20192019

THE STATE OF

FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE
MOVING FORWARD
ON FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE REDUCTION

This flagship publication is part of THE STATE OF THE WORLD series of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.

Required citation:
FAO. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO
in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
ISBN 978-92-5-131789-1© FAO 2019

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes,
provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses
any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, thenit must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it
must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of thistranslation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as at present in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables,
figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining
permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in
the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website(www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.
Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request.
Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

COVER PHOTOGRAPH ©FAO/Heba Khamis
EGYPT: A youth labourer is arranging the tomatoes to dry in the sun.

ISSN 0081-4539

2019

THE STATE OF

FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE
MOVING FORWARD ON FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, 2019

CONTENTS
FOREWORDv

METHODOLOGY

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSxi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYxii

CHAPTER 1
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUES

1

Key messages

1

Food loss and waste and theSustainable Development Goals

2

What is food loss and waste? A conceptual framework4

How much food loss and waste occurs?

7

Why is food lost or wasted?

13

Why do we need to reduce food loss and waste?

17

Scope and structure of the report

19

CHAPTER 2
MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

21

Key messages

21

Moving beyond the global estimate to a morecomprehensive analysis of food loss and waste
in food supply chains

22

Variation in food loss and waste along foodsupply chains – results of a meta-analysis

25

The identification of critical loss points

40

Challenges of data collection

42

Conclusions

43

67

Food loss and waste and its links to food security
and nutrition

68

Food loss and waste and the impact on foodsecurity and nutrition

72

Food loss and waste reduction and the importanceof location

80

Food loss and waste reduction and levels of food insecurity

84

The relative (cost-)effectiveness of food loss and waste
reduction in improving food security and nutrition

86

Conclusions

87

CHAPTER 5
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

89

Key messages

89

Food loss and waste reduction andenvironmental sustainability

90

Food loss and waste reduction and the environment –key questions and considerations

92

Quantifying the environmental impacts of food loss
and waste

93

From potential to actual impact on natural resource
use and GHG emissions – the role of prices

97

Food loss and waste reduction in the broader context ofsustainability – comparative effectiveness and trade-offs

102

Conclusions

108

111

Key messages

111

Enabling private actors to reduce food loss and waste

112

48

Public interventions for better food security andnutrition and environmental sustainability

115
116
117

47

Key messages

47

The business case for reducing food loss andwaste – opportunities, costs and barriers

67

Key messages

CHAPTER 6
POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLESCHAPTER 3
REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE –THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND
The private and societal benefits and costs fromreducing food loss and waste

CHAPTER 4
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONSFOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION50

The economic case for reducing food loss andwaste – from private to public interest

Public interventions in practice – linking policy
objective and entry point along the food supply chain

54

Winners and losers in food loss and waste reduction

57

Ensuring coherent policies for food loss andwaste reduction

Public-sector intervention on food loss andwaste reduction

60

Conclusions

63

Towards better data on food loss and waste – a road map 120| ii |

Conclusions

124

TECHNICAL ANNEX

125

STATISTICAL ANNEX

133

REFERENCES

145

TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXESTABLES
1 Prevalence of food insecurity(percentage of total population)
by FIES category and income
group, 2016
2 Examples of interventions
towards food loss and waste
reduction around the world

11 The potential interactions
between food loss and waste andthe dimensions of food security

85

118

FIGURES
1 Food loss and waste and theSustainable Development Goals

3

2 A conceptual framework forfood loss and waste (FLW)

7

3 Food loss from post-harvest to
distribution in 2016, percentages
globally and by region

8

4 Food loss from post-harvest to
distribution in 2016, percentages
by commodity groups9

5 Potential direct causes andindirect drivers of food loss
and waste16

6 Range of reported food loss
and waste percentages by supply
chain stage, 2000–2017
7 Range of reported food loss
and waste percentages at thewholesale and retail stage,
2001–20178 Range of reported food waste
percentages at the consumption
stage in Northern America andEurope, 2012–2017
9 Heat map of food loss studies
by region, 1990–2017
10 Potential private and broader
societal benefits and costs of foodloss and waste (FLW) reduction

26

38

12 Potential price and income
effects of food loss and waste
reductions at various points in thefood supply chain
13 Relative contributions of themain food groups to overall foodloss and waste and their carbon,
blue-water and land footprints

70

81

94

14 Relative contributions ofregions to overall food loss andwaste and their carbon, blue-waterand land footprints

95

15 Overview of the main resultsof FAO’s Food Wastage Footprint
study, 201396

16 Carbon impact of food loss
and waste reduction along thefood supply chain

101

17 Objectives of loss and waste
reduction measures and theirentry points along the foodsupply chain

117

A1 Wheat production andlosses in tonnes estimatedapplying constant losses of
15 percent factor

127

A2 Graphical representationof the model

131

BOXES
39

1 Definitions related tofood loss and waste

544

2 The Food Loss Index
methodology in a nutshell

1049

3 FAO’s earlier estimate offood loss and waste – how is it
different from the FLI?

12

| iii |

4 Measuring food loss inphysical, caloric or economic
value – does it matter?

14

5 Definitions of market failure,
externality, public good andmissing market

17

6 FAO’s meta-analysis of existingstudies into food loss and waste –methodology

23

7 How to interpret the graphs
in Figures 6, 7 and 824

8 Farmer-reported causes of
on-farm losses of staple crops

28

9 Indirect drivers of on-farmlosses of staple crops

30

10 Refrigerated warehousecapacities and needs aroundthe world

32

11 Reducing fruit and vegetable
losses during transportation

36

12 FAO’s Save Food casestudies on critical loss points
for crops, milk and fish

41

13 A financial cost–benefit
analysis of post-harvest loss
reduction for maize in the
United Republic of Tanzania

52

14 Promoting mud silos to reducemaize losses during storage –evidence from Northern Ghana

53

15 The business case for
reducing food loss and waste –a survey by Champions 12.3

54

16 The business case for
reducing food loss and waste –a study by ReFED

55

17 Quantifying the economic
gains of food loss and waste
reduction – the ReFED study

58

18 The “Love Food,
Hate Waste” campaign

61

TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXES

19 Providing information andtraining – the case of tomatoes
and milk in Rwanda

62

26 The most common
environmental footprint indicatorsfor food loss and waste

20 Public–private partnerships
for food loss and waste reductionin APEC countries

64

27 Environmental footprints offood production along the supply
chain – the case of maize

21 Food security – key definitions

69

22 The Malabo Declarationand the prevention of
post-harvest losses
23 The impacts of food loss
on micronutrient deficiencies
in children under five
24 Gender relations influence
food safety and food losses –the case of rural Ethiopia
25 The impacts of a reduction
in food losses at the primary
production and food processing
stages on food security
and nutrition

73

78

79

82

28 The impacts of a 25 percent
reduction in global food losses
on agricultural land use and
GHG emissions

91

98

103

29 Water use in the productionof mangoes in Australia –targeting resource use efficiency
versus actual water use

105

30 Financial and economic
assessment of clean-energy
technologies in the milk
supply chain

107

31 The environmental
performance of packaging
to reduce food loss and waste

108| iv |

32 Food waste reduction
campaigns – China, Turkey,
North Macedonia and Denmark

113

33 Reforming bread subsidies
in the Near East

114

34 Regional strategic
frameworks to tackle foodloss and waste effectively

120

35 Reducing food loss andwaste in the European Union

121

36 A road map for improved
data collection on food losses

122

FOREWORD

I am heartened to see that the world is paying
more attention to the issue of food loss and waste
and is calling for more decisive action to address
it. The growing awareness and increase in calls
for action are rooted in the strong negative
moral connotations associated with food loss
and waste. These are partly based on the factthat losing food implies unnecessar y pressure
on the environment and the natural resourcesthat have been used to produce it in the firstplace. It essentially means that land and water
resources have been wasted, pollution createdand greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted to no
purpose. I also frequently wonder how we canallow food to be thrown away when more than
820 million people in the world continue to go
hungr y ever y day.

possible – how much food is lost and wasted, as
well as where and why. Secondly, we need to beclear about our underlying reasons or objectives
for reducing food loss and waste – be they related
to food securit y or the environment. Thirdly, weneed to understand how food loss and waste,
as well as the measures to reduce it, affect theobjectives being pursued. This report sheds lighton these three dimensions in order to help design
more informed and better policies for food loss
and waste reduction.
Concerning the first dimension, the surprising
fact is how little we really know about how muchfood is lost or wasted, and where and why thishappens. A broad estimate, prepared for FAO in
2011, suggested that around a third of the world’s
food was lost or wasted every year. This estimate
is still widely cited due to a lack of informationin this field, but it can only be considered asvery rough. It is therefore in the process of being
replaced by two indices, thanks to efforts by FAO
and UN Environment to estimate more carefully
and more precisely how much food is lost in
production or in the supply chain before it reaches
the retail level (through the Food Loss Index) oris subsequently wasted by consumers or retailers(through the Food Waste Index). Initial estimates
made by FAO for the Food Loss Index, which I
am pleased to release through this report, tellus that globally around 14 percent of the world’s
food is lost from production before reaching theretail level. Estimates for the Food Waste Index
are under preparation by UN Environment andwill complement the Food Loss Index to provide a
better understanding of how much food is lost or
wasted in the world. These indices will allow us
to monitor progress towards SDG Target 12.3 overtime, starting from a more solid baseline.

International attention on the issue of food loss
and waste is firmly ref lected in the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. Specifically, Target
12.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), which embody this agenda, calls forthe halving by 2030 of per capita global foodwaste at the retail and consumer levels and the
reduction of food losses along production andsupply chains, including post-har vest losses.
Many countries are already taking action to
reduce food loss and waste, but the challenges
ahead remain significant and we need to stepup efforts. Furthermore, as this report arg ues,
efforts to meet SDG Target 12.3 could contributeto meeting other SDG targets, not least thatof achieving Zero Hunger, in line with the
integrated nature of the 2030 Agenda.
However, as we strive to make progress towards
reducing food loss and waste, we can only
be truly effective if our efforts are informed
by a solid understanding of the problem.
Three dimensions need to be considered.
Firstly, we need to know – as accurately as

However, to inter vene effectively we also need toknow where in the food supply chain losses and| v |FOREWORD
FOREWORD

for private actors to reduce food loss and wasteor remove the barriers that prevent them fromdoing so. The broad public objectives that thisreport considers are twofold: improving thefood securit y situation of v ulnerable groups
and reducing the environmental footprint
associated with food that is lost or wasted.

waste are concentrated and the reasons why theyoccur. Evidence presented in this report showsthat losses and waste tend to be higher for somespecific commodit y groups, although they canoccur at all stages of the food supply chain todifferent degrees. However, what really struck
me is the vast range in terms of percentages offood loss and waste for the same commodities
and the same stages in the supply chain bothwithin and across countries. This suggests that
there is considerable potential to reduce food loss
and waste where percentage losses are higher
than in other places. However, it also shows that
we cannot generalize about the occurrence offood loss and waste across food supply chains
but must, on the contrar y, identif y critical loss
points in specific supply chains as a crucial stepin taking appropriate countermeasures.

A key arg ument in this report is that the linkages
between food loss and waste, on the one hand,and food securit y and environmental impacts, on
the other, are complex and need to be thoroughly
understood. Positive outcomes from reducing
food loss and waste are far from g uaranteed, andthe impacts will differ according to where foodloss and waste is reduced. It is exactly for thisreason that policymakers need to be clear about
the objectives they choose to pursue. Focusing on
one objective will indeed have implications forwhere food loss and waste reductions can bemost effective.

Regarding the second dimension, although theSDGs include the reduction of food loss andwaste as a target in its own right, we need to
be clear about why we are pursuing it – or whatis the underlying objective. Individual actors,
from farmers and fishers right up to consumers,
may have a private interest in reducing
food loss or waste to increase their profits
or income, their personal well-being orthat of their families. However, this private
incentive is not always strong since reducing
food loss and waste may require investingmoney or time which, in the perception ofthese actors, could outweigh the benefits.
There may also be barriers that prevent private
actors from making these investments, e.g.
credit constraints or a lack of information
about options for reducing food loss and waste.
On the other hand, there may be a stronger
public interest in reducing food loss and waste
because it contributes to other public objectives.
This calls for public inter ventions in the formof investments or policies that create incentives

For instance, if the objective is to improve foodsecurit y, reducing on-farm losses – particularly
on small farms in low-income countries withhigh levels of food insecurit y – is likely tohave strong positive impacts. It may directly
improve food securit y in the affected farmhouseholds and may also have positive effects
in local areas, and even beyond, if more foodbecomes available. Reducing food loss andwaste further along the food supply chain
may improve food securit y for consumers, but
farmers may actually be negatively affected if
demand for their produce declines. On the other
hand, while reducing consumer food waste inhigh-income countries with low levels of foodinsecurit y may have some impact on v ulnerable
people locally through food collection andredistribution initiatives, the impact on thefood insecure in distant low-income countries islikely to be negligible.
| vi |

If the objectives for reducing food loss andwaste are essentially environmental, thesituation changes. In the case of GHGs, theseaccumulate throughout the supply chain.
Therefore, cutting waste by consumers will havethe biggest impact because food wasted at thisstage represents a larger amount of embedded
GHG emissions. In the case of land and water,
the environmental footprint is tied mainly to theprimar y production phase. Therefore, reducing
food loss and waste at any stage of the foodsupply chain can contribute to reducing
overall land and water use at the global level.
However, if you want to address local land andwater scarcit y, measures to reduce food loss arelikely to be more effective if they occur at thefarm level or at stages in the supply chain close
to the farm level.

I invite you to read this report carefully as it
examines the complex ways in which food loss
and waste – and the measures taken to address
it – affects food securit y and the environment.
The report does not claim to have all the answers,
particularly as it acknowledges the important
information gaps that stand in the way of acomprehensive analysis. Among other things, thereport attempts to highlight precisely where there
is a need for a more thorough understandingof the issues, both through more and betterdata and improved and expanded analysis. It is
my hope that it can make a contribution to thedebate on how to address the problem of foodloss and waste most effectively and in ways that
actually make a difference in terms of improved
food securit y and environmental sustainabilit y,following the spirit of the 2030 Agenda.

Qu Dongyu
FAO Director-General| vii |METHODOLOGY

The preparation of The State of Food and Agriculture 2019 began with an inception workshop, held at FAO
headquarters in Rome on 10 September 2018 and attended by members of a panel of external experts and
FAO specialists. Following the workshop, an advisor y group representing all relevant FAO technical units
and chaired by the Deput y-Director of FAO’s Agricultural Development Economics Division was formed
to assist in the drafting process. At a seminar held on 17 October 2018, the research and writing team andthe advisor y group discussed the report’s outline. The first three draft chapters were presented to theadvisor y group on 18 Januar y 2019. Based on comments received from the advisor y group, the teamrevised the draft. The first full draft was then presented to the advisor y group and panel of external
experts on 1 Februar y and discussed at a second workshop held on 14–15 Februar y. With inputs from thatworkshop, the report was revised and presented to the management team of FAO’s Economic and Social
Development Department. The revised draft was sent for comments to other FAO departments and to the
FAO regional offices for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and the Near East and North Africa, as well as to external reviewers. Comments wereincorporated in the final draft, which was reviewed by the Assistant Director-General of the Economic
and Social Development Department, and then submitted to the Office of the FAO Director-General on
9 July 2019. In drafting the report, the research and writing team drew on background papers prepared by
FAO and external experts.

| viii |ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The State of Food and Agriculture 2019 was prepared by a multidisciplinar y team from the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), under the direction of Marco V. Sánchez Cantillo,
Deput y Director of FAO’s Agricultural Development Economics Division, and Andrea Cattaneo, Senior
Economist and Editor of the publication. Overall g uidance was provided by Máximo Torero Cullen,
Assistant Director-General of the Economic and Social Development Department (ES). Guidance was also
provided by the ES management team.

STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019 RESEARCH AND WRITING TEAM
Alicia English, Carola Fabi, Giovanni Federighi, Theresa McMenomy, Ferg us Mulligan (consulting editor),
Ellen Pay (consulting editor), Jakob Skøt and Sara Vaz.

BACKGROUND PAPERS, DATA AND SECTIONS OF THE REPORTHao David Cui ( Wageningen Universit y), Luciana Delgado (IFPRI), Marijke Kuiper ( Wageningen
Universit y), Sarah Lowder (consultant), Eduardo Nakasone (IFPRI), Clementine O’Connor(UN Environment), Monica Schuster (IFPRI), Máximo Torero Cullen (FAO) and Rob Vos (IFPRI).

ADDITIONAL FAO INPUTS
Carlo Cafiero, Marinella Cirillo, Rimma Dankova, Stepanka Gallatova, Mohamed Manssouri, Rosa Rolleand Sara Viviani.

FAO ADVISORY GROUP
Rima Al Azar, Natalia Alekseeva, Myriam Annette, Lorenzo Bellú, Anthony Bennett, Carlo Cafiero,Jorge Fonseca, Carlos Furche, Stepanka Gallatova, Sara Granados, Günter Hemrich, Anna Lartey,
Carlos Mielitz-Netto, Cristian Morales Opazo, Joseph Mpagalile, Divine Njie, Zitouni Ould-Dada,
Omar Penarubia, Mar yam Rezaei, Rosa Rolle, José Rosero Moncayo, Ahmad Sadiddin, Ana Saez,
Alejandra Safa, Jozimo Santos Rocha, Sreekanta Sheel, Kostas Stamoulis, Mireille Totobesola,
Robert van Otterdijk, Ansen Ward, Emilie Wieben and Irene Margaret Xiarchos.

PANEL OF EXTERNAL EXPERTS
Gustavo Anríquez (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile), Marc Bellemare (University of Minnesota),
Harry de Gorter (Cornell University), Robert Delve (IFAD), Elise Golan (USDA ERS), Craig Hanson (WRI),
Marijke Kuiper (Wageningen University), Matti Kummu (Aalto University), David Laborde (CGIAR),
Fiona Jane Messent (World Bank), Eduardo Nakasone (IFPRI), Clementine O’Connor (UN Environment),
Kai Robertson (WRI), Geeta Sethi (World Bank), Rob Vos (IFPRI) and Bing Zhao (WFP).

| ix |

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

STATISTICAL ANNEX
The annex was prepared by Alicia English, Carola Fabi, Giovanni Federighi and Sara Vaz.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Edith Stephany Carrillo and Liliana Maldonado.

The Publishing Group (OCCP) in FAO’s Office for Corporate Communication provided editorial support,
design and layout, as well as production coordination, for editions in all six official lang uages.

| x |ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS

AGRIS

APEC

APHLIS

Agricultural Information
Management Standards
Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation
African Postharvest Losses
Information System

CO2carbon dioxide

EBRD

European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development

EU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture
Organization of theUnited Nations

HH

household

IFAD

International Fund for
Agricultural Development

IFPRI

International Food Policy
Research Institute

IMF

International Monetary Fundm3

cubic metreNGO

non-governmental organization

ReFED

Rethink Food Waste		SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SUA

Supply Utilization Accounts

UK

United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern IrelandUN

United Nations

UN Environment

United Nations
Environment Programme

FBS

Food Balance Sheet

FIES

Food Insecurity
Experience Scale

FLI

Food Loss Index

FLP

Food Loss Percentage

USD

United States dollar

FLWfood loss and waste

USDA ERS

FWIFood Waste Index

United States Departmentof Agriculture Economic
Research Service

GBP

pound sterling

WFP

World Food ProgrammeGDP

Gross Domestic Product

WRAP

GHG

greenhouse gas

Waste and Resources
Action ProgrammehahectareWRIWorld Resources Institute| xi |EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE
ISSUES TO FACILITATE ACTION

Responding to all these questions will require
access to proper information.

Reducing food loss and waste is widely seen as
an important way to reduce production costs
and increase the efficiency of the food system,
improve food securit y and nutrition, andcontribute towards environmental sustainabilit y.
Growing attention to food loss and waste is
ref lected in the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs). SDG Target 12.3 calls for halving per
capita global food waste at the retail and consumer
levels and reducing food loss along production
and supply chains (including post-harvest losses)
by 2030. Reducing food loss and waste also
has the potential to contribute to other SDGs,
including the Zero Hunger goal (SDG 2), whichcalls for an end to hunger, the achievementof food securit y and improved nutrition, andthe promotion of sustainable agriculture.
The expected positive environmental impacts
from reducing food loss and waste would
also affect, among others, SDG 6 (sustainable
water management), SDG 13 (climate change),
SDG 14 (marine resources), SDG 15 (terrestrial
ecosystems, forestr y, biodiversit y), and manyother SDGs.

When considering actions and policy options,the report arg ues that food loss and waste
reduction should be seen as a way to achieve
other objectives, notably improved efficiency
in the food system, improved food securit yand nutrition, and improved environmental
sustainabilit y. How policymakers prioritizethese different dimensions, and the information
available on how food loss and waste affects
them, will shape the most appropriate mix ofinter ventions and policies to reduce food loss
and waste.

KNOWING WHAT CONSTITUTES FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE AND HOW TO MEASURE IT
PRECEDES TAKING ACTION
The notion of food being lost or wasted is
deceptively simple, but in practice there is nocommonly agreed definition of food loss andwaste. The various definitions often ref lect
the different problems that stakeholders or
analysts focus on or associate with food loss
and waste. Consequently, analysis of foodloss and waste is hampered by this lack of acommon definition. FAO has worked towards
the harmonization of concepts related to foodloss and waste, and the definitions adopted
in this report are the result of a consensus
reached in consultation with experts in thisfield. This report understands food loss andwaste as the decrease in quantit y or qualit y offood along the food supply chain. Empirically it
considers food losses as occurring along thefood supply chain from har vest/slaughter/catchup to, but not including, the retail level.
Food waste, on the other hand, occurs at theretail and consumption level. This definition
also aligns with the distinction implicit in
SDG Target 12.3. This report also asserts that,
although there may be an economic loss, fooddiverted to other economic uses, such as animal
feed, is not considered as quantitative food

While the reduction of food loss and waste
appears as a clear and desirable objective, actual
implementation is not simple and its complete
elimination may not be realistic. This reportacknowledges the need to reduce food loss
and waste, presents new insights on what is
known and what is not, and provides g uidanceon how to target inter ventions and policies
depending on policymakers’ objectives and theinformation available. Deciding on concrete
actions, inter ventions or policies to reduce foodloss and waste requires answers to a number ofquestions: In which locations and stages of the
supply chain is food lost or wasted and to what
extent? Why does food loss and waste occur?
How can it be reduced? What are the costs
involved? And, ultimately, who benefits fromreducing food loss and waste, and who loses?
| xii |

loss or waste. Similarly, inedible parts are notconsidered as food loss or waste.

that measure food loss and waste in countries
all over the world. It illustrates how food loss
and waste varies across stages in the food supply
chain, as well as between regions and commodit ygroups. The meta-analysis finds a wide rangeof values for percentage losses at each stage inthe food supply chain. This highlights the needto measure losses carefully for specific value
chains to identif y concretely where significant
losses occur, so as to better understand where tointer vene. Generally levels of loss are higher for
fruits and vegetables than for cereals and pulses.
However, even for the latter, significant levels
are found in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern andSouth-Eastern Asia, while they are limited inCentral and Southern Asia. Studies on waste at
the consumer stage are confined to high-income
countries; they indicate that waste levels are highfor all t y pes of food, but particularly for highly
perishable foods such as animal products andfruits and vegetables.

Food loss and waste has t ypically been measured
in physical terms using tonnes as reporting units.
Although useful for estimating environmental
impacts, this measurement fails to account for
the economic value of different commodities
and can risk attributing a higher weight to
low-value products just because they are heavier.
When devising inter ventions and policies toreduce food loss and waste, it is important toaccount for the monetar y costs and benefits ofany reduction. The report acknowledges thisby adopting a measure that accounts for the
economic value of produce.
Agreeing on a consistent approach to monitor
SDG Target 12.3 is an important step inframing the debate on food loss and waste
and will provide g uidance on where tointer vene. Efforts are underway by FAO andthe United Nations Environment Programme(UN Environment) to measure progress towards
SDG Target 12.3 through two separate indices:
the Food Loss Index (FLI) and the Food Waste
Index (FWI). This report releases the firstestimates for the FLI, prepared by FAO, whichindicates that globally – in terms of economic
value – around 14 percent of food produced islost from post-har vest up to, but not including,
the retail level. For the F WI, covering retail andconsumption, significant work has been carriedout to prepare the methodological framework,
but the first estimates are yet to be released by
UN Environment.

Causes of food loss and waste differ widelyalong the food supply chain. Important causesof on-farm losses include inadequate har vestingtime, climatic conditions, practices appliedat har vest and handling, and challenges inmarketing produce. Significant losses are caused
by inadequate storage conditions as well as
decisions made at earlier stages of the supply
chain, which predispose products to a shorter
shelf life. Adequate cold storage, in particular,
can be crucial to prevent quantitative andqualitative food losses. During transportation,
good physical infrastructure and efficient tradelogistics are of key importance to prevent foodlosses. Processing and packaging can play a rolein preser ving foods, but losses can be caused
by inadequate facilities as well as technicalmalfunction or human error.

VARIATIONS IN LEVELS OF FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE THAT OCCUR ACROSSREGIONS, COMMODITIES AND SUPPLYCHAINS CAN PROVIDE PRELIMINARYGUIDANCE ON WHERE TO INTERVENE …

The causes of food waste at the retail level arelinked to limited shelf life, the need for foodproducts to meet aesthetic standards in terms ofcolour, shape and size, and variabilit y in demand.
Consumer waste is often caused by poor purchaseTo gain further insight into the location andextent of food loss and waste, FAO has also
conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies| xiii |EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and meal planning, excess buying (inf luencedby over-large portioning and package sizes),
confusion over labels (best before and use by)
and poor in-home storing.

EFFORTS TO MONITOR FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE AT A MORE DISAGGREGATEDSCALE ARE BEING RAMPED UP, BUT
INFORMATION IS STILL LIMITED… BUT THIS GUIDANCE, WHICH IS BASEDON AVERAGE LOSSES AND WASTE, MAY
NOT BE ENOUGH SINCE THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS WITHINREGIONS AND COMMODITY GROUPS

Efforts are ongoing to improve data on losses
and waste at a finer scale. These data will be
key, as inter ventions to reduce food loss andwaste require an understanding of where in thefood supply chain, for which products, and inwhich regions or countries food loss and waste
occurs. Data should also indicate how large
losses are and what their underlying causes
and drivers are. Starting in 2015, FAO’s Global
Initiative on Food Loss and Waste (Save Food)has carried out a number of case studies to
identif y critical loss points in the food supply
chain where food losses have the highest
magnitude, the greatest impact on food securit y,and the largest economic dimensions. This work
covers different commodities in the countriesof Africa, Asia and Latin America. Its results
indicate that har vesting is the most frequently
identified critical loss point for all t y pes of food,
while inadequate storage facilities and poor
handling practices were identified as the maincauses of on-farm storage losses. For fruits, roots
and tubers, packaging and transportation also
appeared critical. These results on critical loss
points and underlying causes are valuable inproviding g uidance when identif ying potential
inter ventions for food loss reduction.

The meta-analysis finds a wide range of values
for percentage losses even within the same
region or commodit y group, or at the same
point on the supply chain. For example, in
sub-Saharan Africa the obser vations on fruits
and vegetables report on-farm losses ranging
from 0 to 50 percent, a ver y broad range.
An inter vention to reduce these losses needs
to target the upper end of this range to havemaximum impact. Another example concerns
losses of cereals and pulses in the processing
and packaging phase in sub-Saharan Africa,
which would appear to be low on average (themedian loss is less than 5 percent), but where
one quarter of the obser vations report between
10 and 20 percent losses. Looking only at
average losses may not give an accurate picture
regarding whether an inter vention for a specificcommodit y would make sense, nor would it
indicate where a potential inter vention shouldtake place.

EVEN WITH LIMITED INFORMATION,GETTING THE INCENTIVES RIGHT AND
OVERCOMING CONSTRAINTS WILL
FACILITATE ACTIONS TO REDUCE FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE

The variabilit y of obser vations highlights theneed to measure losses carefully for specificvalue chains to identif y concretely where
significant losses occur. Nonetheless, sur veys
into the extent, location and causes of food loss
and waste are complex and costly. As a result,only 39 countries have officially reported data on
an annual basis between 1990 and 2017 to FAO.

This report aims to provide g uidance on policy
and inter ventions to reduce food loss and waste
even in the face of the limited information
available. This is based on an incrementalarg ument starting from the business case for
reducing food loss and waste, where incentives
and adequate information can encourage the| xiv |

private sector to reduce food loss and waste
in their own interest. This may also bring
benefits to societ y, and providing informationin these situations is particularly important.
The incremental approach then continues bymaking the economic case for food loss andwaste reduction, looking beyond the businesscase, and is based on the broader benefits that
can accrue to societ y from reducing food loss andwaste. These may result in improved incomesfor other actors in societ y. Other benefits,
which will not be financial in nature but are
no less important, constitute the final step in
the incremental justification for reducing foodloss and waste. Among these other benefits, thereport focuses on: (i) improved food securit y andnutrition; and (ii) environmental sustainabilit y.
Thinking through each justification for reducing
food loss and waste can provide some indicationof how and where to inter vene.

managing waste will also affect the incentives foractors to reduce food loss and waste. For
example, if food prices are kept artificially low
by subsidies, or waste management costs forindividuals are not linked to the amount of waste
generated, then the incentive to reduce food loss
and waste will diminish.
However, a number of factors may prevent
actors from taking fully rational decisions on thelevels of food loss and waste acceptable to them.
In particular, food operators and consumers
may have inadequate information on how muchfood they lose or waste, on the options available
for reducing loss and waste, or on the benefitsof doing so. Even the limited data available
can be useful in informing people’s decisions
on food loss and waste. Stakeholders may also
face constraints that prevent or deter themfrom implementing actions to reduce food loss
and waste. For example, without financial help
private actors in developing countries (especiallysmallholders) may not be able to bear the highupfront cost associated with implementing suchactions. Thus, lack of access to credit can becomea barrier to taking measures towards food loss
and waste reduction. Improving credit accesscould be an option for reducing food loss andwaste even in the absence of detailed information
on where losses occur.

The business case for reducing food loss andwaste rests on the private gains that can berealized by stakeholders who reduce levels offood loss and waste. The assumption is that
actors in the food supply chain make rational
decisions that maximize their profits (in the caseof producers or suppliers) or their well-being (inthe case of consumers). Reducing food loss andwaste generally entails costs, and suppliers andconsumers will only undertake the necessar yefforts if these are outweighed by the benefits.
In the case of producers, the beneficial impact of
reducing food losses by investing in technolog yor improved practices may be too small in
relation to the investment cost. For consumers,
the value of their time may be too high tojustif y efforts to plan food purchases and meal
preparation better and to manage food stocks.

THERE IS A RATIONALE FOR
PUBLIC-SECTOR INTERVENTION TO
REDUCE FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
The broader case for reducing food loss and waste
looks beyond the business case to include gains
that societ y can reap but which individual actors
may not take into account. There are three maint y pes of societal gains which justif y inter ventions
to reduce food loss and waste beyond the purebusiness case, namely: (i) increased productivit yand economic growth, referred to in thisreport as the economic case; (ii) improved foodsecurit y and nutrition; and (iii) mitigation ofenvironmental impacts of losing and wasting

The business case revolves around privatemonetar y benefits and costs. Thus, incentivizing
the business case will involve identif ying options
that either increase the net benefits or provide
better information on the existing net benefits.
Any policies that affect food prices or the costs of| xv |EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

food, in particular in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as
lowering pressure on land and water resources.
The last two societal gains, in particular, aret y pically seen as externalities of reducing foodloss and waste. Each of the three societal gains
being pursued has specific characteristics thatcan provide insights on the most appropriate t y peof inter ventions.

various t y pes of actions or policies. They can
improve public ser vices and infrastructure,provide financial incentives through taxes andsubsidies or introduce reg ulations.
When taking action to reduce food loss andwaste, the t y pe of externalit y – food securit y andnutrition as opposed to environmental impacts –will determine which t y pe of inter vention is mostappropriate along a value chain and in which
geographical location.

The first t ype of gains can be measured inmonetar y terms – that is to say, these gains are
economic in nature. However, the impact ofefforts to reduce food loss and waste depends
on how their effect on prices is transmitted
throughout the food supply chain; some actors
may benefit, others may lose out. Hence, aninter vention to reduce food loss and waste shouldtake account of the distributional consequences.

