Food Loss

Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100327
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc
Food loss in the agricultural sector of a developing country: Transitioning

to a more sustainable approach. The case of Jalisco, Mexico.
Anaid López-Sánchez a, Ana Cecilia Luque-Badillo a, Danielle Orozco-Nunnelly a,b,
Nadya Selene Alencastro-Larios c, José Arturo Ruiz-Gómez c, Tomás García-Cayuela a,
Misael Sebastián Gradilla-Hernández a,∗
a
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Ingenieria y Ciencias, Av. General Ramón Corona 2514, Nuevo México CP 45138 Zapopan Jalisco Mexico
b
Valparaiso University, Department of Biology, 1700 Chapel Dr, Valparaiso, IN, 46383, United States
c
Soluciones Integrales para la Problemática Ambiental S.C., Circuito Madrigal 4241, Santa Isabel, CP 45110 Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: World hunger, food insecurity and climate change are some of the most complex problems related to food systems,
Sustainable food systems and there is an urgency to reform these systems with long-term sustainability in mind. The minimization of food
Food loss (FL) loss (FL) is one of the main contemporary challenges required to achieve food security and a sustainable food
Primary production
system. Information about FL in the primary production of developing countries is scarce, yet it is precisely these
Developing countries
countries that have less support in preventing FL. The research herein focuses on estimating FL and characterizing
Sugarcane
Corn its main causes in the agricultural sector of the agri-food giant Mexican state of Jalisco. This work uses a self-
Agave reported approach to survey and interview producers of the state’s core crops (including corn, sugarcane, agave,
Tomato tomato, avocado and banana). The mean FL was found to be 14.0%, which is lower than previously reported for
Avocado developing countries. FL, in the agricultural sector, was attributed mainly to pests and weather conditions, fol-
Banana lowed by market failures or inadequate marketing systems. FL variations were found to be dependent on the type
of producer and crop. FL values were lower for large producers and for products with high international demand.
Smaller producers generally reported higher FL values due to a lack of trained personnel and low application of
technological practices or equipment. The transdisciplinary approach used here also led to solutions, which can
be a key step to mitigating FL and to transitioning to a more sustainable approach. In developing countries, such
as Mexico, it is important to create more and better connections between producers and institutions dedicated to
avoiding FL.
1. Introduction The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
defines food losses and waste (FLW) as the portion of edible food that is
In recent decades, the population has grown steadily all over the lost or wasted at any point of the food supply chain (FSC) (Balaji and Ar-
world, along with the pressure to obtain food security using limited re- shinder, 2016). However, this can be hard to determine in cases where
sources (Schneider et al., 2011; Hajer et al., 2016). In this context, it is separating the edible vs. inedible parts of food is not feasible. Thus,
significant that one third of the total food production is lost or wasted, some entities, such as the European Commission, the World Resources
along with all the resources that were used to produce or distribute this Institute (WRI), Fusions and the initiative WRAP, take into account
food (including land, agricultural inputs, energy, and water) (FAO 2011; both the edible and inedible part when determining FLW (Thyberg and
Lipinski et al., 2013). Globally, more than 1.3 billion tons of food are Tonjes, 2016; FUSIONS, 2016; WRAP, 2018). Furthermore, the FAO
lost or wasted per year, which comes at a cost of 750,000 million USD (FAO 2011) makes an important distinction between food loss and food
and results in 3.3 Gt of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 e) (FAO, 2013; waste. Food loss is defined as a decrease in mass or nutritional value of
Gliessman, 2016). Therefore, changes need to occur in our food sys- the food intended for human consumption, caused primarily by ineffi-
tems to promote a more sustainable production system, where environ- ciencies in the FSC and generally occurring in the initial stages of the
mental protection, economic viability, social justice, and well-being are FSC. Whereas, food waste refers to the food that is appropriate for hu-
considered. man consumption but is discarded or repurposed for a non-food use due
to negligence or poor planning of consumers. Food waste occurs mainly,
∗ ∗
Corresponding author at: Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Ingenieria y Ciencias, Av. General Ramón Corona 2514, Nuevo México CP 45138 Zapopan
Jalisco Mexico
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.S. Gradilla-Hernández).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100327
Received 25 July 2021; Received in revised form 12 October 2021; Accepted 16 October 2021
2667-0100/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
A. López-Sánchez, A.C. Luque-Badillo, D. Orozco-Nunnelly et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100327
Fig. 1. Overview of the food supply chain (FSC) taking into consideration the stages proposed by both FAO and CEC.
but not always, at the later stages of the FSC. Every country experiences Table 1
FLW across all the stages of the FSC. Nevertheless, in low-income coun- Land with agricultural potential in Jalisco dedicated to
tries, the highest incidence of FLW occurs during the initial stages of different crops.
the FSC. This is mainly the result of limited or poor infrastructure for Crops Land dedicated (Thousand ha)
primary production, insufficient processing and packaging, and inade-
Pastures and fruit trees 509
quate marketing systems. In medium- and high-income countries, FLW Corn and other grains 662
occurs mostly during the retail and consumption stages due to a lack Sugar cane 89
of coordination between participating parties, in addition to wasteful Avocado 19
behavior by consumers (Beausang et al., 2017; Bräutigam et al., 2014; Berries 6
Other crops 335
Joensuu et al., 2021). Taking into consideration these aforementioned
Total 1640
definitions and their context in developing counties, such as Mexico,
food loss (FL) was specifically evaluated in this study.
When considering agricultural primary production, FL involves prod-
ucts that contain inedible parts—such as peels, seeds, and husks—that ufacturing industry, or to the retailer or final consumer (Vaarst et al.,
cannot be quantified separately because food items are generally wasted 2018).
as a whole (Garcia-Garcia et al., 2017; Corrado et al., 2019). This com- The main factors influencing FL in the preharvest phase are exter-
plicates the quantification of FL, and as a result, FL in the agricultural nal, such as weather conditions and diseases (Beausang et al., 2017;
sector has not been as well studied as total FLW (FUSIONS, 2016). How- Camelo, 2003; Hartikainen et al., 2018). Poor agronomic practices, such
ever, of the studies that do exist, FL has been reported to be as high as as the choice of crop variety, pest/disease management and fertilization,
10 to 30% of the agricultural production volume worldwide, depending harvest scheduling and handling, greatly contribute to the product’s vi-
on the crop (Joensuu et al., 2021). Furthermore, the primary production sual and nutritional quality (Beausang et al., 2017). Additionally, mech-
sector differs from others because the products that are no longer fit for anized harvesters have been identified as a common cause of FL due to
human consumption (and thus subject to FL) can be easily repurposed inefficiencies; in some cases they cannot discriminate between ripe and
for animal feed or compost, which are normally carried out in the same unripe products or are not able to retrieve the entire item (Zimring and
agricultural land or unit (Beausang et al., 2017). Given this particular- Rathje, 2012). If a product is of low quality to begin with, it will be
ity, in this article, the quantification of FL will consider both the edible prevented from advancing to the later stages of FSC, due to the high
and inedible parts of the crops. A unified FSC, which includes the stages standards that govern the commercialization of products (Göbel et al.,
considered by both the FAO and the Commission for Environmental Co- 2015). Not all causes of FL are intrinsic to the product or equipment be-
operation (CEC), is presented in Fig. 1. ing used; human behavior is also a significant influence. The main insti-
The assessment of sustainability and the integration of sustainable tutional failures that promote FL in developing countries are: (i) the lack
practices in agroecosystems is difficult, particularly due to complex in- of legislation for sustainable agricultural production aimed at reducing
teractions between the biological, environmental, economic, and social FL; (ii) the lack of other mechanisms, such as cultivation calendars, to
components of these systems (Davis et al., 2016). Agroecology encom- regulate crop production and to avoid the economic fluctuation in the
passes the basic fields of ecology and agronomy and aims to design market, and (iii) the current paucity of training courses for farmers. An-
and manage productive, culturally sensitive and economically viable other problem is the occurrence of monopolies within large agricultural
agroecosystems, while also conserving natural resources (Altieri, 1995; producers, which have a greater capacity to implement advanced tech-
Gliessman, 2014; Lucantoni, 2020). It likewise considers options for sus- nological practices or equipment, resulting in lower operational costs
tainable food loss and waste management (Janousek et al., 2018). To than those encountered by small producers (Aguilar, 2017).
reach a sustainability transition, agroecology seeks to minimize external Mexico faces food wastage across all stages of the FSC. Of the food
input usage and maximize internal resource recycling (Janousek et al., that is produced for human consumption, 34.5% (20.3 Gt) is lost to FL.
2018; Vaarst et al., 2018). To promote a more sustainable FSC, the Envi- This FL not only costs the country 23,380 million USA, but also gen-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a waste management food erates more than 36.9 Gt CO2 e and causes the loss of more than 39.8
recovery hierarchy, which has been adopted worldwide to identify the billion m3 of freshwater (Aguilar, 2017). Jalisco, one of the 32 states
best ways to improve social, environmental, and economical outcomes that comprise Mexico, is known as an “agri-food giant” and is a main
in food systems (EPA, 2019; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). contributor (contributing 11.2%) to the country’s agricultural and live-
Agricultural production can be divided into 4 steps (Fig. 2). The first stock Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Padilla, 2017). Jalisco has 1 mil-
step is sowing, which involves preparing the soil, planting, as well as lion and 640 thousand hectares (ha) of land with agricultural potential
growth and maintenance of the specific crop (e.g. weed elimination and dedicated to different crops, shown in Table 1. Jalisco is currently the
irrigation). The next step is harvesting, which is the separation of the state that has contributed the most to employment in the field of agri-
mother plant from the vegetable portion of commercial interest. After- culture. Therefore, it offers a great opportunity to reduce FL in Mexico
wards, the harvested product must be stored before transportation. Fi- (Padilla, 2017).
nally, the crops are transferred from the farm to the processing and man- The literature focused on exploring FL in the primary production
sector of developing countries is highly limited. Unfortunately, it is pre-
2
Fig. 2. Phases of agricultural production.
Table 2 2.1. Sampling procedure and recruitment

