” Banbury, UK:

WRAP.
Yates, S. 2018. New Zealand Bin Audits Food Waste. Auckland:

Sunshine Yates Consulting. https://lovefoodhatewaste.co.nz/
wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Final-New-Zealand-Food-Waste-
Audits-2018.pdf.
Zero Waste Europe. 2016. “The Italian Recipe against Food Waste.”
October 31. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2016/10/the-italian-recipe-
against-food-waste/.
ABOUT WRI The Rockefeller Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation’s mission—unchanged since 1913—is
World Resources Institute is a global research organization that to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world. Today
turns big ideas into action at the nexus of environment, economic the foundation advances new frontiers of science, data, policy, and
opportunity, and human well-being. innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power,
and economic mobility. The Rockefeller Foundation seeks to inspire
Our Challenge and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being
Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity of humanity by identifying and accelerating breakthrough solutions,
and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth’s ideas, and conversations.
resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies
and people’s lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, United Nations Environment Programme
healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean Established in 1972, UNEP is the voice for the environment within the
energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address United Nations system. It acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator, and
these urgent, global challenges this decade. facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the
global environment. Visit UNEP online at http://www.unenvironment.org.
Our Vision
Disclaimer
We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
management of natural resources. We aspire to create a world do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United
where the actions of governments, businesses, and communities Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country,
combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the
for all people.
decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor
does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
ABOUT THE PARTNERS
Wageningen University & Research
Consortium for Innovation in Postharvest Loss The mission of Wageningen University & Research is “to explore the
and Food Waste Reduction potential of nature to improve the quality of life.” Over 6,500 employees
Established in 2019, the Consortium for Innovation in Postharvest and 12,000 students from more than a hundred countries work
Loss and Food Waste Reduction brings together experts and thought everywhere around the world in the domain of healthy food and living
leaders to advance a common research agenda for gaining efficiencies environment. The strength of Wageningen University & Research lies
within the global food system. The Consortium represents expertise, in its ability to join the forces of specialized research institutes and the
knowledge, and innovation in postharvest loss and food waste reduc- university.
tion from institutions in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, and Africa,
and across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. World Bank Group
The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance
The Ed Snider Center, University of Maryland to developing countries around the world—a unique partnership to
Housed at University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of reduce poverty and support development. The World Bank Group
Business, the Ed Snider Center promotes free enterprise and markets consists of five organizations managed by their member countries. Visit
by researching what makes individuals, organizations, and markets the World Bank online at http://www.worldbank.org.
flourish; educating thought leaders and influencers; and partnering
with executives to apply the center’s research to real world challenges. WRAP
Find out more at https://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/centers-excellence/ WRAP’s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably.
snider-center-enterprise-markets/about-us. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-
efficient economy through reinventing how we design, produce, and
Iowa State University sell products; rethinking how we use and consume products; and
Iowa State University is a public, land-grant university, known redefining what is possible through reuse and recycling. Find out more
worldwide for excellence in science and technology, discovery, and at www.wrap.org.uk.
innovation, and a student-centered culture. Iowa State’s research
community aims to help solve society’s greatest challenges and
improve lives by integrating the research mission with the education
and outreach missions of the university. Iowa State University leads the
newly established Consortium for Innovation in Postharvest Loss and
Food Waste Reduction.
PHOTO CREDITS
The Natural Resources Defense Council
The Natural Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit Cover photo gnomeandi; table of contents Tuan Anh Tran;
environmental organization with more than 2.4 million members pg. iv UN Women Ryan Brown; pg. 2 Allie Smith; pg. 6 (both), 22
and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other Neil Palmer (CIAT); pg. 7 wabeno; pg. 16 StÇphan Valentin;
environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural pg. 20 Matheus Frade; pg. 36 hadynyah; pg. 40 Son-Ha; pg. 44 (left)
resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in sevendeman; pg. 44 (middle) nrd; pg. 45 CIAT; pg. 47 Alice Young;
New York City; Washington, DC; Los Angeles; San Francisco; Chicago; pg. 48 Fikri Rasyid; pg. 58 JackF; pg. 74 naphtalina; pg. 91 Dymov;
Bozeman, Montana; and Beijing. Visit us at nrdc.org. pg. 92 Cj Nunga; pg. 106 subman.
130 WRI.org
Each World Resources Institute report represents a timely, scholarly treatment of a subject of public concern. WRI takes responsibility for choosing
the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedom of inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels
and expert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation and findings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.
Maps are for illustrative purposes and do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of WRI, concerning the legal status of any country or
territory or concerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries.
Copyright 2019 World Resources Institute. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
10 G STREET NE
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20002, USA
+1 (202) 729-7600
WWW.WRI.ORG
ISBN 978-1-56973-964-8
132 WRI.org

Reducing Food Loss Waste Global Action Agenda - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reducing Food Loss Waste Global Action Agenda - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reducing Food Loss Waste Global Action Agenda - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REDUCING FOOD LOSS

KATIE FLANAGAN, KAI ROBERTSON, AND CRAIG HANSON

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda i

Bank), and Toine Timmermans (Wageningen

Design and layout by:

21 Chapter 1. What Is the Food Loss and

37 Chapter 2. Why Does It Matter?

49 Chapter 3. What Is Causing It?

59 Chapter 4. What Should Be Done

75 Chapter 5. What Progress Has Been

93 Chapter 6. What Needs to Happen Next?

117 Appendix A. Definitions of “Destinations”

118 Appendix B. List of Sources in Figure 1.11

122 Appendix C. Examples of Interventions

Andrew Steer Rajiv J. Shah Steve Sonka Dirk Maier

Rhea Suh Inger Andersen Louise O. Fresco Marcus Gover

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 1

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 3

▪ Alltheiractors in the food supply chain should kick-start

Percent share of tonnage per region

Share of total food available that is lost or wasted

The distribution of food loss and waste Why does it matter?

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 5

Measure your food loss and waste. The

▪ Collaboration between actors is crucial

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 7

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 9

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

Processors and Operations-related:

Slaughterhouses ▪ Ensure that proper temperature management conditions are maintained.

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 11

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

Public and private

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 13

HANDLING PROCESSING DISTRIBUTION

▪ Information and com-

Source: WRI analysis.

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 15

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 17

Phase out crop- level fertility rates

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 19

WHAT IS THE FOOD LOSS

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 21

▪ The 2011 landmark publication by the

BOX 1.1 | UNCERTAINTIES IN THE FAO 2011 DATA

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 23

The 2011 FAO report includes food but not associated

Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting a Global Action Agenda 25

FAO 2011 FLW Study Recommendation EU Commission, Food

FOOD AND FOOD AND

Animal feed Animal feed Animal feed

Biomaterial/ Biomaterial/ Biomaterial/

Co/anaerobic Co/anaerobic Co/anaerobic

Compost/aerobic Compost/aerobic Compost/aerobic

Controlled Controlled Controlled

21 Chapter 1. What Is the Food Loss and

37 Chapter 2. Why Does It Matter?

59 Chapter 4. What Should Be Done

75 Chapter 5. What Progress Has Been

117 Appendix A. Definitions of “Destinations”

122 Appendix C. Examples of Interventions

BOX 1.1 | UNCERTAINTIES IN THE FAO 2011 DATA

By food category Figure 1.3 | S hare of Food Group Lost or Wasted

Figure 1.5 | S hare of Global Food Loss and Waste

Beyond Zone of Uncertainty (High Risk)

Figure 3.2 | E xample of Underlying Drivers in Tomato Supply Chain (Mexico)