THE IMPACT OF REDUCTIONS IN FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE ON FOOD SECURITY
AND NUTRITION DEPENDS ON WHERE
THESE OCCUR ALONG THE SUPPLYCHAIN …
Food loss and waste has potential effects onfood securit y and nutrition through changes
in the four dimensions of food securit y: foodavailabilit y, access, utilization and stabilit y.
However, the links between food loss andwaste reduction and food securit y are complex,
and positive outcomes are not always certain.
Reaching acceptable levels of food securit y andnutrition inevitably implies certain levels of foodloss and waste. Maintaining buffers to ensure
food stabilit y requires a certain amount of foodto be lost or wasted. At the same time, ensuring
food safet y involves discarding unsafe food,
which then gets counted as lost or wasted, while
higher-qualit y diets tend to include more highly
perishable foods.

The rationale for government inter vention aimed
at inf luencing decisions by individual suppliersand consumers rests on two pillars. First, theincentive for individual actors to reduce foodloss or waste – the business case – may be
weak and/or these actors may face constraints
in implementing them. Therefore, the businesscase for food loss and waste reduction alone
may not lead to a significant reduction in losses
and waste. Second, the decisions of individual
suppliers and consumers concerning levels offood loss and waste are unlikely to take accountof the negative implications for societ y of foodloss and waste. These negative externalities,
particularly the environmental impacts,
are potentially large and provide a strong
justification for public inter vention.

Location and point in the food supply chain
matter for the food securit y and nutrition impactof reducing food loss and waste. How the impacts
on the different dimensions of food securit yplay out and affect the food securit y of different
population groups depends on where in the foodsupply chain the reduction in losses or waste
takes place as well as on where nutritionallyv ulnerable and food-insecure people are locatedgeographically. Importantly, not ever ybody
stands to gain.

Governments can inter vene in different ways.
If individual suppliers or consumers are unawareof the magnitude and consequences of theirlosses, governments can raise awareness of thebenefits of reducing food loss and waste andconvince them of the business case for doing so.
Governments can also inf luence the businesscase for food loss and waste reduction through| xvi |

Reducing on-farm losses – particularly forsmall-scale farmers in low-income countries– can allow farmers to improve their diets
due to increased food availabilit y and gain
higher incomes if selling part of their produce.
It can also lead to increased supply and lower
prices further along the food supply chain andeventually for consumers. On the other hand, if
a processor reduces losses, while this will also
lead to increased supply and lower prices further
down the food supply chain and eventuallyfor consumers, it may result in farmers seeing
reduced demand for their produce and thus
lower income and worsening food securit y.
Reducing consumers’ food waste may improvetheir food availabilit y and access, in addition
to that of possible direct beneficiaries of foodredistribution schemes, but farmers and othersupply chain actors may be worse off as they
are selling less and/or at lower prices. Also ininternational food supply chains, reducing foodwaste by consumers and retailers in high-income
countries may negatively affect poor farmers
in lower-income countries if they are theprimar y suppliers.

The increased availabilit y of food locally in thesesettings does not mean that these surpluses
are available for poor and food-insecure people
in a distant countr y with high levels offood insecurit y.
The prevalence of food insecurit y can be relevant
for determining food loss and waste reduction
strategies for a given countr y’s food insecurit ychallenges. In lower-income countries, where
food insecurit y is often severe, increasing
access to food is critical; and access itself islikely to be closely associated with availabilit y.
Preventing food losses at the local level insmallholder production can both alleviate foodshortages and increase farmers’ incomes, thus
improving access. If reductions in losses arelarge enough to affect prices beyond the local
area, the urban food insecure could also benefit.
At the other extreme, in high-income countries,
the problem of access is relevant for a muchsmaller share of the population; for many, thepriorit y is nutrition and qualit y of diet. A broad
campaign to reduce food waste is unlikely tobenefit the small proportion of people facing
food insecurit y in high-income countries.
For these countries, more targeted inter ventions,such as food redistribution, can contribute toaccess to food; however, eliminating remaining
levels of food insecurit y will also have to rely on
a broader set of social policies.

… AS WELL AS WHERE THEY OCCURGEOGRAPHICALLY, WHICH IS CRUCIAL IN
DESIGNING INTERVENTIONS TO BENEFITTHE FOOD INSECURE
The impact of a reduction in food loss andwaste will go beyond the immediate location of
the reduction as the effects ripple through the
supply chain – leading to lower prices – and more
broadly through the economy. However, the exact
impact will depend on how closely markets areintegrated and how effectively price changes
are transmitted. A key factor here is distanceor proximit y to the location of the reduction.
Reducing on-farm losses on small farms inlower-income countries may have a strong
local food securit y impact. On the other hand,
reducing food waste among consumers inhigh-income countries is unlikely to have thepositive food securit y effects generally expected.

REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
LESSENS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
FOOD PRODUCTION FOR A GIVEN LEVELOF FOOD CONSUMPTION
From an environmental perspective, foodproduction is resource-intensive and has
significant environmental impacts. If food islost or wasted, this entails poor use of resources
and negative environmental impacts. It is
forecast that a growing population and risingincomes will lead to an increase in demand for
agricultural products by 35 –50 percent between
2012 and 2050, exerting even more pressure on| xvii |EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

the world’s natural resources. This emphasizes
the urgency of reducing food loss and waste.
Independently of the environmental objective,
reducing food loss and waste will always
improve resource use efficiency because
more food reaches the consumer for a given
level of resources used (or, conversely, fewer
resources may be used to ensure a given levelof food reaches the consumer). Such reductions
always lower GHG emissions per unit of foodconsumed. In the context of a growing, wealthier
population, using resources more efficiently
and reducing GHGs emitted per unit of foodconsumed will be paramount in meeting growing
demand sustainably.

in the food supply chain the loss or waste isincurred; which commodities are involved; which
environmental footprints are affected; and what
the costs are of inter vening to reduce the loss
or waste.
The first consideration for an environmentallyoriented policymaker is choosing which
environmental objective to target anddefining the commodities on which to focus.
Empirical evidence at the global level on theenvironmental footprints for major commodit ygroups suggests that, if the aim is to reduce
land use, the primar y focus should be onmeat and animal products, which account for
60 percent of the land footprint associatedwith food loss and waste. If the aim is to target
water scarcit y, cereals and pulses make thelargest contribution (more than 70 percent),
followed by fruits and vegetables. In terms of
GHG emissions associated with food loss andwaste, the biggest contribution is again from
cereals and pulses (more than 60 percent),
followed by roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops.
However, the environmental footprint fordifferent commodities also varies across regions
and countries, due, inter alia, to differencesin crop yields and production techniques (e.g.
rainfed versus irrigated production or grazing forlivestock versus use of animal feed).

However, improved efficiency does notnecessarily reduce the total resources used or
GHGs emitted. The overall environmental impact
will be the result of price changes associatedwith the reduction of food loss and waste, which
will determine – indirectly – its effect on natural
resource use and GHG emissions. For example,
if the additional supply arising from fewer
losses has the effect of decreasing prices for a
product, then consumers may demand more of
the product. This will tend to counterbalance thepositive environmental effect of the improved
efficiency of the food system associated with the
reduction in food loss.

CLARITY IN THE ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES BEING PURSUED WILL BE KEY
WHEN DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTINGINTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REDUCING FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE IN GENERATINGDESIRABLE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
DEPENDS ON HOW IT AFFECTS PRICESACROSS COMMODITIES AND LOCATIONS,AND ALONG SUPPLY CHAINS

Three major t ypes of environmental footprints
of food loss and waste are generally quantifiable:
GHG emissions (carbon footprint), pressureson land (land footprint) and pressures on water
resources (water footprint). These can in turn
also affect biodiversit y. Using food loss andwaste reduction as a means of reaching theenvironmental objectives enshrined in the
SDGs will require an understanding of where

An inter vention to reduce food loss or waste,
if sufficiently large, will affect prices upstream
and downstream in the supply chain relative
to where the inter vention occurred. The
transmission of prices, combined with thelocation of the actual environmental damage
happening along the food supply chain, will
determine the environmental outcome of a
| xviii |FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTIONS HAVETO BE PLACED IN THE BROADER CONTEXTOF SUSTAINABILITY, EVALUATINGSYNERGIES AND TRADE-OFFS

potential inter vention to reduce food loss andwaste. For instance, the environmental impact
may occur mostly in primar y production, as is
the case for land use and water. Alternatively,
it may grow throughout the supply chain, as is
the case for GHG emissions. In the first case,an inter vention any where in the supply chain
will lead to an environmental improvement aslower prices are transmitted to producers withan incentive to reduce their production andconsequently their use of natural resources.
On the other hand, if the objective is to reducethe carbon footprint, inter ventions at theconsumption stage will have the greatest return
per unit of avoided food loss and waste.

Another important question is whether
inter ventions to reduce food loss andwaste are the most effective way to reachenvironmental and natural resource objectives.
Although improvements resulting from food loss
and waste reduction are not trivial, empiricalstudies show that other t y pes of inter ventions
result in larger reductions in some environmental
impacts, e.g. improved agricultural production
methods and dietar y changes. However, thesame evidence shows that the strongest impact
is obtained by combining different inter ventions,
including food loss and waste reduction.
In addition, possible trade-offs with otherenvironmental objectives need to be considered.
For example, food loss and waste can be reduced
by increasing the use of cold storage andpackaging; but expanded cold storage maylead to higher energ y use and increased use of
packaging could generate more plastic waste.
In such cases, enhancing energ y efficiency incold storage chains could play a role in reducing
emissions. In terms of packaging, it is important
to look at the entire packaging–product system
in life cycle analyses to assess properly the total
environmental burden of measures adopted.

The transmission of price changes is likely to bestronger between suppliers who have a direct
link, as opposed to indirect links through othermarket agents. If this is the case, an inter vention
at the specific point or close to the point of theenvironmental impact is most likely to have apositive environmental effect. This will ensurethat lower prices are transmitted effectively tothe actors generating the negative impact andinduce them to make adjustments in production
and use of associated natural resources. If
inter ventions occur downstream, price effects
are likely to be diluted and smaller by the timethey reach actors generating the environmental
impact, so the impact on critical areas will be
marginal. For example, reducing consumer
waste may lead to a small change in water use inmany geographically dispersed locations but notnecessarily where it is most needed. For GHG
emissions the situation is different since thecarbon footprint is global in nature and thegeographic location of reduced GHG emissions
is irrelevant.

PUTTING ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER –SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES FORPOLICYMAKERS
This report is based on an incremental approachthat builds on the business case for private
investments and efforts to reduce food loss andwaste through private incentives. It expands
the rationale beyond the business case, to
one for public inter ventions to reduce someof the barriers that prevent producers andconsumers from reducing food loss and waste,e.g. generating and/or sharing information on
how to reduce food loss and waste. Beyond that,As a rule of thumb, inter ventions targeted at
critical loss points that come immediately after
most of the environmental damage associatedwith a given supply chain have the greatest
impact in terms of environmental sustainabilit y.

| xix |EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

public inter ventions should focus on providing
public goods or reducing negative externalities.
Two fundamental objectives underlie public
policies for reducing food loss and waste:
improved food securit y and nutrition; andenvironmental sustainabilit y. At the same time,it should be recognized that broader policies topromote overall rural development may allow
producers along the supply chain to makeinvestments that will also reduce food losses.

insecurit y will likely place the emphasis onenvironmental objectives, in particular reducing
GHG emissions. This will call for inter ventions
later in the supply chain, in particular retail andconsumption, where levels of loss or waste are
expected to be the highest.

THE ROAD AHEAD – IMPROVING POLICYCOHERENCE, ENHANCING DATACOLLECTION AND MEASURINGCAPABILITY, AND MONITORING AND
EVALUATING PROGRESS

Having worked through the different rationales
that can justif y both private and public
inter ventions to reduce food loss and waste, it
is possible to provide some g uiding principles
for inter ventions. Clarit y about the objective(s)being pursued is essential for identif ying themost appropriate policies and entr y points for
reducing food loss and waste. If the focus is on
economic efficiency, an attractive option is toenable the business case for food loss and waste
reduction, wherever it may present itself along
the supply chain or geographically. A focus onfood securit y will tend to favour inter ventions
early in the food supply chain, where positive
food securit y impacts will be felt throughout therest of the supply chain. To reach environmental
objectives, food loss and waste reductions needto take place downstream in the supply chain
relative to where the environmental impact
occurs. Finally, location matters when pursuingfood securit y and nutrition or environmental
objectives, the only exception being a fall in
GHG emissions, which has the same impact on
climate change wherever it occurs.

There may be trade-offs between objectives,and choices may have to be made about which
objectives to prioritize. A critical issue is that ofpolicy coherence, which requires that all options
are weighed together for their impact so thatsolutions which promote one objective do not
unintentionally harm another. Some policies, forexample those for improving food securit y andnutrition, may actually lead to increased levels offood loss and waste because they involve accessto safe and nutritious diets with foods that areoften highly perishable. However, this should
not be seen as a problem; the basic questionis rather whether food loss and waste occurs
because of an inefficient and distorted foodsystem, and if it is possible to take measuresthat reduce food loss and waste withoutcompromising food securit y and nutrition.
Policy coherence is important also because theamount of food loss and waste that can feasibly
be reduced will depend on the costs and benefits
relative to the status quo. Public policies affecting
food prices can change incentives for consumers
and producers to avoid loss and waste of food.
If not well designed, agricultural policies or
those with food securit y and nutrition objectives,
e.g. food subsidies, may have unintended
consequences by creating a disincentive to avoid
food loss and waste. Therefore, reducing foodloss and waste can also be furthered through thereform of policies that unintentionally lead togreater food loss and waste.

Different countries will have different objectives
to g uide their choices. Low-income countries
will likely focus on improving food securit yand nutrition, in addition to the sustainable
management of land and water resources.
This calls for a focus on reducing food loss
and waste early in the supply chain, including
at farm level, where impacts will be thestrongest and losses tend to be the largest.
High-income countries with low levels of food| xx |

However, first and foremost, it is important toassess whether, and to what extent, an initiative
achieves its objective. This requires solidmeasurement of the magnitude of the problem
and effective monitoring and evaluation ofinter ventions. Today the scarcit y of solid dataon how much food loss and waste occurs, andwhere, is an obstacle to effective policymaking.
The lack of data is particularly acute forfood waste at the consumer level becauseof both methodological challenges and themeasurement costs involved. Availabilit y of dataon losses varies considerably across countries
and commodities, and along the food supply
chain. However, efforts towards improved

data collection are under way, not least in theframework of monitoring progress towards
SDG Target 12.3 through the Food Loss andFood Waste indices being developed by FAO
and UN Environment. A key component of thisis the development of standards and concepts,
as well as g uidelines and capacit y building.
The expectation is that this will allow countries
themselves to improve data collection andeffective measurement of food loss and waste.
Improving statistical knowledge about food loss
and waste is a priorit y area for FAO, and should
be for the international communit y, as well as all
countries interested in monitoring their progress
towards reaching the SDGs.

| xxi |

SIERRA LEONEA farmer checking the riceseeds stored at Tauropanneh
Agri-business Centre.
©Sebastian Liste/
NOOR for FAO

Key messages

1

Reducing food loss and waste is an
important target of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), as well as ameans to achieve other SDG targets, inparticular relating to food security, nutritionand environmental sustainability.

2

Globally, around 14 percent of foodproduced is lost from the post-harvest
stage up to, but excluding, the retailstage. Accurate estimates of waste byretailers and consumers are being
prepared.

3

It is essential to address the causes offood loss and waste. This will require
information on where food loss and waste
occurs in the food supply chain and thedeterminants behind it.

4

CHAPTER 1
FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE – FRAMING
THE ISSUESReducing food loss and waste cangenerate economic benefits, but it will
also have a cost. As low-cost options for
reductions are exhausted, the cost will
increase, thus some level of food loss andwaste is inevitable.

5

To reduce food loss and waste anddeliver major societal benefits will
require a careful analysis of the exact
linkages between food loss and waste
and food security, nutrition andenvironmental sustainability.

CHAPTER 1

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE –FRAMING THE ISSUESFOOD LOSS AND WASTE
AND THE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Due to expected impacts on household
and business costs, as well as on foodsecurit y, nutrition, natural resources andthe environment, reducing food loss andwaste could have wider implications for other
SDGs related to the food system, such as
SDG 2, which deals with ending hunger andachieving food securit y and improved nutrition.
Possible environmental effects fall under SDG 6(sustainable water management), SDG 11(sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13(climate change), SDG 14 (marine resources)
and SDG 15 (terrestrial ecosystems, forests, landand biodiversit y). There could also conceivably
be knock-on effects on other SDGs: SDG 1(ending povert y), SDG 8 (sustainable economic
growth and decent employment) and SDG 10(reducing inequalities).

Losing or wasting food is generally viewed
as undesirable and something to be avoided.
There are probably few issues in the international
policy debate around which there is a stronger
consensus. a
Reducing food loss and waste is seen as away to lower production costs, improve foodsecurit y and nutrition, and contribute towards
environmental sustainabilit y, notably byeasing the pressure on natural resources anddecreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In the context of the challenge of sustainably
feeding a world population projected to reachalmost 10 billion in 2050, minimizing food loss
and waste and making the most of resources
underpinning the food system are consideredparticularly important.1

At the same time, progress on other SDGs
could have beneficial impacts in terms of
reducing food loss and waste. These SDGs
include: SDG 5 (gender equalit y), SDG 7(affordable and clean energ y), SDG 9(infrastructure, industr y and innovation)and SDG 17 (partnerships). However, theimportance of these linkages is likely to var y
greatly within and between countries anddepends on the implementation of food loss
and waste reductions. Without considering
their likely magnitude and significance, Figure 1
summarizes the potential linkages between
reducing food loss and waste and various
SDGs. The rounded boxes refer to the expected
impacts on food securit y, nutrition, natural
resources and the environment.

Food loss and waste has become a major global
issue and is enshrined in SDG 12 (responsible
consumption and production), which even setsa specific target related to the reduction of foodloss and waste:
SDG Target 12.3 calls for halving per capita
global food waste at retail and consumer levels andreducing food loss along production and supply
chains, including post-harvest loss, by 2030.

Decreasing food loss and waste seems a
simple and reasonable objective. Clearly, it isobjectionable to let food deteriorate because ofnegligence or poor handling or to throw awayfood that could be consumed by humans.

a There are negative moral and ethical connotations associated withfood loss and waste, implicit in particular in the word “waste”, which isperceived as something deliberate or easily avoidable, while in somesense “loss” can be considered a misfortune – something that happens
but is not deliberate.

| 2 |THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 1

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
SDG 17.14
enhance policy
coherence forsustainable
development
SDG 17.18
enhance availabilityof reliable data

SDG 1.1 eradicate
extreme poverty
SDG 1.2 reduceby half the
proportion of thosein poverty

SDG 2.1 ensure access to foodSDG 2.2 end malnutrition
SDG 2.3 double productivity and incomesof small-scale farmers
SDG 2.4 sustainable food production

SDG 15.1 conserve,
restore and sustainably use
terrestrial ecosystems
SDG 15.2 halt deforestation

SDG 5.1 end discrimination
SDG 5.5 full and effective participation

SDG 6.3 improve water quality
SDG 6.4 increase water use efficacy
SDG 6.6 protect water-related ecosystems

SDG 14.2 manage and protect
marine and coastal ecosystems
SDG 14.4 regulate harvestingand end overfishing

SDG 13.1 strengthen resilienceand adaptive capacity
SDG 13.2 integrate climatechange into policies

SDG 12.3

SDG 7.1 universal access to modern energy services
SDG 7.3 improve renewable energy efficiency

SDG 11.6 improve air
quality and waste management
SDG 8.3 promote
job creation
SDG 10.1
sustainable income
growth

SDG 9.1
infrastructuredevelopment
SDG 9.3 increasefinancial access forsmall-scale businesses

NOTE: The rounded boxes refer to the expected impacts on food security, nutrition, natural resources and the environment.
SOURCE: FAO

Therefore, it should be avoided. However, whenturning to implementation and deciding on
concrete actions, inter ventions or policies toavoid food loss and waste, the matter becomes

more complicated. Indeed, any policy adopted
must take account of the fact that in many cases
reducing food loss and waste has a cost andmay involve trade-offs with other objectives.
| 3 |CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUES How is food loss disting uished from foodwaste, if at all?c

When deciding what action to take to address
food loss and waste, a number of questions arise,
including:

Most definitions focus on the quantitative loss
and waste along the food supply chain, but others
also consider loss in quality (nutritional, cosmetic,
food safety). d Conceptually it is easier to define
and measure the quantitative dimension thanqualitative loss and waste, even though there
are important measurement issues also for theformer. For example, should the measure taken
be in terms of volume, caloric or other nutritional
content, or economic value? Some definitions evenconsider overconsumption, beyond actual dietaryrequirements, as a form of food loss and waste.

 Why is food lost or wasted?
 How much food is lost or wasted?
 Why is it important to reduce food loss
and waste?
 How can food loss and waste be reduced?
 Can all food loss and waste be avoided?
 Who benefits (or loses) from food loss andwaste reduction?
 How can food loss and waste reduction
contribute to achieving food securit y andnutrition or environmental sustainabilit y?

For the purposes of this report, food loss andwaste is understood as the decrease in quantity
or quality of food along the food supply
chain. The report adopts a generally applicableconceptual framework to define food loss andwaste (see Figure 2) that aims to help improve datacollection, data comparability and evidence-based
regulatory and policy decisions for food loss andwaste prevention and reduction. (For a set ofdefinitions of terms used in this report, see Box 1.)

These are some of the questions this reportattempts to answer. More broadly, the corequestions are: When is food loss and waste
a problem? And why should it be reduced?
The report argues that food loss and waste
reduction should be seen as a way to achieve otherobjectives – most notably, improvements in theefficiency of the food system, food security andnutrition, and environmental sustainability. n

WHAT IS FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE? A CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKThe distinction between food loss and foodwaste is not only conceptually relevant,but also useful from a policy point of view.
Conceptually speaking, food loss – the resultof decisions and actions by suppliers − affects
the supply of food: if food losses are reduced,
the supply of food into the food supply chain
increases. 7 Strictly speaking, food loss therefore
concerns all stages of the food supply chain
up to, but excluding, the point where there
is interaction with the final consumer andthus excludes retail, food ser vice providers eand consumers. Food waste is the result ofpurchasing decisions by consumers, or decisions
by retailers and food ser vice providers that affectconsumer behaviour. From a policy point of view,

What exactly is food loss and waste? How do
we define it? No common definition of food loss
and waste exists, although there are several
definitions in the literature. b These definitions
often ref lect the different problems thatstakeholders or analysts focus on or associatewith food loss and waste. Indeed, definitions
differ across several dimensions, including: What is considered food?
 Should only the edible parts of foodbe considered?
 Is food diverted to other uses (e.g. animal feed)
considered lost or wasted?
 Which stages of the food supply chain are
included (e.g. also prehar vest loss)?

c For instance, Bellemare et al. only use the term food “waste” and do
not distinguish between food loss and food waste.3
d For a measurement of food loss in qualitative terms see, forinstance, Delgado et al.4
e Food service providers maintain facilities that serve meals andsnacks for immediate consumption on site (food away from home). They
include restaurants, fast food outlets, caterers, cafeterias, and otherplaces that prepare, serve and sell food to the general public for a
profit.8b For a survey of different definitions and their characteristics see, forexample, Chaboud and Daviron.2| 4 |THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 1

DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FOOD LOSS AND WASTE Food refers to any substance, whether processed,
semi-processed or raw, intended for humanconsumption. It includes drink, chewing gum andany substance used in the manufacture,
preparation or treatment of food but does notinclude cosmetics, tobacco or substances used
only as drugs. 5 Food products can be of animalor plant origin and are considered food from themoment that: (i) crops are harvest-mature orsuitable for their purpose; (ii) animals are readyfor slaughter; (iii) milk is drawn from the udder;(iv) eggs are laid by a bird; (v) aquaculture fishis mature in the pond; and (vi) wild fish arecaught with fishing gear.

the outputs of these activities, including socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. 6
 Food loss is the decrease in the quantity or
quality of food resulting from decisions andactions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding
retail, food service providers and consumers.
 Food waste is the decrease in the quantity or
quality of food resulting from decisions andactions by retailers, food services andconsumers.
 Quantitative food loss and waste (also referred
to as physical food loss and waste) is thedecrease in the mass of food destined for humanconsumption as it is removed from the foodsupply chain. As such, quantitative food loss
refers to the decrease in the mass of fooddestined for human consumption from decisions
and actions by food suppliers in the chain.
Quantitative food waste is the physical decreasein food mass resulting from decisions and actions
by retailers, food services and consumers.

 The food supply chain consists of the following
segments: (i) agricultural production and harvest/
slaughter/catch; (ii) post-harvest/slaughter/catch
operations; (iii) storage; (iv) transportation;(v) processing; (vi) wholesale and retail; and(vii) consumption by households and food services.
Agricultural production, harvest and post-harvest/
slaughter/catch operations refer to activities where
produce is still on the farm or the producer’s
premises. Post-harvest/slaughter/catch operations
include cleaning, grading, sorting and treatments(e.g. for disinfestation on the farm or in a packing
facility). Processing includes primary processing
operations (e.g. drying, dehusking, deshelling),
which often take place on the farm and secondary
processing (product transformation). The moment
food is consumed or removed from the food supply
chain defines the end point of that chain.
  A food system gathers all the elements(environment, people, inputs, processes,
infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that
relate to the production, processing, distribution,
preparation and consumption of food along with  Qualitative food loss and waste refers to thedecrease in food attributes that reduces its value interms of intended use. It can result in reduced
nutritional value (e.g. smaller amounts of vitamin C
in bruised fruits) and/or the economic value offood because of non-compliance with quality
standards. A reduction in quality may result in
unsafe food, presenting risks to consumer health.
Qualitative food loss refers to the decrease in foodattributes that reduces the value of food in terms of
its intended use – it results from decisions andactions by food suppliers in the chain. Qualitative
food waste is the same but results from actions byretailers, food services and consumers.

the distinction between food loss and food waste
is highly relevant, as the t ypes of inter ventions
that can affect consumer behaviour (fooddemand) are different from those that encourage
suppliers to reduce food losses (food supply).

In practice, the distinction may be more difficult
to apply. Indeed, the decisions and actions ofretailers and food ser vice providers, despite
acting as food suppliers, are often so strongly
conditioned by consumer behaviour that the| 5 |CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUES

distinction between loss and waste becomesdifficult to disentangle. In this sense, theretail level may constitute a sort of a grey area.
For practical and institutional purposes, thisreport will align with the distinction implicit in
the SDG Target 12.3, which refers to “food waste
at the retail and consumer levels” and “foodlosses along production and supply chains”.

instead disposed of as waste or used in waste
management activities are not considered as foodloss or waste (shown by the grey arrow).
The destination refers to the actual use of
the amount of edible food destined for humanconsumption. It may either be eaten by people,
even if it has suffered qualitative food loss andwaste – e.g. a blemished banana – (shown by
the green arrow and box under “Destination”)
or diverted to a non-food economic use such asanimal feed (the orange boxes). It may suffer
quantitative loss or waste if discarded from thefood supply chain by either suppliers (food loss)
or consumers, retailers and food ser vice providers(food waste) and sent to landfill. Or it may be
incinerated, composted or anaerobically digested(represented by the red arrows and boxes).

The conceptual framework in Figure 2 disting uishes
between the intended use of plants and animals
produced (both food and non-food economicuses); their fragmentation into food, inedible
parts, feed and non-feed parts; and, ultimately,
their destination (as food, productive non-fooduse, or food loss and waste).
The intended use of animal or plant products
refers to the original, intended purpose of the
product in the chain: to be eaten by humans(food), fed to animals (feed), used as seeds,
or for industrial or other purposes (see the“Intended use” rectangles in Figure 2). The loss
or waste of animal and plant products not
originally intended to be eaten by humans is notconsidered food loss or waste even if this may
have implications for food securit y and nutritionor the environment. Animal and plant products
originally intended for food but then diverted toa non-food economic use (such as animal feed)
are also not considered loss and waste (orange
arrows and boxes under “Fragments” and“Destination” in Figure 2).

Note that: Food that has suffered a qualitative loss or
waste but is still eaten by humans is notconsidered a quantitative loss or waste.
If either consumers or suppliers discard
such food, it is characterized as quantitative
food loss or waste, unless diverted to
productive use.
 The reduction in the mass of food resulting
from food processing operations such as
dr ying, heating or fermentation is notconsidered food loss or waste.
 Food that is fit for consumption andwhich remains unsold by retailers or foodser vice providers but is then collected andredistributed to other consumers is notconsidered waste; such redistribution is rather
a way to avoid food waste.
 Food diverted from the food supply chain to a
productive non-food use, for example for feedor biofuel use, retains part of its value and istherefore not considered lost or wasted. This is
not to say that such diversion has no costs, as
it may lower the value of the food.
 Even though anaerobic digestion generates
biogas, it is first and foremost a waste
treatment method and no crops areproduced exclusively for biogas production.
Therefore, food that ends up in this waste
management process is considered lostor wasted.

The amount of plants and animals intended forhuman consumption is then fragmented into
different uses (food, inedible parts, or othereconomic/productive uses). To illustrate: while
humans consume the interior of a banana, thepeel can ser ve as feed, thereby fragmenting theentire banana into different uses. The inedible
parts are food components that, in a particularfood supply chain, are not intended for humanconsumption (e.g. bones, rind). f The inedible
parts, such as the peel of a banana, thatare not used for feed or for other economic
purposes (shown by the orange arrows) but are

f What is considered inedible varies among users (e.g. chicken feetare consumed as part of some food supply chains, but not in others). It
also changes over time and is influenced by a range of variables, inparticular, culture.9| 6 |THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 2

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (FLW)AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES – PLANTS AND ANIMALSINTENDED USEFEEDINTENDED FOR FOOD

FRAGMENTS

INEDIBLE
PARTS

FOOD
FOOD WITH OR WITHOUT QUALITATIVELOSS AND WASTEDESTINATIONEATEN BY PEOPLE

ECONOMICALLYPRODUCTIVE USE
FeedIndustrial
use

Other

SEED INDUSTRIAL OTHER
USE

FEED OTHER

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
Quantitative
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Co-digestion Incineration
CompostAnaerobic
Landfill
digestion
DiscardOther
waste use

No FLW: Food remains in the food supply chain and is eaten by people
No FLW: Food and/or inedible parts are diverted to an economically productive non-food use
No FLW: Inedible parts are diverted to waste management
FLW: Food is discarded and diverted to waste management

NOTE: “Industrial use“ includes biofuels, fibres for packaging material, creating bioplastics (e.g. polylactic acid), making traditional materials such as leather or feathers (e.g. forpillows) and rendering fat, oil or grease into a raw material to make soaps, biodiesel or cosmetics. It does not include anaerobic digestion, as the latter is intended to manage waste.
“Other” includes uses such as fertilizer and ground cover. The length of the bars is not representative of the total volume or value of the products concerned.
SOURCE: FAO

HOW MUCH FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE OCCURS?

The disposal of lost or wasted food can takevarious forms, with a more or less detrimental
impact on the environment. Composting andanaerobic digestion have a more limited
environmental impact than dumping foodin a landfill or incineration. The disposal oflost and wasted food is a waste management
issue and its study goes beyond the scope of
this report. This report clearly focuses on the
avoidance, rather than the disposal, of foodlosses and waste. n

What do we actually know about the global
magnitude of food loss and waste? Surprisingly
little, as it turns out, but the SDG monitoring
framework is expected to contribute precisely tobridging this gap through enhanced efforts tocollect data that enable estimation of total foodloss and waste at the highest possible
disaggregated levels.
SDG Target 12.3 calls for halving per capita
global food waste at retail and consumer levels
by 2030 and reducing food loss (including| 7 |CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUESFIGURE 3

FOOD LOSS FROM POST-HARVEST TO DISTRIBUTION IN 2016, PERCENTAGES GLOBALLY AND BY REGIONWORLD
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIA
EASTERN AND SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANNORTHERN AMERICA AND EUROPE
OCEANIA (EXCLUDING AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND)SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
WESTERN ASIA AND NORTHERN AFRICA

0

5

10

15

20

25

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD LOSSNOTE: Percentage of food loss refers to the physical quantity lost for different commodities divided by the amount produced. An economic weight is used to aggregate percentages atregional or commodity group levels, so that higher-value commodities carry more weight in loss estimation than lower-value ones.
SOURCE: FAO, 201912

post-har vest loss) along production and supply
chains. Progress towards Target 12.3 is measured
by Indicator 12.3.1, which has been split into two
sub-indicators: the Food Loss Index (12.3.1a)and the Food Waste Index (12.3.1b).10, 11

of both food losses and food waste and improvethe underlying data for the estimates and causesof food loss and waste through more accurate
surveying across commodity groups, value chainsand countries.