Main agricultural products in the state of Jaliscoa .
Agricultural Product Production [ton/year] Percentageb The state of Jalisco is divided into 8 agricultural areas. This division
supports a cartographic model that allows an analysis of crop statistics,
Sugar cane 7454,341.9 50.89%
in terms of both time and space (INEGI, 1991). These areas, called rural
Corn 4193,685.8 28.65%
Agave 1132,611.4 7.71% development districts (RDDs) (INEGI, 1970), are shown in Fig 4.
Tomato 219,134.5 1.52% An initial meeting with the RDD chiefs was conducted to explain
Banana 173,502.6 1.26% the scope of the study, and so they could provide references to farmers
Avocado 169,688.1 1.28%
who might participate. Invitations to participate were given to farmers
a
Data from SIAP (TIS, 2019). who produced the crops listed in Table 2, which account for 90% of
b
Percentage of Jalisco’s total production represented by the total production in tons in the State of Jalisco (sugar cane, corn,
this product. agave, tomato, avocado or banana). Following the farmer interviews,
the producers who were suggested by the RDD chiefs were invited to
a meeting that took place in their district. In this way, the snowball
cisely in these countries that the highest rates of FL in primary pro- sampling technique was used to recruit participants (WRI, 2016).
duction have been reported (FAO 2011). So, there is a clear need for
more research to be conducted in these places. Regarding developed 2.2. Participants
countries, studies on FL in primary production have been carried out
worldwide (e.g., France, Scandinavian countries, Australia, and Canada) A total of 114 farmers across the eight different RDDs (Fig. 4)
(Beausang et al., 2017; Janousek et al., 2018; Hartikainen et al., 2018; attended the meetings and completed the survey. The products that
Redlingshöfer et al., 2017; Lapidge, 2015). were grown by each participating agricultural producer were identified
Therefore, this study has the following specific aims: (i) estimate (Table 3). The participating farmers dedicated to agriculture were clas-
the extent to which food is lost in the agricultural sector of the state of sified as large (> 20 ha), medium (6 – 20 ha) or small (< 5 ha) producers
Jalisco; (ii) identify and characterize the main causes of FL; (iii) describe according to the operational rules of the Agriculture and Rural Devel-
the FL differences between various agricultural products and segments opment Office of Jalisco (SADER) (SADER, 2019). Data are shown in
of the agricultural sector; (iv) understand the farmer’s views on why and Table 3.
how FL occurs on their farms; (v) calculate the carbon and water foot- Some products not shown in Table 2 were also included, since farm-
print of the estimated FL in the primary sector; and (vi) propose alterna- ers producing these attended the meeting (Table 3). Although this study
tives to reduce FL according to lessons learned from this and previous was intended to cover the main agricultural products, not enough data
research. This work will contribute to a better understanding of how was recorded for tomato production due to a lack of farmers willing to
the agricultural sector in developing countries can transition to a more share information about their production (only four tomato producers
sustainable approach. The present study differentiates between the di- participated in this study). Therefore, tomato was not analyzed any fur-
verse segments of the agricultural sector (small, medium, and large pro- ther. Additionally, farmers who produced crops different from the main
ducers), and it considers the main agricultural products that are grown agricultural products show in Table 2 attended the meetings, and these
for human consumption in Jalisco, as listed in Table 2. For this trans- additional crops were included in an extra category referred as “others”
disciplinary research, a snowball sampling technique was used, and a (Table 4).
survey of open-ended questions was combined with semi-structured in-
terviews to gain a more in-depth understanding of the main causes of 2.3. Survey procedure
FL in Jalisco’s agricultural production sector.
A 20-question survey (Appendix A) was administered to 114 farmers
(Tables 3 and 4). Before the survey application, the terms used in the
survey and their meanings were carefully explained to the producers.
2. Materials and methods The first part of the survey was an exploratory conversation, where the
farmers were questioned about the number of tons they produced and
Fig. 3 displays a summary of the methodological approach followed the number of hectares they planted annually. In the second part of the
in this investigation. As shown in the left column of Fig. 3, it was crucial survey, the producers’ point of view on FL was probed, as well as the
to first understand the context and organizational structure of agricul- main causes of FL in their production activity. Unlike FAO’s method-
tural production in the research area. The crops included in this study ology, which accounts for only the FL that occurs after the harvesting
made up more than 90% of the total agricultural production (in tons) phase (FAO, 2019), this study included the FL that occurs during all of
of Jalisco (Table 2). In the present study, a snowball sampling tech- the activities performed by agricultural producers, including sowing or
nique was used, and a survey of open-ended questions was combined planting, harvesting, storage and transportation (Fig. 2). In the third sec-
with semi-structured interviews. The application of this methodological tion of the survey, the famers discussed the destination of the products
approach specific to the state of Jalisco is further described below. that did not advance to the following stages of the FSC. The producers
3
Fig. 3. Methodological approach followed

when researching FLW in Jalisco.
were also asked if they were aware of existing alternatives for the man- telephone and consisted of 10 open-ended questions, where producers
agement of FL, such as making donations to food banks. In this study, were free to address the issues they saw fit to discuss (Appendix B).
the unsold crops that were repurposed, and not consumed by people Open-ended interviews are considered a well-suited methodology to
as originally intended, were considered as FL. In this sense, the usage explore multifactorial processes and to identify causal relationships
of any crops for composting or other waste treatment methods, such as (Gillman et al., 2019). The interviews were between 20 and 30 min
anaerobic digestion, was still considered to be FL. Animal feeding is not long and were carried out in September 2019. Each interview was di-
considered as FL in FAO’s methodology. However, in this study animal vided into three sections. The first included questions geared toward
feeding was considered as a FL. building trust between the interviewer and interviewee, as well to un-
Finally, farmers were asked if they were associated with any insti- derstand how the interviewee defined FL. The questions in the second
tution that would help reduce or prevent FL. These surveys were all section were aimed at exploring the main causes of FL and the partic-
conducted between June 3rd and June 12th of 2019. Furthermore, they ularities of each product. In the last section interviewees were asked if
were given during eight face-to-face sessions that took place in each of they consider food banks a viable option for reducing their FL, and were
the eight RDDs (Fig. 4). asked to share any possible solutions they could think of to reduce FL.
All of the interviews were transcribed for further analysis.
2.4. Interview procedure
2.5. Thematic analysis of interviews
A semi-structured interview was conducted with 24 of the 114 pro-
ducers who completed the survey (3 producers for each of the main agri- A thematic analysis of the interviews was carried out using a
cultural products) to further identify and characterize the main causes of methodology proposed by other authors (Beausang et al., 2017;
FL. Selection of the participating farmers to be interviewed was made Alhojailan, 2012). The full interviews were transcribed and read sev-
randomly to include one of each specific crop for each segment size eral times. The interviews were first examined individually to analyze
(small, medium, and large producer). The interviews were done via each producer’s unique perspective and were examined a second time,
4
Fig. 4. Rural Development Districts of the State of

Jalisco.
Table 3
Overview of agricultural products cultivated by the participating farmers surveyed.
Rural Development Agricultural product Number of participating farmers Total producers

District (RDD) (Surveyed Participants) surveyed
Ameca Sugar cane 1 28

Corn 10
Agave 11
Persian lemon 4
Variousa : corn, sugar cane, watermelon 2
and melon
Autlán Sugar cane 5 17
Corn 4
Tomato 2
Persian lemon 1
Watermelon 1
Chili 1
Variousa : lemon, agave, papaya, corn and 3
mango
Cd. Guzmán Sugar cane 3 16
Corn 2
Tomato 1
Avocado 9
Variousa : corn and sugar cane 1
Colotlán Corn 5 8
Variousa : corn, sorghum, bean and oat 3
La Barca Corn 7 13
Wheat 2
Sorghum 1
Bean 1
Chili 1
Variousa : wheat and corn 1
Lagos de Moreno Corn 3 5
Variousa : bean, corn, wheat, radish, 2
tomato and pumpkin
Tomatlán Banana 9 19
Mango 5
Papaya 2
Pineapple 2
Tamarind 1
Zapopan Corn 3 8
Nopal 4
Persian lemon 1
a
‘Various’ corresponds to the farmers that produced more than one crop on their land.
5
Table 4 3. Results and discussion