Indicators 12.3.1a and 12.3.1b are under thecustodianship of two United Nations (UN)agencies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UN Environment).
These two agencies are working together todevelop methodologies for the sub-indicators, with
FAO leading on the Food Loss Index (FLI) and
UN Environment on the Food Waste Index (FWI),
given their respective expertise and mandates
in these areas. The work of the agencies aims toprovide the global community with solid estimates

Of the two SDG 12.3.1 sub-indicators – FAO’s
FLI and UN Environment's FWI – the work on
developing the FLI and estimating food loss
percentages is the most advanced. FAO’s FLI has
led to the first global estimate released in 2019 that
13.8 percent of food produced in 2016 was lost fromthe farm up to, but excluding, the retail stage.12 At
the regional level, estimates range from 5–6 percent
in Australia and New Zealand to 20–21 percent inCentral and Southern Asia (Figure 3). In terms of foodgroups, roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops report
the highest level of loss, followed by fruits and| 8 |THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 4

FOOD LOSS FROM POST-HARVEST TO DISTRIBUTION IN 2016, PERCENTAGES BY COMMODITY GROUPSCEREALS AND PULSESFRUITS AND VEGETABLES

MEAT AND ANIMAL PRODUCTSROOTS, TUBERS AND OIL-BEARING CROPS

OTHER

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD LOSSNOTE: Percentage of food loss refers to the physical quantity lost for different commodities divided by the amount produced. An economic weight is used to aggregate percentages atregional or commodity group levels, so that higher-value commodities carry more weight in loss estimation than lower-value ones.
SOURCE: FAO, 201912

vegetables (Figure 4). It is not surprising that fruits
and vegetables incur high levels of loss given theirhighly perishable nature. Results for roots, tubers
and oil-bearing crops are mainly driven by cassava
and potato losses, given the significant amountof data reported for these commodities. In fact,cassava is the most perishable of roots and tubers
and can deteriorate within two or three days after
harvesting; potatoes, on the other hand, require
careful handling and proper storage, especially inthe warm and humid climates of many developing
countries.13, 14

persist. Due to measurabilit y constraints anddata unavailabilit y, among other factors, it
was necessar y for the conceptual framework(Figure 2) and the operational measurement
framework to differ in order for FAO to monitor
SDG Target 12.3 on food losses (see Box 2).
In the operational framework, prehar vest andhar vest losses are excluded from the global
FLI to ensure consistency with the definitionof agricultural production used by countries
and FAO within the Food Balance Sheetframework. The inclusion of these losses
would require redefining production and yieldcalculations and therefore alter the consistency
and comparabilit y of the dataset over time.
Another major challenge concerns commodities.
Since it is impossible for countries to collect
loss data for all commodities, the FLI focuseson ten key commodities from five commodit ygroups, ranked by production value, within each »For the F W I, sig nificant work has gone in todeveloping the methodolog ical framework,
but the first estimates of food waste are stillin preparation.
Though measuring of food loss is moreadvanced than that of food waste, challenges| 9 |CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUES

BOX 2

THE FOOD LOSS INDEX METHODOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL
To monitor SDG Target 12.3, FAO has created the
Food Loss Index (FLI). The focus of the indicator is on
percentages of food removed from the supply chain.
The FLI monitors developments in these percentages
over time, relative to a base period currently set at2015, in order to track progress against SDG Target
12.3. Since food losses will vary with total foodproduction, the FLI is based on loss percentages
instead of tonnes of lost food. If the index were basedon losses in tonnes, then an increase in the FLI could
simply be reflecting an increase in production.
For reasons related to measurement, data
unavailability and consistency with other statisticaldefinitions and with the SDG Target 12.3 formulation,
FAO has adopted the following concepts of food loss
and waste in the operational framework of the FLI:

operationally challenging, the FLI focuses on the top ten
commodities by economic value within five commodity
groups for each country:(i) cereals and pulses;(ii) fruits and vegetables;(iii) roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops;(iv) animal products; and(v) fish and fish products.
Given cost-effectiveness concerns for data collection,
the FLI helps improve the evidence base of losses byselecting only a few critical products and focusing on
improving the data quality for those.
For each country, the FLI estimates loss in physicalquantities by commodity and aggregates them into an
overall percentage loss at national level using an
economic weight equal to the commodities’ value of
production. The aggregation across commodities is basedon farmgate prices expressed in international dollars, i.e.
using the same prices for all countries. Consequently, lossof high-value commodities carries a larger weight thanlow-value commodities. However, the methodology does
not take account of the different economic value of loss atvarious stages in the food supply chain. Indeed, loss
further along the supply chain has a higher economic
value than loss earlier in the supply chain.
Given that many countries still do not report data on
losses, only estimates at the regional and commodity
group level are provided in the report. To fill the data
gaps and produce loss factorsii at the country level, atransparent and reproducible model-based approachhas been developed. It uses a set of explanatory
variables of causal factors based in the literature andsupplements loss percentages with external information
gathered from publications and reports (for an overview
of the methodology and the estimation model, see thenotes in the Technical Annex). As new and better data
become available, the approach allows old estimates tobe replaced without disrupting the method or the results.
However, while the model-based approach used canprovide loss estimates on a large scale, it may not
perform as well as other modelling approaches in
explaining losses at the micro level or at the farm level.
At the global level, the FLI is then a weighted
average of the national FLI, using weights equal to thecountries’ total value of agricultural production in thebase period.

 Food loss is all the crop, livestock and fish
human-edible commodity quantities that, directly
or indirectly, completely exit the post-harvest/
slaughter/catch supply chain by being discarded,
incinerated or otherwise disposed of, and do not
re-enter in any other utilization (such as animal
feed, industrial use, etc.), up to, and excluding,
the retail level. Losses that occur during storage,transportation and processing, as well as
imported products, are therefore all included.
Loss includes the commodity as a whole with its
inedible parts.
 Waste occurs from retail to the final consumption/
demand stages. However, waste is not includedin the FLI.
The FLI operational framework differs from theconceptual framework of food loss (shown in Figure 2)
with respect to the exclusion of qualitative loss, theinclusion of inedible parts and the limitation of theconcept within set boundaries of the food supply chain
and selected commodities. As shown in the figure,preharvest and harvest lossi are excluded from the FLI,
but harvest losses can be added for the national FLI.
Regarding the qualitative component of food loss,
efforts to include it in the FLI are currently underway,
for which information on market prices, for instance,
may serve as proxies for food quality (see Delgado
et al. for a similar approach).4
As for selecting commodities, given that estimating
losses for many commodities across all countries is| 10 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 2

(CONTINUED)SCOPE OF THE FOOD LOSS INDEX ALONG THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN
FOOD LOSS INDEXSDG 12.3.1.a
EXTREME EVENTSSDG 1.5

PREHARVEST/
PRE-SLAUGHTER

FOOD WASTE INDEXSDG 12.3.1.bLosses in the Food Balance SheetHARVEST/SLAUGHTER

ON-FARM
POST-HARVEST/SLAUGHTEROPERATIONSTRANSPORT,STORAGE AND
DISTRIBUTIONPROCESSING AND
PACKAGING

RETAIL

PUBLIC AND
HOUSEHOLDCONSUMPTIONSTAGES OF THE FOOD SYSTEMSHARVEST LOSSESCan be added to the index coverage andmeasured with crop-cutting surveys

FOOD LOSS INDEX AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
SDG 12.3.1.ai

Losses occur during harvesting, for example in the case of cereals damaged during cutting or in the process of sorting or grading.

ii

Loss factors have been compiled in a database made openly available at www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data

SOURCE: FAO, 201815» countr y. g The inedible parts of commodities

framework ref lect the difficult y of collecting
rigorous food loss data. If the operationalframework were to match the conceptual
framework in Figure 2, the FLI would probably
produce much higher food loss percentages,
indicating a more significant problem than iscurrently estimated.

are included, given that separating edible frominedible is operationally demanding and, insome cases, impossible.
Finally, the operational measurement frameworkadopted by FAO accounts only for quantitativeloss. Indeed, the assessment of qualitative
food loss and waste would need to monitor theactual value for an attribute as it evolves along
the supply chain and compare it to the optimal“reference” level. For example, nutritional content
requires the nutritional values at maturit y andhow they degrade along the supply chain. This isoperationally challenging.

FAO’s FLI covers only food loss after har vest
and up to, but not including, the retail level, as
explained above (see Box 2). The only attempt
so far at a comprehensive global food loss andwaste estimate throughout the entire food supply
chain was prepared in 2011 for FAO by the
Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnolog y.14, 16
However, this study has limitations, clearlyrecognized in the study itself (see Box 3).
It should also be noted that these estimates
are not directly comparable with the new FAO
estimates because of a number of methodologicaldifferences (explained in Box 3). In particular,»

The differences between the conceptual
framework and the operational measurementg For a list of the countries officially reporting data on FLI to FAO
between 1990 and 2019, see Table A1 in the Statistical Annex.

| 11 |

CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUES

BOX 3

FAO’S EARLIER ESTIMATE OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE FLI?

The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology
2011 report for FAO estimated that roughly one-thirdof edible parts of food produced for humanconsumption globally was lost or wasted,corresponding to about 1.3 billion tonnes of food per
year. The estimate covered all stages from agricultural
production up to consumption, while the FLI focuses onlosses up to, but excluding, the retail level. To date,
this 2011 FAO study is the only one providing global
estimates at all levels of the food supply chain andcovering all food production sectors.14, 16 The estimates
are cited widely in public debate.17 Other subsequentglobal studies have relied on this report or the sameunderlying data. For example, Kummu et al.,18 using
the same commodity-group specific loss percentages
as the FAO study, estimated that, measured in calories,
around one-quarter of food (614 kcal/cap/day) was
lost in the food supply chain.
The 2011 FAO study was certainly useful inproviding a rough indication of the magnitude of foodloss and waste and in drawing international attention
to the phenomenon. However, the study advises great
caution when interpreting the results, given the numberof caveats. The limitations are largely attributable tothe intrinsic difficulty in gathering all the informationand data for such a comprehensive estimate. Lack ofdata forced the authors to make a number ofassumptions on food loss and waste levels, in particular
relating to distribution and consumption. Theselimitations make the study difficult to replicate.
The study considered all non-food uses (feed, seed
and industrial use) as loss or waste. It only considered theedible parts of food while the FLI considers eachcommodity as a whole, both edible and inedible parts.
The study further disaggregated the food supply chain ina different set of stages, relative to the FLI. Also, the study
aimed at estimating losses in physical quantities andderived total loss percentages at the end of the process,without taking into account the different economic valuesof various commodities. Finally, unlike the FLI, the 2011
FAO study did not attempt to incorporate the causal
factors of loss in its calculations; in this respect, the study
estimates the totality of losses in an almost descriptive
way. All these considerations reduce the comparability
between the study and the FLI estimates being released
through this report (see the figure in this box).

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FOOD LOSS INDEX AND THE 2011 FAO STUDY
FOOD LOSS INDEXSDG 12.3.1.a

SDG

PREHARVEST/
PRE-SLAUGHTER

HARVEST/SLAUGHTER

ON-FARM
POST-HARVEST/SLAUGHTEROPERATIONSTRANSPORT,STORAGE AND
DISTRIBUTION

FOOD WASTE INDEXSDG 12.3.1.b

RETAIL

PUBLIC AND
HOUSEHOLDCONSUMPTIONPROCESSING AND
PACKAGING

DISTRIBUTION:
WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL

HOUSEHOLDCONSUMPTION

Seed

Industrial use

FLW management

PROCESSING AND
PACKAGING

INCLUDEDNOT INCLUDED
2011 STUDY2011

PREHARVEST/
PRE-SLAUGHTER

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION:
HARVEST AND POST-HARVESTOPERATIONSPOST-HARVESTHANDLING AND
STORAGEINCLUDEDNOT INCLUDED

Inedible parts

Feed

SOURCE: FAO| 12 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

» the new estimates do not cover the whole foodIn general, there are diminishing returns toinvestments aimed at reducing food loss andwaste. This means that it may be relatively
inexpensive to obtain early reductions of foodloss and waste, but the cost increases for eachsubsequent reduction. For example, personnel
training may be affordable and effective at
reducing a share of the losses, but mitigating
the remaining losses may require more costly
investments in new manufacturing technolog y.
 It may also be rational from a profit perspective
to produce more than required and risk having
to discard some food because the cost of ashortfall or not being able to meet demand ishigher than the cost of producing too much.
In view of climate variability and extremes
or low prices at har vest time, farmers may
also plant more hectares than they har vest.19
Likewise, retailers and food ser vice providers
will typically have more food on hand or ser vemore than needed to satisf y clients.
 Some level of food waste by consumers may
be the result of rational decisions. If theopportunity cost h of time for an individual ishigh, that individual may choose to go foodshopping only once a week, purchase more foodthan necessary and throw away the excess food,rather than purchasing only what is needed
more or less on a daily basis. 21 Likewise, incases where food represents a limited share ofoverall household expenditure, consumers may
not be very inclined to avoid food waste.

supply chain. Additionally, relative to the old
estimates, the new ones take into account theeconomic value of the amount lost rather thanjust quantit y (see Box 4 for different food loss andwaste metrics).
FAO prepared the new food loss estimates tomonitor progress in the context of the SDGs.
Indeed, the inclusion of food loss and waste
reduction among the SDG targets has led toenhanced efforts to estimate total food loss andwaste. Among the two SDG sub-indicators,
the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDGs has
approved the FLI and upgraded it to Tier II,
meaning the indicator is conceptually clear andhas an internationally established methodolog y,and that standards are available. The lack of data
provided by countries is the main underlying
constraint that inf luences all methodologicalchoices. The estimates are expected to improveover time as data improve. For the F WI, there
has been significant work towards theaforementioned methodological framework but afirst estimate of retail and household food waste
is still to be prepared. n

WHY IS FOOD LOST
OR WASTED?
In theor y, actors in the food supply chain makerational decisions that allow them to maximize
their profit (producers) or their well-being andthat of their families (consumers) – including
decisions as to the level of food loss and waste
they find acceptable. In this view, a certain levelof food loss or waste is unavoidable. Indeed, it
may make economic sense for food operators
or consumers to tolerate levels of food loss or
waste. These levels can be considered as optimal
from the perspective of producers who maximize
their profits or consumers who maximize theirwell-being.

The decision by suppliers and consumers totolerate more or less food losses or waste –the direct cause of food loss and waste − isdetermined by a number of factors beyond
their control, such as pests, climate, andavailable har vest and post-har vest technologies.
These indirect drivers include market prices(determined, in turn, by how well markets
function), the qualit y of public ser vices(including, for example, road infrastructure
or informational or other social ser vices), thelegal framework in place, the culture, etc.
They depend on the overall level of economic and For instance, a food processor may suffer somephysical loss of food, which could be reduced
by investing in more sophisticated machiner y
or in better operational management, but
the cost of doing so exceeds the value ofthe food that might be recovered; therefore
the food processor chooses not to do so.

h Opportunity cost is the cost of something in terms of an opportunity
forgone. It is determined by the benefits that might have been obtainedby choosing the best alternative opportunity. For example, for farmers
the opportunity cost of growing wheat is calculated by estimating what
they would have earned if they had grown barley, assuming barley isthe best alternative.20| 13 |

CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUESBOX 4MEASURING FOOD LOSS IN PHYSICAL, CALORIC OR ECONOMIC VALUE – DOES IT MATTER?

New estimates by FAO indicate that 13.8 percent of
total food produced in the world is lost between farmand up to, but excluding, retail.12 These estimatesmeasure loss in physical quantities for different
commodities and then apply an economic weight toaggregate them. Commodities that are more valuablecarry a larger weight in loss estimation than low-valuecommodities.
Accounting for the economic value of produce iscertainly relevant when devising interventions to reducefood loss, taking into account the costs and benefits ofreduction. The FAO FLI clearly acknowledges this byattributing a different economic weight to different
commodities. Unfortunately, since the indicatoraggregates commodities based on respective farmgate
prices, it fails to account for the accumulation of value
along a food supply chain, attached to successive
phases in the delivery of the final product.
However, food loss can be measured in different
metrics based on policy objectives being pursued (seethe figure in this box). From a nutritional point of view,for instance, it makes sense for food loss percentages
to be reported in caloric units, using the caloric content
of diverse foods. As a result, energy-dense foods will
have a greater weight in calculating food loss. In somecases, food loss percentages in calories will becomparatively larger than when measured in tonnes orwith an economic weight, if high caloric foods suffer
higher loss. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa cereals
such as maize and rice and oil-bearing crops such as

groundnuts are some of the most important commodities
in the region’s agricultural sector and thus account fora larger share of loss relative to other commodities.
Given that they are highly caloric foods, this could
explain why loss percentages in sub-Saharan Africa
are highest when measured in calories. Conversely, inCentral and Southern Asia there is a higher share ofmeat and animal products (26 percent of quantity byweight in the basket considered for the FLI calculation)
being produced compared to sub-Saharan Africa(9 percent of quantity by weight), so that losses in thesehigher-value supply chains result in proportionately
higher losses when measured in economic value terms
as opposed to calories.
On the other hand, if a policymaker’s focus is onenvironmental sustainability with the objective of
reducing the amount of land or water used in
producing watermelons, for example, then looking at
purely physical quantities, or even hectares of land or
cubic metres of water equivalent, can make sense.
Although assessing food loss in mass is useful for
advocacy and for estimating food security andenvironmental impacts, it fails to account for the
economic or nutritional value of different commodities
and can risk attributing a higher weight to low-value
products just because they are heavier.
Overall, different food loss metrics have different
purposes. Policymakers, businesses and consumers will
ultimately decide which metric they wish to use,
depending on their objectives.

social development under which specific foodsupply chains and actors operate. Suppliers andconsumers may also be inf luenced by the
behaviour of other actors in the food supply
chain. For instance, food may be lost at one
stage in the food supply chain because it was
mishandled at an earlier stage, such as duringtransportation. Insistence by processors or
retailers that their suppliers be able to deliver
sufficient amounts of food, even when unforeseen
peaks in demand occur, may induce the latterto produce excessive amounts that end up being

discarded. Also, a sudden drop in prices canmake it unprofitable to move produce to the nextstage of the food supply chain and perishable
crops can be left unhar vested or dumped on roadsides or in landfill. 22, 23
Thus, among the factors contributing to food loss
and waste, this report disting uishes between
direct causes – associated with actions (or lackthereof ) of individual actors in the food supply
chain that directly cause food loss and waste –and indirect drivers, which are more systemic| 14 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 4

(CONTINUED)

FOOD LOSS PERCENTAGES IN DIFFERENT METRICS, 2016
Physical quantities (with economic value)

Physical quantities

CaloriesWORLD

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIA

EASTERN AND SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANNORTHERN AMERICA AND EUROPE

OCEANIA (EXCLUDING AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND)SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

WESTERN ASIA AND NORTHERN AFRICA
0

5

10

15

20

25

PERCENTAGE
SOURCE: FAO, 201912

and refer to the economic, cultural and politicalenvironment of the food system under which
actors operate, and thus inf luence food loss andwaste. This distinction is particularly relevant
for policy. As the indirect drivers condition thedecision-making process of individual actors
along the supply chain, they may ser ve as anentr y point for policies and inter ventions aimed
at reducing food loss and waste.

food system’s elements (environment, people,
inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions,etc.) and activities relating to the food supply
chain interact. Examples of how food loss
and waste may occur through a combinationof direct causes and indirect drivers can befound across the various stages of the foodsupply chain (Figure 5). Chapter 2 contains amore evidence-based, in-depth discussionof the behaviour of producers, retailers andconsumers and the determinants of food loss
and waste.

The direct causes and indirect drivers of foodloss and waste are the results of how well the| 15 |

CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUESFIGURE 5

POTENTIAL DIRECT CAUSES AND INDIRECT DRIVERS OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION AND HARVEST,SLAUGHTER OR CATCH

CONSUMPTION:
HOUSEHOLDS AND
FOOD SERVICES

STORAGE AND
TRANSPORTATIONPROCESSING AND
PACKAGING

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL

Lack of proper storage ortransportation facilities(e.g. refrigerated trucks)

Inadequate processing
capacity for seasonal
production gluts

Variability of demand for
perishable products

Multitude of date labels

Production and agronomic
practices and choices (e.g.
choice of crop varieties)

Poor management of
temperature and humidity

Technical malfunctions(wrong size or damaged
packaging)

Inappropriate productdisplay and packaging

Confusion between
expiration and preferredconsumption date labels

Machine or labourer damage

Prolonged storage (e.g. dueto lack of transportation)

Lack of proper process
management

Removal of “imperfect”looking foods

Poor storage or stock
management in the home

Poor harvest scheduling

Logistical mismanagement(poor handling of delicate
produce)

Excessive trimming to attaina certain aesthetic

Overstocking

Oversized portions

INDIRECT DRIVERS (not exhaustive)

Left in the field due toquality standards or sharp
drop in prices
DIRECT CAUSES (not exhaustive)

SOURCE: FAO elaboration, based on Lipinski et al., 2013 24

good, e.g. roads. This may result in excessive
food loss and waste, with negative impacts on
the well-being of suppliers and consumers.19
 Producers and consumers may not haveenough reliable information about choice
options and the impacts of their rational
decisions (“bounded rationalit y”); this may
result in food losses or waste that are greaterthan if caused by perfectly rational decisions.19

If we can assume that food loss and waste is
the result of rational behav iour by suppliersand consumers, then why is it a problem?
One answer is that there are constraints that
inhibit indiv idual suppliers and consumers
from behav ing optimally from a social
perspective. Such constraints ref lect market
failures and contribute to the occurrence offood loss and waste (see Box 5 for definitionsof market failure, externality, public good andmissing market). 21 Some examples will help toillustrate this point.

Another reason that an individual’s rational
behaviour about food loss and waste can bea problem is that producers and consumers
seek to maximize their individual well-being
and in doing so may ignore the negative
externalities of their food loss and waste
decisions on societ y at large. For example,
individual food supply chain actors may notconsider the impact of their decisions on theenvironment in terms of GHG emissions,
unless there is reg ulation restricting emissions
or an associated carbon market that values
emission reductions.

 Where market failures result in, for example,
poorly functioning credit markets, foodsupply chain operators may not have accessto the financial resources needed to invest
in reducing food loss or other productivit yenhancing technolog y, especially if it involves
high upfront costs. 25
 Market failures may also be represented by
the absence of those t ypes of infrastructure
not provided by individuals that are a public| 16 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 5

DEFINITIONS OF MARKET FAILURE, EXTERNALITY, PUBLIC GOOD AND MISSING MARKET

Market failure is the economic situation where markets
do not allocate resources efficiently.26 This means there
are opportunities to make some people better off
without making other people worse off.

Economists refer to public goods as non-rivalrous andnon-excludable. National defence, public parks, clean
air and other basic societal goods can all beconsidered public goods.27

Externality refers to the direct effect on one agent
caused by the actions of another, whether positive or
negative.27 Pollution emitted by a power plant
resulting in acid rain and lakes depleted of fish is an
example of a negative externality.28

Missing market refers to the economic situation inwhich there is no market for a certain product because
private actors see no prospect of profit, even though
the exchange of such an item would be beneficial forsociety as a whole.29, 30 For example, farmers will notinvest in a technology to reduce loss if the benefits do
not accrue to them but instead to actors further down
the chain.

Public good refers to a product that one individual canenjoy without reducing the amount available to others.

WHY DO WE NEED TO
REDUCE FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE?

Market failures may cause producers andconsumers to make decisions leading to levelsof food loss or waste that are optimal fromtheir perspective, but not from that of societ y.
They may also prevent economic actors fromadopting technologies and practices to reducefood loss and waste which are also to their own
benefit. It is essentially these market failures thatprovide the justification for public inter ventions
and policies aimed at reducing food loss andwaste. However, the degree to which somefood supply chain actors hold market power(e.g. monopoly) also contributes to market
failures and may affect how public decisions arecommunicated to and enforced upon stakeholders
in the food system. In Sri Lanka, for example,
the mandator y use of plastic crates enforced by
the government was violently opposed by major
vegetable suppliers. 31

Reducing food loss and waste can be a means toachieve a societal objective, such as the SDGs
illustrated in Figure 1. This report analyses if andhow food loss and waste reductions positively
impact on economic outcomes, food security
and nutrition, and environmental sustainability.
It distinguishes between the business case and theeconomic case for reducing food loss and waste.
The business case focuses on the benefits accruing
to private actors – producers or consumers – in thefood supply chain, while the economic case looks
at the broader benefits to society.
In some circumstances, when individuals
receive additional information or experiencechanging economic conditions, they may find it
to their benefit to reduce food loss and waste.
This implies there is a business case where theprivate sector has the right set of incentives tomobilize and achieve reductions in food loss andwaste. This may also provide broader economic,
social and environmental benefits to societ y, eventhough the essential motivation behind reduced
food loss and waste is personal.

The notion of optimal levels of food loss
and waste – from a private and a societal
perspective – is important for recognizing thatsome level is both unavoidable and tolerable.
However, determining exactly what those optimallevels are is next to impossible because of theempirical challenges involved. The rest of thisreport, in general, uses the less precise term
acceptable levels of food loss and waste. n| 17 |

CHAPTER 1 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – FRAMING THE ISSUESThe economic case for reducing food loss
and waste looks beyond the benefits accruingto those producers or consumers who reducefood loss and waste. Where it has a negative
impact on the well-being of societ y at large, as
highlighted in the previous section, there is an
economic case for reducing food loss and waste.
Using the resources available more efficiently,
be they labour, capital or natural resources,
can generate improvements in well-being.
As illustrated by Figure 1, reducing food loss
and waste potentially has indirect effects onpovert y, sustainable income growth, foodsecurit y and nutrition, natural resources andecosystems. In general, an economic case canbe made for reducing food loss and waste – ifthere are both winners and losers – when thebenefits to the winners outweigh the costs tothe losers. The benefits from reducing food loss
and waste can take different forms. They may
lead to increased incomes for other actors –apart from those who actually reduce food loss
and waste – and to benefits for societ y as awhole. Often these benefits can be monetized,
and in principle measured, even though inpractice this may not be straightforward.
Other potential benefits to societ y cannot
be monetized but are no less important.
With regard to the latter, this report focuses on:i) improved food security and nutrition; andii) environmental sustainability.

provided climate change and pressure on natural
resources do not override this effect. However, inthe short term, farmers may be worse off from a
reduction in food loss and waste further down
the food supply chain. The mechanisms throughwhich food loss and waste reductions improve
food securit y and nutrition therefore require
careful analysis.
As for the impact of food loss and waste
reduction on environmental sustainability, it
is generally assumed that if food loss and waste
are reduced, then less food needs to be produced,
processed and transported to feed the world’s
population. This means fewer natural resources
are used and GHG emissions and pollution would
be reduced. In addition, if less food ends up in
landfill or incinerators, there would be lower
GHG emissions and other environmental impacts
from waste management practices. This reportarg ues that there is significant potential
for improving environmental sustainabilit ythrough the reduction of food loss and waste.
However, the report also shows that the positive
impact of this on the environment is not a given
and that possible second-round effects andtrade-offs should be taken into consideration.
For example, if a reduction in food losses resultsin lower production costs, then producers willproduce more with the same amount of resources,
which may help meet growing food demandcaused by population growth. However, an
expansion in food production will have negative
impacts on the environment if it leads to morenatural resource use or more GHGs being
emitted. Meanwhile, if lower production costs
translate into lower prices for consumers, it
may result in increased demand and encourage
wasteful practices, further offsetting the positive
impact of reduced food loss and waste on
environmental sustainabilit y.

In terms of food security and nutrition, it
is generally assumed that reducing food loss
and waste means more food is available forhuman consumption and this translates into
improvements in food securit y and nutrition.
However, the actual effects can be complex andthe impacts of food loss and waste reduction
on food securit y and nutrition will depend on
the geographical location of food-insecure or
nutritionally v ulnerable populations, as well as
on where in the food supply chain the reductions
take place. For instance, a poor farmer will bebetter off if less food is lost on the farm, which
may increase sales or the supply of food for
on-farm consumption. However, if less foodis lost or wasted further down the food supply
chain, the demand for the farmer’s products may
fall. In the long run, farmers may experiencehigher incomes if demand increases as a resultof a growing population and rising incomes,

There are certainly societal gains to be madeby reducing food loss and waste. However, theprecise effects depend on complex interactions
within the food system. There is a need to designinter ventions aimed at reducing food loss andwaste to take such interactions into account. n| 18 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

SCOPE AND STRUCTURE
OF THE REPORT What are the appropriate inter ventions,programmes and policies to manage levels offood loss and waste?

This report contributes new evidence on
the state of food loss and waste and thepotential benefits of reducing it. It explores
where in the food supply chain food is lost or
wasted, and why. Drawing on this evidence,
it considers how targeted inter ventions along
the chain stages may achieve other objectives
also − most notably, improvements in foodsecurit y and nutrition and environmental
sustainabilit y. The ultimate objective pursued
will determine the choice of the mostappropriate and cost-effective inter ventions
towards food loss and waste reduction.

Throughout the analysis, the report identifies
a number of issues that require further
careful investigation.

The remainder of the report is structured
as follows
Chapter 2 discusses the drivers behind food loss
and waste and presents the variation of food loss
and waste along the food supply chain, as well
as by region and commodit y group. Chapter 3
presents the business and economic case for
reducing food loss and waste. Chapters 4 and 5
look in more detail at the implications of foodloss and waste for food securit y, nutrition andenvironmental sustainabilit y. In particular,
they emphasize the importance of defining
measures to reduce food loss and waste on thebasis of the objective being pursued. They also
address the effectiveness of food loss and waste
reduction in reaching food securit y, nutrition andenvironmental objectives, assessing the balance
between cost and benefits. Chapter 6 builds on
the analysis of the previous chapters to draw
policy implications and suggest areas for policy
inter ventions and improved data collection. n

This report asserts that if the goals set out
in SDG Target 12.3 are to be met, bothprivate and public inter ventions towards
reduced food loss and waste will play animportant role. Action by private agents –producers and consumers – can ameliorate
the problem to the extent that reducing foodloss and waste is profitable for businesses
or saves consumers money. However, public
inter vention is justified where reducing foodloss and waste provides economic benefits
to societ y that exceed the costs, or ensuresprogress towards societal objectives such as
improved food securit y and nutrition andenvironmental sustainabilit y.
In the analysis of the links between food loss
and waste, on the one hand, and food securit yand nutrition and environmental sustainabilit y,on the other, the report addresses inter alia thefollowing questions: Can reducing food loss and waste in a
cost-effective way lead to improved foodsecurit y and nutrition and increased
environmental sustainabilit y?
 If so, in what circumstances and conditions is
this the case?
 What are the costs of doing this and how dothey compare with the benefits?
 Are there trade-offs between the two
objectives or with other significant
development or environmental objectives?

| 19 |

BANGLADESH
Women collect and control
the quality and fat of the milk
at the Women’s Cooperative
Society for Milk.
©FAO/Mohammad
Rakibul Hasan

Key messages

1

Global estimates of food loss andwaste are important to monitor
progress over time, but additional
information is needed to understand thevariability of food loss and waste
percentages across different contexts andat critical loss points along the foodsupply chain.

2

Information on the location, extent
and underlying causes of food loss
and waste is fundamental in drawing up
strategies aimed at food lost and waste
reduction.

3

The representation of food loss andwaste data is imbalanced: moststudies focus on fruits, vegetables, cereals
and pulses at the farm level, and are fromCentral and Southern Asia, sub-SaharanAfrica and Eastern and South-eastern
Asia.

CHAPTER 2
MONITORING
FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE ALONG
FOOD SUPPLYCHAINS

4

Loss and waste percentages are
generally higher for fruits andvegetables than for cereals and pulses,
especially in situations where cold storage
or processing conditions are inadequate.

5

The wide variability of food loss andwaste across commodity groups andsupply chain stages, particularly in
sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia, points to the need for
improved data collection to informtargeted reduction strategies.

CHAPTER 2MONITORING FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE ALONG
FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS
The inclusion of food loss and waste reductionin the SDGs has drawn widespread international
attention to this problem and has led to enhanced
efforts towards reduction. It has been prioritized
as a means towards inclusive and sustainable
food systems, especially through improvements
in environmental sustainabilit y and food securit yand nutrition.

The chapter discusses the need for identifying
critical loss points – defined as points along thefood supply chain where food losses and waste aremost prominent and have the greatest impact onfood security – to formulate concrete proposals forloss reduction. The identification of critical loss
points requires an analysis of specific food supply
chains to identify the stages where losses occur
and what their impacts are. FAO has developed
and applied a case study methodolog y for foodloss analysis to identify critical loss points inselected food supply chains. The final sectionof this chapter discusses the current challengesof data collection and acknowledges that they
constitute an important barrier to understanding
the reality of food loss and waste. n

FAO’s Food Loss Index (FLI), the first important
attempt to monitor progress towards SDG
Target 12.3 (see Chapter 1), estimates that
globally, around 14 percent of all food frompost-har vest up to, but excluding, retail is lost.1
However, this estimate, future updates of which
will be important for monitoring purposes, is
not designed to provide information regarding
where in the food supply chain food losses
and waste occur, which products and in which
regions or countries they occur, or how large
they are and what their underlying causes anddrivers are.

MOVING BEYOND THE
GLOBAL ESTIMATE TO A
MORE COMPREHENSIVEANALYSIS OF FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE IN FOOD
SUPPLY CHAINSThis chapter opens with a discussion of
the importance of moving beyond a global
estimate to assess food loss and waste in acontext-specific manner and to formulate
insights into its complex and diverse causes
and drivers. It then presents the results of acomprehensive FAO meta-analysis of currently
available studies on the extent, location andcauses of food losses and waste at various
stages on the food supply chain, spanning
different foods and regions. The meta-analysis
provides important indications towards
targeted policymaking for food loss and waste
reduction that take account of geographicaland product-related specificities. It also sheds
light on the state of the art of food loss andwaste monitoring by identif ying data gaps
behind the estimates for the various stages insupply chains.

A global estimate of food loss and waste – suchas that for loss released through this report –can provide a sense of how much food is lost or
wasted worldwide and help identif y the regions
and commodit y groups in which the issue isparticularly prominent. As said, it helps monitor
progress towards SDG Target 12.3. It can also
play a central part in raising awareness of andpromoting advocacy around the issue of foodloss and waste. However, such an estimate
cannot provide precise information on the extent
of losses and waste across different regions,particularly regarding which commodities| 22 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 6

FAO’S META-ANALYSIS OF EXISTING STUDIES INTO FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – METHODOLOGY
FAO’s meta-analysis on food loss and waste includes
more than 460 publications and reports from various
sources (including governments, universities andinternational governmental and non-governmentalorganizations), containing almost 20 000 data points.i
This chapter analyses about 2 300 of the 20 000
data points. The analysis excludes studies that measure
food loss and waste across entire food supply chains (areduction of more than 5 500 observations), rather
than individual stages within those supply chains, sincesuch studies prevent the analysis of losses or waste
along the food supply chain. It also excludes all 9 107
data points from the African Postharvest Losses
Information System (APHLIS) because, due to lack ofbetter data and resources, APHLIS allows a single point
estimation to be interpolated across time and different
crops and regions.ii
More than 65 percent of the data points included in
the meta-analysis refer to Central and Southern Asia,
followed by sub-Saharan Africa (17 percent) andEastern and South-eastern Asia (9 percent). Cereals
and pulses account for 28 percent of all data points
and fruits and vegetables for 33 percent.iii Note thatIndia accounts for 85 percent of the observations forCentral and Southern Asia, highlighting the need forother countries in the region to step up their efforts tomeasure losses and waste to formulate context-specificreduction strategies. Ghana, Nigeria and the United
Republic of Tanzania are the countries in sub-SaharanAfrica for which the meta-analysis includes most data.
The studies included often used different measuringmethods, which hinders data comparison and may
result in a wide range of estimates. Despite thesecaveats, however, the meta-analysis provides useful
insights into the extent and causes of food loss andwaste for various regions, commodity groups andstages of the food supply chain. Such insights are
essential for policymakers and actors in the food supply
chain to formulate and implement strategies to reducefood loss and waste.

The dataset underlying the meta-analysis is available at www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data. As new food loss and waste estimates are published, FAO will adjust
estimates of global loss and waste percentages. 2iii

For example, more than 1 000 data points from APHLIS indicated the same value (2.7 percent) for loss during storage for more than 30 countries between 2003 and 2016.

iii

For a breakdown of the sample data by region, country, product group, stage in the supply chain and data collection method, see Tables A2–A6 in the Statistical Annex.

are involved and at which stages along thefood supply chain losses or waste occur.
Such information is crucial for policymakers
and individual actors in the food supply chain
to formulate and prioritize effective strategies
towards food loss and waste reduction.

helped to detect how food loss and waste varies
across stages in the food supply chain and regions
and commodity groups; in other words, howcontext-dependent food loss and waste actually is.
FAO’s meta-analysis constitutes the mostcomprehensive study of existing data on the extent,
location and causes of food losses and waste
undertaken to date, spanning food supply chains
and regions (see Box 6 for more information on its
methodology). By assessing variability across thedifferent stages of the food supply chain, commodity
groups and regions, FAO’s meta-analysis provides
essential guidance to countries working towards
reducing food loss and waste.
»

To this effect, FAO has conducted a major
meta-analysis synthesizing the results of alarge number of existing studies that measure
food loss and waste in countries all over theworld. The meta-analysis has served as input for
generating the first estimates of the FLI, given
the scarcity of official information reported bycountries. In addition, the meta-analysis has| 23 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

BOX 7

HOW TO INTERPRET THE GRAPHS IN FIGURES 6, 7 AND 8
The meta-analysis conducted is meant to generate acomprehensive snapshot of the information available
on food loss and waste (see Box 6). Packing all
this information in a single concise diagram ischallenging. A choice has been made to use box
plots as these help to graphically represent thevariability of food loss and waste, which is at the coreof the analysis (see Figures 6, 7 and 8). Using box plots
facilitates understanding of the nature of a wholedataset at a single glance, including the distributionof observed values and the value lying at the midpointof this distribution, also known as the median.
The figure in this box helps illustrate the usefulnessof the box plots in portraying the variability of foodloss and waste. More specifically, it shows a close-upof the range of loss percentages in Eastern and Southeastern Asia at the farm level. As it is the case of everybox plot, the figure has two parts: a box (bluerectangle) and the whiskers (lines extending
horizontally from the box). The start of the box, i.e. thelower quartile moving from the left to the right,
represents 25 percent of the dataset. By looking at thefigure, it is clear that 25 percent of studies report a loss
value lower than 2.25 percent. Similarly, the end of thebox, i.e. the upper quartile, represents 75 percent of
the data. Again, from the graph, one can conclude that75 percent of the studies in the region report loss at thefarm level under 10.5 percent. The median (i.e. value
lying at the midpoint of the distribution) is a little higher
than 5 percent, meaning that half the observations
have loss levels equal to or greater than this value, andhalf have less.
The whiskers indicate variability outside the upperand lower quartiles. The end of the whiskers represents
the minimum and maximum values of the distribution,
excluding outliers. An outlier is an observation pointthat is distant from other observations, and thus falls
outside of the overall trend that is presented in thedata. In box plots, an outlier is a number which isgreater than the upper quartile by more than 1.5 times
the interquartile range, i.e. the distance between thelower and upper quartile. In this case, it refers to any
number above 23 percent. For this reason, the dot on
the extreme right side of the figure, a loss value of
24 percent, is an outlier. Since outliers correspond toany value falling beyond the whiskers, they can be
numerous and close to the whisker itself. In Central andSouthern Asia, for example, in Figure 6A, almost all loss
values for cereals and pulses at the level of on-farmpost-harvest operations are below 2.4 percent. In thiscase, following the aforementioned “1.5 times theinterquartile range” rule, any percentage above 2.6
will thus be considered an outlier, explaining why there
are so many outliers and so close to the whisker itself.

RANGE OF LOSS PERCENTAGES FOR CEREALS AND PULSES DURING ON-FARM POST-HARVEST OPERATIONSIN EASTERN AND SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA
Lower
quartile

MedianUpper
quartile

Minimum

Whisker0

Whisker
5

10

15

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)

One quarterof the sample

OutlierMaximum

Middle halfof the sample

One quarterof the sample

SOURCE: FAO elaboration, based on FAO, 20192| 24 |

20

25

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

» In contrast to the FLI, the meta-analysis includes

where loss reduction inter ventions will have thegreatest impact. A comparison of Figures 6A and 6Bshows that the maximum values of losses andwaste are higher for fruits and vegetables thanfor cereals and pulses at all stages in the foodsupply chain, with the exception of on-farmlosses and those during transportation in Easternand South-eastern Asia.

data on the amount of food wasted by consumers
and retailers. However, measuring food waste
has proved more complex than food losses.
While efforts are underway to define a commonly
accepted method to measure food waste, thestudies are few and hence the data on food waste
included in the meta-analysis are limited. n

This is not surprising as fruits and vegetables are
more perishable. Nevertheless, the levels of loss
and waste of cereals and pulses are still significant,indicating a need for public or private intervention.
In addition, the wide range of reported percentages,
for example in sub-Saharan Africa and Easternand South-eastern Asia, highlights the scopefor reduction in certain cases. In Central andSouthern Asia, by contrast, the range of the loss
and waste percentages for cereals and pulses is
extremely limited for all stages of the supply chain.
This indicates that loss and waste of cereals andpulses seems to be less frequent in the region.

VARIATION IN FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE ALONG
FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS –RESULTS OF A
META-ANALYSIS
While the SDG monitoring requires splitting thefood supply chain to cover losses through the FLI
on the one hand, and food waste on the other, themeta-analysis is an opportunity to observe the foodloss and waste variation along the food supply chain.

Losses for fruits and vegetables var y greatly,indicating a significant potential for reduction,
especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia. The median levels of loss or
waste in Central and Southern Asia do not exceed
10 percent at any stage of the supply chain;
however, the considerable range in loss and waste
percentages indicates an important potential for
reduction, particularly during transportation andat the wholesale and retail stage.

From production to wholesale and retail, Figure 6
provides an over view of the main results of FAO’s
meta-analysis of food loss and waste studies.
It shows the range of percentages of food lost or
wasted at the various stages of the food supply
chain for cereals and pulses (Figure 6A) and fruits
and vegetables (Figure 6B). The fig ure contains
data for Central and Southern Asia, Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa,
while Figure 7 zooms in on the wholesale andretail stage, supplemented by data from Northern
America and Europe. Only the consumption
stage is excluded from Figure 6, for reasons of data
availabilit y, but it is examined independently
in Figure 8 with data from Northern America andEurope only. For g uidance on how to interpretthe graphical analysis in the fig ures, see Box 7.

The following sub-sections review themeta-analysis in more depth by discussing loss
and waste percentages; highlighting whereloss estimates indicate the greatest need forinter ventions; and providing an over view of the
key underlying causes of loss and waste for eachstage of the food supply chain.

On-farm losses

The wide ranges of values in Figure 6 highlightthe need to measure carefully losses andwaste at each stage in the food supply chain to
identif y where they occur. These points are to
be interpreted as snapshots of estimated losses
for various stages and commodities at different
times. Looking at the ranges in losses – rather
than only at the median – is useful for identif yingOn-farm food losses can occur before,
during or after har vesting; in certain cases,
crops may be left unhar vested in the field.
The causes of on-farm losses are numerous andcontext-specific. They are often inf luenced byprehar vest factors such as weather conditions,seed qualit y, crop variet y and growing practices,
infestation by pests and infections by diseases. »| 25 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSFIGURE 6

RANGE OF REPORTED FOOD LOSS AND WASTE PERCENTAGES BY SUPPLY CHAIN STAGE, 2000–2017

A. CEREALS AND PULSES
(214)
(48)

ON-FARM POST-HARVEST OPERATIONS

(64)
(78)
(28)

STORAGE

(59)
(14)
(7)

TRANSPORTATION
(19)
(12)

(15)

PROCESSING AND PACKAGING

(18)
(18)
(3)

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL
0

10

20

30

40

50

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)

B. FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
(244)
(20)

ON-FARM POST-HARVEST OPERATIONS

(26)
(98)
(10)

STORAGE

(14)
(47)
(11)

TRANSPORTATION

(15)
(15)
(3)

PROCESSING AND PACKAGING

(7)
(80)

Central and Southern Asia

(40)

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL

Eastern and South-eastern Asia

(30)

Sub-Saharan Africa
0

10

20

30

40

50

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)

NOTE: The number of observations is shown in brackets. The dates, 2000–2017, refer to when the measurements were taken; however, the date of publication was used if the study
dates were not available or were unclear. For a more detailed explanation of how to interpret the diagrams, see Box 7.
SOURCE: FAO, 20192| 26 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

» Figure 6A shows that on-farm losses of cereals Unsuitable harvest timing – Farmers areoften forced to har vest prematurely to meet anurgent need for food or cash, or due toinsecurit y and fear of theft; in the case of crop
rotation, however, they may knowingly har vest
too early to plant a more lucrative crop. 5–7
Har vesting highly perishable food products too
early may result in the food lacking f lavour or
failing to ripen, while har vesting too late may
cause it to be fibrous or overripe. 8 Delayed
har vesting can lead to the lignification ofcrops, 9, 10 infestation by pests or contamination
with af latoxins (e.g. maize).11, 12
 Unexpected harsh climatic conditions andenvironment – Excessive rainfall or a lack ofrain causes significant prehar vest and posthar vest losses.13–15 Insect and pest infestations
are another important cause of losses.14, 16, 17
 Harvest and handling practices – Part of acrop may be missed during har vest due to thelack of or inadequate machiner y, insufficient orexcessive dr ying of crops, or damage to grains
during threshing and shelling.13, 18
 Infrastructure and marketing challenges –Farmers may prefer not to market, or evenhar vest, their crops if, for instance, the cost ofreaching markets due to poor transport is toohigh relative to the market price. Lack ofstorage facilities is another significant
determinant of loss and compounds othercauses of loss.13

and pulses are highest in sub-Saharan Africa
and Eastern and South-eastern Asia. Here, loss
ranges from 0.1 to 18 percent; the bulk ofthese obser vations concern maize and rice.
Meanwhile, more than 90 percent of obser vations
in Central and Southern Asia are from India
and report losses of less than 4 percent,indicating that losses of cereals and pulses are
not problematic in the countr y. It should berecognized that almost half of these results are
driven by a 2005 –2007 nationwide sur vey toassess post-har vest losses in India. 3 It is alsointeresting to note that over 40 percent of theobser vations for Central and Southern Asia
concern pulses, ref lecting their high level ofconsumption in the region, not least in India,
relative to other regions (where less than
2 percent of obser vations concern pulses). 4
Figure 6B presents loss percentages for fruits
and vegetables at farm level for Central andSouthern Asia, Eastern and South-eastern Asiaand sub-Saharan Africa. Losses are highest in
sub-Saharan Africa, where the upper half of theobser vations report 15 to 50 percent. i Given thisver y broad range, an inter vention to reduce theselosses would be best targeted to the upper end of
this range for a greater impact. Losses are lower
in Eastern and South-eastern Asia, with themedian loss amounting to about 5 percent, andthe maximum 12.5 percent (excluding outliers). j
Losses in Central and Southern Asia (the bulk ofthem in India) are even lower: the median loss
amounts to 1.3 percent, and losses range between
0 and about 7 percent (excluding outliers).

For fish, highly perishable meat and animal
products, important causes of loss include
improper har vesting, slaughtering, handling or
storing practices. Improper fish har vesting
techniques lead to the capture of unsaleable(unwanted or inedible) species which arediscarded debilitated or dead.19–21 In the Amazon
River around 15 percent of fish from Colombia
and 33 percent of fish from Peru are lost due toattacks from predators, discarding fish which areoutside the legal limits, or lack of adequate
storage on fishing vessels. Other fish is caught as
bycatch using inappropriate nets and thendiscarded. 22 In the case of milk, deficient milking
equipment, poor sanitation during milking,inappropriate initial handling (e.g. spillage) andlack of cooling facilities are among the major
causes of losses. Poor sanitation can result in thecontamination of a whole batch of milk, forcing
farmers to discard it entirely. 21, 23

The variation in on-farm losses across regions
may be partly explained by the range of reasonsin the literature. To summarize all possible
causes would be impossible, as these are highly
context-dependent, based on the crop, commodit ygroup and geography. However, the following
categories highlight the key factors at play:i The results for sub-Saharan Africa should be interpreted with caution
in view of the limited sample size (26 observations) and possible
inconsistencies in the methodologies used to estimate losses.
j As only 20 data points were collected, however, this does not permit
a meaningful interpretation of results.

| 27 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSBOX 8FARMER-REPORTED CAUSES OF ON-FARM LOSSES OF STAPLE CROPSThe International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI) recently examined the nature and causes ofpreharvest, harvest and post-harvest losses for five
staple crops in China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala,Honduras and Peru. Farmers used specially designed
surveys to report on the major causes of losses andthe reasons why they left crops in the fields. The maincauses of preharvest losses (see Figure A in this box)
include infestation by pests and diseases and drought(especially for teff in Ethiopia). The main reason
crops are left unharvested (see Figure B) is because
of inadequate harvesting techniques; only in Ecuador

are poor quality or small size of produce, shortageof workers or excessive labour costs more important.
In China, weather conditions are also one of the main
reasons why produce is left in the field.
The main cause of post-harvest losses (see Figure C),
with the exception of China and Ethiopia, is damage tocrops by workers during harvesting or sorting.14 In
China, mechanical damage is most prevalent, followedby damage caused by labourers during harvesting. In
Ethiopia, most post-harvest losses occur because
produce is blown away or spilled. Other causes
include poor storage and damage by labourers.

A. CAUSES OF PREHARVEST LOSSES FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPSPERCENTAGE OF FARMERS

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

GUATEMALAHONDURAS
BEANS

Pest, disease, animals
Weeds
FreezeGUATEMALAHONDURASECUADOR

MAIZE

Lack or excess of inputs
Crop lodging
Wind

PERU
POTATO

Lack of rain
Crop shattering
Excessive rain

ETHIOPIA

CHINA

TEFF

WHEAT

Soil fertility
StolenB. REASONS WHY PRODUCE IS LEFT UNHARVESTED IN THE FIELD FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPSPERCENTAGE OF FARMERS

100%

Storage

The meta-analysis of on-farm losses makes it
75%
possible to gauge the extent and the variabilit yof food loss across regions and commodities
Storage allows suppliers and consumers
50%
around the world. To understand the causes of
to optimize the timing of marketing andon-farm losses,
in-depth
analysis
focusing
onconsumption decisions and can last from a few
25%
specific countries is needed. To complement thehours up to several months. Storage provides
meta-analysis0%results for on-farm food losses,
stability for producers by helping to prevent losses.
GUATEMALAHONDURASHONDURASECUADOR depending
PERU on the crop,
CHINA if prices areBox 8 provides an overview of thecauses ofGUATEMALA
stapleFor example,
BEANS
MAIZE
POTATO
WHEAT
crop losses reported by farmers in six different
low, storage can allow producers to delay sellingcountries, while BoxPoor9 harvest
analysesdrivers
their products and wait for prices to increase; inWeather
Small or poor-quality
potatoes
techniquethe indirectof losses in eight countries.
cases where buyers delay collection, adequate
Low market price
Lack of/costly labour
Transport
storage can prevent products from spoiling. 5

MERS

C. CAUSES OF POST-HARVEST LOSSES FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPS
100%| 28 |

A. CAUSES OF PREHARVEST LOSSES FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPSPERCENTAGE OF FARMERS

100%
75%

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

50%
25%
0%

GUATEMALAHONDURASGUATEMALA

BEANS

BOX 8

(CONTINUED)HONDURASECUADOR

MAIZE

Pest, disease, animals
Weeds
FreezePERUETHIOPIA

CHINA

TEFF

WHEAT

POTATO

Soil fertility
StolenLack of rain
Crop shattering
Excessive rain

Lack or excess of inputs
Crop lodging
Wind

B. REASONS WHY PRODUCE IS LEFT UNHARVESTED IN THE FIELD FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPSPERCENTAGE OF FARMERS

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

GUATEMALAHONDURASGUATEMALA

BEANS

Poor harvest technique
Lack of/costly labour

HONDURASECUADOR

PERU

MAIZE

CHINA

POTATO

WHEAT

Weather
Transport

Small or poor-quality potatoes
Low market price

PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS

C. CAUSES OF POST-HARVEST LOSSES FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES AND CROPS
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

GUATEMALAHONDURASBEANSLabourer damage at harvest
Machine damage
Blown away/spilled

GUATEMALAHONDURASECUADOR

MAIZE

PERU

ETHIOPIA

CHINA

TEFF

WHEAT

POTATO

Sacks are not properly tied/sewn
Labourer damage at selection
Climate (too much sun or rain)

Plagues, rodents, animals
StorageTransport

Lack of labourers
StolenLack or excess of inputs

Labourer damage at piling/
winnowing/hulling
SOURCE: Delgado, Schuster and Torero, 201914

Figure 6A shows that the range of losses in cereals
and pulses during storage varies significantly
from one region to another. Losses appear to
be insignificant in Central and Southern Asia,with more than 90 percent of the obser vations
again referring to India and reporting lossesof less than 2 percent. In the other two
regions, losses during storage are considerable.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the median level of loss
stands at around 7 percent and the maximum
loss reaches 22.5 percent (excluding outliers).
Inter ventions targeting these higher loss

estimates will be most effective, especiallywhen accounting for lessons learned from theliterature. Many farmers in sub-Saharan Africa
still use traditional grain stores made of grass,wood and mud, which offer little protection
against pests. 5, 25 In some cases, farmers store
grains inside their own house due to a lack ofstorage facilities, or because they are afraid oftheft. 26 In Eastern and South-eastern Asia, losses
range from 0.3 to 15 percent. The variation hereis smaller than for sub-Saharan Africa, whichmeans that losses are close to the median of| 29 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

BOX 9

INDIRECT DRIVERS OF ON-FARM LOSSES OF STAPLE CROPS
A study by IFPRI on the indirect drivers of on-farmpost-harvest losses in eight low- and middle-income
countries uses data from the World Bank (Living
Standard Measurement Study, Integrated Surveys on
Agriculture) for Malawi, Nigeria and the United Republicof Tanzania; and IFPRI survey data for the remaining fivecountries – Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras
and Peru.24 Owing to data limitations on measuring foodlosses along the food supply chain, the study examines
on-farm post-harvest losses only.
The study identifies all cases of post-harvest losses atthe extensive margin, that is the share of farmhouseholds that experienced any post-harvest loss; andat the intensive margin, referring to the average
percentage of production lost among those farmers
reporting losses. Different types of crops are examinedfor different countries.i
The study demonstrates that loss percentages vary
greatly between households, from one crop to the otherand across countries. The data for Malawi, Nigeria
and the United Republic of Tanzania allow assessmentof distribution of losses across households. No farmhouseholds report losses exceeding 30 percent andmany report less than 10 percent for several crops.
The study further identifies the determinants of
on-farm post-harvest losses at the household level, using
econometric models. It considers the demographic
characteristics of a household (age, years of educationand sex of the household head, and household size),factors relating to production (output level, agricultural
assets, equipment owned and inputs used),ii socioeconomic factors (per capita household expenditure,access to electricity and/or piped water andpossessing a bank account) and geographic andclimatic factors (distance to the nearest road or market,
temperatures, precipitation and agroclimatic zone).
The study finds the determinants of post-harvest
losses vary greatly from one country to another andbetween crops (see the table in this box). The likelihoodof post-harvest losses increases with the age of thehousehold head in Ethiopia (teff) and the United
Republic of Tanzania (maize), but decreases for maize
in Guatemala and beans in Honduras, while age was
not significant in other cases.iii Other factors, including
education, gender, household wealth, ownership of farm
assets or use of modern inputs, had an insignificant or
ambiguous impact on post-harvest losses across different
contexts. One important implication of the heterogeneityof these results is the need to tailor policies aimed at
reducing losses to the context of each supply chain.
However, for certain determinants, a consistentpattern emerges from the analysis. First, lack of accessto markets, as measured by the distance to the nearest
road, is found to contribute significantly to losses in
Ecuador (potatoes), Guatemala (maize), Malawi(maize) and Nigeria (maize). It is easier for farmers
who are better connected to markets to sell theirproduce before it spoils. Second, post-harvest losses
are found to decrease as output goes up (except forbeans in Honduras and maize in Malawi). Where
applicable, these common traits are of immediate
relevance for policymaking. Improving infrastructure tofacilitate transportation of produce to markets is likely
to reduce post-harvest losses across contexts, as are
efforts to encourage farmers to collaborate, forexample by sharing storage facilities.

7 percent – a significant level, similar to themedian in sub-Saharan Africa (6.9 percent).

apples, tomatoes and caulif lower are the mostrepresented foods. 3 Half of the obser vations
for Eastern and South-eastern Asia refer tocabbage in China and report losses up to
47.5 percent, thereby highlighting the need forloss inter ventions. Similarly, the 14 obser vations
for sub-Saharan Africa indicate losses of
0.5 –35 percent, and mostly refer to mangoes
and tomatoes. The high level of food losses inboth regions is not surprising given the highly

Losses during storage of fruits and vegetables(Figure 6B) var y considerably from one region toanother, partly due to the differences in thet y pes of fruits and vegetables that are producedin the regions. Nearly all of the obser vations
for Central and Southern Asia (again, the bulkof them in India) indicate losses of 0 –5 percent;| 30 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 9

(CONTINUED)

DETERMINANTS OF ON-FARM POST-HARVEST LOSSES AT THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Ethiopia(teff)

Malawi(maize)Nigeria(maize)United Republicof Tanzania(maize)Ecuador(potatoes)

Guatemala(maize)Age/experienceof household
head

Educationof household
head

+++

-

Distance tomarket--Level of farm
production

Agricultural
assets

--

--

++

+

+++

+/--

+++

-+/--

--

---

+++

--

+++

--

Guatemala(beans)--Honduras(maize)+/--Honduras(beans)Peru(potatoes)---

Use of modern
inputs*

++
++

+++

--+++

+

--

+++
+++

--

+++

+ or = significant (for indicated sign) at extensive margin (probability of any post-harvest losses)++ or -- = significant (for indicated sign) at intensive margin (degree of post-harvest losses)+++ or --- = significant (for indicated sign) at both extensive and intensive margin
NOTE: * Refers to use of pesticides, herbicides and/or fertilizers.

Local and hybrid maize, pigeon pea and bean leaves in Malawi; cowpea, cassava, sorghum and maize in Nigeria; maize, paddy rice, beans and groundnuts in the United Republic of
Tanzania; potatoes in Ecuador and Peru; beans and maize in Guatemala and Honduras; and teff in Ethiopia.
ii
Studies on the determinants of food losses often include the scale of production as a possible cause, since farmers who are able to produce more tend to deploy better farming
practices, and thus incur lower losses. In this study, this is confirmed for most cases at the intensive margin (i.e. for the degree of post-harvest losses). Exceptions include Malawi,
Nigeria and Honduras. To prevent the independent variable from influencing the econometric results, considering the level of production is also used to calculate the share of food loss,
the data for level of production were transformed into logarithms. Measuring the level of production differently helped to minimize possible estimation bias. In any case, no majordifferences were found in the sign or size of other determinants when testing the regression models excluding scale of production.
iii
While older farmers generally have more experience, and thus better knowledge as to how to handle their produce, they are also less likely to adopt new, improved farming practices.
SOURCE: Nakasone, Delgado and Vos, 201924
iperishable nature of these fruits and vegetables,
which can spoil, often within hours, in theabsence of adequate storage facilities. 27, 28 The
use of the most adequate t ype of storage caneffectively prevent losses, as seen in Cameroon,
where small and medium forest enterprises
storing eru, a wild vegetable, in jute bags insteadof plastic ones reduced the chance of rotting andincreased shelf life by over a week. 29

Inadequate storage conditions (e.g. insufficientdisinfection) may cause significant losses, andthe earlier qualit y of a product and previous
decisions in the supply chain may lead to ashorter shelf life even under the best storage
conditions. 5, 30, 31 Certain climatic conditions,especially heat and moisture, tend to promotebiological deterioration (for example, attacks
from bacteria, fungi or insects), especiallywithout proper storage and transportation| 31 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

BOX 10REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSE CAPACITIES AND NEEDS AROUND THE WORLDCountries have different needs for refrigerated
warehousing, largely due to variations in population,
per capita income and geographic location.
To facilitate comparisons across countries, the Global
Cold Chain Alliance has created a market development
index that compares the total refrigerated warehousecapacity of a country to its urban population (a proxyfor potential need). Globally, there is an average
0.2 cubic metres of refrigerated warehousing space
per urban resident.37 The figure in this box shows that
this capacity varies greatly from one country to thenext, depending on consumers’ buying power and foodproduction and trading patterns.

Generally, higher-income countries have greater
refrigerated warehouse capacity relative to potential
need. The emerging market economies of Brazil,
China, Mexico and Turkey are among the
middle-ranked countries in terms of refrigerated
space per urban resident (see figure) with relatively
high refrigerated warehouse capacity. Meanwhile,
several other middle-ranked countries suffer from alarge unmet need for refrigerated warehouse space.
These generally have low-income households andlimited modern retail infrastructure.37

structures to control temperature and humidit y.
Therefore, adequate cold storage (including,for example, freezing fish or meat) is crucial toprevent food losses and preser ve qualit y at eachstep of the food supply chain. 32

Africa; all 33 data points for these regions
present estimates of less than 4 percent, withthe exception of one obser vation. The limited
perishabilit y of cereals and pulses may
explain the low losses; however, the limited
number of obser vations does not lead to any
firm conclusions. Likewise, losses in Easternand South-eastern Asia are based on a small
number of obser vations (7); therefore the loss
estimates (a maximum of 15 percent) may not bever y reliable.

In lower-income countries, more fresh fruitand vegetable loss is attributable to poor
infrastructure than in industrialized countries. 33
In fact, many lower-income countries losesignificant amounts of food during storage,
often due to poor storage facilities, including
refrigerated warehouses. 34, 35 Whereas inmost high-income countries adequate storage
facilities, including refrigerated warehouses, areavailable and effective throughout the supply
chain. 5, 36 If losses do occur during storage, itis generally because of a technical breakdown,poor management of temperature or humidit y, oroverstocking. 5 Box 10 discusses how refrigerated
warehouse capacities and needs var y globally.

Losses of fruits and vegetables (Figure 6B) aresignificantly higher than those for cereals andpulses, hardly surprising given their perishable
and fragile nature. Fruits and vegetables areoften either poorly packed or not packed at all;transported in open, unrefrigerated trucks;
and subject to mechanical injur y owing tocompression, abrasion and rough handling during
handling operations and transportation, making
them highly v ulnerable to deterioration. 27, 38
The variabilit y in losses ref lects, in part, thesignificant variation in transport capacit y invarious supply chains across the world andhighlights where inter ventions may be mosteffective in preventing such loss.