Participating farmers grouped based on agricultural product
produced, according to classifications by the Agriculture and In this section, first an analysis is presented of the general findings
Rural Development Office of Jalisco (SADER).
for all of the previously mentioned products based on the survey an-
Producers classified by sizea swers from 114 producers. This is followed by an individual analysis of
the survey results for each of the main agricultural products (except for
Agricultural product Small Medium Large Total
tomatoes due to the small number of tomato producers who agreed to
Sugar cane 5 4 4 13 participate in the interviews). Next, the general findings are presented
Corn 17 15 9 41
Agave 9 1 1 11
based on the 24 interview transcripts. A theme map (Fig. 5) was built
Tomato 1 1 2 4 to include all relevant themes (FL definition, causes, management and
Banana 2 0 7 9 solutions) and sub-themes (such as human behavior, pests, and diseases,
Avocado 3 2 4 9 among others).
Othersb 18 5 4 27
Total 55 28 31 114
a
Producers classified as large (> 20 ha), medium (6 – 3.1. General analysis for all products based on the survey answers
20 ha) or small (< 5 ha).
b
‘Others’ corresponds to chili peppers, mango, water- Table 5 shows a summary of the total production of the main crops,
melon, wheat, melon, beans, lemon, nopal cladodes, papaya,
divided into small, medium, and large producers. Most of the farmers
pineapple, sorghum, tamarind, horseradish and pumpkin.
that participated were small producers (48%), which is a fair represen-
These were not included in the principal products of Jalisco
state (Table 2). tation of agricultural production in Jalisco since 66% of the crops har-
vested in the state come from small producers (Robles-Berlanga, 2013;
INEGI, 2007).
in conjunction with the rest of the interviews, to identify the existing di- A total of 114 farmers were surveyed, and an agricultural area of
versity among the complete set of participants. Afterwards, the content 89.96 thousand ha was covered. This represents 5.6% of the total area
of the interviews was coded and categorized. When similar perspectives dedicated to agriculture in Jalisco or 12.8% of the total ha dedicated to
from the participants emerged in the interviews, these were grouped producing the 6 main crops produced in the state in 2018 (Table 2). The
into themes. Then, these were tested against other quotations from the mean harvest yield reported by the participating farmers was 72.6%,
producers’ interviews until the themes were established and consistent which is below the general mean of 90.6%, as reported by the Ministry of
with the data from all the interviews and saturation was reached. A Agriculture and Rural Development (SIAP, 2018). This difference could
theme map was then constructed to include the themes and sub-themes be due to the fact that damaged areas (by pests or weather conditions)
that emerged to facilitate further understanding. were not reported by SADER and were still used in this study. Over 88%
of the farmers reported FL in at least one of their production phases. The
2.6. Estimating environmental impacts weighted mean value for FL, taking into consideration all agricultural
products in this study, was found to be 14.0% (Table 6). The produc-
Using the estimated values for FL in Jalisco as a first approximation, ers who kept records of their 2018 FL reported those specific historical
annual product loss (in tons) of Jalisco’s core products was calculated. values, whereas the producers who did not keep records of their losses
To estimate some of the environmental impacts of FL in Jalisco, water instead shared ‘perceived’ mean estimates. Thus, the reported mean val-
and carbon footprints resulting from FL were calculated according to ues should be interpreted carefully, as these are self-reported values
methodology proposed by Kummu et al. (Kummu et al., 2012). (some from written records and some only from memory). According
to the surveys administered to the producers, FL varied depending on
WF𝑖 = FL𝑖 × WFc𝑖; (1) the product and type of producer (Fig. 6). In the case of Jalisco’s main
products, small producers reported FL levels at least 1.7% higher than
CF𝑖 = FL𝑖 × CFc𝑖; (2) medium-size and large producers. Among the main products, the high-
est and lowest FL values correspond to corn (20.4%) and agave (6.5%),
where WF is the water footprint related to the FL of the i th crop per year respectively (Table 6). There is considerable variation in the existing lit-
[𝑚3 /y]; FLi is the FL of the i th crop [tons/y]; WFci is the water footprint erature about FL in primary production of the agricultural sector around
coefficient of the i th crop [m3 /ton]; CFi is the carbon footprint related to the world, with values ranging from 23 to 39% in studies about Africa,
the FL of the i th crop per year [𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝐶 𝑂2 𝑒𝑞 ∕𝑦]; and CFci is the equivalent Asia, and the Middle East (FAO 2011b; Tomlins et al., 2016). Mexico
carbon dioxide emissions coefficient of the i-th crop [𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝐶 𝑂2 𝑒𝑞 ∕𝑡𝑜𝑛]. is considered a developing country, but since it is known as an agri-
food giant, the state of Jalisco has high levels of investment and de-
2.7. Food loss estimation and descriptive statistics velopment especially in primary production. The government of Jalisco
has designed policies to help the primary sector, such as ensuring fair
All data collected from the survey was captured in a matrix, and for prices for farmers, which means integrating them into domestic and ex-
any quantitative answers, frequency analyses and bar graphs were cre- port markets by reducing intermediaries, as well as increasing public
ated. Individual observations of the participating farmers (Question 5, investment to promote the productive activities of families and commu-
Appendix A) were grouped into small, medium, and large producer clas- nities. The government has paid special attention to modernizing small
sifications and averaged for each production segment (small, medium, producer’s infrastructure, to promote alternatives to subsistence farm-
and large) and crop (sugar cane, corn, agave, avocado, tomato, and ba- ing and sale of surpluses (Padilla, 2017). Combined, these factors may
nana). To calculate the mean FL of each crop, the mean values deter- explain the lower values of primary production FL, compared to other
mined for each production segment were weighted based on the overall developing countries.
production contributions of small, medium, and large producers to over- Another factor contributing to the low estimated FL (14.0%) is that
all production. To calculate the mean FL for the agricultural sector of 37% of producers reported that food that is not used for human con-
Jalisco, a weighted mean based on the production of each of the main sumption is used as animal feed, and therefore they do not include
crops was determined. Additionally, descriptive statistics were devel- it in FL figures. This fact was previously reported by Franke et al.
oped for the grouped data (Arroyo, 2006). RStudio 1.1.456 software (Franke et al., 2016). While this practice does help reduce FL, it bypasses
was used to make the descriptive statistics analyses and bar graphs. the first steps in the EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy, which establishes
6
Fig. 5. Food loss and waste during the primary production of Jalisco’s main crops (corn, sugar cane, agave, avocado and banana). The relevant themes are shown
in green, whereas the sub-themes are shown in light green.
Table 5
Mean, minimum and maximum annual production reported by the farmers for all products and for each of the main
products classified into small, medium and large producers.
Product Producers Percentage of producers Percentage of Surveyed Tons Produced

classified by size by segments [%] Producers [%]
Min Max Mean
b
Sugar Cane Small 38 42 150 400 265±102
Medium 50c 33 155 2400 963±986
Large 12d 25 2500 50,000 18,667±27,140
Corn Small 44b 41 3 40 15±11
Medium 51c 37 8 2400 280±610
Large 5d 22 200 100,000 12,959±35,171
Agave Small 89a 82 5 400 137±160
Medium 6a 9 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Large 5a 9 500 500 500±0
Banana Small 66b 22 120 450 285±233
Medium 20c N.A. N.A N.A. N.A.
Large 14d 78 70 15,000 5604±6313
Avocado Small 63e 33 20 40 30±14
Medium 26c 22 40 100 70±42
Large 11b 45 250 500 363±111
Total Small 66e 48
Medium 26e 25
Large 8d 27
‘N.A.’: not applicable. In the case of agave, medium size producers had not harvested yet. No medium size banana pro-
ducers were surveyed.
a
Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT). Personal interview with the Field Supervisor (27 august 2021).
b
INEGI. Agricultural and livestock national census 2017.
c
Subtraction between percentages of large and small producers.
d
INEGI. Agricultural and livestock national census 2019.
e
INEGI. Agricultural, livestock and forestry census 2007.
that donations are the preferred option for food surplus; donations are In general, FL in the agricultural sector was largely attributed to pests
then followed by animal feeding as a secondary option. and weather conditions (for 53% of the producers), problems with the
Additionally, most small farmers did not keep formal records of the sale of products (for 46% of the producers), food handling during har-
losses that occur during production, mainly due to lack of time or per- vest and transportation (for 15% of the producers) and excess produc-
sonnel. Many large producers, on the other hand, did have exact num- tion (for 15% of the producers). When asked about FL during the differ-
bers—particularly in the case of agave producers, due to the cultural ent phases of primary production, 62% of the producers responded that
and economic importance of Tequila production in the national and in- most losses occur during the harvesting phase (Fig. 7), whereas 30% said
ternational markets (Nunez et al., 2011). As suggested by Macías et al. that sowing or planting is the most critical phase in terms of FL. Among
(Macías, 2011), Mexican agriculture (especially in the case of small pro- the main causes of FL during sowing and harvesting are the incidence of
ducers) is in development, and it is therefore necessary to improve the pests or diseases (mentioned by 68% of the farmers) and weather con-
recording and analysis of data to identify causes and create solutions ditions (mentioned by 51% of the farmers). These causes are harder to
that lead to improvements. avoid compared to the losses that occur during later stages in the FSC,
7
Fig. 6. Food loss and waste during primary production of Jalisco’s main crops.
Fig. 7. Jalisco’s main agricultural products and the

main causes of FLW, gathered through interviews.
since those are associated with production systems and human behavior The survey also showed that, for all products studied, the causes of FL
(Beausang et al., 2017). during primary production also include market failures and selling to the
The presence of pathogens can make crops unsuitable for harvest processing and manufacturing industry. There are also problems with
and even infect the whole production, as is the case for avocadoes. In the market, such as crops not being sold when they fail to meet buyers’
that situation, farmers are forced to discard the entirety of what was quality standards, as pointed out by Beausang et al. (Beausang et al.,
produced. According to Oerke et al. (Oerke, 2006), losses caused by 2017).
pathogens, animals and weeds are altogether responsible for 20 to 40% Eighty percent of the producers reported to not have a place to store
of FL in agricultural primary production globally. and protect their harvest because most of the products are transported
When unharvested products remain in the fields, it is a result of rapid immediately after harvesting. The products may be transported by ex-
maturation rates combined with a lack of qualified personnel or neces- ternal contractors (in 40% of the cases), by the industry that buys the
sary equipment for harvesting at the correct time (32% of the surveyed product (27% of the cases) or by the farmers themselves (33% of the
producers affirmed this destiny as the most common). Accordingly, 16% cases). Of the transportation services used, 90% did not have special
of producers identified a lack of personnel training as a main cause of FL. features to protect the products and only 8% had refrigeration. Fifty-
Similarly, half of the producers (51%) were not part of any producers’ one percent of the products were said to be packed in wooden boxes
association during the interviews; most of the farmers emphasized that or in sacks; the remaining 49% are not packed. Nineteen percent of
to reduce FL in the field, they need advice from experts on preventing or the producers said they do not use monitoring systems during packag-
treating diseases in the field. Most of these causes echo those reported ing and transportation, and they reported having issues with personnel
by Tatlidíl et al. (Tatlidil et al., 2005). shortages.
8
Table 6 area of FL prevention, and a dearth of transgenic crops that can better
Weighted Mean FL for each of the withstand extreme conditions.
main agricultural products. Sixty-five percent of farmers surveyed, regardless of their opera-
Product Mean FL (%) tion size, stated that the main cause of FL are pests—particularly wire-
worm—and weather conditions, such as droughts. Forty-seven percent
Sugar Cane 10.1 ± 0.2
Corn 20.9 ± 1.3
of those surveyed reported having problems related to selling the prod-
Agave 6.5 ± 0.1 uct, and 19% had problems due to improper handling during harvest.
Banana 14.9 ± 1.3 Transportation and inadequate storage can also cause FL since if there is
Avocado 7.8 ± 0.2 humidity, pests will soon follow. The last two causes mentioned affected
Othersa 20.4 ± 2.0
mostly small and medium-sized producers.
Total 14.0
Harvesting is the phase where most of the producers (66%) reported
a
‘Others’: Refers to the products losses, followed by sowing (26%). Small producers also reported losses
that were not included in Table 2, during the storage and transportation stage (8%) due specifically to the
such as lemon, watermelon, mango, corn weevil Sitophilus zeamais. The corn weevil is one of the most sig-
chili peppers, papaya, oats, beans,
nificant pests for products that are kept in storage, since products are
wheat, pumpkin, radish, pineapple,
often stored in environments where humidity is not controlled; together
tamarind and nopal cladodes.
with the use of pesticides, this creates an ideal atmosphere for Sitophilus
zeamais to take hold (Salvadores et al., 2007). Seventy-four percent of
For the producers who participated in this study, the food that was all corn producers have a storage system, ranging from warehouses to
not sold remained in the field (in 32% of the cases), was used for com- silos, while 35% of small producers store the product at home. Thirty-
post (in 17% of the cases), was donated (in 7% of the cases) and in the eight percent of them (mostly large companies) oversee transporting
rest of the cases was used for livestock. 59% of the farmers said they their products, while the rest hire an external transportation service that
knew about institutions that work to reduce FL, such as food banks. has no special characteristics. Only 26% of producers package the prod-
However, these producers only selected the option showing they had uct in sacks for transport. Small producers also listed other FL causes that
donated “at least once”. Although donations are not considered part of are not shared by larger producers, such as a lack of resources (32%),
FL since they are eventually eaten by humans, this percentage was not personnel training (25%) and access to credits (20%). When corn is not
subtracted out to calculate the mean FL, because the producers affirmed sold, it is used to feed livestock (33%) or for the farmer’s own use (30%)
that this activity is not performed regularly. Furthermore, producers re- or remains in the field (23%). This result is consistent with data shown
ported that donations imply an additional cost to their process, which by SIAP (Arroyo, 2006), which stated that just over 20% of corn pro-
they cannot always cover. duction is consumed by the farmers themselves.
In some cases, the product itself cannot be consumed by humans
without previous treatment. An example of this is agave: 55% of agave
producers were aware of food banks but they had never donated their 3.2.2. Product analysis: banana
product since it cannot be directly consumed by people. In the cases Jalisco ranks fifth among banana-producing states in Mexico. Ba-
of sugar cane and corn, farmers generally prefer to leave their unsold nanas are consumed widely in the country due to their nutritional value,
product in the fields due to the transportation expenses that must be year-round availability, and relatively low price (K. Valencia Sandoval
incurred in order to donate it or use it as cattle feed. Avocado produc- and Zetina Espinosa, 2016). Mexico is an important producer in the in-
ers regularly used unsold avocadoes to produce oil and commercialize ternational banana market; 2% of the bananas that are consumed inter-
it. Unlike other producers, 22% of banana farmers stated they donate nationally come from Mexico (SIAP, 2018).
their unsold product regularly and 89% have donated at least once. The In our survey, 78% of the banana producers were classified as large
higher rates of donation in banana production are explained by the fact producers reporting higher harvest yields (Table 5). Nevertheless, all
that 78% of farmers belong to a banana producers’ association, which farmers described having losses during primary production. Banana
have direct contact with the Jalisco Food Bank. In the case of corn, av- production had the second highest FL values (mean value of 14.9%;
ocado and sugar cane producers, only 26%, 33% and 77% respectively Table 6) because of weather conditions—particularly hurricanes, which
belong to any association, and in the case of the sugar cane producers, frequently destroy banana fields during the summer (Pradeep et al.,
the association does not have direct contact with a food bank. 2012) (Fig. 8). Small banana producers also reported non-refrigerated
transportation systems, which can result in lower quality products. Ac-
cording to the Transport Information Service (TIS) of the German Insur-
3.2. Individual analysis for each of the main agricultural products ance Association, bananas must be maintained at a temperature between
13 and 15 °C to assure a storage duration between 14 and 21 days for
3.2.1. Product analysis: corn green bananas and between 3 and 6 days for yellow bananas. Addition-
Jalisco is the second largest corn-producing state nationally. The im- ally, for exported products, in order to stop the maturation process and
portance of corn is a result of its high national consumption (Gobierno de ensure the fruit is fresh when it reaches its destination, a controlled at-
México, 2018). Most of the corn producers surveyed (77%) produced mosphere should be maintained (TIS, 2019). The rest of the crops had
less than 300 tons per year (Table 5). The lowest yield was that of small similar mean FL values (Fig. 6).
producers, with a weighted mean yield of 62%, compared to the 72% Eighty-nine percent of the producers claimed losses during harvest,
reported by medium and large producers. while 11% reported losses during the sowing or planting phase (Fig. 8).
Regardless of operation size (small, medium or large), corn produc- For the producers who reported FL, losses are caused mainly by the fail-
tion had the highest FL values (20.9%), mainly due to the high inci- ure to meet quality standards (in 44% of the cases), improper handling
dence of pests and climatological conditions such as drought. Eighty- of the crop from harvest to transportation (33%), overproduction (22%),
eight percent of the producers reported having losses in their annual and pests or weather conditions (11%). In the case of weather con-
production: 77% declared losses between 5 and 30% and only 12% of ditions, hurricanes directly affect banana production because bananas
producers—all of them large companies—reported losses of less than are grown near the coast. In 2019, a hurricane affected more than 700
5%. Moreover, 40% of the surveyed corn farmers were small producers hectares of banana plantations, causing an increase in the fruit’s price to
reporting a high FL value of 19.15% (Fig. 6). This is likely due to the consumers (Velasco, 2019). The fraction of the production that is con-
lack of advanced technological practices and equipment, experts in the sidered FL remains in the field (44%) or is used as livestock feed (44%).
9
Fig. 8. Main stages during which FLW takes place, showing the frequency mentioned by producers for each main product in Jalisco (more than one answer could
be selected).
3.2.3. Product analysis: sugar cane The avocado producers reported a mean FL of 7.8%. Small produc-
Jalisco is the second-largest producer of sugar cane in Mexico ers reported better harvest yields than medium and large producers.
(SIAP, 2018). There is considerable demand for this product worldwide, This phenomenon could be related to the natural alternating cycle of
since it is an important raw material for the international agri-food in- this crop: for every year of high yield, there are two years of low pro-
dustry, in addition to the preference of final sugar consumers. Sugar duction (Barría, 2019). Conversely, large producers reported having un-
cane is more profitable than other important crops. However, in some even maturation rates in their fields, which makes harvesting challeng-
regions of Jalisco, sugar cane has been substituted with other high-yield ing. Eighty-nine percent of the farmers reported FL in their production
crops, such as berries, avocado and other vegetables (Carrillo, 2018). process (Fig. 6). The majority (89%) of the farmers said their losses
This product has a high yield of tons per cultivated area (149 ton/ha) happened during sowing and harvesting (Fig. 8). The main causes of FL
due to its vertical structure (Everingham et al., 2016). Accordingly, 85% mentioned by the farmers were pests and weather conditions (89% of
of producers reported a harvest yield above 80%. Small and medium producers identified this as a main cause), improper handling of the pro-
producers, accounting for 30% of the farmers we surveyed, had losses duce during harvest and transportation (mentioned by 33% of produc-