Transportation
Transportation introduces a time gap between
various stages of the food supply chain, fromproduction to consumption. This time gap
increases the risk that food products, particularly
perishable ones, may be damaged or lost; e.g.
due to excessive heat or cold, damage in transit,
contamination, etc. 5

The upper half of the obser vations for Central
and Southern Asia report losses of 8 –25 percent,indicating transportation is a critical loss point
for fruits and vegetables. Inter ventions targeting
fruit and vegetable loss during transportation
may be particularly effective, especially in
Bangladesh and Nepal, where loss levels are»

As illustrated in Figure 6A, losses of cereals andpulses during transportation are negligible inCentral and Southern Asia and sub-Saharan| 32 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 10(CONTINUED)LOW
INCOME

Afghanistan (2016)
Tajikistan (2018)

LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME

REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSE CAPACITY IN CUBIC METRES PER URBAN RESIDENT, 2014–2018

Nigeria (2018)
Nicaragua (2014)
Kenya (2016)
Bangladesh (2014)
El Salvador (2016)
Yemen (2014)
Kyrgyzstan (2018)
Indonesia (2016)
Philippines (2018)
Morocco (2016)
Egypt (2018)
Viet Nam (2018)
India (2018)
Uzbekistan (2018)

HIGH INCOME

UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME

Kazakhstan (2018)
Dominican Republic (2014)
Colombia (2014)
Peru (2018)
Ecuador (2016)
South Africa (2016)
Guatemala (2018)
Turkmenistan (2018)
Romania (2016)
Panama (2014)
Libya (2014)
Brazil (2018)
China (2018)
Mexico (2018)
Namibia (2014)
Tunisia (2014)
Turkey (2018)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2014)
Mauritius (2016)
Oman (2014)
Belgium (2018)
Saudi Arabia (2014)
Portugal (2016)
Kuwait (2016)
Finland (2016)
Australia (2018)
Italy (2016)
Greece (2016)
France (2016)
Chile (2018)
Austria (2014)
Spain (2018)
Sweden (2016)
Switzerland (2018)
Germany (2016)
Republic of Korea (2016)
Japan (2018)
Canada (2018)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2018)
United States of America (2018)
New Zealand (2018)
Denmark (2014)
Netherlands (2016)

00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

MARKET DEVELOPMENT INDEXNOTE: The market development index, as calculated by the Global Cold Chain Alliance, measures refrigerated warehouse capacity (in cubic metres) per capita in urban areas.
SOURCE: Global Cold Chain Alliance, 2018, 37 Table 1| 33 |

1

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSCOLOMBIA
A farmer beneficiary of an
FAO productive integration
project shows watermelon
produced through a collective
irrigation network.
©Patrick Zachmann/
Magnum Photos

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019» highest. In sub-Saharan Africa, the median

Processing and packaging

loss is low (around 2 percent), but percentages
var y significantly, with the upper whisker
ending at 28 percent (and an outlier estimating
loss as high as 35 percent), suggesting there
may be room for improvement at this stageof the supply chain. Most studies measured
loss for mangoes and tomatoes but the limited
number of data points (15) indicates the needto analyse results carefully. The median loss offruits and vegetables in transit in Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia stands at around 8 percent– the highest of all the regions. However, therange of variation is smallest. Results indicatethat loss is more prominent for lettuce, papayas
and tomatoes in the Philippines, but results need
to be interpreted with caution given the limited
number of estimates (11).

The amount of food lost during processing
depends in large part on the t y pe of raw material
and the nature of the processing operations.
Lower-income countries suffer from generally
inadequate or non-existent processing facilities,
especially for products that are highly perishable(e.g. milk and fish) or seasonal (e.g. mangoes).
Figure 6A presents loss percentages for theprocessing and packaging of cereals and pulses.
All 12 obser vations for Central and Southern
Asia are for India, indicating losses of nearly
0 percent. One explanation may be that a thirdof the crops in the analysis are pulses, which
are mostly consumed whole or split, withminimal processing. Chickpeas are usuallyconsumed as f lour but only one obser vation in
the meta-analysis concerns them. Meanwhile, all
15 loss estimates for Eastern and South-eastern
Asia, and 90 percent of those for sub-SaharanAfrica, concern cereals, which often undergo
complex processing operations and are therefore
more susceptible to losses. It is not surprisingthat the loss percentage for these two regions
is higher than for Central and Southern Asia.
The middle 50 percent of obser vations for Easternand South-eastern Asia indicate losses ranging
from 2.5 to 15 percent, with a median value of
8 percent. In rural areas, processing operations
are often manual, resulting in higher losses. 30
In the case of rice, milling causes the highest
post-har vest losses. 46 In sub-Saharan Africa,
the entire range of obser vations is higher thanfor Eastern and South-eastern Asia. While themedian loss is low at about 4 percent, theupper whisker reaches 20 percent (excluding
outliers), suggesting the need for inter vention toprevent loss.

Fish is a highly perishable food and ver ysusceptible to post-har vest losses resulting frominadequate handling during transportation,
storage and processing.19 In Brazil, 3 percent
of all fish caught in the Amazon is lost duringtransportation, due to bad loading. 22 Meanwhile,
7.5 percent of all fish caught in the Amazon in
Peru is in an advanced state of decomposition
upon landing, and is discarded. 22
During transport, good physical infrastructureand efficient trade logistics are key to preventing
food losses. Improved access to roads andrailways significantly reduces food losses in
40 countries of various income levels. 39 Thiscan be particularly important during the rainyseason, when the likelihood of landslides or roadblockage increases. 40 Yet, many lower-income
countries lack the infrastructure (vehicles, roads,
crates, etc.) and organizational resources toconser ve perishables during transportation. 27
Box 11 presents an example of an innovative
solution for transporting fresh produce intraditional supply chains for mass markets inSouthern and South-eastern Asia. Delays caused
by inspection of imported products at the pointof entr y frequently hold up shipments and reduce
the shelf life of goods around the world; however,cumbersome paperwork procedures, which, forexample, have been documented in Latin America
and the Caribbean, exacerbate losses during
trade. 5, 32

Figure 6B represents losses during processingor packaging for fruits and vegetables.
The obser vations for Central and Southern Asia
are all below 1 percent, with almost all studies
conducted in India. However, the small sample
size (15) does not allow the conclusion at thisstage that there are no fruit and vegetable
losses. In Eastern and South-Eastern Asia,
loss percentages range from 0 to 37.5 percent;however, there are only three obser vations, so no
reliable conclusions can be drawn. The analysis| 35 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

BOX 11

REDUCING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE LOSSES DURING TRANSPORTATION

Fruits and vegetables are highly perishable; once
harvested, they need to be handled using appropriate
practices to maintain their quality. Transport is a
critical loss point in the supply chains of fruits andvegetables, owing largely to inadequate use of bulk
packaging and poor temperature and relative humidity
management. Quality loss resulting from mechanicaldamage – evidenced by bruising, distortion in the
shape of produce, cracking and punctures – leads todiscoloration, accelerated ripening, weight loss due toincreased transpiration and accelerated decay; thesefactors, in turn, bring about economic losses.
Through its Technical Cooperation Programme,
FAO has introduced improved, sustainable bulk
packaging (in the form of stackable and nestable
plastic crates), along with good post-harvest
management practice, to transport fresh produce intraditional supply chainsi in a number of Southern andSouth-eastern Asian countries. The use of crates duringtransport, as shown in the table in this box, hassignificantly reduced both quantitative losses (produce
rejected outright at the wholesale market) andqualitative losses (produce that is damaged but still
saleable). Reduced qualitative losses have allowed
wholesalers to diversify their customer base, forexample by supplying the hospitality and food services
sectors and supermarkets, resulting in economic
benefits, not only for them, but also for farmers. Publicmarket retailers and their customers have benefited
from better quality produce with a longer shelf life.
Where crates replaced single-use plastic bags, this has
also brought environmental benefits. Another benefit
has been the creation of additional jobs intransporting and cleaning the crates.

POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN BULK-PACKAGED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES TRANSPORTED FROM RURAL TO
URBAN CENTRES IN SOUTHERN ASIAN COUNTRIESLoss during transportationin sacks (%)

Loss during transportation inplastic crates (%)

Percentage of loss reduction

Tomatoes

16.7

2.2

87

Bananas

5.4

2.1

61

Cauliflower

11.0

4.5

60

Mandarins

7.2

4.1

43

18.0

7.3

60

Crop

»

Snap beans
SOURCE: FAO, 2017, Table 2

41

A traditional supply chain is production-driven, where stakeholders lack technical knowledge, technology and competitive and organizational capacities to meet market requirements
for safety, quality, consistency and timeliness of supply, as well as the capital to invest in new technologies to upgrade their practices. 42
SOURCE: FAO, 201741; Rapusas & Rolle, 200943; FAO, 201144; FAO, 2018 45
ifor sub-Saharan Africa comprises seven data
points, but the range of values is narrower thanfor Eastern and South-eastern Asia, var ying
between 0 and 20.5 percent. More than half thedata points concern processing and packaging ofmangoes – a highly seasonal, perishable fruit – in
Ghana and Kenya. The capacit y of the processing

industr y in these countries is often insufficient tohandle the entire supply of mangoes, resulting inhigh losses. 5
The loss of food during processing is usually
the result of human error, poor management or
technical malfunctions that lead to rejection of| 36 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

Fruits and vegetables and other highly
perishable foods, such as animal or baker y
products and cooked foods, generally suffer
higher levels of waste at the retail stage thanstaples such as cereals, pulses and canned
foods. 5 This is confirmed for the Asian regions
and sub-Saharan Africa in Figure 7. The deviating
result for cereals and pulses in Northern
America and Europe can be explained by thelimited obser vations.

the final product due to non-compliance withstandards imposed by buyers. However, lowrejection rates are not necessarily an indicationthat defects are rare; on the contrar y, low losses
may ref lect poor compliance with food safet y andqualit y standards or enforcement thereof. 5
Processing and packaging play a role inpreser ving foods. Many tropical crops arepreser ved by dr ying and processing into
shelf-stable products. Packaging preser ves thequalit y and extends the shelf life of a product,thus reducing food loss or waste. However, it
can also harm the environment by creating more
plastic waste (see Chapter 5).

Between 0 and 15 percent of fruits and vegetables
are wasted at the retail level in all regions except
sub-Saharan Africa, where waste levels are up
to 35 percent (excluding outliers), indicatinga strong potential for waste reduction in thisregion. The possible causes of the wide range
include inadequate packaging and temperatureand humidit y control, especially when produce
is sold under the hot sun in open-air markets,
causing wilting or shrivelling. 5 Among the Asian
regions, the median waste value is the same, but
the percentages for Central and Southern Asia
have a higher variabilit y, suggesting greater
scope for waste reduction.

Wholesale and retail
The causes of food waste in retail are linked
to the limited shelf life of perishable foods, toprivate qualit y standards of buyers and variabilit yof demand, in particular for fresh produce. 47
The actions and decisions by retailers as to thequalit y and quantit y of food products dictate
those of their suppliers. Storage conditions,packaging qualit y and handling practices greatly
impact on the qualit y, shelf life and acceptabilit yof food products.

The median waste percentage for fruits andvegetables at the retail level is lowest in
Northern America and Europe. However, it isstill significant (3.75 percent) and losses range
over 10 percent, supporting the finding that in
high-income countries, retail waste levels canbe high. It was estimated that 10 percent of all
food in the United States of America is wasted
in-store. 49 In Norway, retail accounted for17 percent of total food waste in 2015. 50

Figure 7 presents loss and waste levels for cereals
and pulses, and fruits and vegetables in Central
and Southern Asia, Eastern and South-eastern
Asia, Northern America and Europe, andsub-Saharan Africa. Note that the estimates in
Figure 7 may also capture food lost at the wholesalelevel. Indeed, in many countries, particularly
in low-income countries, it is hard to makea distinction between wholesale and retailmarkets. 48

A factor that contributes to food waste at retaillevel, especially in high-income countries, isthe tendency to sell homogenous and “perfect”
produce (in terms of colour, shape, size, etc.).
Food that fails to meet these high standards is
discarded. While processing less than perfectproducts into ready-made foods may be a wayof using discarded fresh foods, these foods
spoil easily and are often discarded at the endof the day or sold at a lower price, ref lecting
qualitative waste. 5

Obser vations on losses for cereals and pulses
are most prevalent for Central and Southern
Asia, showing a range of less than 2 percent loss
(excluding outliers). Only three obser vations
are available for Eastern and South-eastern
Asia (with losses ranging from 1 to 4.5 percent).
The range of losses for Northern America
and Europe is the highest among cereals andpulses, yet there are only four obser vations in
the meta-analysis, which does not allow any
meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

Likewise, highly perishable products such as
fish are more likely to suffer qualit y loss oreven be discarded if not sold quickly. In Brazil,| 37 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSFIGURE 7

RANGE OF REPORTED FOOD LOSS AND WASTE PERCENTAGES AT THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL STAGE,
2001–2017

(18)
(3)

CEREALS AND PULSES

(4)

(80)

Central and Southern Asia

(40)

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Eastern and South-eastern Asia

(20)

Northern America and Europe(30)

Sub-Saharan Africa
0

10

20

30

40

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)
NOTE: The number of observations is shown in brackets. The dates, 2001–2017, refer to when the measurements were taken; however, the date of publication was used if the study
dates were not available or were unclear. For a more detailed explanation of how to interpret the diagram, see Box 7.
SOURCE: FAO, 20192

for example, unsold fish was found to have a
25 percent price decrease at the end of the firstday. Fish that remained unsold after two days
saw the price cut by a further 33 percent. 22 Thissituation may be aggravated by inadequate
packaging or temperature control.

problem. Indeed, the higher the household
wealth, the more food consumers waste.
Growing incomes and demographic andcultural changes over the past decades have
led to changes in eating habits, which often
favour convenience.

While some causes of food waste at the retaillevel apply more to high-income countries, waste
can be significant in lower-income countries too.
Losses may be higher where there is inadequate
protective packaging, temperature and humidit ycontrol, such as mixing products like fruits,
vegetables, milk and meat in a single cold roomor not displaying products properly. 5

Figure 8 presents the results of studies on consumer
food waste. Of the total of 20 data points, 19
concern the United States of America and one
is for Norway. The majority of data points
concern animal products, fruits and vegetables,
while cereals, pulses and other food products
including, inter alia, tree nuts and peanuts, areless represented.

Consumer waste

The consumption stage is a critical waste point
for all t y pes of foods. Waste percentages reachespecially high values for highly perishable foods
such as animal products (14–37 percent) andfruits and vegetables (9–20 percent). The waste
percentages for cereals and pulses and other

Food waste by consumers is a problem that has
been mostly associated with and reported inhigh-income countries. 51 However, emerging
economies are increasingly faced with this| 38 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 8

RANGE OF REPORTED FOOD WASTE PERCENTAGES AT THE CONSUMPTION STAGE IN NORTHERNAMERICA AND EUROPE, 2012–2017

(2)
(8)
(7)

Cereals and pulses
Fruits and vegetables

(3)
0

10

Meat and animal products
20

30

40

Other

FOOD WASTE (%)

NOTE: The number of observations is shown in brackets. The dates, 2012–2017, refer to when the measurements were taken; however, the date of publication was used if the study
dates were not available or were unclear. For a more detailed explanation of how to interpret the diagram, see Box 7.
SOURCE: FAO, 20192

too much food, and a lack of knowledge on how to
use leftovers in other recipes instead of discarding
them. 53–55 An analysis of United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland households
found that even if people are aware of the
problem of food waste, household provisioning
routines, time management, accounting forfamily tastes and food safety concerns can drive
day-to-day waste. 56, 57 The analysis shows thatfood waste often results from the complex andcontradictory demands of everyday life, includingtime constraints. 58, 59 Indeed, where time isscarce, consumers buy less often and in greater
quantities, resulting in higher levels of waste. 5

foods are also significant; however, there are only
five obser vations for these food groups, which
limits the validit y of the results.
Most consumer food waste studies take placein high-income countries where the problem isparticularly acute, especially in the United Statesof America and Europe. In the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland, thenon-governmental organization (NGO) Waste
and Resources Action Programme ( W R AP) has
been particularly active. 5 It is estimated thatthe average household in the countr y wasted
GBP (pounds sterling) 470 worth of food in
2015. 52 Consumer food waste in the United Statesof America was estimated at USD (United States
dollars) 370 per capita in 2010, equal to 9 percent
of average per capita food expenditure, or
1 percent of per capita disposable income. 49

Portion and package size are important
determinants of food waste. A study conductedin Sweden suggests that about a quarter of foodwaste is related to package size. 60 Consumers
may be forced to buy more than they needbecause only large packages are available.
W R AP, for example, has found that around
one-third of consumers are unhappy withpackage sizes and a large majorit y complain

Consumer waste is often a result of poor purchaseplanning, excess and impulse buying, confusion
over labels (“best before” and “use by”), poor
in-home storing or stock management, preparing| 39 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSTHE IDENTIFICATION OF
CRITICAL LOSS POINTS

about the amount of packaging. It was also foundthat consumers are not necessarily opposed to
paying a little more per unit to avoid having to
buy too much. 61 A FAO study on self-reported
waste in the Philippines found low levels of
consumer waste and the conclusions suggest that
consumers’ abilit y to purchase small quantities offruits and vegetables at both public markets andsupermarkets reduces waste. 62

So far, the chapter has focused on the resultsof the meta-analysis on the extent of food loss
and waste for various regions, commodit ygroups and stages along the food supply chain.
Despite providing essential input to the FLI
and information useful for targeted reduction
measures, such an analysis is not intended
to identif y critical loss points in specific foodsupply chains. This requires a comprehensive
assessment of losses throughout the whole
food supply chain, to identif y the stages where
losses occur and what their impacts are. This isessential to g uide actors in how to significantly
reduce food losses in key supply chains andimprove food securit y and farmers’ incomes.

Promotions or bulk discounts (e.g. three-for-two
or economic packages) may entice consumers
to buy on impulse, which encourages waste. 5, 63
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, promotions make up a third ofgrocer y expenditure and the trend is increasing. 64
Significant quantities of food are also wasted atfood ser vice outlets, including school canteens
and restaurants. 34, 65–67
The socio-economic and demographic
characteristics of a household also inf luence
the level of food waste it produces. 33 Smallhouseholds and high-income households
generally waste more food, because theamount of food they buy and prepare is usuallylarger than the amount they can consume.
Large packaging size may be a driver of higher
food waste levels, as well as the fact that thehigher a household’s income is, the lower the
relative value of food is for that household. 5
Culturally, food may also be used as a symbolof prosperit y. Households with a higher
socio-economic status may purchase more, andmore varied, food especially if this is visible
to others (for example, at social events); such
behaviour leads to more food waste. 28 However,these broad tendencies var y considerably between
countries and regions. 54 Food waste studies musttake due account of the role of social and culturaldrivers in food consumption patterns andattitudes towards food. 5 n

Since 2015, FAO’s Global Initiative on Food Lossand Waste (Save Food) has carried out a numberof case studies in almost 30 countries k to identify
critical loss points for crops, milk and fish producedby smallholders, using a common methodology
developed that same year. Due to a common
methodology, a comparison of the various studies
is possible, although the studies should not be
considered as nationally representative. 69 The
objectives of the case studies are to: identif y and assess the main causes of foodloss in specific food supply chains; analyse the solutions for reducing food loss
with respect to their technical and economic
feasibilit y, food qualit y and safet yrequirements, social acceptabilit y andenvironmental sustainabilit y; and formulate concrete proposals for a foodloss reduction programme for specific foodsupply chains.
The FAO case study methodolog y for food loss
analysis is a useful tool for identif ying criticalloss points in a systematic and comparable
manner and allows for trends and common
k The countries are: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican
Republic, Egypt, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,
Lebanon, Malawi, Morocco, Namibia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, TimorLeste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of
Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.68| 40 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 12

FAO’S SAVE FOOD CASE STUDIES ON CRITICAL LOSS POINTS FOR CROPS, MILK AND FISH

FAO’s case study methodology for food loss analysis
has been applied by FAO’s Global Initiative on Food
Loss and Waste (Save Food) since 2015 in 88 foodsupply chains across 28 countries. The common
methodology foresees the following steps: (i) screening– initial research into what is known that identifies
priority food supply chains; (ii) field investigation– interviews, surveys, studies in the field withstakeholders; (iii) load tracking – loss assessment atcritical loss points; and (iv) synthesis – analysis ofcauses of losses and solutions. The ultimate objective is
to outline an intervention programme for reduction in
the food losses identified, at the local, subnational or
national level.
Out of the 88 critical loss point studies insmallholder production, 56 were reviewed in asynthesis report.68 Over 70 percent of these studies
were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, followed by
Asia (12.5 percent) and Latin America (16 percent).
Cereals accounted for almost half of the studies (nearly
all of them in sub-Saharan Africa), followed by fruits(21 percent), legumes (11 percent) and roots andtubers (11 percent).
Harvesting appears to be a critical loss point for all
types of food in over 70 percent of the case studies. In
Africa in particular, the critical loss points for cereal
grains and legumes are consistently at the harvestingand on-farm storage stages, regardless of location or
climate. The causes of grain loss at harvesting reported
most frequently by farmers include attacks by pests andinsects and the effects of diseases, adverse climaticconditions (e.g. rainfall during harvesting),
inappropriate timing of the harvest and lack of labouror funds. Inadequate storage facilities (e.g. insufficientventilation) and poor handling practices are the maincauses of on-farm storage losses.
Likewise, harvesting is identified as the mostcommon critical loss point for roots, tubers and fruits,
together with packing (handling and treatment
operations) and transportation. For fruits, the mostfrequently reported causes of loss during harvest relate
to the stage of maturity, timing and scheduling, poor
sorting, handling and harvesting methods, adverse
climatic conditions, diseases and attacks by insects andbirds. Losses during packing and transportation were
mostly associated with poor handling, inadequate
storage conditions and inappropriate packaging.68
These findings show the need for great attention to
the timing and methods of harvesting, especially since
what happens during the harvest may determine bothquantitative and qualitative losses further along thechain. To reduce on-farm losses, farmers need training
to help determine the point of maturity of their crops, totime the harvest accordingly and to protect crops fromadverse weather conditions, diseases and attacks bypests and insects.68 Although more studies are needed
to confirm the findings of Save Food’s case studies, theconsistent findings (especially for grains and legumes
in sub-Saharan Africa) as to the location, extent andcauses of critical loss points confirm their reliability.

solutions to be identified. It is also designed
to complement national analyses. So far, it
has been effective in directing attention to thefood loss situation in a range of countries andcommodities by several stakeholders. In somecases, governments, with the support of donors,
have moved on to pilot the implementation of
the recommended inter ventions to generate
evidence about their impact on losses andeconomic returns. 68

Box 12 provides a summar y of the main findings
to date. They suggest that har vesting is acommon critical loss point for all commodities(identified in over 70 percent of case studies).
Indeed, for grains and leg umes, critical loss
points were consistently found during har vestingand on-farm storage, particularly in Africa,
regardless of location or climate. Likewise, forfruits, roots and tubers, har vesting appears to bea critical loss point along with packing (handling| 41 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS

and treatment operations) and transportation.
Most reported causes relate to the stage ofmaturit y, timing and scheduling; poor handlingand har vesting methods; adverse climaticconditions; and attacks by pests, insects andeffects of diseases. These results are useful intargeting inter ventions to reduce losses as theysuggest the need to provide farmers with training
to identif y the point of maturit y of their crops, toimprove their har vesting and handling methods,
and to protect crops from weather shocks, pests,
insects and diseases.

First, divergent food loss and waste definitions
and measuring methods and metrics makecomparing studies across countries and foodsupply chains and over time ver y difficult,sometimes even impossible. 5, 13 For example,
the terms “food loss” and “food waste” areoften used interchangeably. In addition, various
methods of data collection may result in theunder- or over-reporting of food loss and waste.
Self-reported estimates often under-report thereal amount of food lost or wasted.14, 70 Whilein many respects expert opinions are useful for
defining the problems and identif ying hot spots(especially given the complexit y of collecting
information on determinant factors), they often
do not change or update their opinions over time,
thereby embedding their biases in the underlying
data upon which countries build policies. 48

The FAO case study analysis of critical loss points
contrasts with the meta-analysis presented above.
The meta-analysis is based on a large collectionof existing studies assessing food loss and waste
across the world, which did not necessarily
follow the food supply chains to identify thestage of greatest loss, as was done in the FAO
case study methodolog y to identify criticalloss points. Nor were stakeholders necessarily
engaged to determine the food supply chainson which food loss and waste has the greatest
impact – which did happen to be the case in theidentification of critical loss points. While themeta-analysis provides a more comprehensive
overview into the extent of food loss and waste
across different regions, stages of the food supply
chain and commodities, the analysis of criticalloss points makes it possible to identity losses andtheir causes in specific food supply chains withstakeholder involvement. However, critical loss
points are only available for a selected number ofcountries and food supply chains and exclusively
study losses in smallholder supply chains. n

Second, sur veys on the extent, location andcauses of food loss and waste are complex,
time-consuming and costly and may require
collaboration between various specialists
and the carr ying of heav y equipment for field
operations (e.g. weighing and carr ying rice fromremote areas to measure loss during dr ying).
Moreover, food supply chains for different foodproducts may differ greatly in terms of theircharacteristics, processes, stages and agents
involved; sur veys must take due account of thesefactors. In addition, data must be collected in aconsistent manner, at a relevant geographicalscale, and a proper sampling strateg y needs tobe implemented at the different nodes of thefood supply chain. However, the technical andorganizational capacities and funds necessar y tocarr y out such complex sur veys are often lacking.
Thus, even where they exist, data points are few
and often show considerable uncertainties. 71

CHALLENGES OF DATACOLLECTION

Because of these complexities, it is common forstudies to extrapolate loss estimates to othertime periods, or even to neighbouring regions
and other foods from the same product group.
Such studies provide only an approximate
view of realit y, and fail to produce the reliable
and accurate estimates needed for targeted
policymaking. An example of such a study
is the often cited African Posthar vest Losses
Information System (APHLIS) for post-har vest
losses of cereals (expressed in weight) in
sub-Saharan Africa. Due to data gaps andMany countries around the world recognize theimportance of reducing food loss and waste andthis has been enshrined in the SDGs. Now comesthe next step – as argued earlier in this chapter,
identifying the causes and drivers of food loss andwaste, formulating possible reduction solutions,prioritizing objectives and monitoring progress
towards these objectives will require more reliable,comparable and transparent data. As of yet, major
data gaps remain, for various reasons.
| 42 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

resource constraints, APHLIS extrapolates data
points (mostly estimates provided by experts)
to other time periods, crops and regions.
For this reason, the analysis in Figure 6 excludes
APHLIS data.

(waste compositional analysis) has proved tobe highly complex, expensive and sometimes
impossible. Due to these complexities, there is no
general agreement on what constitutes the mostappropriate method to measure consumer foodwaste; this (partly) explains the scarcit y of dataon the amount of food wasted at consumption.

The complexit y of collecting food loss dataexplains why only 39 countries have officiallyreported loss data on an annual basis bet ween
1990 and 2017 through FAO’s Questionnaire on
Crop and Livestock Production and Utilization. 72
Hence, the FLI includes both data prov idedby governments and data produced by NGOs,
academia and other institutions upon which
the findings of the meta-analysis are based(e.g. case studies, sur veys, research, etc.). Figure 9shows a heat map of the availabilit y of food loss
data for various reg ions and product g roups.
Figure 9A shows that governments in Latin A merica
and the Caribbean have reported more data
since 1990 than those in other reg ions (mostly
for fruits and vegetables), followed by Northern
A merica and Europe. Official data from the otherreg ions are scarcer. Figure 9B shows that mostnon-governmental studies concern countries
in Central and Southern Asia, in particular for
fruits and vegetables.

FAO has worked towards harmonizing concepts
related to food loss and waste, both internallyand with external partners. There is a consensus
on definitions of food loss and food waste which
will help overcome the existing data gaps (seeBoxes 1 and 2 for a detailed description of concepts
related to food loss and waste). FAO has also
formulated g uidelines for measuring food loss,
to assist countries in their official reporting(see the measurement g uidelines developed by
the Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and
Rural Statistics). 71 Through a multi-stakeholder
partnership, the Food Loss and Waste Protocol
has published the Food Loss and Waste Accounting
and Reporting Standard to harmonize datacollection. 76 The Food Waste Index (F WI),
currently under development under the auspicesof UN Environment, is an important step towards
the better measurement and understanding offood waste. 77

Note that all official reports by governments
cover entire food supply chains up to, but
excluding, the retail and consumption stages,
whereas non-governmental studies are often
restricted to a particular stage or activit y within
the food supply chain. As a result, there are
more non-governmental studies. Note that
non-governmental studies often employ different
methodologies to estimate food loss andwaste, even studies within the same countr y;
they cannot therefore be a substitute for thecomprehensive collection of data carried out by
national governments.

Chapter 6 provides a deeper discussion ofefforts to improve data collection and alsooffers recommendations for food loss and waste
measurement. n

CONCLUSIONS
A first estimate of overall food loss by FAO
throughout this report concludes that globally
13.8 percent of all food is lost from post-har vest
up to, but excluding, retail. While this estimate
helps to draw attention to the problem and incite
action, effective inter ventions to reduce foodloss and waste must be based on more detailed
information regarding where it occurs in thefood supply chain; for which foods and in which
regions or countries it occurs; and the extent of
the problem and underlying reasons.

Estimating how much food consumers waste isparticularly challenging, for two reasons. First, insur veys and studies based on self-reporting,consumers often underestimate the amount offood they actually waste. 5, 73 A combination ofa sur vey with a sample analysis produces themost reliable results, but is much more costly. 74, 75
Second, municipal waste measured in many
countries includes both food and non-foodwaste. Estimating how much of that total is food

FAO’s meta-analysis of existing studies of foodloss and waste presented in this chapter provides
further insight into these aspects. However, the»| 43 |

CHAPTER 2 MONITORING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ALONG FOOD SUPPLY CHAINSFIGURE 9

HEAT MAP OF FOOD LOSS STUDIES BY REGION, 1990–2017
A. OFFICIAL STUDIESNUMBER OF
OFFICIAL STUDIESAUSTRALIA AND
NEW ZEALAND

7

CENTRAL AND
SOUTHERN ASIA

6EASTERN AND
SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA
LATIN AMERICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN

5NORTHERN AMERICA
AND EUROPE

4OCEANIA (EXCLUDING
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND)

3

SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA

2

WESTERN ASIA ANDNORTHERN AFRICA

1
CEREALSFRUITS AND
VEGETABLES

MEAT AND ANIMALPRODUCTS

PULSESROOTS, TUBERSAND OIL-BEARING
CROPS

OTHER

B. NON-GOVERNMENTAL STUDIESNUMBER OF
UNOFFICIAL STUDIESAUSTRALIA AND
NEW ZEALAND
CENTRAL AND
SOUTHERN ASIA

14

EASTERN AND
SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA

12LATIN AMERICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN

10NORTHERN AMERICA
AND EUROPE

8OCEANIA (EXCLUDING
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND)

6

SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA

4

WESTERN ASIA ANDNORTHERN AFRICA

2
CEREALSFRUITS AND
VEGETABLES

MEAT AND ANIMALPRODUCTS

PULSESROOTS, TUBERSAND OIL-BEARING
CROPS

OTHER

NOTE: Official studies comprise countries’ Annual Agriculture Production Questionnaires, which are officially reported to FAO. Non-governmental studies include research, surveys andcase studies by NGOs and institutions (including academia). The heat maps assign colours to regions based on the number of estimates of food losses reported for that region between
1990 and 2017, for various product groups. White boxes indicate that no data are available for that product group in that region. Each region was standardized by the number ofcountries, so that regions with fewer countries would not automatically have a lighter colour.
SOURCE: A. FAO, 2019 72; B. FAO, 20192| 44 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019» studies included in the meta-analysis are notsocio-economic and cultural context in which
actors in the food chain operate. As a result, theyvary greatly from one region or country to thenext. There is a significant amount of knowledge
that can be tapped, but the fact remains thatdata are scarce, scattered, of unknown quality
or limited representativeness. One cannot
sufficiently emphasize the need to improvethe evidence base and urgently overcome thechallenges for data collection to form effective
solutions towards reducing food loss or waste.
This, however, requires substantial research
efforts (and thus financial investments) from bothpublic and private actors at international andnational levels. n

necessarily methodologically consistent, andconsiderable data gaps remain. Therefore, theanalysis is limited by the lack of comprehensive,
comparable and reliable data. More precise,context-specific studies of individual supply chainsare required to inform targeted interventions to
reduce food loss and waste. Case studies that use
FAO’s standard methodolog y to identify criticalloss points represent a step in this direction.
Overall, significant work has been carriedout to measure food loss and waste; however,the possible causes of food loss and waste
are numerous and highly dependent on the| 45 |

EGYPT
A young labourer
loading tomatoes ontowholesalers’ trucks.
©FAO/Heba Khamis

Key messages

1

The business case for food loss andwaste reduction is based on theassumption that food suppliers canincrease their profits by reducing foodlosses and that consumers save money by
wasting less.

2

The limited evidence to date suggeststhat the business case can potentially
increase profits and lead to certain
reductions in food loss or waste; however,focusing on the business case alone isunlikely to address the full scale of the
problem.

3

Even in those cases whereinterventions to reduce food loss andwaste are not profitable, reduction efforts
may result in productivity gains that
represent an economic benefit to society
at large. Such economic cases may justify
public-sector intervention.

4

Policymakers should weigh thepotential benefits of food loss andwaste reduction efforts not only against
their costs, but also considering the
distributional implications for incomes andthe well-being of the different actors in thefood supply chain.

CHAPTER 3
REDUCING FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE –THE BUSINESSCASE AND BEYOND

5

Public interventions may take the formof awareness raising campaigns
aimed at convincing individuals of thebenefits they receive from food loss or
waste reduction.

6

Other interventions may aim to
improve the incentives offered tosuppliers and consumers to reduce foodloss or waste, through investments, taxes,
subsidies or regulation.