between 10 and 20%. Large producers reported losses below 5%. Sugar ers), and challenges during the sale (mentioned by 22% of producers).
cane presented a mean FL of 10.12%. The most common pest in avocado production is caused by the Heilipus
The main causes of FL described by sugar cane producers were pests lauri beetle. If it takes hold, farmers must burn all the harvested prod-
and weather conditions (31%) as well as the growth of weeds, since it uct because the larvae remain in the fruit (Diaz Grisales et al., 2017).
takes nutrients from the sugar cane. Additionally, 23% of the producers The producers reported that 56% of losses remain in the field without
reported problems during the sale of the product and 21% of the produc- any treatment, 22% are burned (if there are pests) and 22% is used for
ers pointed to problems with products being mishandled during harvest compost.
and transportation. Harvesting and transportation were the main phases
where FL took place (Fig. 8). As indicated in the interviews, part of the
3.2.5. Product analysis: agave
product is lost along the way during transportation, which is mostly car-
Agave production differs from others covered in our survey because
ried out by sugar mills or factories. Moreover, 54% of the producers said
agave plants must remain in the field and grow for at least 7 years before
that part of the product that is not sold remains in the field since they
they can be processed (Herrera-Pérez et al., 2018). It is not surprising
do not have the equipment or personnel to collect it, 15% reported that
then that 27% of the growers (3 of 11) who were interviewed had never
it is used for compost and 8% for cattle feed.
yet harvested their product. Therefore, from these agave producers, in-
formation was only collected about the FL that occurs during the sowing
3.2.4. Product analysis: avocado or planting phase. The remainder of the agave producers provided in-
Jalisco is the second largest producer of avocado nationally. From formation regarding all the stages of primary production.
2012 to 2017, the state´s production rose by 315%, going from 40.85 Eighty-two percent of producers reported losses in their fields; of
to more than 169 thousand tons harvested, respectively (Larios, 2019). those farmers, 55% reported losses between 5 and 10% (mean of 6.5%).
In 2018, 60% of avocado production was exported to 26 countries Seventy-three percent reported FL during the sowing phase due to pests
(Macías, 2011). The demand for avocado is expanding due to the in- (82% of the producers who reported FL in the sowing phase) and
crease in the purchase of this product internationally, causing a price weather conditions (18% of the producers); 36% of the producers re-
increase of 130% from 2017 to 2018 in the United States of America ported FL in the harvest phase caused by a lack of staff training (27% of
(Barría, 2019; K. Valencia Sandoval and Zetina Espinosa, 2016). the producers who reported FL in the harvest phase). During the inter-
10
views several farmers identified a common issue: if agave is harvested The paucity of regulation set out by the government exacerbates the
before it has reached maturity, it will lead to lower yields in tequila problems caused by these practices (as declared by 50% of the produc-
production, which has economic consequences. Tequila, which is de- ers interviewed). This situation has gained attention, especially between
rived from agave, is an emblematic product of Mexico because of its the agave producers interviewed, as 100% of these farmers externalized
economic and cultural relevance. It has a protected designation of ori- their concerns about the overproduction of agave, which has the po-
gin spanning 5 states, and Jalisco is the primary producer, accounting tential to cause a price decrease in the market. To overcome these FL
for 82.6% of Mexico’s total production (UN, 2010; Kale et al., 2015). causes, it is necessary to strengthen the governance of the agroecological
Since 2003, international demand for tequila has grown in 26 countries, subsystem, through the implementation of regulations to avoid monop-
increasing agave prices eightfold between 2012 and 2018 (SIAP, 2018). olistic practices and to regulate crop prices in the market.
Agave producers foresee market failures becoming the main cause of FL Although the producers expressed the opinion that there will always
in about 4 years because of a drop in price due to increasing supply. be losses in the field, certain agricultural methods or government poli-
All the agave producers reported that they do not have a warehouse cies can be implemented to reduce the amount of FL. However, during
for storage, since immediately after harvesting the processing industry the interviews, 69% of the producers expressed their disappointment
transports the agave to a factory. Fifty-five percent of the producers with the lack of relevant government programs. Fifty percent of the
that reported having FL said they leave the surplus product in the field farmers suggested that the government should provide more financial
to avoid additional costs. support or incentives to increase the implementation of advanced tech-
nologies in farming. Interviewees (63%) also voiced their hope that the
government might raise awareness among producers by providing more
3.3. General analysis for all products based on the interview’s transcripts training and by establishing connections between the primary produc-
tion sector and the processing industry. Interviewees (44%) also men-
The principal topics identified from the interviews (Fig. 5) were: the tioned that the government should adequately plan when the financial
producer’s conceptualization of FL and its main causes, current practices support will be given so that producers can anticipate when to sow and
to avoid FL, and the possible solutions to overcome this challenge. harvest. Half of the interviewed producers also said that having a con-
All producers recognized that FL is a multifactorial problem caused tract based on demand before they start to plant allows them to make
by both natural and anthropogenic factors. All 24 of the farmers we in- sure not to overproduce; and 50% of them would also like the govern-
terviewed agreed that FL is an intrinsic part of agriculture, as previously ment to create price regulation policies and a system to guarantee prices
mentioned by Beausang et al. (Beausang et al., 2017). The farmers’ ac- for all products, as well as a sowing calendar. Most of the interviewed
ceptance of FL in agricultural production was linked with the difficulty farmers (64%) would like to see the creation of an efficient, structured,
of avoiding it, due to factors they cannot control, like weather condi- and transparent system to maximize food donation where both parties
tions (Franke et al., 2016). Some FL causes discussed in the interviews benefit. Similarly, 57% of the interviewed farmers proposed to central-
were common to all producers. The amount of time that each intervie- ize more food banks and generate a system to detect when there are
wee spent talking about each of the FL causes was then quantified to losses that can be donated.
establish a total frequency per cause. If a topic’s frequency was below
33%, the FL cause was regarded as having a low incidence. FL causes 3.4. Environmental impact of FL in Jalisco
with frequencies between 34% and 66% were regarded to be of medium
incidence, and FL causes with a frequency higher than 67% were con- Producing food for consumption requires the use of various re-
sidered to be of a high incidence (Fig. 7). sources, such as land, fertilizers, pesticides, water, and energy. When
One main driver of FL is the effect of pests and weather conditions FL occurs, not only are these resources wasted, but greenhouse gasses
on crops, as 96% of the agricultural producers stated that they were af- (GHG) are also generated (Muth et al., 2019). In Jalisco, more than 1.4
fected by these issues. Although the producers declared that FL caused billion m3 of water is used every year to produce the crops that be-
by pests and weather conditions is an intrinsic part of the production, come FL (Table 7). Corn and agave are the agricultural products with
in many cases these can be mitigated with the implementation of inte- the highest water footprint, with a water footprint of 787 and 483 mil-
grated management practices. Seventy percent of the farmers empha- lion m3 of freshwater, respectively. These two products make up 86.0%
sized that in order to reduce FL they need advice from experts about of the total water footprint for the production of all of the main crops
preventing or treating diseases in the field. Information and communi- in Jalisco. The water footprint derived from the FL of the agricultural
cation technologies can play a pivotal role in bridging the information sector in Jalisco represents 3.52% of the National water footprint (39.8
gap and in reducing the information asymmetry that exists between dif- million m3 ) (Aguilar, 2017).
ferent farmers and regions (Kale et al., 2015). In terms of carbon dioxide (CO2 e) emissions, the agricultural prod-
However, some causes of FL varied depending on the product. Sugar ucts with the highest environmental impact per ton lost are banana and
cane, for example, is affected with a medium incidence by overproduc- avocado. The FL of banana is attributed mostly to transportation (trans-
tion and soil degradation. All crops are affected by weather conditions, ported in cold chambers), as well as the use of electricity and fuels for
but not all are affected to the same degree: the most affected are corn farming activities, such as the application of fertilizers and pesticides
and banana, followed by avocado with a medium incidence, and agave (Ortiz-Ulloa et al., 2021). The FL of avocado, on the other hand, is at-
and sugar cane with low incidence. The lack of harvesting planning was tributed mainly to the large consumption of energy for the irrigation and
a persistent cause of FL in the cases of agave, banana, and avocado. packaging systems, in addition to the application of significant amounts
Another cause affecting agave, banana and sugar cane producers is of fertilizers and pesticides (Lomelí-Rodríguez, 2020). However, corn
the inability to meet the exacting quality standards established by the and sugarcane are the crops with the highest emissions of CO2 e per
processing and manufacturing industry. year resulting from FL, mainly due to the high amounts of FL per year;
Market failures caused by monopolistic practices were found to be the losses of these two crops are associated with 92.9% of the carbon
a significant issue, as they lead to major price fluctuations that have footprint related to the main agricultural crops of Jalisco’s (Table 7).
outsized effects on small producers. Additionally, monopolistic practices Overall, the carbon footprint encompasses the consumption of chemical
carried out by larger distributors or manufacturing industries deprive fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural plastic film, as well as the use of
many farmers of a fair pay for their products, limiting their ability to machinery and irrigation (Li et al., 2021). Lipinski et al. (Lipinski et al.,
implement more advanced infrastructure to reduce FL (Cattaneoet al., 2013) reported that worldwide, in 2009, FL resulted in 3300–5600 mil-
2021). 67% of the interviewed producers confirmed to be affected by lion metric tons of CO2 e emissions. Unfortunately, a decade later, the
this phenomenon due to market failures. amount of FL around the world, and its carbon footprint, have only
11
Table 7
Estimated environmental impacts of FLW in Jalisco.
Product Percentage Lost Amount Lost [ton/year] Water Footprint Carbon Footprint
3 3
[m /ton] [m / year] [ton CO2 e/ ton] [ton CO2 e/year]
Sugar Cane 10.1% 754,363.9 210.0 158,416,421.5a 0.39 294,201.9h