CHAPTER 3

REDUCING FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE – THE BUSINESSCASE AND BEYOND
This chapter examines to what extent theprivate sector can be relied on to reduce foodloss or waste, and the scope for public-sector
inter vention. Where the benefits of food loss
and waste reductions accrue to stakeholders
other than those implementing the reduction
measures, public inter vention may be justified.
The chapter looks at the net benefits of foodloss and waste reduction for private actors(the business case) and then discusses thebroad economic benefits of these reductions
for societ y as a whole (the economic case).
The economic case looks beyond the businesscase for food loss and waste reduction, topossible gains for societ y at large that private
actors do not take into account. If thesesociet y-wide gains exceed the costs of efforts
towards loss and waste reduction, public
inter vention may be justified. n

For the indirect effects, changes in prices
along the supply chain will depend on whereinter ventions are occurring, and will affectprivate stakeholders differently dependingon whether the stakeholders are upstream or
downstream in the supply chain relative towhere the price change occurs. Actors operating
at earlier stages in the food supply chain will
see it as a change in the price of their foodproduct, while stakeholders at later stages in
the food supply will see it as a change in their
input costs. This indicates that there may bewinners and losers among private stakeholders.
For example, if food waste at the retail level isreduced, wholesale suppliers may see a decreasein demand that negatively affects their returns,
but at the same time the reduction in retailwaste may make food cheaper for consumers,
which increases their well-being.

THE PRIVATE AND
SOCIETAL BENEFITS AND
COSTS FROM REDUCING
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

To examine whether societ y-wide gains exceed
the costs of efforts towards loss and waste
reduction, Figure 10 aggregates the net benefits
for private stakeholders – both direct andindirect – and then factors in the impacts on
the environment and on food securit y andnutrition as additional benefits. These threesets of benefits, assuming they are ultimately
positive, then need to be weighed against thecosts incurred by societ y as a whole to attain the
reductions in food loss and waste. These costs
will be those incurred by the public sector forenabling the reductions (private benefits andcosts are already considered in the “increase
overall income” box in Figure 10).

Figure 10 lays out the potential benefits andcosts of food loss and waste reduction, anddisting uishes between those costs and benefits
that accrue to private stakeholders (blue boxes)and broader costs and benefits to societ y (redboxes). The fig ure also disting uishes between
the benefits and costs of private stakeholders
directly involved in reducing food loss andwaste versus those of private stakeholders
who are affected indirectly through changes inprices associated with reductions in food loss
and waste. For private stakeholders involved
in inter ventions, costs and benefits are those
associated directly with the inter vention.

In this chapter, the economic benefits considered
for the economic case are limited to those linked
to monetar y transactions. Thus, the economic
benefits of food loss and waste reduction
are seen in terms of the resulting increase inproductivit y, which boosts the well-being of| 48 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 10

POTENTIAL PRIVATE AND BROADER SOCIETAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE(FLW) REDUCTION

DIRECT EFFECTS ON
PRIVATE STAKEHOLDERS
IMPLEMENTINGINTERVENTIONS(BUSINESS CASE)

INDIRECT EFFECTS ON
PRIVATE STAKEHOLDERSNOT INVOLVED IN
INTERVENTIONSOVERALL SOCIETAL EFFECTS(AGGREGATED OVER ALL
STAKEHOLDERS)POTENTIAL COSTS

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Increased overall income (net impact of
direct and indirect benefits and costs)

Money saved by consumers

If food prices are loweredby reductions in FLW thenall consumers gain

Improved food security
and nutrition

Increased profits
for food suppliers

Suppliers downstream in the supply
chain gain if reduction in FLW lowers
the prices for their inputs

Reduction of natural resource use
and GHG emissions

Time and effort spentby consumers and businesses

Suppliers upstream in the supply chain
may lose if reduction in FLW lowers theprices for their outputs

Time and effort spent bygovernments (monitoring,legislation, enforcement)

Investment costs to businesses(e.g. in new equipment)

If food prices increase due to a reductionin FLW (e.g. because of regulation
imposed) then consumers can be
negatively affected

Public investment costs(e.g. infrastructure)

Public funds used to provide
economic incentives to reduce FLW
Private benefits or costs

Societal benefits or costs

SOURCE: FAO

societ y as a whole. This narrow definition of
economic benefits excludes any positive impactof food loss and waste reduction on food securit yand nutrition. It also disregards how reduction
efforts may mitigate the negative impact of foodloss and waste on the environment, in terms of
GHG emissions and pressure on land and water
resources. Indeed, the impact of food loss andwaste reduction on food securit y and nutritionand environmental sustainabilit y is muchharder to express in monetar y terms. These two
important dimensions are therefore discussed
separately in Chapters 4 and 5.
To sum up, this chapter, in combination with
Chapters 4 and 5, makes an incrementalarg ument for reducing food loss and waste.
It starts by looking at the business case for food| 49 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

loss and waste reduction (just direct effects,
first column in Figure 10) as justification for
reducing food loss and waste. It then moves
on to the economic case as a justification tointer vene on food loss and waste, accounting
for direct and indirect net economic benefits
on private stakeholders (represented by the“increase overall income” box in Figure 10, which
combines the first two columns in the fig ure)
to be balanced with whatever public costs are
incurred to attain the reductions (bottom half ofthird column in Figure 10). The economic case, as
covered here, does not take into consideration
the environmental and food securit y andnutrition benefits of decreasing food loss andwaste. This is done in the following chapters,
which examine the additional benefits ofreduction of food loss and waste in terms offood securit y and nutrition (Chapter 4) and theenvironment (Chapter 5). nof inputs while costs related to disposing oflost or wasted food decrease.1, 2 Suppliers who
work to reduce food loss and waste may
improve their reputation for environmental
stewardship and strengthen customer
relations.1
 Consumers who reduce their food waste savemoney to spend elsewhere; they may also
benefit from lower food prices if food loss
reductions by suppliers make food cheaper atwholesale and retail levels. But this depends
on how the price effects of food loss reductions
ripple through the chain, which in turn isdetermined by where the reductions occur andhow large they are. l Consumers may fulfill amoral, rather than financial, objective byreducing their food waste and thus limiting its
negative environmental and social effects.
However, efforts to reduce food loss and waste
involve costs, which rational individuals will
only be willing to bear as long as the benefits
that accrue to them outweigh such costs.
By this view, a certain level of food loss or
waste is unavoidable, depending inter alia
on the technolog y available to suppliersand consumers, as well as the perishabilit y,distribution systems and consumption patterns
for food products.

THE BUSINESS CASE
FOR REDUCING FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE –OPPORTUNITIES,COSTS AND BARRIERSFor example, if the opportunit y cost of time
for consumers is high, efforts to plan foodpurchases and meal preparation better and to
manage food stocks (an effective strateg y to
reduce food waste) may be too time-consuming– in other words, costly – to make themworthwhile. 3

Food loss and waste reduction can benefit
the private sector but there are barriers
to adoption
As arg ued in Chapter 1, in theor y, participantsin the food supply chain make rational decisions
that allow them to maximize their profits(suppliers) or well-being (consumers) – including
decisions on the level of food loss or waste theyfind acceptable. Food loss and waste reductions
can have a positive impact upon suppliers’ andconsumers’ well-being.

Likewise, food suppliers may view thebeneficial impact of reducing food losses byinvesting in technolog y or improved practices
as too small in relation to the investment
costs. For example, farmers might reduceon-farm losses of crops to pests or any natural
hazard by improving storage and handling(e.g. by using hermetic grain storage bags),
but if the costs exceed the value of the foodthat can be saved, they are unlikely to take Food suppliers, for example farmers,
processors, transporters, retailers and foodser vice providers, can increase theirproductivit y by reducing food loss and waste.
Indeed, if less food is lost or wasted, suppliers
have more food to sell using the same amountl Note that efforts by consumers to reduce food waste by buying
smaller packages may result in a rise in their food spending, as smaller
packages are often more expensive per unit of food bought.

| 50 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019such actions. The limited adoption of foodloss reduction measures by maize producers
in the United Republic of Tanzania (see Box 13)
is a case in point. The same applies to efforts
by food processors (e.g. optimizing the
manufacturing process), retailers or foodser vice providers (e.g. improving inventor y
management, adjusting packaging and labellingto discourage consumers wasting food, or
redistributing excess food), as well as efforts
that concern all operators in the chain, suchas systems to track food losses. It follows thatfood supply chain operators devote more timeand money to reducing losses and waste of foodproducts with a high price value. Products that
fetch lower prices may not warrant costly
prevention measures, and operators may decideto compensate for such losses or waste byproducing or buying in more. m

including, for example, the financial andphysical resources available to them at private
and public levels. Thus, even if they are awareof the problem of food loss or waste and theactions that could help mitigate the problem,
various t y pes of constraints may discouragethem from taking such actions. For example,
individuals in developing countries, especiallysmallholders, often cannot afford the highupfront costs associated with food loss andwaste reduction efforts without financial
help. Yet, credit providers already consider
agriculture as a high-risk sector and payback
periods are often challenging for farmers withimmediate cash needs. 6 Thus, access to credit
becomes a barrier to adopting food loss andwaste reduction measures.
A 2011 study by the World Bank shows thatin sub-Saharan Africa there is a variet yof practices and technologies to reduce
post-har vest losses of food. However, they are
rarely adopted and efforts towards change havefailed for a number of reasons. Sometechnolog y packages transferred from Asia
proved financially unsustainable in the context
of Africa. Some inter ventions did not identif y
the key constraints, or assumed wrongly
there were economic incentives for reducing
losses. Some technologies were not culturally
acceptable (e.g. metal silos were a success inCentral America but not so in Africa, inter alia
due to a preference for storing foods inside thehome to prevent theft). Other inter ventions
to facilitate change were hampered byunrealistic timeframes. 7

However, a number of factors may prevent
stakeholders from taking fully rational
decisions as to the optimal level of food loss
or waste, and thus optimizing their profits orwell-being. First, food operators and consumers
may not have full information on how muchfood they lose or waste, on how it affects them,on all the factors that combine to inf luence foodloss and waste, or on the benefits and costs ofreducing food loss and waste. These aspects
are crucial to rational decision-making but
they are also complex, and operators andconsumers may not fully understand them.
Second, suppliers and consumers may be
ver y uncertain about the benefits of efforts to
reduce food loss or waste, deterring risk-averse
stakeholders from reducing food loss or waste.
This uncertaint y was cited as one of the reasonsfor the limited adoption of such measures bymaize producers in the United Republic of
Tanzania (see Box 13). 5

Even so, successful cases do exist. Examples
of such in Asia and Africa often relate to
adopting improved technolog y (such as
small-scale dr yers, threshers and storage bags)
for post-har vest rice handling and storage.
Successful examples are linked to strong
government support, e.g. through financial
incentives to early adopters or creating an
enabling environment for infant industries.
Box 14 provides an example of an alternative
storage method that led to a reduction in
post-har vest losses. 7 The size of operations
matters: larger operations can shoulder costlier
investments. For example, a study in Uganda
found that plastic silos are financially viable»

The financial cost–benefit analysis of efforts
to reduce food loss and waste by individual
economic players is determined by the privateand social context in which they operate,
m Note that the price value of a food product differs not only from
one type of food to the next, but also between the various stages inthe supply chain, for the same product. The value of a tomato, forexample, is higher at the retail level than at the farm level. By the time
the tomato reaches the supermarket, more resources have been used
to get it there (transport, fuel, energy for storage, the costs of running
the retail outlet, etc.).4| 51 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

BOX 13

A FINANCIAL COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF POST-HARVEST LOSS REDUCTION FOR MAIZE IN
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
A 2018 survey of 420 households producing maize
in a rural district in the United Republic of Tanzania
examined to what extent improved post-harvest
handling can reduce food losses.
The survey found that, on average, post-harvest
losses account for 11.7 percent of households’ annual
maize harvests, representing a value of USD 58.9
(1.2 times the median monthly household income).
On average, 2.9 percent of the harvest was lost during
pre-storage stages, 7.8 percent during storage and1 percent during marketing.

The study confirms that improved post-harvest
handling can significantly reduce losses. A financial
cost–benefit analysis of various post-harvest practices(see the figure below) shows that not all practices
aimed at reducing losses are beneficial. While thebenefits of timely harvesting, sorting maize anddisinfecting storage facilities outweigh the costs, otherpractices such as proper intermediate handling,protecting stored maize and letting the maize dry foran extra day are not financially worthwhile.

FINANCIAL COST−BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES AIMED AT REDUCING POST-HARVEST LOSSES OF MAIZE
IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Cost: Monetized labour hours to perform mitigation (USD) per tonne

Cost: Direct monetary cost of mitigation (USD) per tonne

Benefit: Value of maize saved (USD) per tonne

Net mitigation benefit per tonne

PROTECT STORED MAIZE

DISINFECT STORE FACILITY

DRYING FOR AN EXTRA DAY

SORTING MAIZE

PROPER INTERMEDIATE HANDLINGHARVEST AT MATURITY
-7

-5

-3

-1

1

COST OR BENEFIT IN USD

SOURCE: Chegere, 2018, Table 6 5| 52 |

3

5

7

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 14PROMOTING MUD SILOS TO REDUCE MAIZE LOSSES DURING STORAGE – EVIDENCE FROMNORTHERN GHANA

Mud silos seal well and are therefore a better option
to store food grains than other, more open types ofstorage. In 2000, the Ministry of Food and Agricultureof Ghana, in collaboration with partners, implemented
a wide-ranging programme to promote the use of
mud silos for maize storage in the Northern Region of
Ghana – the aim was to encourage smallholders to use
these silos over other more traditional types of storage.
Under the programme, funded by the United States
Agency for International Development, artisans from
communities that use mud silos demonstrated theirconstruction in selected villages in six districts ofnorthern Ghana. The demonstrations were facilitatedby the fact that communities who traditionally use mudsilos live close to those who do not.

More than 1 000 farmers in the Gushegu andKaraga Districts in the Northern Region of Ghana started
using sealed mud silos as a result of the programme, anda survey of 60 farming families evaluated its success. All
60 families owned both mud silos and other types ofstorage facilities and most of those surveyed were using
the mud silos at the time. As a result, maize storage losses
dropped from an average 300 kg per family per year toabout 50 kg. Of all maize damaged by insects while instorage, an average 6.5 percent occurred inside the mudsilos. The remaining 93.5 percent of losses occurred inother facilities.
With the costs of construction in Ghana estimatedat less than USD 109 and less labour needed tomaintain them than other types of storage, mud silos
were shown to offer a low-cost solution to store andprotect grain.

SOURCE: World Bank, 20117» only for farmers who have an above-average

A 2017 study by the World Resources
Institute ( W RI) and the Waste and Resources
Action Programme ( W R AP) found there
can be a strong financial business case forcompanies to pursue efforts to reduce foodloss and waste (Box 15). Note that the study
only looked at the financial impact on theoperator implementing the measures andnot the effects of the measures on otheractors in the food supply chain, whether
upstream, such as farmers, or downstream.
Farmers’ products may fetch lower prices,for example, if buyers need fewer inputs asa result of food loss reduction. Farmers may
also be forced to discard more products if
their clients impose stricter qualit y standards
to reduce food losses. Such redistributive
effects are further discussed in this chapter.

acreage; options that are affordable forsmaller farms, such as hermetic bags, were
financially unattractive in terms of net benefits
generated. 8

Quantifying the financial gains of food loss
and waste reduction for suppliers andconsumers
A study of households producing maize in
the United Republic of Tanzania confirmsthat improved post-har vest handling cansignificantly reduce losses (see Box 13);
however, not all practices aimed at reducing
losses are financially beneficial. The study
shows that identif ying the best entr y points
for post-har vest inter ventions and assessing
their financial feasibilit y for smallholders is
crucial to success.

A study by Rethink Food Waste (ReFED),
a multi-stakeholder non-profit platform| 53 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

BOX 15

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – A SURVEY BY CHAMPIONS 12.3
Food operators have an incentive to implement
measures to reduce food loss and waste if thefinancial benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. A
recent report by the WRI and WRAP on behalf ofChampions 12.3, a coalition of international
leaders dedicated to accelerating progress towards
achieving SDG Target 12.3, studies the financial
case for food loss and waste reduction, analysing
nearly 1 200 business sites in 17 developed anddeveloping countries. It was found that more than99 percent of the sites earned a positive return on
investment in food loss reduction; the median site
realized a 14-fold financial return on its investment(sites closer to the consumption stage of the foodsupply chain tended to have higher median ratios
than those closer to the production stage). Such ahigh return indicates there can be a strong financial
business case for companies to reduce food loss
and waste.
The report cites the example of a food
manufacturer in Pakistan who pursued a number ofactions to reduce food losses, including improved
cooling and storage, strengthening dairy farmer
training and best practice sharing and implementing
lean management processes. These efforts resulted ina 25 percent return on investment for the company.
Another example is that of a food services provider
in western Europe whose waste reduction efforts –such as using more semi-prepared food, improving
meal demand forecasting, training staff andengaging consumers – had a benefit–cost ratio of
nearly 25:1.

SOURCE: Hanson and Mitchell, 20171

THE ECONOMIC CASE
FOR REDUCING FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE –FROM PRIVATE TO
PUBLIC INTEREST

bringing together businesses, NGOs and thegovernment aimed at reducing food waste
in the United States of America, estimatesthat businesses can potentially increase theirannual profits by implementing a number offood loss prevention and recycling solutions(see Box 16). n

Food loss and waste reduction benefits not
only private actors involved in the process,but also society as a whole
The previous section arg ued that reducing foodloss and waste may have a positive impact on
suppliers’ profits and consumers’ well-being.
However, the financial incentives (the businesscase) for private stakeholders to reduce theirfood losses or waste may be weak. Even where
the business case for food loss or waste
reduction is clear, stakeholders may be unable
to implement the necessar y actions because offinancial constraints. »| 54 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 16

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – A STUDY BY REFED

ReFED analysed 27 possible solutions to food loss andwaste in the United States of America, grouped into
three categories: prevention, recovery (redistribution)and recycling. It estimates that businesses canpotentially increase their profits by USD 1.9 billion
annually by implementing nine prevention and two
recycling solutions. Of this total, USD 1.6 billion would
accrue to food service providers, including restaurants.
Most of the total profit opportunity comes from waste
tracking and analytics, reflecting the operational

inefficiencies that exist today in food purchasing andpreparation. One of the reasons why restaurants fail toadopt the solutions identified in the report is the gap
in employee training caused by high turnover rates
and competing priorities such as food safety and foodquality. Other promising strategies include smaller
plates in food service outlets, using imperfect produce
in food preparation and marketing imperfect produce
as a new product line.

ESTIMATED ECONOMY-WIDE ANNUAL BUSINESS PROFIT POTENTIAL OF SELECTED FOOD WASTE SOLUTIONS(USD MILLION)

1 003

WASTE TRACKING AND ANALYTICS
315

SMALLER PLATES228

PRODUCE SPECIFICATIONSTRAYLESS DINING

154

IMPROVED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT

56

CENTRALIZED COMPOSTING

47

CENTRALIZED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION43

SECONDARY RESELLERS

29

MANUFACTURING LINE OPTIMIZATION

28

COLD CHAIN MANAGEMENT

26

SPOILAGE PREVENTION PACKAGING

17

0

200

400

600

800

ANNUAL BUSINESS PROFIT POTENTIAL
SOURCE: ReFED, 2016, p. 2310

| 55 |

1 000

1 200

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND» The economic case for food loss and waste

was four years before the ban was amended toinclude food waste – therefore the results may
be overestimated.

reduction looks beyond the business case toinclude gains for societ y at large, which private
stakeholders may not necessarily take into
account. This broader case is built on three
ways in which reductions can boost societal
well-being. First, food loss and waste reduction
may improve productivit y and thus contributeto economic growth. Such economic growth
benefits not only private actors, but also societ y
as a whole. Second, food loss and waste reduction
may improve the food securit y or nutrition statusof the most food insecure. Third, it may help
mitigate the negative environmental impacts offood loss and waste in terms of GHG emissions
and pressure on land and water resources.
This chapter focuses on the first pillar of theeconomic case and examines how food loss
and waste reductions can generate positive
economic outcomes for societ y. The other two
main arg uments for reduction – improvements infood securit y and nutrition and environmental
sustainabilit y – are the focus of Chapters 4 and 5.

Quantifying the economic gains of food loss
and waste reduction for society at large
Attempts to quantif y the costs of food loss andwaste (such as the W R AP study) have so far
been mainly based on calculation of the amountof food lost or wasted in food prices (wholesaleor retail). This can mistakenly deliver themessage that reduced food loss and waste willautomatically translate into gains for societ yof the same amount.12–14 Although estimates inprice terms do provide useful indications as tothe scale of the food loss and waste problem,
they fail to take due account of the way in which
price signals are transmitted throughout the foodsupply chain or the wider national and global
economy, as well as of the distributional effects
thereof. Furthermore, a significant strand ofliterature examines the impact of inter ventions
in food loss and waste reduction without
considering their costs. n Economic cost–benefit
analyses should take these costs into account.15 –17
In general, estimating the costs of efforts towards
food loss and waste reduction, which involve
specific, identifiable investments, seems easierthan estimating their benefits. 2

An additional arg ument for the broader economic
case for food loss and waste reduction is thefact that reduction efforts, such as the adoptionof improved food redistribution practices, cancontribute to indirect job creation. In 2014,
Massachusetts, in the United States of America,
modified its existing waste ban reg ulation,
the Commercial Food Waste Disposal Ban, to
add food to the list of materials banned from
disposal. Under the modified reg ulation, foodcompanies and institutions are not allowed todispose of more than 1 ton of commercial organic
material per week. Any waste over that limit
must be diverted, for example by donating it tocharit y or sending it to be turned into animal
feed, composted or anaerobically digested.
Probably as a result of the new reg ulation,
both food rescue organizations and the organic
waste industr y experienced significant growth
between 2010 and 2016, with a considerable
increase in the number of jobs. The amount offood received annually by the average food rescue
organization increased from 37 tons in 2010
to 193 tons in 2015. The growth of food rescue
organizations has generated over USD 460 000
in annual state and local tax revenues.11 One
limitation of the ban’s economic impact analysis
worth mentioning is that the baseline year (2010)

The analysis of the economic gains of food loss
and waste reduction should take due account of
the fact that those who bear the costs of such
efforts are not necessarily the ones who enjoy
the benefits. Whether suppliers and consumers
voluntarily implement measures towards lower
food loss and waste, or whether such measures
are imposed through legislation, can provide
an indication of who wins or loses from foodloss and waste reduction. 2 The rationale is thatstakeholders will voluntarily reduce food loss
and waste if the benefits of doing so outweighthe costs. In the absence of a business case,
implementation may be mandator y throughreg ulation. For example, legislation that obliges
retailers to modif y product labels with a viewto reducing food waste (by better use of terms
such as “best before” or “use by”) may benefitn| 56 |

E.g. Rutten and Kavallari.15

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

WINNERS AND LOSERS
IN FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE REDUCTION

consumers by helping them avoid food waste.
However, retailers bear the costs of alteringlabels. On the other hand, where measures toreduce food loss or waste are voluntar y, they
are likely to bring net gains to food operators.
Thus, to reduce waste a retailer may decide tosell imperfect produce as a new product line
(often marketed as “ugly” fruits and vegetables)
if the benefits, including the revenue from sellingpreviously unsellable products and acquiring ahigher reputational standing, outweigh the costsof transporting and distributing the additional
products. Also, suppliers may prevent produce
loss and improve consumer access to safe andaffordable food through efficient trade. This may
also offer opportunities for food providers to sell
products that are not commonly consumed where
they are produced.18

Actions to reduce food loss or waste can dependon different actors, according to the t y pe of foodloss or waste targeted. Those who bear the costsof food loss or waste reduction are not necessarily
the ones who enjoy its benefits. Indeed, theimpact of efforts to reduce food loss and waste
on farmers, processors, distributors, retailers andconsumers depends on how the effect on prices
is transmitted throughout the food supply chain.
Some may well benefit while others may lose.
As explained in the beginning of the chapter,
food suppliers who increase their productivit y by
reducing food losses may see their profits grow.
Losing less food means producing more, using
the same amount of resources, while costs related
to disposal decrease. However, the increasedfood supply may cause prices to fall, which would
nullif y the positive effect of increased sales.
The net effect on overall profits depends inter alia
on the f lexibilit y of prices, the price elasticit y ofsupply and demand, and on how price effects aretransmitted from one stage of the food supply
chain to the next.

An exhaustive study by ReFED for the UnitedStates of America finds that solutions withconsiderable economic value and those which
are profitable for businesses can reduce losses
and waste by approximately 2 million tons.
This amount represents 4 percent of the total
amount of food sent to landfill or incinerators
prior to implementation of reduction efforts,
as estimated by ReFED. However, the wider
economic cost–benefit analysis of reduction
efforts by ReFED suggests that up to 20 percent offood losses and waste can be avoided (see Box 17).

Consumers who reduce their food waste
save money to spend elsewhere. If food loss
reductions by suppliers make food cheaperfor consumers, the latter may benefit from anincrease in their effective income (their income
after food spending), or from the fact they can
now purchase more food for the same amountof money. However, increased productivit yresulting from food loss reduction may reducethe demand for labour and depress wages, which
would work against the positive effect of a fall infood prices on household income. The combined
net effect of lower food prices versus lower
wages on a household’s income depends interalia on the share of labour in overall production
costs, wage f lexibilit y, the sector in whichhousehold members are employed, the share offood spending in overall household expenditureand the price elasticit y of supply and demand.
Note that as food becomes cheaper, the incentives
for consumers to avoid food waste may weaken. »The results of the ReFED study cannot be
generalized across countries, and the analysis
may fail to consider certain solutions.
Nevertheless, the findings of the study suggestthat efforts implemented by private stakeholders
based on pure business considerations alone areunlikely to resolve the food loss and waste
problem. Even while acknowledg ing wider
economic benefits (without taking into accountthe effects of loss reduction on job creation, foodsecurit y or the env ironment, see Box 18), major
reductions seem unlikely. Thus, the public sector
has an important role to play in achiev ing
SDG Target 12.3, through investments, taxes,
subsidies or reg ulations. n| 57 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

BOX 17QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC GAINS OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – THE REFED STUDY
A recent study by ReFED (see also Box 16) analysed
not only the financial value to businesses, but also
the economic value to society, of 27 measures aimed
at reducing food loss and waste, whereby economic
value was defined as the aggregate financial benefit
to society (consumers, businesses, governments andother stakeholders) minus all investments and costs
over ten years.
Note that the definition of economic value as used
by ReFED includes financial benefits enjoyed by all
actors in society and excludes the non-financial impactsof food loss and waste reduction on society. Specifically,
the non-financial benefits not considered in the study
are those related to food security (meals recovered),job creation, and environmental gains (GHG reductions
and water conservation).

The figure below displays the marginal abatement
cost curve per ton of reducing food waste in USD. The
width of each bar represents the annual diversion
potential for each solution, measured in tons ofwaste reduced.
The study finds that the 27 selected solutions havethe potential to generate USD 100 billion over ten
years, considerably higher than the approximately
USD 19 billion in business profits over the same period(see Box 16). Prevention solutions account for over
75 percent of this total; 23 percent is generated byrecovery and 2 percent by recycling. Prevention andrecovery solutions generally result in greater economic
value per ton, while recycling solutions have thepotential to divert a significantly larger volume of lostor wasted food.

MARGINAL FOOD WASTE ABATEMENT COST CURVE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPREVENTION AND RECOVERY SOLUTIONSARE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE

RECYCLING SOLUTIONSARE THE MOST SCALABLE

Standardized date labelling

5K

Prevention

Recovery

Recycling

Consumer education campaigns
Packaging adjustments
Donation matching softwareStandardized donation regulation

ECONOMIC VALUE PER TON (USD PER TON)

4K

Donation liability education
Value-added processing
Donation storage and handling
Spoilage-prevention packaging
Donation transportation

3K

Waste tracking and analytics
Trayless dining
Smaller plates
Cold chain management

2K

Manufacturing line optimization
Donation tax incentives
Improved inventory management
Produce specifications

1K

Secondary resellers
Home composting
Commercial grey water

Water resource
recovery facility
with anaerobic
digestion

Centralized
anaerobic
digestion

Other*

Centralized composting

0
0

2

4

6

8

DIVERSION POTENTIAL (MILLION TONS)SOURCE: ReFED, 2016, p. 2010

| 58 |

10

12

13.2

* Other: Community composting, animal feed,
in-vessel compostingTHE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 17(CONTINUED)
The solutions that generate the greatest economic
value per ton are standardized date labelling,
consumer education campaigns and packaging
adjustments, all of which are measures aimed atprevention, rather than diversion. Meanwhile,
centralized composting and anaerobic digestion havethe largest diversion potential in volume (these threemeasures can collectively reduce 9.5 million tons ofwaste annually, nearly three-quarters of the total
potential), but their economic value per ton is low.
The generally higher net economic value generated byprevention solutions reflects the fact that these solutions
typically require relatively low investments, while mostcentralized recycling solutions require heavy investment
in transportation and processing infrastructure.

Furthermore, the benefits reflect the value of food andfood waste. Thus, the economic value of prevention
solutions, which captures the value of edible food, withan average retail value of USD 5 000 per ton, ishigher than that of recycling solutions, which capture
the value of food scraps whose average value is lessthan USD 100 per ton.
The ReFED study finds that the solutions that
potentially generate the highest economic value forsociety are not necessarily those that bring mostfinancial benefits to businesses. Likewise the solutions
that appeal most to businesses – waste tracking andanalytics, smaller plates in food service outlets andusing and marketing imperfect produce (see Box 16) –do not create most value for society.

» In developing countries, a sizeable amount

generally focus on encouraging consumers to
buy and thus waste less food. 23, 24 If the fallin consumer spending on food implies that
suppliers now sell less, or that their products
fetch lower prices, the gains to societ y that
accrue to consumers may be cancelled out by the
decline in suppliers’ profits. Also, consumers
may decide to spend the money they saved
in wasting less of product a by buying moreof product b, or by buying a higher qualit y of
product a (trading up), in which case there isa trade-off between the gains for suppliers of
product b or of the higher-qualit y version of
product a on the one hand and the losses for the
suppliers of product a on the other. 25, 26 Indeed,a study by W R AP found that while growing
consumer awareness of food waste leads to a
reduction in sales volume, sales revenue remains
stable, suggesting that consumers trade up tohigher-priced foods. 22

of food is lost on the supply side of the foodsupply chain. A 2013 case study for Northern
Africa and the Near East shows that efforts
to reduce the amount of food lost by primar y
producers lowered unit production costs andincreased food supply. Increased efficiency inproduction led to a fall in domestic prices whichallowed households to buy more food for thesame amount of money, resulting in higher foodconsumption levels and a lower dependence, andthus reduced v ulnerabilit y, to changes in world
food markets. However, increased efficiency
in primar y production meant that less labour
was needed to produce the same output, whichcaused a fall in employment and nominal wages.
Overall, the combined net effect of these impacts
was improved household food securit y and adecrease in rural povert y, as the positive effectof falling food prices on household purchasing
power more than offset the negative impact oflower nominal wages.15

In conclusion, policymakers should not only
weigh the potential benefits of efforts aimed atfood loss and waste reduction against their costsin terms of both public and private funds, butalso consider the distributional implications ofsuch efforts on the profits and well-being of thevarious actors in the food supply chain. n

In developed countries, evidence indicates thatfood is lost or wasted mostly at the retail andconsumption stages of the food supply chain
and food waste reduction is high on the policy
agenda. Efforts to reduce food loss and waste| 59 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

PUBLIC-SECTOR
INTERVENTION ON FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION

decisions are potentially significant, most notably
in terms of food securit y and environmental
sustainabilit y – they thus provide a strong
justification for public inter vention, dealt withseparately in Chapters 4 and 5.
Where there is a discrepancy between individual
incentives and societal well-being, public
inter ventions are needed to convince individual
actors of the benefits that food loss or waste
reduction can bring them (known as “nudging”),
or to modif y those incentives.

The rationale for public intervention
The rationale for government inter ventions aimed
at inf luencing decisions made by individual
suppliers and consumers on food loss and waste
is twofold.

A further dimension that may warrant public
inter vention is that of gender imbalance, which
can affect food loss and waste. If women faceconstraints in accessing and controlling theresources they need due to gender discrimination,
there may be few incentives and/or possibilities
for them to reduce food loss and waste. This cannegatively affect efficiency throughout the foodsupply chain. Indeed, despite their importantrole in food supply chains, rural women often
face specific constraints in accessing essential
productive resources, ser vices and information,and in participating in the decisions that may leadto food loss and waste reduction. 23 For example,
rural women are often less involved than men
in cooperatives and farmer organizations.
As a result, these women have limited access toprocessing facilities, improved technologies andmarkets, which leads to greater food losses.