Corn 20.9% 874,886.7 900.0 787,398,052.8b 0.48 419,945.6g
Agave 6.5% 73,797.1 6549.0 483,297,288.9a 0.03 1918.7c , d
Banana 14.9% 25,851.9 860.0 22,232,629.6b 1.37 35,417.1f
Avocado 7.8% 13,278.1 1981.0 26,303,911.6a 1.30 15,574.0e
Total 1477,648,304.3 768,744.9
a
Water footprint coefficients (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011).
b
Water footprint coefficients (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
c
Carbon footprint coefficient (Centro Mario Molina, 2016).
d
Agave needed to produce tequila (Consejo Regulador del Tequila, 2019).
e
Carbon footprint coefficient (Zhang et al., 2017).
f
Carbon footprint coefficient (Svanes and Aronsson, 2013).
g
Carbon footprint coefficient (Clune et al., 2017).
h
Carbon footprint coefficient (Rein, 2010).
Table 8
General pathways to reduce FL and to transition towards a more sustainable agricultural sector of the state of Jalisco, based on solution proposals previously
described (Corrado et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2016; Baoua et al., 2012; Foscaches et al., 2012; SADER, 2021; UNECE, 2021; Gerling et al., 2019; Spada et al., 2018;
Osorio, 2021).
Source reduction of FL Food rescue and recovery
Approach Description Approach Description
Transitioning to Damage or contamination can be avoided Increasing the rescue of healthy food Supporting food banks and gleaning
agroecological farming by the implementation of agroecological in good conditions to support access to organizations, and designing meal
systems practices by trained personnel nutritious food for people who are at programs that rescue surplus food
risk of food insecurity
Increasing market Lower quality products can be accepted Implementing storage and Improving distribution and storage in
typology and integrated, but sold at a discount transportation improvements terms of temperature control and
infrastructure for donated food
Increasing the Governments and institutions should Implementing incentives for food Encouraging donations through tax
implementation of provide more economic support or donation and rescue incentives
advanced technological incentives, establishing connections with
practices or equipment the processing industry
in crop production
Adjusting packaging Improvement of shelf-life and new Protecting against responsibility for Developing regulations that protect
packaging according to customer demands food donors donors
Improving cold-chain Improving, upgrading or purchasing Online support tools for food recovery Facilitating contact between generators of
to maintain infrastructure (trucks, cold rooms) food surpluses and buyers or
appropriate food organizations that wish to accept
temperatures donations
Value-added Extending lifespan of food by processing Revalorization of surplus food or food New processing strategies for obtaining
processing through it into shelf-stable products by-products nutraceutical or pharmaceutical products
innovative with high value-added
technologies
increased. In Mexico, the carbon footprint associated with FL is esti- contamination can be avoided by the implementation of agroecologi-
mated to be 36,886,460 tons of CO2 e emissions per year (Zimring and cal practices by trained personnel based on the principles of low-input
Rathje, 2012). Whilst, in this study, the greenhouse emissions estimated use, resilience, sustainability and the prioritization of smallholders or
for the FL that occur in the agricultural production sector in Jalisco were peasant farmers (Davis et al., 2016).
768,744.9 tons of CO2 e per year. Several post-harvest technologies have been developed to protect
stored crops from pests and other causes of losses—whether pesticides
are used or not—such as hermetic storage (Baoua et al., 2012). In rural
3.5. Pathways to transition towards sustainability
areas of developing countries, simple measures can have large impacts
on FL during transportation. For instance, putting vents in the trucks
Based on solutions previously described in the literature, some gen-
that transport fresh food or scheduling transportation at night or during
eral ways to transition towards a more sustainable agricultural sector of
cooler times can help keep the products from deteriorating as rapidly.
the state of Jalisco (Table 8) have been proposed. These solutions could
Losses during grain transportation can likewise be reduced simply by
help avoid FL in the agricultural sector using two routes: (1) the reduc-
covering the trucks that transport grain with tarps (Foscaches et al.,
tion of FL in crop production and (2) value recovery from food once FL
2012).
is generated.
The continuing development of sustainable packaging designs can
As mentioned previously, agroecology encompasses basic ecological
result in food savings: hermetic seals, re-sealable packaging, or smart
and agronomic principles to design and manage agroecological farm-
packaging, among others, are some of the most promising options
ing systems with an efficient production, while conserving natural re-
(Pradeep et al., 2012). Additionally, it is important to implement inno-
sources. Following this concept, reducing FL generation and improving
vative technologies in order to create new value-added products via two
FL management are some of the main objectives to reach sustainabil-
fronts: (1) by reducing FL through the application of technologies for ex-
ity (Corrado et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2016). In this sense, damage or
12
tending the lifespan of food by processing it into shelf-stable products, contrast, medium and large producers normally possess technological
and (2) by revalorizing FL through processing strategies for obtaining equipment to increase the quality and shelf-life of their products and
nutraceutical or pharmaceutical products with high value-added. sell their products directly to the food processing industry or to large
Food donation can be a key step to mitigate FL, but to promote this markets.
practice, more and better connections between producers and institu- This study represents the first transdisciplinary attempt in the liter-
tions dedicated to avoiding food waste must be established. Public pro- ature to examine farmers’ perspectives on FL in the agricultural sector
grams should focus on the implementation of incentives for food dona- of Jalisco, Mexico. The self-reported values on FL are subject to some
tion and rescue. In additional to financial support, there is a need to imprecision and should be interpreted cautiously. Other quantitative ap-
adjust the current legislation to protect food donors and to encourage proaches should be implemented in the near future to verify the quan-
farmers to consider donation as a viable option. To avoid banana losses, titative results presented in this study. Additionally, further study of
producers’ associations, which collect and donate surpluses that could livestock production is necessary in order to gain a deeper understand-
not be sold from producers, have proven to play a key role. ing of FL in the primary production sector of Mexico and developing
In addition to donation, Jalisco has focused on improving the effi- countries in general.
ciency in the primary sector to reduce losses in the field through public The transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems
mechanisms. In 2021, for example, a budget of more than 17.8 million is a complex challenge that requires actions in policy, regulation, cul-
USD has been reserved for the development of different programs, such ture, stakeholder’s involvement, science, and innovation, among others.
as: “Support for strategic projects to increase the productivity of small This study has contributed to a better understanding of the interacting
and medium producers”, “Agricultural corn producers on the transition ecosystems, agricultural lands, labor, infrastructure, technology, poli-
to a sustainable agriculture model”, “Mechanization program for sugar cies, culture and institutions (including markets) that are involved in
cane production”, among others (SADER, 2021). Additionally, the im- FL in the agricultural sector. These findings will pave the way for the
plementation of communication tools should be considered to facilitate development of more holistic approaches to tackling FL.
communication between all the key players involved in the FSC. This
is an important measure to promote food recovery. One such example Declaration of Competing Interest
is the initiative FeedUP@UN, which is a centralized online marketplace
to enable trade at a faster pace, thus reducing food loss and food waste. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
This initiative was developed by The United Nations Economic Commis- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
sion for Europe (UNECE) in 2020 (UNECE, 2021). the work reported in this paper.
There is a clear need for the development of government programs
to provide financial support or incentives to increase the implementa- Acknowledgements
tion of advanced technologies in the primary production sector. Such
programs could also facilitate the cooperation between the processing The authors acknowledge the full support of the Secretariat of En-
industry and the agricultural producers, avoiding intermediaries. Some vironment and Territorial Development (SEMADET) throughout the
of these supports should be focused on developing a better crop classi- development of this study. Additionally, the authors would like to
fication system according to their quality. In this sense, lower quality acknowledge the valuable comments made by the reviewers of the
products can be integrated into the FSC (Gerling et al., 2019; Osorio manuscript to enrich the study.
et al., 2021; Spada et al., 2018).
Appendix A. General Questions for participant farmers
4. Conclusions
Date:
This exploratory study identified the main challenges that need to Name:
be addressed in order to shift to a more sustainable system regarding Crops produced:
FL in the agricultural sector of Jalisco. The mean FL in the agricultural Rural Development District you belong to:
sector of Jalisco was found to be 14.0%, with a carbon footprint of 768
thousand Gt of CO2 e and with a water footprint of 1.4 billion m3 of 1. How many tons of your agricultural products do you produce annu-
freshwater. Compared to previous studies, the water footprint presented ally?
of the agricultural sector in Jalisco represents 3.35% of the total water 2. What is the size of your parcel? Please specify in ha.
footprint of the FLW generated in Mexico across all the stages of the FSC. 3. How much do you estimate your real harvest yield was, compared
The FL in Jalisco should not be extrapolated for all of Mexico, as Jalisco to the expected harvest yield? (Example: I expected to harvest 10
possesses a higher investment in advanced technological practices and ton/ha of corn, but at the end of the season I harvested 8 ton/ha;
equipment compared to other states. Nevertheless, this work serves as the real harvest yield would be 80%).
a baseline for further research. a. less than 30%
The main causes of FL in the agricultural sector of Jalisco are pests, b. 31–60%
diseases, weather conditions and market failures. While FL caused by c. 61–80%
pests, diseases and weather conditions is regarded as intrinsic to agri- d. more than 80%
cultural production, measures such as training and communication tech- 4. Have you experienced FL during your agricultural production?
nologies have the potential to drastically reduce FL in the agricultural a. Yes
sector. Regarding market failures, there is a need for the development b. No
of market regulations to directly connect the farmers with the food in- 5. If you answered that you have had FL during your primary produc-
dustry, as well as for initiatives that support local markets to avoid FL. tion activity, what percentage of your production is lost as FL per
In this study, FL varied depending on the product and type of pro- year?