First, the previous section arg ued that thefinancial incentives for private stakeholders to
reduce their food losses or waste may be weak.
Even where the business case for food loss or
waste reduction is clear, individual stakeholders
may be unable to implement the necessar yactions because of financial constraints.
Unless the public sector steps in and modifies the
incentives for individual suppliers and consumers
or helps them overcome these constraints, thepotential for food loss and waste reduction toincrease productivit y or create jobs is lost andsociet y as a whole loses out. o The ReFED study
provides an example of how addressing the fullscale of food loss and waste by relying exclusively
on the business case is unlikely to be successful
in the United States of America.10
Second, the decisions of individual suppliers
or consumers as to food loss and waste havenegative implications on wider societ y thatthese individual actors do not take into account(known as negative externalities, see also
Chapter 1). Indeed, even if losing or wasting acertain amount of food makes sense to individual
suppliers or consumers in terms of maximizing
their profits or well-being, they may ignore thefact that their decisions negatively affect thewell-being of societ y at large. In other words,
what is optimal from the perspective of anindividual may be at odds with the best interestsof societ y as a whole. These negative externalities
of individual actors’ food loss and waste

Public interventions in food loss and waste
reduction can also be framed within a wider
development agenda. For example, in developing
countries with a high level of food insecurity or
undernourishment, food loss and waste reduction
is likely to be seen as a means towards improving
food security and nutrition. If food loss andwaste is then caused by a lack of infrastructure(e.g. poor-quality roads) or public services(e.g. an erratic electricity supply), government
interventions to reduce food loss and waste
by improving infrastructure or services can beembedded in a broader development strateg y.
Such a strateg y will contribute to an enabling
environment that encourages private stakeholders
to invest in food loss and waste reduction. 7 Market
failures that result in food loss and waste may also
warrant public intervention. For example, poorly
functioning credit markets may mean that farmerso Given the high upfront costs involved in the research, development
and implementation of new technologies aimed at reducing food losses
or waste, government support is crucial, especially in the early stages.

| 60 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 18THE “LOVE FOOD, HATE WASTE” CAMPAIGN

In 2007, the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland launched a nationwide initiative to
reduce household food waste – within five years, it
had achieved a 21 percent reduction. The basis of
the initiative was the “Love Food, Hate Waste” radio,TV, print and online media campaign run by WRAP.
The campaign raised awareness among consumers
about how much food they waste, how it affects theirhousehold budget and what they can do about it.
This initiative collaborated with food manufacturers
and retailers to stimulate innovation, such as
resealable packaging, shared meal planning and foodstorage tips.
The total implementation costs during the five-year
period were estimated to be GBP 26 million incurredby United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Government agencies, local authorities, food
manufacturers and retailers. Households derived
the majority of the benefits, thanks to the savings
achieved by preventing food waste, estimated at
GBP 6.5 billion. Local authorities also realized asubstantial GBP 86 million worth of savings in foodwaste disposal costs. As for the private sector,
benefits took the form of increased product shelf
life and reduced product loss. While households
started to consume more efficiently and companies
may have experienced a decline in food sales, thecompanies affirmed that the non-financial benefits,
such as strengthened consumer relationships, offset
the costs.1

cannot access funds to adopt loss-reducing
production techniques; the abuse of market powerby a buyer who is the only potential purchaser
may depress the price paid to farmers, who thenhave fewer incentives to prevent losses.

Nudging stakeholders towards an existing
business case – opportunities and limitations
Individual suppliers or consumers may not
be fully aware of how much food they loseor waste, what is causing food to be lost or
wasted, how it affects them, or what thebenefits and costs are of reducing food loss
and waste. While the decisions made by one
actor in the food supply chain may affect theuse of resources further up or down the chain,
individual players are often only partiallyaware of the decisions taken by others. As aresult, their decisions are based on limited
information and may well fail to maximize
their profits or well-being. Sur veys show thatprocessors are often unaware of the magnitudeof their food losses and consumers consistently
underestimate how much food they waste. 24
In such cases, providing information toactors in the food supply chain may convince
them of the business case for food loss andwaste reduction.

Note that food loss and waste solutions thatare appropriate in developed countries are notnecessarily the best solutions in developing
countries. In developed countries, most foodis believed to be wasted at the retail andconsumption stages of the food supply chain,
while in developing countries, it is mainly
lost in the earlier stages of the chain.19, 20
Thus, the solutions identified in the ReFED
study, for example, rightly focus heavily on
the consumer-facing side of the food supply
chain: retailers and food service providers.10 In
developing countries where post-harvest losses
account for an important share of overall food loss
and waste, efforts to promote improved growing
and post-harvest technologies and practices mightprove more effective in reducing food losses.

Building awareness of food loss and waste
may constitute a worthwhile strateg y for the| 61 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

BOX 19PROVIDING INFORMATION AND TRAINING – THE CASE OF TOMATOES AND MILK IN RWANDA

FAO conducted a post-harvest loss analysis along
two tomato supply chains and one milk supply chain
in Rwanda using the methodology described inBox 12. In the tomato supply chains, critical loss points
included sorting, grading, storage and transportation,with 30.3 percent of produce lost during thesestages. In the milk supply chain, estimated losses of
36.5 percent mostly occurred at the farm, storage andtransportation points.25
Training in post-harvest handling and use of
appropriate equipment can mitigate critical loss in the
supply chains studied and, consequently, reduce thenegative impact on food security and producers’
incomes. While a subsequent cost–benefit analysis
found all the proposed training methods were
profitable for farmers, there were differences in
profitability between them. In both tomato supply
chains, training farmers in proper handling practices
and using appropriate storage facilities had thehighest benefit–cost ratios (from 4.7:1 to 1.9:1). The

most profitable solution for the milk supply chain
involved training traders in proper milk collection,
storage and transportation (a benefit–cost ratioof 2.1:1).25
Since these are ex ante estimates of the impacts ofany training, several caveats apply to the analysis.
These include the extent to which the analysis
considered all costs incurred by stakeholders andwhether the estimated loss reductions would actuallymaterialize. Nonetheless, the Rwandan case highlights
how a cost–benefit analysis of interventions canprovide insights into opportunities for the most effective
food loss and waste reduction strategies acrosscommodities and stages of the supply chain. This casestudy also sheds light on the importance andchallenges of carrying out a rigorous cost–benefit
analysis that separates social costs and benefits
incurred by a project vis-à-vis the private benefits andcosts that determine adoption beyond the scope of
the intervention.

public sector to convince food supply chain
stakeholders to reduce their food loss andwaste. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, the “Love Food, Hate
Waste” awareness raising campaign by W R AP,
an NGO specializing in resource sustainabilit y,
led to a 21 percent reduction in the amountof food wasted by households from 2007 to2012 (see Box 18). Likewise, awareness raising
campaigns in Denmark (spearheaded by the
Stop Wasting Food movement, a private NGO)
resulted in a food waste decrease of 25 percent
from 2010 to 2015 (see also Chapter 6).

farmers could help them to avoid food losses at a
relatively low cost to the public sector. 25
Nudging actors towards an existing businesscase for reducing food loss and waste is an
attractive option because results can be obtainedwith limited financial resources by leveraging
private stakeholders’ interests. However, thebroader studies reported in this chapter, such
as ReFED (Boxes 16 and 17) and W R AP (Box 18),
indicate that relying on the existing businesscase alone provides only part of the solution.
The accomplishments of the W R AP initiativein reducing food waste by 21 percent over a
specific time period are substantial, but they do
not address nearly 80 percent of the problem.
Moreover, the ReFED study in the UnitedStates of America finds that inter ventions thatfall under the business case scenario would
address only 4 percent of the total amount offood currently sent to landfill or incinerators.

A reason why public awareness campaigns topromote food loss and waste reduction can beappealing to policymakers is that they generally
entail low costs relative to the financial benefits.
This premise is also supported by a recent FAO
study on the supply chains for tomatoes and milk
in Rwanda (Box 19), which shows that training| 62 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

The findings of these studies suggest thatefforts by private actors based on businessconsiderations alone are unlikely to resolve thefood loss and waste problem. It follows that there
may be a need to change the economic and legal
landscape within which private actors makedecisions about food loss and waste.

Changing the landscape for food loss andwaste decisions – investment, incentives
and regulation

A s publ ic awa reness of food loss and waste
g rows, gover nments may issue reg ulat ionsto add ress the problem. A s pa r t of an
ambit ious nat iona l st rateg y to tack le foodwaste in France in 2015, super ma rkets w ith
an a rea of 40 0 m 2 or more have been ba r red
f rom throw ing away food since 2016 and a reobl iged to enter into ag reements to donate
rejected food to cha r it ies. Other measures
adopted under the nat iona l st rateg y include
reducing food waste in schools and obl ig ing
food companies to include data on food losses
in thei r socia l and env i ronmenta l repor ts. 29

Governments can work towards food loss
and waste reduction by raising suppliers’
and consumers’ awareness of the benefits(making the business case) of any reduction.
They can play an important role by modif ying
incentives to reduce food loss and waste(changing the business case). Or they can also
make a significant contribution by addressing
the indirect drivers of food loss and waste inways that go beyond the business case. This isparticularly important given how the upfront
costs of investing in food loss and waste
reduction can be significant and may discourage
engagement by some smallholder businesses.

Donors have played a key role in promot ing
food loss and waste reduct ion in low-income
count r ies. In sub-Saha ran A f r ica, for example,
inst it ut ions such as the Bi l l & Mel inda Gates
Foundat ion, the Rockefel ler Foundat ion,
the United States Agenc y for Inter nat iona l
Development, U K A id, the World Ban k, FAO
and others have invested in the ea rly stage
development of technolog y a imed at reducing
losses, such as her met ic bags for cerea l
storage, improved crates for t ranspor t ing
tomatoes and bet ter f ish processing
technolog y. 6, 30 n

Alternative means of inf luencing decisions onfood loss and waste reduction could include
improving public ser vices and infrastructure (forexample, through public–private partnerships);
issuing reg ulations that affect the decisionsof individual actors regarding food loss andwaste; or providing financial incentives for
reduction through taxes, subsidies or exemptions.
For example, the Government of the UnitedStates of America amended the Tax Reform Act
in 2015 to give enhanced food donation tax
deductions and permanently expanded it to allbusinesses, creating a stronger business case forfood recover y.10, 26

CONCLUSIONS
T his repor t a rg ues that, in theor y, actors in thefood supply cha in ma ke rat iona l decisions to
ma x im i ze thei r prof it (suppl iers) or wel l-being(consumers) – includ ing decisions on the levelof food loss or waste they can tolerate. In otherwords, rat iona l actors w i l l under ta ke ef for ts
towa rds food loss and waste reduct ion only in
as fa r as the benef its of those ef for ts out weighthe costs. In this v iew, a cer ta in level of foodloss or waste is unavoidable.
However, incomplete infor mat ion about thei r
ow n food loss and waste decisions, as wel l as
those made by other actors in the food supply
cha in, may prevent actors f rom ta k ing f ul ly
rat iona l decisions on the opt ima l level of foodloss or waste. T his results in a loss of ef f icienc y
in the supply cha in or reduced consumer
wel l-being. Publ ic inter vent ions can conv ince
suppl iers and consumers of the business casefor food loss and waste reduct ion, or a l low»

As arg ued in Chapter 1, the qualit y of public
goods and ser vices inf luences food supply
chain actors’ decisions on food loss and waste.
However, given that they are public goods,
private actors will not bear the full financial costsof providing them. This is where public–private
partnerships − defined as cooperative venturesthat involve at least one public and one private
actor − can play a role (see Box 20). 27| 63 |

CHAPTER 3 REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE – THE BUSINESS CASE AND BEYOND

BOX 20

PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION IN APEC COUNTRIES

A survey undertaken by the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) countries of public–private
partnerships for food loss and waste reduction in
the framework of a multi-year project (Strengthening
Public–Private Partnership to Reduce Food Losses in
the Supply Chain) found that most APEC countries
have created several types of public–private
partnerships. Two-thirds of all APEC governments
provided public financial support in the form ofloans, insurance or grants to businesses or non-profit
organizations to implement measures aimed at
reducing food loss or waste, making it the mostwidely used type of partnership. Other types ofpublic–private partnerships include joint ventures
involving both public and private equity; consultative
partnerships relating to policy development andplanning; contractual partnerships involving public
procurement of financial and expertise services fromprivate entities; and multifunctional partnerships,
combining two or more of the above.

The figure in this box shows that most public–private
partnerships focused on food waste recycling, in bothdeveloped and developing economies. Food donation
ranked second, with two-thirds of interventions taking
place in developed economies. Third was agricultural
facility management, implemented predominantly indeveloping economies. The smallest number ofpublic–private partnerships focused on improvements incold chain systems.
APEC members identified knowledge sharing andimproved policy and project performance as the mostimportant advantages of public–private partnerships.
All countries agreed that public–private partnerships
enable resource saving and foster connections between
stakeholders. Several countries stressed that linking
multiple stakeholders improved the quality of data.
APEC’s developing member economies strongly
recommended that future public–private partnerships
focus on agricultural facility management and cold
chain systems.

SOURCE: APEC, 2018 27

TYPE OF INTERVENTIONS TOWARDS FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION BY PUBLIC−PRIVATEPARTNERSHIPS IN APEC COUNTRIES (NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIPS)
Advanced economy

Developing economy

AGRICULTURAL FACILITY ENHANCEMENTCOLD CHAIN SYSTEM

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION CAMPAIGN

FOOD DONATIONFOOD WASTE RECYCLING

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

NOTE: Eight advanced economies (Australia; Canada; China, Hong Kong SAR; Japan; New Zealand; Singapore; Taiwan Province of China; and the United States of America) and sevendeveloping economies (Chile; China; Malaysia; Papua New Guinea; Peru; Philippines; and Viet Nam) are included in the 2018 survey, out of APEC’s 21 member economies. Period
covered is not specified in survey question. Economies are classified as “advanced” or “developing” according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) classification. 28
SOURCE: APEC, 2018, Figure 8 27
| 64 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

» them to overcome f inancia l or other ba r r iers

private stakeholders (for example, improving
road infrastructure or adjusting failures in credit
markets) may have impacts that go beyond themere reduction of food losses or waste andcontribute to overall economic development.
Meanwhile, policies that do not aim directly
at reducing food loss and waste, but rather at
broader development objectives, may have thecorollar y effect of improving the business casefor reduction for private actors in the food supply
chain. These issues are discussed in the lastchapter of this report.

that stop them f rom ma k ing food loss andwaste decisions that ma x im i ze thei r prof its or
wel l-being. T he case st ud ies presented in thischapter show that any sig nif icant reduct ionsin food loss or waste w i l l indeed requi republ ic inter vent ions.
Looking beyond the business case for food loss
and waste reduction, there are gains to be hadfrom reducing food loss and waste for societ y atlarge that private stakeholders do not necessarily
take into account. This broader economic caseprovides a justification for public inter ventions
on food loss and waste reduction and is built on
three pillars for boosting societal well-being:
improving productivit y or job creation in
the food supply chain as a whole; improving
the food securit y or nutrition status of themost v ulnerable; and mitigating the negativeenvironmental impacts of food loss and waste interms of GHG emissions and pressure on land
and water resources.

T he ex tent to which food loss and waste
reduct ion improves ef f icienc y in the foodsupply cha in on the one hand, and thebenef its it br ings to societ y overa l l in
ter ms of food secur it y and env i ronmenta lsusta inabi l it y on the other, may g uide
policymakers in determining how much publicmoney to devote to this objective. However, thequantification and comparison of these effects
may prove difficult in practice. For this reason,
the next two chapters examine the extent
to which reducing food loss and waste canhelp address issues related to food securit yand nutrition (Chapter 4) and environmental
sustainabilit y (Chapter 5). n

Public inter ventions towards food loss andwaste reduction can be framed within a wider
development agenda. Indeed, public policies that
improve the business case for reduction among| 65 |MEXICOA woman making tortillas inher home in the village of
San Lorenzo.
©Alex Webb/Magnum Photos
for FAO

Key messages

1

Reductions in food losses or waste may
improve the food security and nutrition
status of food-insecure groups, dependingon where these groups are located andwhere the reductions are made. But
positive food security impacts are notguaranteed, and in certain cases impacts
may be negative for some groups, suchas farmers.

2

A certain level of food loss and waste
is needed as a buffer to ensure steadyavailability and access to food, especiallyas diets shift towards nutrient-rich, highly
perishable foods.

3

The largest improvements in foodsecurity are likely to occur by reducing
food losses in the early stages of the
supply chain, especially on-farm, in
countries with high levels of foodinsecurity.

CHAPTER 4
FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE AND THE
IMPLICATIONS FOR
FOOD SECURITY
AND NUTRITION

4

The reduction of losses or waste further
on in the supply chain may improve
consumer access to food, but leave
farmers worse off in terms of income andthus food security.

5

Reductions in food losses or waste inhigh-income countries have a limited
impact in terms of overall food security.
However, food recovery and redistribution
programmes may increase access to foodand improve diets of food-insecureindividuals.

CHAPTER 4

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND
THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD
SECURITY AND NUTRITION
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
AND ITS LINKS TO FOOD
SECURITY AND
NUTRITION

Ending hunger and malnutrition is enshrinedin Targets 2.1 and 2.2 of SDG 2, to “end hunger,
achieve food securit y and improved nutrition andpromote sustainable agriculture”. However, world
hunger has been on the rise in recent years.1–3
It is often assumed that cutting food losses
and waste will automatically help reduceworld hunger and improve food securit y. 4–7
It is also expected to improve the safet y andnutritional qualit y of foods, especially incountries where many suffer from hunger andmalnourishment. 4, 8, 2

It is generally recognized that reductions
in food losses or waste may improve foodsecurit y and nutrition through the dimensionsof food securit y: the availabilit y of food, theeconomic and physical accessibilit y of food, foodutilization, and the stabilit y of food supplies
and prices over time (see Box 21 for definitions ofthese concepts). 9 Some of these dimensions may
overlap – for example, food cannot be accessed if
it is not first available.

However, the channels through which reductions
in food losses or waste affect food securit y andnutrition are complex and context-dependentand need to be analysed carefully. The impact
depends on how and where food losses or waste
are reduced and the location of nutritionallyv ulnerable populations. It is not a given that foodloss or waste reduction will improve food securit yand nutrition; in certain cases, its impact may
even be negative. Moreover, a certain level offood loss and waste is needed as a buffer against
price shocks and weather variabilit y, to ensurethat all people have access to adequate food at
all times.

The relationship bet ween food loss and waste
and food securit y and nutrition is more complex
than often assumed. Figure 11 illustrates thepotential interactions bet ween decreases orincreases in food loss and waste levels andthese four dimensions, which may theoretically
improve or worsen. The left side of the fig ure
represents a food loss and waste reduction
scenario (scenario A), while the right side
depicts a situation in which losses or waste
increase (scenario B). The arrows in the extreme
right and left side of the fig ure separate thetheoretically potential positive from thetheoretically potential negative effects of areduction (or increase) of food loss and wasteon each of the dimensions of food securit y.
Some of these interactions may be direct
effects of the food loss and waste reduction(or increase), while others may be secondar yeffects, and the net effect becomes an empiricalquestion – probably one that can only be tackled
in an economy-w ide framework where bothsupply and demand responses to price changes
are properly represented, whereby net effects

This chapter first discusses the relationshipbetween food loss and waste and the different
dimensions of food securit y. It goes on to
examine to what extent loss or waste reductions
can bring about improvements in food securit yand nutrition, based on context-specificcost–benefit analyses of various reduction
measures. Finally it discusses the importance ofthe location of inter ventions for food securit y
impacts and the relevance of countries’ levels of
income for determining appropriate inter vention
strategies. n| 68 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 21

FOOD SECURITY – KEY DEFINITIONSFood security – A situation that exists when all people,
at all times, have physical, social and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life. Based on this definition, it is possible
to identify four food security dimensions:intake of adequate nutrition and energy. Sufficientenergy and nutrient intake by individuals is theresult of good care and feeding practices, foodpreparation, dietary diversity and intra-household
distribution of food. Combined with goodbiological utilization of food consumed, thisdetermines the nutritional status of individuals.
 Stability – If the dimensions of availability,
access and utilization are sufficiently met,
stability is the condition in which the wholesystem is stable, thus ensuring that households
are food secure at all times. Stability issues
can refer to short-term instability (which canlead to acute food insecurity) or medium- tolong-term instability (which can lead tochronic food insecurity). Climatic, economic,
social and political factors can all be sourcesof instability.

 Availability – This addresses whether or not foodis actually or potentially physically present,
including aspects of production, food reserves,
markets and transportation and wild foods.
 Access – If food is actually or potentially present
physically, the next question is whether or nothouseholds and individuals have sufficient accessto that food.
 Utilization – If food is available and households
have adequate access to it, the next issue iswhether or not households are maximizing their
SOURCE: FAO et al., 2018 2

can be estimated. For instance, a reduction infood loss and waste may result in more foodbeing immediately available, w ith an ensuing
reduction of food prices. This, in turn, may theninduce producers to reduce supplies – and, in an
economy-w ide setting, consumers may well react
to this change. Figure 11 shows potential effects,
but the actual impacts experienced w ill dependon the context. In addition, since including all
potential economy-w ide effects of food loss andwaste in a single fig ure would be impossible,
Figure 11 is only able to capture partial effects.
How subsequent effects ultimately play out is anempirical question.

The following sections review the theoreticallinkages between food loss and waste andthese food securit y dimensions. Each section
focuses on one dimension of food securit y, but
the links to other dimensions are highlighted
where appropriate.

The availability of food
It is often assumed that if less food is lostor wasted (scenario A of Figure 11), more foodbecomes available, which improves food securit yand nutrition (see the blue box in the top half ).
However, this improvement depends on wherein the supply chain and in which geographical| 69 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

FIGURE 11

THE POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE DIMENSIONS OF FOOD
SECURITY
A. FOOD LOSS AND WASTE IS REDUCED

B. FOOD LOSS AND WASTE IS INCREASED

Lower prices
across the foodsupply chain

Improved
on-farm storage

Increased dietary
diversity

More foodavailable

Targeted foodredistribution

Increased foodquality andnutrition

Natural resource
preservation

Necessary
buffering

Reduced supply
from lower foodpricesLower incomesfor actors before
point ofreduction

Excess calorie
consumption

Underproductionof food

Food stocks arecompromised

Safe foodsupplyNatural resourcepressure

Food redistribution
safety risks

Higher prices andincomes for actors
before point of
FLW

Removal of
unsafe food

Increased prices
across the foodsupply chain fromless supply

Less foodavailable

IMPACT ON THE FOOD SECURITY DIMENSIONS IS:
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE

IMPACT ON THE FOOD SECURITY DIMENSIONS IS:
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE

Increased sales at
or after point of
reduction

Decreased dietary
diversity

Availability

AccessUtilization

Stability

SOURCE: FAO

location food losses or waste are reduced and themain areas where food insecurit y exists.

by allowing them to store food for consumption
during lean months. Meanwhile, a reduction inlosses of food sold commercially improves theavailabilit y of food beyond farming households. 9
For food-secure countries highly dependent onfood imports, food loss and waste reduction isseen as a strateg y for safeg uarding their foodsupply.10

A reduction in the amount of food wasted
by consumers in high-income countries, forexample, does not necessarily mean there ismore food available to poor households indistant, low-income countries. Subsistence orsemi-subsistence farmers consume all or aconsiderable share of their own production.
Thus, a reduction in on-farm losses is likely to
improve their food securit y status, for example

In Figure 11A, the blue box in the bottom quadrantshows that a food loss and waste reduction canalso affect food availabilit y negatively. Indeed, an| 70 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

increase in food availabilit y from a reduction
in losses or waste may depress food prices.
This can have a negative impact on supply andthus work against the initial improvement infood availabilit y. The net effect is an empiricalquestion that depends on a number of factors,
including the price elasticities of supply anddemand, the intensit y of price transmission along
the supply chain and the financial cost–benefit
analysis of the reduction measure.

for example, improves consumers’ access to food,but may diminish the food securit y status ofcommercial farming households, who receive alower price for their output (orange box below
axis of Figure 11A). The food securit y status ofsemi-subsistence or subsistence farmers, on
the other hand, is improved by a reduction in
on-farm losses, which boosts the amount of foodavailable to farming households. A reduction in
the losses incurred by an individual acting inthe supply chain boosts the amount of food that
actor, as well as actors further downstream, cansell; this may increase their income and thus
improve their food securit y status, as shown by
the top orange box. If consumers waste less, theysave money and can spend that money on moreor better food.

While food discarded for safet y reasons lowers
the amount of food available, it also improves
the qualit y of the remaining food supply – thus
preventing diseases which negatively impact
on nutrition – and helps avoid detrimental
trade effects. Therefore, in Figure 11B, food safet y
discards are considered as positive impacts offood loss and waste, since these improve foodsecurit y and nutrition. Unsafe foods should
not be consumed and their detection requires
proactive approaches to ensuring food safet y.
(For further discussion on food safet y, see “Theutilization of food” below.) Food safet y discards
could be partly avoided using a system approachpromoting safet y across the supply chain.

Food recover y and redistribution efforts redirectfood that would otherwise be lost or wasted topeople in need, irrespective of their position in
the supply chain.11 Meanwhile, price discounts
for food nearing its “best before” or “use by”
date make that food more affordable, which may
prevent it from being wasted.

The utilization of food

The accessibility of food

Avoiding qualitative food losses and waste (e.g.
nutrient loss or food contamination) throughout
the food supply chain ensures that more
nutritious and healthy foods become available for
consumers (see the purple box in the top half of
Figure 11A).

Improving the availabilit y of food is only afirst step towards improving food securit yand nutrition. Any additional food resulting
from loss or waste reduction must also be
physically and economically accessible tov ulnerable populations.

However, safe and healthy diets necessitate acertain level of food loss and waste. Indeed, toensure food safet y, unsafe foods need to bediscarded. A nutritious and diversified dietincludes highly perishable food products such as
fruits, vegetables and animal products, which areprone to spoilage. Both purple boxes in Figure 11B
illustrate how the utilization of food may improveas food losses or waste increase.

The orange boxes above the horizontal axis in
Figure 11A suggest that a reduction in food loss
and waste will have a positive impact on theaccessibilit y of food. However, as shown by theorange box in the bottom quadrant, negative
effects may also arise. Whether the net effect ofloss or waste reductions on food accessibilit y is
positive or negative depends on the price effectsof the reductions, which are in turn determinedby the location of the reductions. How these priceeffects inf luence the incomes – and thus foodsecurit y status – of households depends, in turn,on their income sources.

As seen by the purple boxes in the bottom
quadrant of Figure 11A, reducing food losses orwaste may also negatively impact on food security
and nutrition. For example, redistributing foodmay improve food accessibility but may also leadto an increase in food safety risks if there is nog uarantee of the safety of the redistributed food.

A fall in prices from loss reductions (second
orange box above the horizontal axis of Figure 11A),| 71 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Reducing food losses or waste may narrow dietar y
diversity or lead to excess calorie consumption
and intake of saturated fatty acids.12, 13

hand and food securit y, nutrition and povert y on
the other, may be closely connected, especiallyin low-income countries; however, the link has
not been sufficiently researched.19–21 The absenceof reliable and consistent data on the impactsof food loss and waste impedes comparisons
between regions and countries.

The stability of food supplies
Food production and consumption levels var yover time, therefore food storage plays animportant role in food stabilit y. For farming
households, improvements in on-farm storage,such as use of metal silos, can reduce loss andenable farmers to hold on to their har vest for abetter sale price later in the season or for theirown households’ food consumption throughout
the year (see the top green box in Figure 11A, undera reducing scenario). At all stages of the supply
chain, a certain level of oversupply is needed
as a buffer to ensure enough food is available
even if production slackens or consumption
expands. 9 Maintaining such buffers inevitablycauses a certain amount of food to be lost or
wasted (shown by the top green box in Figure 11B).
Reducing these losses or waste may jeopardize
the stabilit y of food supplies and prices, withnegative impacts on food securit y (lower half of
Figure 11A). 9

Interest in food loss and waste reduction rosemarkedly during the 2007 and 2011 global foodprice spikes, which sparked concerns as to theabilit y of the growing world population to feeditself in the future. 22, 23 Among the politicalcommitments to reduce food loss and waste
undertaken in the wake of these food pricespikes is the African Union’s Malabo Declaration(see Box 22).
It must be borne in mind that, for a number ofreasons, food securit y and nutrition demandcertain levels of food loss and waste. This is
illustrated by the boxes above the horizontal axis
in Figure 11B, when losses or waste are increased.
First, good nutrition requires that unsafe food be
removed from the food supply (blue box at the topof Figure 11B). Second, stabilit y in food availabilit yand prices requires an excess of available andaccessible food to ser ve as a buffer, as shownby the green box in the upper half of Figure 11B.
Little research has so far been done to explore
which characteristics of a food system can ensure
the stabilit y dimension of food securit y in viewof variable food production and dietar y changes
that are altering food consumption. Food loss andwaste should be understood in connection with
the need for appropriate buffering mechanismsthat include some degree of excess in order todeal with the sometimes ver y high variabilit yof production and consumption in time and inspace, 9 while maintaining an alternative plan tomarket surplus produce.

On the other hand, food loss and waste may
also have a negative impact on food stabilit y.
For example, losses caused by inadequate
storage practices, on-farm or elsewhere (e.g.
government buffer stocks of g rains), may
threaten the stabilit y of food supplies (lower
half of Figure 11B).
The production of food that is lost or wasted
exerts undue pressure on natural resources(which may, in turn, pose a risk to the stabilit y offood supplies, see lower half of Figure 11B). n

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
AND THE IMPACT ON
FOOD SECURITY AND
NUTRITION

Third, as the availabilit y of, and access to,diverse and nutrient-rich food increases, so too
will food waste, as shown by the top purple boxof Figure 11B. As some of the most nutrient-dense
foods – those foods that are high in nutrients but
relatively low in calories – have a short shelf life,
the utilization dimension of food securit y andnutrition also requires careful review through afood loss and waste lens. Good nutrition requires
a diverse diet, including fruits, vegetables and

The characteristics of food production systems
determine the availabilit y and affordabilit yof food, as well as food variet y and dietar yqualit y.14–18 Thus, food loss and waste on the one| 72 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 22

THE MALABO DECLARATION AND THE PREVENTION OF POST-HARVEST LOSSES

Post-harvest losses erode incomes along the foodsupply chain and may exacerbate the vulnerabilityof poverty-ridden rural communities. In 2014 theAfrican Union adopted the Malabo Declaration on
Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformationfor Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods,
which, under the commitment to end hunger inAfrica, includes the target to halve current
post-harvest losses by 2025. To this end, the African
Union established the Post-Harvest Loss Management

Strategy, which combines all interventions acrossthe entire food supply chain that aim to reduce
post-harvest losses of food crops, including grains,
fruits, vegetables and oilseeds, and animal andfishery products. The Post-Harvest Loss Management
Strategy is expected to result in an increase in theamount and quality of food supplies and thus
improve the availability, accessibility, utilization andstability dimensions of food security.24

animal-sourced foods. A study in the UnitedStates of America found that higher-qualit ydiets were associated with greater food waste. 25
However, reducing the qualit y loss of foodproducts, which may happen, inter alia, as aresult of vitamin or protein decay, can improve
food utilization (nutrition) among consumers.
Some processing methods, such as freezing, canprevent nutrient loss while preser ving foods. 26–28

equilibrium price. A number of studies confirm
that food loss or waste reduction can improveavailabilit y of and access to food; however,
the effect is determined by the proximit y of
the reductions.
Drawing on FAO’s 2011 food loss and waste
estimates, one study looking at the market
and trade impacts of food loss and waste
reduction estimated that a 20 percent reduction
in crop losses in developing countries over ten
years would boost supplies and reduce prices,to the benefit of both developing and developed
countries. For example, livestock and dair yproducers in both groups of countries would
see the costs of feed inputs go down. Somedeveloping countries would increase their feed
exports while others would import more at lower
prices. Global rice production would increase by
5.5 million tonnes, with the international pricedecreasing by nearly 10 percent. Trade in rice
between developing countries would increase. 29

This section goes beyond theor y to look at
empirical evidence regarding the theoreticallinkages between food loss and waste and foodsecurit y and nutrition.