ducer. Considering the main agricultural products of Jalisco (corn, sug- a. less than 5%
arcane, agave, tomato, avocado, and banana), small producers reported b. 5–10%
higher levels of FL than medium-size and large producers. Besides c. 11–20%
lacking technological equipment to improve practices during the sow- d. 21–30%
ing, harvesting, and storage phases, small producers sell their products e. 31–40%
through intermediaries, which decreases the profit margin for them. In f. 41–50%
13
g. 51–60% c. Composting
h. 61% or more d. Animal feed
e. Is left in the field
NOTE: Before the survey elaboration and application, key individ- f. Other __________
uals from the Ministry of Rural Development of Jalisco recom- 10. Have you heard of food banks or other institutions that reduce FL?
mended these ranks. Nevertheless, for further studies, these ranks a. Yes
could vary depending on the geographic area of interest. b. No
11. Have you collaborated with food banks or other institutions (orphan-
1. If you answered that you have had FL during your primary produc- ages, hospitals, etc.) to donate your food? If so, with whom?
tion activity, at what stage of your process does most of the FL hap- a. Yes, ____________
pen? More than one answer may be selected. b. No
a. Sowing 12. If you answered yes to the previous question, what percentage of
b. Harvest your production do you estimate you donate every year?
c. Storage a. Less than 10%
d. Transportation b. 10–30%
e. Other ______________ c. 30–50%
2. What are the main causes of FL during sowing and harvesting? More d. 50–80%
than one answer may be selected. 13. How often do you take courses on food handling and preservation
a. Pests or diseases to avoid FL?
b. Weather conditions a. Never.
c. Lack of personnel or equipment b. At least once a year
d. Issues that prevent the process from continuing c. 2 to 3 times a year
e. Mishandling equipment or machinery d. More than 4 times a year
f. Other ______________ 14. Are you a member of any organization or association for farmers
3. Do you have a warehouse or space to store the product obtained after and/or producers?
harvest? If so, what are the characteristics of your warehouse? a. Yes
a. Yes. Characteristics of the warehouse: __________ b. No
b. No 15. If so, is there any measure in this network of producers that helps
4. How do you transport your products? reduce food loss in their production? If so, mention what measure.
a. External contracting a. Yes. _________________
b. I transport them myself b. No
c. Other ___________
5. What characteristics does the transportation vehicle have? Select the Appendix B. Questions for semi-structured interview
ones that apply.
a. Insulated vehicle 1. What are the major issues or challenges you face as a producer, now
b. Refrigerated vehicle (−20°−12°) and in the future?
c. Vehicle with heating 2. What does FL mean to you? What does it mean for your primary
d. Temperature controlled vehicle (20°−30°) production activity?
e. Transshipment (PE: CEDIS) 3. Do you think that FL is an intrinsic part of agriculture, or can it be
f. None of the above avoided?
g. Other ______________ 4. Do you think that if the processing and manufacturing industry were
6. Do you pack your product in a particular way for transport? If so, not so demanding there would be less waste?
please specify. 5. Do you keep a record of your FL every year?
a. Yes. ____________ 6. Which are the main causes of FL in your production activity?
b. No 7. What is the government’s role in solving this problem?
7. If so, how regularly is the correct packaging of food monitored? 8. What would you be willing to do in order to reduce FL?
a. Always 9. Do you (or would you like to) collaborate with a food bank or other
b. Regularly institutions that might help reduce FL? What obstacles have you had
c. Not often that prevent you from donating food before it becomes FL?
d. Never
8. Which of the following do you consider to be the main causes that References
generate FL in your agricultural process? More than one answer may
be selected. Aguilar, G., 2017. Pérdida y Desperdicio de Alimentos en México. Caso de estudio para el
a. Problems with product sales (market failures) Banco Mundial, México, Cd.MX.
Alhojailan, M.I., 2012. Thematic analysis: a critical review of its process and eval-
b. Problems with sales because the product does not meet a quality uation. West East J. Social Sci. 1 (1), 39–47. https://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/sites/
standard default/files/ta_thematic_analysis_dr_mohammed_alhojailan.pdf(Accessed 11 Decem-
c. Inadequate handling during harvest and transportation ber 2019).
Altieri, M., 1995. Agroecology: The science of Sustainable Agriculture, 2nd ed. Westview
d. Inadequate storage (e.g. lack of cooling, pest control, etc.)
Press, Boulder, CO.
e. Overproduction (lack of planning and resources) Arroyo, E.H., 2006. Manual De Estadística. U. Cooperativa de Colombia.
f. Issues with intermediaries (interpersonal relationships) Balaji, M., Arshinder, K., 2016. Modeling the causes of food wastage in In-
dian perishable food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 114, 153–167.
g. Pests or weather conditions
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.016.
h. Others; please specify___________________ Baoua, I.B., Margam, V., Amadou, L., Murdock, L.L., 2012. Performance of triple bagging
9. What usually happens to the portion of your product that fails to hermetic technology for postharvest storage of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod.
sell? Res. 51, 81–85. doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2012.07.003.
Barría, C., 2019. Por Qué Se Ha Disparado El Precio Del Agua-
a. Donation cate y Hasta Cuándo Seguirá Subiendo. BBC News Mundo
b. Trash/Landfill https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-49209380(Accessed 11 December 2019).
14
Beausang, C., Hall, C., Toma, L., 2017. Food waste and losses in primary produc- 637. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-
tion: qualitative insights from horticulture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 177–185. 54722018000400619&lng=es&tlng=es(Accessed 31 October 2019).
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.042. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Mekonnen, M.M., Aldaya, M.M., 2011. The Water Foot-
Bräutigam, K.R., Jörissen, J., Priefer, J., 2014. The extent of food waste generation across print Assessment manual: Setting the Global Standard. Routledge.
EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results. Waste Man- FUSIONS, 2016. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels. Sweden, 2016.
age. Res. 32, 683–694. doi:10.1177/0734242X14545374. https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20-
Camelo, A.F.L., 2003. Manual para la preparación y venta de frutas y hortalizas: del of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf. (Accessed 11 December 2019).
campo al mercado. Food Agric. Organization 151. https://www.crt.org.mx/images/ WRI, 2016. Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard, 2016.
Documentos/Manual_Tecnico_Tequilero/ManualTecnicoTequilero%20-ImpresionAlta. https://www.flwprotocol.org/flw-standard/. (Accessed 11 December 2019).
pdf(Accessed 11 December 2019). SADER, 2019. Reglas De Operación del Programa de Producción para El Bienestar. México,
Carrillo, H., 2018. Productividad y Rentabilidad De La Caña De Azúcar. El Economista 2019. https://www.gob.mx/conadesuca/articulos/reglas-de-operacion-del-programa-
https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/mercados/Productividad-y-rentabilidad-de-la- produccion-para-el-bienestar-sader-ejercicio-fiscal-2020. (Accessed 11 December
cana-de-azucar-20180320-0094.html(Accessed 11 December 2019). 2019).
Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M.V., Torero, M., Vos, R., 2021. Reducing food loss and waste: five FAO, 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture. Moving Forward On Food Loss and Waste
challenges for policy and research. Food Policy 98, 10197. Reduction. Rome, 2019. https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf. (Accessed
Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions 11 December 2019).
for different fresh food categories. J. Clean Prod. 140, 766–783. INEGI, 1991. Atlas Ejidal del Estado de Jalisco. Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria Eji-
Consejo Regulador del Tequila, 2019. Manual Técnico del Tequilero. México D.F. Consejo dal 1988. INEGI http://internet.contenidos.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/
regulador del Tequila. prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/historicos/1329/702825112493/
Corrado, S., Caldeira, C., Eriksson, M., Hanssen, O.J., Hauser, H.E., van Hol- 702825112493_2.pdf(Accessed 11 December 2019).
steijn, H.E., Stenmarck, Å., 2019. Food waste accounting methodologies: chal- Janousek, A., Markey, S., Roseland, M., 2018. “We see a real opportunity
lenges, opportunities, and further advancements. Glob. Food Sec. 20, 93–100. around food waste”: exploring the relationship between on-farm food waste
doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.002. and farm characteristics. Agroecol. Sustainable Food Sys. 42 (8), 933–960.
Davis, K.F., Gephart, J.A., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., D’Odorico, P., 2016. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1468381.
Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environ. Joensuu, K., Hartikainen, H., Karppinen, H., Jaakkonen, A.K., Kuoppa-Aho, M., 2021.
Change 39, 125–132. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.004. Developing the collection of statistical food waste data on the primary production of
Diaz Grisales, V., Caicedo Vallejo, A.M., Carabalí Muñoz, A., 2017. Ciclo de vida fruit and vegetables. Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. 28 (19), 24618–24627.
y descripción morfológica de Heilipus lauri Boheman (Coleoptera: curculion- Kale, R.B., Rohilla, P.P., Meena, M.S., Wadkar, S.K., 2015. Information and communica-
idae) en Colombia. Acta zoológica Mexicana 33 (2), 231–242. http://www.scielo. tion technologies for agricultural knowledge management in India. J. Glob. Comm 8
org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0065-17372017000200231&script=sci_arttext(Accessed 11 (1), 16–22. doi:10.5958/0976-2442.2015.00002.6.
December 2019). Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012.
Everingham, Y., Sexton, J., Skocaj, D., Inman-Bamber, G., 2016. Accurate prediction of Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts
sugarcane yield using a random forest algorithm. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 36 (2), 27. on freshwater, cropland, and fertilizer use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489.
doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0364-z. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092.
Lomelí-Rodríguez, L.E., 2020. Estimación de la huella de carbono en el Sistema-Producto Lapidge, S., 2015. Primary Production Food Losses: Turning losses Into Profit. Government
aguacate (Persea americana, Hass) en Zapotlán el Grande, Jalisco y propuestas de of South Australia, Australia doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1799.9525.
medidas de mitigación. EPA, 2019. Sustainable Management of Food. United States government.
FAO. Crops statistics: Concepts, definitions, and Classifications; Rome, Italy, 2011. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy.
FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent Causes and Prevention; Rome, Italy, (Accesed 09 December 2019).
2011. INEGI, 2007. Censo agrícola, ganadero y forestal. https://en.www.inegi.org.mx/
Gobierno de México, 2018. Maíz grano cultivo representativo de México. ASERCA. programas/cagf/2007/. (Accessed 07 December 2019).
https://www.gob.mx/aserca/articulos/maiz-grano-cultivo-representativo-de- INEGI, 1970. V Censos Agrícola-Ganadero y Ejidal Jalisco.
mexico?idiom=es. (Accessed 11 December 2019). Larios, R, 2019. Jalisco, segundo productor nacional de aguacate.
Centro Mario Molina, 2016. Estrategia de Sustentabilidad de la Cadena de Agave-Tequila. https://www.unionjalisco.
https://centromariomolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Estrategia-de- mx/2019/04/18/jalisco-segundo-productor-nacional-de-aguacate. (Accessed 05
Sustentabilidad-2016-esp-1.pdf. (Accessed 11 December 2019). September 2021).
UN, 2010. The human right to water and sanitation. UN-water decade programme on Li, M., Liu, S., Sun, Y., Liu, Y., 2021. Agriculture and animal husbandry increased carbon
advocacy and communication and water supply and sanitation collaborative coun- footprint on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during past three decades. J. Clean. Prod. 278,
cil. https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/unwdpac.shtml. (Accessed 11 December 123963. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123963.
2019) Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R.,
Franke, U., Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E, 2016. Food losses and Searchinger, T., 2013. Reducing Food Loss and Waste. WRI UNEP
waste in primary production data collection in the nordic countries. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf(Accessed
http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A945862&dswid=9359. 11 December 2019).
(Accessed 19 December 2019). Lucantoni, D., 2020. Transition to agroecology for improved food security and better living
FAO, 2013. Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. FAO, Rome, Italy conditions: case study from a family farm in Pinar del Río, Cuba. Agroecol. Sustainable
https://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. Food Sys. 44 (9), 1124–1161. doi:10.1080/21683565.2020.1766635.
Foscaches, C.A.L., Sproesser, R.L., Quevedo-Silva, F., de, D., Lima-Filho, O., 2012. Logís- Macías, A., 2011. México en el mercado internacional de aguacate. Rev. Cienc. Soc. 17
tica de frutas, legumes e verduras (FLV): um estudo sobre embalagem, armazenamento (3), 517–532. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/280/28022767011.pdf(Accessed 11 De-
e transporte em pequenas cidades brasileiras. Informações Econômicas 42 (2). cember 2019).
Garcia-Garcia, G., Woolley, E., Rahimifard, S., Colwill, J., White, J., Needham, L., 2017. A Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint
methodology for sustainable management of food waste. Waste Biomass Valorization of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (5), 1577–1600.
8 (6), 2209–2227. doi:10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0. doi:10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011.
Gerling, C., Wätzold, F., Theesfeld, I., Drechsler, M., Nixdorf, B., Isselstein, J., Sturm, J.A., Muth, M.K., Birney, C., Cuéllar, A., Finn, S.M., Freeman, M., Galloway, J.N., Zoubek, S.,
2019. Modeling the co-evolution of natural, economic and governance subsystems in 2019. S. A systems approach to assessing environmental and economic effects of
integrated agri-ecological systems: Perspectives and challenges. Ecological Complex- food loss and waste interventions in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 685,
ity. 40, 100792. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2019.100792. 1240–1254. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.230.
Gillman, A., Campbell, D.C., Spang, E.S., 2019. Does on-farm food loss prevent waste? Nunez, H.M., Rodriguez, L.F., Khanna, M., 2011. Agave for tequila and biofuels: an
Insights from California produce growers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150, 104408. economic assessment and potential opportunities. Gcb Bioenergy 3 (1), 43–57.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104408. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01084.x.
Gliessman, S.R., 2014. Agroecology: The ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed. Oerke, E.C., 2006. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. (1) 31–43.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. doi:10.1017/S0021859605005708.
Gliessman, S.R., 2016. Agroecology and Food System Transformation. Agroecology and Ortiz-Ulloa, J.A., Abril-González, M.F., Pelaez-Samaniego, M.R., Zalamea-Piedra, T.S.,
Sustainable Food Systems 37, 1. doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.734264. 2021. Biomass yield and carbon abatement potential of banana crops
Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., Ritter, G., 2015. Cutting food waste (Musa spp.) in Ecuador. Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. 28 (15), 18741–18753.
through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability 7 (2), 1429–1445. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09755-4.
doi:10.3390/su7021429. Osorio, L.L.D.R., Flórez-López, E., Grande-Tovar, C.D., 2021. C. D. The potential of
Hajer, M.A., Westhoek, H., Ingram, J., Van Berkum, S., Özay, L., 2016. Food Systems and selected agri-food loss and waste to contribute to a circular economy: applica-
Natural Resources. United Nations Environmental Programme. tions in the food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. Molecules 26 (2), 515.
Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E., Franke, U., 2018. Food waste quantification in doi:10.3390/molecules26020515.
primary production–The Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Manage. (Oxford) Padilla, H., Jalisco, Gigante, 2017. Jalisco, Gigante Agroalimentario, Desarrollo
71, 502–511. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.026. Económico y Bienestar. Gobierno de Jalisco y Universidad de Guadalajara, México
Herrera-Pérez, L., Valtierra-Pacheco, E., Ocampo-Fletes, I., Tornero-Campante, M.A., https://sader.jalisco.gob.mx/jalisco-gigante-agroalimentario-edicion-2017(Accessed
Hernández-Plascencia, J.A., Rodríguez-Macías, R., 2018. Esquemas de con- 11 December 2019).
tratos agrícolas para la producción de Agave tequilana Weber en la Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., bin Ujang, Z., 2014. The
región de Tequila, Jalisco. Agricultura, sociedad y desarrollo 15 (4), 619– food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020.
15
Pradeep, P., Junho, J., Sanghoon, K., 2012. Carbon dioxide sensors for in- TIS, 2019. Cargo Loss Prevention Information from German Ma-
telligent food packaging applications. Food Control 25, p328–p333. rine Insurers. Transport Information Service. German Government
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.10.043. http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/ware/inhalt.htm.
Redlingshöfer, B., Coudurier, B., Georget, M., 2017. Quantifying food loss during Tomlins, K., Bennett, B., Stathers, T., Linton, J., Onumah, G., Coote, H., Be-
primary production and processing in France. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 703–714. choff, A., 2016. Reducing postharvest losses in the OIC member countries.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.173. COMCEC Agric. Working Group 1–194. https://sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/
Rein, P.W., 2010. The carbon footprint of sugar. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech- 2018/11/Reducing_Postharvest_Losses_in_the_OIC_Member_Countries.pdf(Accessed
nol. https://atamexico.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MANAGEMENT-10- 11 December 2019).
Rein.pdf(Accessed 11 December 2019). Vaarst, M., Escudero, A.G., Chappell, M.J., Brinkley, C., Nijbroek, R., Arraes, N.A.,
Robles-Berlanga, H., 2013. Los Pequeños Productores y La Política Pública. Sub- Halberg, N., 2018. Exploring the concept of agroecological food systems
sidios al campo en México, México https://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/ in a city-region context. Agroecol. Sustainable Food Syst. 42 (6), 686–711.
desarrollo_rural/docs/reforma_campo/2-III_c2.pdf(Accessed 11 December 2019). doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1365321.
Salvadores, Y., Silva, G., Tapia, M., Hepp, R., 2007. Polvos de Especias Aromáticas para el Valencia Sandoval, K., Zetina Espinosa, A.M., 2016a. Evaluación de un proyecto de in-
Control del Gorgojo del Maiz, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, en Trigo Almacenado. versión usando opciones reales para diferenciar el aguacate. Estudios sociales (Her-
Agricultura Técnica 67 (2), 147–154. doi:10.4067/S0365-28072007000200004. mosillo, Son.) 24 (47), 232–248.
Schneider, U.A., Havlík, P., Schmid, E., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., Valencia Sandoval, K., Zetina Espinosa, A.M., 2016b. Evaluación de un proyecto de in-
Fritz, S., 2011. Impacts of population growth, economic development, and techni- versión usando opciones reales para diferenciar el aguacate. Estudios sociales (Her-
cal change on global food production and consumption. Agric Syst 104 (2), 204–215. mosillo, Son.) 24 (47), 232–248.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.11.003. UNECE, 2021. FeedUP@UN. http://feedup.unece.org. Accessed on 05 September 2021.
SIAP, 2018. Atlas Agroalimentario. SIAP, Mexico, Cd. MX https://nube.siap. SADER, 2021. Lanza SADER Jalisco convocatorias de apoyos en el agro para el ejercicio
gob.mx/gobmx_publicaciones_siap/pag/2018/Atlas-Agroalimentario-2018. 2021. https://sader.jalisco.gob.mx/prensa/noticia/3342. Accessed on 15 September
Spada, A., Conte, A., Del Nobile, M.A., 2018. The influence of shelf life on food waste: a 2021.
model-based approach by empirical market evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3410–3414. Velasco, J., 2019. Prevén alza en precios del plátano por daños. El informador.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.071. https://www.informador.mx/economia/Preven-alza-en-precios-del-platano-por-
Svanes, E., Aronsson, A.K., 2013. Carbon footprint of a Cavendish banana supply chain. danos-20190920-0121.html. Accessed 11 December 2019.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (8), 1450–1464. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0602-4. Zhang, D., Shen, J., Zhang, F., 2017. Carbon footprint of grain production in China. Sci.
Tatlidil, F.F., Kiral, T., Gündogmus, E., Fidan, H., Aktürk, D., 2005. The effect of crop Rep. 7, 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04182-x.
losses during pre-harvest and harvest periods on production costs in tomato produc- WRAP, 2018. WRAP Restates UK Food Waste Figures to Support United Global Action.
tion in the Ayaş and Nallıhan districts of Ankara province. Turk. J. Agric. For. 29 UK, 2018.
(6), 499–509. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/119904(Accessed 11 Zimring, C.A., Rathje, W.L. Encyclopedia of Consumption and waste: the Social Science
December 2019). of garbage. (Vol. 1). Sage, 2012.
Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications
for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 106, 110–123.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016.
16

Food Loss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Loss

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

Food Loss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food loss in the agricultural sector of a developing country: Transitioning

Fig. 2. Phases of agricultural production.

Table 2 2.1. Sampling procedure and recruitment

Fig. 3. Methodological approach followed

Fig. 4. Rural Development Districts of the State of

Rural Development Agricultural product Number of participating farmers Total producers

Ameca Sugar cane 1 28

Table 4 3. Results and discussion

Product Producers Percentage of producers Percentage of Surveyed Tons Produced

Fig. 7. Jalisco’s main agricultural products and the

Sugar Cane 10.1% 754,363.9 210.0 158,416,421.5a 0.39 294,201.9h

Source reduction of FL Food rescue and recovery

Approach Description Approach Description

You might also like