The impacts of food loss and waste reduction
on food availability and access
Loss reduction along the supply chain
The reduction in food losses by suppliers, forexample by adopting loss-reducing technologies,
may lead to lower equilibrium prices for food andthe supply and consumption of larger quantities
of food. Such a scenario may bring welfare gains
for both suppliers and consumers (see upper
half of Figure 11A).19 Reg ulations or taxes thatoblige suppliers to cut losses even where it is
not financially rewarding to do so may have theopposite effect, i.e. a reduction in the quantit yof food supplied and consumed and a higher

A study based on an economy-wide modelling
framework assesses the impact of reductions infood loss and waste in the European Union (EU)on producers and consumers in sub-SaharanAfrica. The study finds that a reduction inagricultural losses in the EU means that
producers demand fewer inputs to produce more
| 73 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

output. As a result, the supply of food in the
EU increases, while food prices fall. The fall infood prices is partially transmitted to overseas
markets, including sub-Saharan Africa, where
consumers benefit from more affordable foodimports. Meanwhile, the impact of reduced foodlosses in the EU on producers in sub-SaharanAfrica is mixed. They benefit from the fall in
the price of imported food to be used as anintermediate input, but are negatively affectedby the competition from cheaper imports of final
food products, forcing them to cut sales prices.
Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa’s exports to the
EU have to compete there with lower-priced
domestically produced food. As a result of theincreased competition in both domestic andforeign markets, farmers in sub-Saharan Africa
produce less than before. 30 A similar study
using the same modelling framework found thatthe long-distance impact on food securit y in
sub-Saharan Africa of a reduction in the amountof food wasted by retailers and households inthe EU is positive, but relatively small. 31

Programme’s Zero Food Loss Initiative, aproject aimed at reducing post-har vest crop
loss in Uganda through the training of farmers
in improved post-har vest handling techniques,
and the introduction of subsidized, hermetic
crop-storage technologies. 34 Farmers’ incomesincreased when employing hermetic crop bags,
plastic silos, medium metal silos or large metalsilos since it allowed them to sell the maize laterin the season at a higher price, in comparison to
traditional storage approaches or no storage atall. Food securit y likewise improved, reducing
the external purchasing period for maize by
1.5 months and beans by nearly 1 month. Since
adopting households consumed more of the foodthey har vested and stored, they also experienced
greater financial f lexibilit y, enabling them toconsider other expenses and investments, such as
children’s education. Although, when sur veyed,a sizeable portion of both technolog y adoptersand non-adopters expressed willingness to pay
more than the subsidized price but less than
the normal retail price, the study estimated thatstrengthening the technolog y supply chains
while phasing out subsidies over five years had
a stronger effect on adoption than a ten-year
subsidy. The success of the project in Uganda
has spurred its expansion to over a dozen other
African countries.

The reduction in food losses through better
on-farm storage can improve the food securit ystatus of farming households. Smallholders areoften compelled to sell all their grain soon after
the har vest, because traditional storage facilities
cannot g uarantee protection against pests andpathogens. This may force them to buy grain
for their own consumption later, at possibly
higher prices. Case studies in Africa, Asia andLatin America have demonstrated that the useof metal silos prevents grain storage losses andenhances household food securit y. 32 One study
found that in Kenya, farmers who used metalsilos to store maize had 1.8 months more in
adequate food provisioning than non-adopters,
which ensured the stabilit y of their foodconsumption throughout the year. Metal silos
allowed farmers to limit their immediate sales
to those necessar y to meet urgent cash needs
and to hold on to the bulk of their har vest for
up to five months after production. 33 As seen by
the top green box in Figure 11A, when losses are
reduced, improving storage can therefore help
not only on-farm consumption, but also boost
farmers’ incomes.

In many cases, bringing improved storage
technologies to farmers requires incentivizing
the private sector to start developing, marketingand selling on-farm storage solutions in locations
accessible to smallholder farmers. In Kenya, aninnovative strateg y by the project AgResults
launched a competition among operators with acash sales bonus based on the volume of low-coststorage capacit y sold. As a result, the improved
storage sold corresponded to approximately
4.6 million 90-kg bags of maize safely storedfrom pests, thereby avoiding an estimated
12–20 percent loss. By improving businesslinkages, the competition pulled the hermetic
storage devices into the last mile, enabling
farmers to find a device at a nearby agrodealer. 35

Food recovery and redistribution
Food recover y and redistribution – also referred
to as food rescue or donation – and gleaning arecharitable acts that involve distributing food thatwould otherwise be lost or wasted to the food

Similar positive findings were found fromthe impact evaluation of the World Food
| 74 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

insecure. Note that food may be recovered at any
point along the food supply chain.

amount of food to be recovered. Institutional
catering offers the advantage of concentrating
significant volumes of food in a relatively small
number of locations; it was therefore a priorit ytarget in the study. 38

Neglected until only a decade ago bypolicy makers, recover y and redistribution
prog rammes such as food banks, communit yshops, social supermarkets, pantr y kitchens or
school food and nutrition prog rammes are now
play ing an increasingly important role not only
as food loss or waste solutions, but also as ameans to promote the right to food.11, 36 Indeed,as shown by the “targeted food redistribution”
box in Figure 11A, there is potential to inf luence
food securit y and nutrition positively throughfood recover y and redistribution. However, thiscan only ever ser ve as a safet y net and cannot
be a solution to eliminate either food insecurit yor food loss and waste. As food recover y andredistribution becomes more important, so does
the need to appraise its impacts critically.11

The Daily Table, a not-for-profit grocer y store ina low-income neighbourhood in Boston, in the
United States of America, sells healthy meals
priced to compete with fast food alternatives
by recovering food discarded by retailers,
growers and distributors. 39 The prices make itpossible to purchase three balanced, wholesome
meals and one snack a day on a Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program budget, thegovernment’s food assistance allowance for lowand no-income people. 40 The Daily Table wasfounded on the premise that making people pay
for their food, as opposed to giving it to themfor free, avoids them feeling any shame. 41

Food redistribution does not necessarily mean
food is handed out for free. Social supermarkets,for example, sell food that is rejected for sale inthe mainstream market (e.g. blemished fruits andvegetables or excess stock) at discounted prices.11
Note that food recover y and redistribution
programmes should be formulated so as todeliver food in ways that are not considereddemeaning by recipients.11 Redistributed foodmust also be culturally acceptable and adapted to
local tastes.

Food recover y and redistribution practices
are expanding rapidly around the world.
In countries where social safet y systems areunderfunded, overburdened or non-existent,
food recover y and redistribution prog rammes
have proved an effective form of food assistance,
as well as a key element of prog ressive social
policy. In Brazil, for example, a national
net work of food banks, Mesa Brasil SESC,
ser ved more than 1.4 million Brazilians throughpublic–private partnerships in more than 500
municipalities in 2017. 42 The Eg y ptian Food
Bank fed an average 250 000 people monthly
in 2017. The Bank has helped launch 33 foodbanks in the Near East, A frica and Southern
Asia since 2011. In 2017 it extended its reachto Latin A merica, where it participated inlaunching 61 food banks. 43 In North Macedonia,
a web platform launched by NGO Ajde
Makedonija connects businesses w ith surplus
food for donating to civ il societ y organizations
that redistribute the food to food-insecurepeople. 44 A n Asian example of successful foodredistribution is the No Food Waste initiativein India, which redistributes large quantitiesof leftovers from social events, hotels andrestaurants. Overall, however, food recover yand redistribution prog rammes in Asia and thePacific are rare and mainly concentrated in thehigh-income countries of the reg ion.11

The potential for food recover y and redistribution
to make an impact is illustrated by efforts in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland under the Courtauld Commitment 2020
to reduce food waste. From 2015, when it was
adopted, until 2017, an additional 35 million
meals were redistributed annually. In 2017,
102 million meals were redistributed, at a total
value of almost GBP 130 million. 37
A study into food redistribution in Denver,
New York and Nashv ille in the United Statesof America found a realistic potential toredistribute an additional 24 million meals
annually. This would enable the three cities
to meet an additional 8 –18 percent of theirrespective meal gaps. The study found thatg rocer y outlets presented the largest untapped
potential for food recover y in terms of the total| 75 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Food loss and waste reduction and stability in the
supply and prices of food

60 percent of total micronutrients, w ith the
exception of v itamin B12, are lost as a resultof the loss and waste of highly perishable foods,
including fruits, vegetables and animal-based
products. The study concludes that strateg ies
focusing on improved storage and distribution
management are likely to improve theavailabilit y of micronutrients more than thatof macronutrients. 46

Food production and consumption levels var yover time. Therefore, a certain level of oversupply
or buffer is needed at all stages of the supply
chain to ensure availabilit y and access to food incase production drops or consumption expands. 9
Maintaining such buffers necessarily entails a
certain level of food loss and waste. On the other
hand, loss and waste reduction measures, such as
better storage or preser vation methods, may help
counter the seasonalit y of agricultural products
and thus promote the stabilit y of food supplies
which will help improve access. 23 The linkages
between food loss and waste and the stabilit y offood are depicted in Figure 11.

Another study, also based on FAO’s 2011 foodloss and waste estimates, finds that reducing foodlosses and waste by half would considerably boost
nutrient supplies in the food system in 2030.13
In high- and upper-middle-income countries,
the supply of dietar y iron would increase above
recommended levels, while folate deficiencies
would decrease fourfold but remain below
recommended values. In lower-middle-income
countries, the supply of folate would exceed
recommended intake values and ribof lavin (B2)
deficiencies would be halved. In low-income
countries, the supply of calories would allow
all consumers to increase their intake to levels
above minimum recommended values, assuming
universal and equal access to those calories.
The supply of vitamin A, ribof lavin, folate,calcium and poly unsaturated fats, crucial forthe prevention of non-communicable diseases,
would all increase by one-third to one-half ofcurrent, inadequate levels. By boosting the supplyof nutrients, halving food loss and waste would
also have an effect on risk factors for chronic,
non-communicable diseases among adults, suchas coronar y heart disease and t y pe 2 diabetes,
which are becoming more prevalent in low- andmiddle-income countries. The study estimatesthat two million deaths could be avoided byhalving food loss and waste, mainly due toincreased consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Any studies into food loss and waste must takedue account of the need for buffers to ensure
food supply stabilit y against a background ofvariations in production and consumption in timeand space. 9 Options to market any excess supplies
that go with such buffers need to be explored.
High levels of waste can jeopardize thecontinuit y of food assistance programmes andthe food securit y of those ser ved. The Breakfast
in the Classroom programme in the UnitedStates of America, for example, has high levelsof milk waste. It was estimated that the value ofthe milk wasted in one urban school district was
16 percent of annual food expenditure under the
programme for that district, excluding the costsof disposing of the wasted milk in landfill. 45

The impact of food loss and waste reduction
on nutrition
Nutrient loss due to quantitative and qualitative
food loss and waste may represent a missed
opportunit y to reduce malnutrition andmicronutrient deficiencies.12

The study estimates unintended consequences,
too. Deaths due to overweight and obesit y are
set to increase by over half a million in 2020, due
to excess consumption of calories and saturated
fatt y acids. Meanwhile, rises in food losses andwaste cause supply gaps for certain nutrients.
The supply of folate and ribof lavin would
fall short of demand in lower-middle-income
countries, as would that of vitamin A, ribof lavin,folate, calcium and poly unsaturated fatt y acids in
low-income countries. Importantly, even

A recent study based on FAO’s 2011 food loss
and waste estimates found that while the supplyof all digestible protein, fat, calories, amino acids
and essential vitamins and minerals exceeded
average requirements, the large amounts of foodlost throughout the food supply chain compound
dietary inequalities within and between countries.
The results of the study further indicate that over
| 76 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019the supply of calories would be insufficient in
low-income countries. The underlying
assumption with these results is that changes innutrient availabilit y would result in increased
accessibilit y, therefore the study is only indicativeof possible change. However, these results arevaluable as they demonstrate that food loss andwaste reduction should go hand in hand withhealth-sensitive inter ventions aimed at
optimizing the impact of loss and waste
reductions on nutrition.

Up to 55 percent of (t y pically inedible) fish inputs
are lost during processing. However, even fishparts generally considered inedible may be used
as inputs for processed fish-based food products.
This would boost the incomes of fish productsuppliers and provide more nutritious food for
consumers. 53
Mechanical fish separation involves the use ofnon-marketable fish parts to produce processedfood products (e.g. fish burgers). An Italianstudy found that the mechanical separationof non-marketable fish parts and their use forthe production of fish-based products like fish
burgers creates new opportunities for the fishindustr y and increases the availabilit y of highly
nutritious foods for consumers. 53

FAO recently piloted a method to estimate thepercentage of children under five in Cameroon,
India and Kenya whose micronutrient
requirements of vitamin A, iron, zinc andvitamin C could theoretically be satisfied
through reductions in food losses (see Box 23).
The study shows that large amounts of nutrientsare lost due to preventable post-har vest losses.
It demonstrates that reducing post-har vest lossesof selected crops could increase the availabilit yof micronutrients, which could in turn improve
nutrition. 47 The study is the first to estimate theconnection between nutrient loss in the foodsupply chain and micronutrient deficiencies inchildren. However, its results should beinterpreted with caution. The study assumes thatfood loss decreases the intake of food and its
nutrients by nutrient-deficient people and thatmicronutrient-deficient children would haveaccess to the recovered nutrients. In realit y, thelead cause of micronutrient deficiencies inchildren is not a lack of access to food, but rather
infections, which reduce appetite and hamper
the utilization of nutrients. 48–50

Food safety and its implications for food security
and nutrition
Food safet y, which can be associated with foodloss and waste or inter ventions to reduce it,
is of crucial importance to food securit y andnutrition. Food-borne illnesses caused by the
consumption of contaminated foods, for example,
hamper nutritional intake. Food that is not safe
must be removed from the food system, resulting
in losses; but, on the other hand, qualitative
food loss reduction may increase food safet y.
These effects are illustrated by the purple boxes
in both scenarios of Figure 11.
Depending on the context, food safet y and foodloss and waste may be causally linked, negatively
or positively. First, the disposal of unsafe foodcan be considered as food loss. Second, manyof the practices that prevent physical food loss
and obser vable losses in qualit y also improve
food safet y. It is often easier to motivate foodactors to limit obser vable losses, since they havefinancial implications; improvements in foodsafet y then become a welcome by-product of loss
reduction. Third, producers and suppliers may
apply chemicals to food to protect it against pests
or preser ve it. While this may prevent food frombeing lost or wasted, it can also threaten foodsafet y and undermine consumer confidence inthe safet y of their food. For this reason, the “safefood supply” box in Figure 11B is considered as apositive effect from increased levels of food loss
and waste.
»

Fish and fish products are a source of valuable
nutrients and micronutrients and are thusof fundamental importance to healthy,
diversified diets. Fish can be a relatively cheap,
locally available means to diversif y the dietof low-income groups. However, fish spoils
easily and post-har vest handling, processing,packaging, storage and transportation requireparticular care to maintain qualit y and avoid
losses and waste. Alongside the rise in
consumption of fish products in recent decades,
there is a growing interest in food qualit y andsafet y, with increasingly stringent hygiene
standards at national and international levels. 52| 77 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

BOX 23

THE IMPACTS OF FOOD LOSS ON MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES IN CHILDREN UNDER FIVE

A pilot study by FAO in Cameroon, India and Kenya
established a link between the amount of losses for anumber of food products (selected because of theirimportance in diets, and the availability of up-to-date
nutrient data) and the loss of nutrients. Vitamin A
deficiency is a major health and nutrition concern indeveloping countries. It is the leading cause of
preventable blindness in children and increases therisk of disease and death from severe infections.51
FAO estimates that the requirements of nearly aquarter of vitamin A-deficient children in the three
countries in the study could theoretically be satisfied
through food loss reduction. The figure in this box
shows how this potential varies from one food productto another.
Due to a lack of country-specific data on zinc, ironand vitamin C deficiencies for children under five, thestudy used the percentages of all children under five ineach country whose nutritional needs could
theoretically be satisfied by food loss reduction,
regardless of their nutritional status. The results of thestudy vary considerably between countries andnutrients. In Kenya, food loss reductions are assumed tosatisfy the iron and vitamin C requirements of 24 and33 percent, respectively, of all children under five. In
Cameroon, loss reductions could satisfy the vitamin C
needs of 83 percent of all children under five. In India,
food loss reductions were unable to satisfy nearly anyof the iron or zinc requirements; however, 23 percent
of children in the country would receive theirrequirements for vitamin C through loss reduction.
Note that the validity of the study results isdetermined by the multitude of assumptions used, as
well as by the gaps in country-specific data on nutrient
deficiencies and food composition. In addition, themethodology to estimate post-harvest losses isinconsistent across countries and food products. The
study also fails to factor in the logistical and other costsof addressing nutrient deficiencies through food loss
reduction. In view of these shortcomings, the study’s
case for addressing nutrient deficiencies in children by
reducing food losses is weak.

PERCENTAGE OF VITAMIN A-DEFICIENT CHILDREN UNDER FIVE WHOSE DEFICIENCY COULD THEORETICALLYBE SATISFIED THROUGH FOOD LOSS REDUCTIONS, BY COUNTRY AND FOOD PRODUCTPERCENTAGE OF VITAMIN A-DEFICIENT CHILDREN

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Cassava sticks

Gari meal

CAMEROON

FreshtomatoesFreshpotatoes

Chickpeas

Mangoes

INDIA

SOURCE: Lee et al., 201947| 78 |

Milk

Rice

Ripe bananas

Maize

KENYA

Milk

Plantains

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 24GENDER RELATIONS INFLUENCE FOOD SAFETY AND FOOD LOSSES – THE CASE OF
RURAL ETHIOPIA

Where women play a primary role in agriculture,inclusive interventions towards loss reduction can
improve food availability and accessibility. Rural
women often have less access to and control overresources than men, which may result in the loss offood. In addition, the work assigned to women isoften arduous, time-consuming and repetitive, muchof it around the home in conjunction with household
and caring tasks. This double or triple role carries aheavy time and energy burden and can significantly
contribute to food loss.65
In rural Ethiopia, women are often responsible forpreventing grain loss during storage, but they have lessaccess to and control over agricultural assets than men.
One study finds that women’s disempowerment forcesthem to resort to less effective methods to prevent
losses. Some of these methods may threaten foodsafety. Treating grain with chemicals, for example, canpose a threat to human health and affect the nutritional
value of the grain. Women report applying chemicals
above the recommended levels to avoid losses andconflict with men. Poor storage conditions increase thelikelihood of contamination, which further promotes theuse of chemicals – to which women are especially
exposed. To overcome food gaps when cash is shortand production yields are poor, women reported
consuming grains of which up to 50 percent weredamaged.66
Gender-responsive interventions to improve
women’s standing and decision-making power in the
consumption and sale of household production may
help reduce food losses, and thus strengthen foodsecurity, not least by improving food safety and dietary
diversity (see also Chapter 6).67–70» The detection of food safet y hazards may result incontaminated food to poorer buyers, forexample in the informal sector. This may entail
financial losses, without eliminating the foodsafet y risk. Unsafe food is often diverted tolower-income groups that are physically andeconomically v ulnerable to disease. 59 National
estimates indicate that dietar y exposure to
mycotoxins in developing countries is muchgreater than in developed countries. 8 Mean
dietar y exposures in sub-Saharan Africancountries, for example, are 100 times greaterthan those in developed countries. 60 A studyof rural women in Kenya found that highlevels of mycotoxin exposure were strongly
associated with povert y – in particular, alack of disposable income for household
expenditure – as well as with food insecurit yand severe hunger. 61 A study in Ethiopia foundthat women’s lack of control over agricultural
assets contributes to the consumption of grain
contaminated by fungi or pests. Box 24 discusses
the Ethiopia case study in the broader context
of women’s empowerment and its connection tofood loss and food securit y.

the loss of food products. The nature and extent
of contamination, together with the effectivenessof food safet y reg ulations, determine the scale ofthe loss. For example, the Kenyan Government
destroyed nearly 14 000 tonnes of maize in 2014
due to contamination with af latoxins, a t ypeof mycotoxin produced by a fungal infestationof crops. 54 Mycotoxins are toxic and can cause
extensive harm to human and animal health. 55–57
Food safet y concerns that are unverified byexperts may result in precautionar y destruction
which in some cases can be mitigated withexpert consultation. For instance, fears thatmangoes had been treated with formalin led theGovernment of Bangladesh to destroy hundredsof tonnes of the fruits, while safet y experts later
concluded they posed no risk to human health. 58
Similarly, stringent food safet y reg ulations
produce extensive losses.
In other cases, especially where food safet ystandards or their enforcement are weak, thedetection of food safet y hazards may lower thevalue of food products. Suppliers may divert| 79 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Food safet y hazards are often invisible to theeye and difficult to measure without specialized
equipment. Suppliers may therefore have little
incentive to control food safet y risks. If
enforcement of food safet y reg ulations is weak,unsafe food may enter the market. Suppliers aret y pically more motivated to address quantitative
losses or obser vable qualit y deterioration that
affect marketable volumes. Measures aimed atlimiting such losses may also promote foodsafet y. For example, the use of hermetic bags tostore grain drastically reduces obser vable,
quantitative losses, but also prevents contamination
with fungal toxins. 62, 63 Refrigeration inhibits thegrowth of most bacteria that cause food to spoil,
as well as those that have adverse health effects.

occurrence of food safet y hazards in foods,
in particular those with the highest risks tohuman health. In addition, unsafe food discards
should be removed from the food supply chain
in a way that ensures they do not end up being
consumed. n

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF
LOCATIONAs seen above, food loss and waste reductions
may affect food securit y and nutrition invarious ways, depending on the location of the
reductions and the food-insecure groups, both
geographically and along the supply chain.

In contexts where reg ulation is lacking or
unenforced, food loss reduction measures cancompromise food safet y. For example, pesticides
may prevent on-farm losses, but can be harmful
to human health; chemical preser vatives may
prevent food spoilage, but can also be hazardous.
An example is the treatment of fish, meatand milk with formaldehyde for preser vation.
As formaldehyde also occurs naturally in thesefoods (its presence increases over time as aby-product of decomposition), adulteration
with formaldehyde is difficult to detect. 64 The
continued monitoring of food for the presenceof harmful preser vatives is important to ensure
consumer confidence in its safet y.

The impacts operate through different channels.
Food loss and waste negatively affect thequantit y and qualit y of food supplies; and theyalso affect prices and thus the equilibrium of
the food system. These in turn affect the incomeof actors along the supply chain and ultimately
food securit y beyond the affected supply chain(primarily through price changes).
A reduction in food losses or waste at ag iven stage in the supply chain increases theamount of food supplied to subsequent stages.
This depresses prices paid by the stakeholders
in these stages, boosting their incomes (shownby the “increased sales at or after point of
reduction” box in Figure 11A). The impact on theincome of those who achieve the reduction,
however, depends on how much their sales
volume increases and how much prices fall.
Actors operating at earlier stages in the supply
chain may be negatively affected if a reduction
in losses or waste by their buyers means thedemand for their output falls and their sale pricegoes down. As a result, incomes, and therefore
the food securit y status of these upstream
actors, decline (see orange box below the axisof Figure 11A).

The recent growth in food recover y andredistribution initiatives may give rise to foodsafet y concerns. While some countries (suchas Canada, New Zealand, the United States ofAmerica and a number of European countries)
have formulated reg ulations and g uidelines
related to food recover y and redistribution,others do not impose any rules or controls onthese often spontaneous and uncategorizedpractices. This lack of reg ulation and oversightposes food safet y risks.11
The above findings demonstrate the need forinclusive food safet y policies that ensure noone, especially the most v ulnerable, is forced
to consume contaminated foods due to lack ofaccess to safe alternatives. Discarding unsafe
food will always be preferable to consuming
it. W hat is really required is a reduction in theNote that lower prices may entice consumers totrade up their food purchases to more expensive,higher-qualit y food; this works to offset the| 80 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 12

POTENTIAL PRICE AND INCOME EFFECTS OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTIONS AT VARIOUS POINTSIN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION AND
HARVEST, SLAUGHTER
OR CATCH

POST-HARVEST,SLAUGHTER OR CATCHOPERATIONSPROCESSING

WHOLESALE
AND RETAILCONSUMPTION:
HOUSEHOLDS AND
FOOD SERVICES

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
OR WASTE
REDUCTION

FOOD WASTE
REDUCTION

Point of loss or waste reduction

Lower prices, more disposable
income for food and other goods

Demand shrinks and production falls,
income is affected

SOURCE: FAO

negative impact on suppliers’ incomes of areduction in consumer waste. The negative
impact of a reduction in food loss and waste
on the income of downstream suppliers may
also be counterbalanced by population andincome growth.

the food supply resulting from reduced loss or
waste depresses food prices further down thefood supply chain and thus improves access tofood at these stages.
A reduction in on-farm losses may have strong
positive food securit y impacts. This is particularly
true for smallholders in low-income countries
where the availabilit y of food for subsistence
farmers improves. Farmers who market part oftheir output have larger volumes to sell and thus »Figure 12 illustrates the potential price and income
effects of a reduction in food losses or waste
at various stages of the food supply chain.
The turquoise arrows show how an increase in| 81 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

BOX 25

THE IMPACTS OF A REDUCTION IN FOOD LOSSES AT THE PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND FOOD
PROCESSING STAGES ON FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Wageningen Economic Research carried out asimulation exercise, commissioned by FAO, of the
impact of a 25 percent reduction – in terms of
economic value – in global food losses in primary
production and food processing, based on FAO’s mostrecent food loss estimates. The simulation was carriedout in MAGNET, a multisectoral, multiregional
computable general equilibrium model of the world
economy that is widely used to simulate the effects ofagricultural, trade, land and biofuel policies on the
global economy.72 It aimed to understand how loss
reductions impact on food security and nutrition
through prices.i, ii The 25 percent reduction in losses
can be represented as changes in productivity that
increase global food production by 4.3 percent, ofwhich 2 percent is at the primary production stageand 2.3 percent at the processing stage. The table inthis box indicates the impact of the loss reduction on
economic and food security and nutrition indicators
globally and in sub-Saharan Africa and Central andSouthern Asia, where food insecurity is prevalent.
The results of the model show that a worldwide
reduction in food losses brings about an improvementin global economic and food security and nutritionindicators. World Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as
an indicator capturing the overall response of the
global economy to the effects of the loss reduction on
efficiency, increases (moderately) following the
reduction. Both the availability (measured as total
primary food production) and the access (measured asfood purchases by private consumers) to food improveafter the loss reduction as a result of its effects on
prices and incomes. The model does not capture
actual intake; however, it shows that the nutrient
content of the three micronutrients for which global
intake of food is inadequate increases, indicating an
improvement in food utilization.73
The improvements in global indicators, ranging
between 0.1 and 0.6 percent, are not large; however,two factors should be taken into account wheninterpreting these changes. First, the demand for foodis all in all not very responsive to price changes. Thus,
while the model predicts that the loss reduction and theresulting boost in the amount of food available at retaillevel will lead to a global fall in food prices of
4 percent, food purchases do not increase significantly(+ 0.53 percent). Second, the changes in indicators
vary widely across regions. GDP and total primary
production in regions with generally lower levels of percapita income are found to be generally more
responsive to loss reduction, as the agriculture andfood sectors in these countries typically account for alarger share of the economy.
These results help identify the best entry points forloss reduction aimed at improving food security andnutrition. The table distinguishes between thecontributions to changes in GDP and three of the foodsecurity dimensions as a result of interventions in the
primary production stage on the one hand, and in theprocessing stage on the other.
Interventions that reduce losses have a larger
impact on food security and nutrition indicators in the
primary production stage than those in the processing
stage. The difference is particularly stark foravailability: in both sub-Saharan Africa and Central
and Southern Asia, primary production decreases as aresult of a fall in prices brought about by loss reduction
at the processing stage. These loss reductions cannegatively affect the food security of vulnerable farming
households, as they are output-augmenting at
production but input-saving at the processing stage.
The impact of loss reduction on access andutilization is positive at both stages of the supply
chain. In sub-Saharan Africa, loss reduction at the
primary production stage has an impact that isaround 20 times stronger than it is at the processing
stage and 10 times stronger than at the processing
stage in Central and Southern Asia. These results
confirm that interventions towards loss reduction
focusing on the early stages of the supply chain are
more effective in achieving better food security andnutrition outcomes.
The results of the modelling exercise demonstratethat the impact of loss reductions on food security andnutrition is much stronger domestically than abroad.
They show that loss reduction improves food accessand utilization both domestically and abroad, but
reductions abroad have a negative impact on the| 82 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 25(CONTINUED)

availability of food in both sub-Saharan Africa andCentral and Southern Asia. This result is explained by
the fact that imports replace domestically produced
food. Indeed, the loss reduction abroad results in a fallin the price of imports, discouraging demand fordomestic food and favouring cheaper imports. The

indicators for food access and utilization are based on
a combination of domestically produced food andimported food while the fall in prices results in an
improvement in these two indicators.
SOURCE: Kuiper and Cui, 2019 72

FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IMPACTS OF A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION IN FOOD LOSSES AT THE
PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING STAGES OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN, PERCENTAGE CHANGE
Economic
impactFood security and nutrition
Utilization

Availability

AccessGDP

Total primary
food production

Foodpurchases

Calories

Protein

Vitamin A

Calcium

Zinc

Global

0.12

0.13

0.53

0.47

0.53

0.59

0.60

0.54

Sub-Saharan Africa(Total)

0.57

1.02

0.67

0.75

0.70

0.62

0.96

0.74

Contribution ofprimary
production

0.55

1.09

0.64

0.72

0.66

0.60

0.92

0.71

Contribution ofprocessing

0.02

-0.08

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.03

Contribution ofdomestic reduction

0.57

1.85

0.56

0.63

0.59

0.53

0.82

0.62

Contribution offoreign reduction

0.00

-0.84

0.10

0.13

0.11

0.10

0.14

0.12

0.22

0.07

0.32

0.19

0.24

0.36

0.27

0.26

Contribution ofprimary
production

0.20

0.15

0.29

0.17

0.22

0.33

0.24

0.24

Contribution ofprocessing

0.02

-0.09

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.02

Contribution ofdomestic reduction

0.22

0.62

0.25

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.20

0.20

Contribution offoreign reduction

0.00

-0.56

0.07

0.03

0.04

0.12

0.07

0.06

Central andSouthern Asia
(Total)Macronutrients

Micronutrients

Details of the modelling framework, scenario set-up and simulation results for all regions can be found in the background paper, Kuiper and Cui, 2019. 72
FAO’s Statistics Division provided food loss estimates by food group, country group and supply chain stage. In the simulation exercise, food loss reductions vary across foodproducts, regions and supply chain stages. However, due to the difference between FAO’s food loss estimation methodology and the structure of MAGNET, the supply chain stages
included in the simulation exercise are limited to the primary production and processing stages; other supply chain stages, such as storage, transportation, wholesale and retail,are not covered.
iii| 83 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION» their incomes and food securit y may increase,food losses brings about a modest improvementin global economic and food security indicators.
However, the results demonstrate that while a fallin prices resulting from loss or waste reduction indeveloped countries may improve food access forfood-buying households in developing countries,
it may also depress incomes, and thus undermine
the food security and nutrition status of farming
households in these countries. nprovided the price drop resulting from the output
boost does not offset this effect.
A reduction in losses or waste by suppliers
beyond the primar y production stage boosts
supplies and lowers prices further along the
supply chain. However, farmers may see thedemand for their products decrease, with negative
implications for their incomes and thus foodsecurity, shown by the orange arrows in Figure 12.

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION AND LEVELSOF FOOD INSECURITY

A reduction in the amount of food wasted byconsumers improves food availabilit y and accessfor consumers, but the resulting reduction in
consumer demand may leave farmers and otheractors in the supply chain worse off.

The role of food loss and waste reduction inlowering food insecurit y also depends on the
degree of food insecurit y prevalent in different
countries. A global measurement of the severit yof food insecurit y is available through the Food
Insecurit y Experience Scale (FIES), p whichmeasures limits in access to food, at the level ofhouseholds or individuals, due to lack ofresources. Respondents are asked eight direct
yes/no questions about their experiences inaccessing food over the previous 12 months. 3
Based on the responses, levels of food insecurit y
are assessed according to the following scale:

Consumers increase their disposable income
by cutting back waste, which may lead them tochange their diet to include a wider range ofnutritious, perishable products, e.g. meat, fish,
fruits and vegetables. 71 The following result may
well be an increase in the amount of food wasted,in particular food with a higher environmental
footprint. 30
How food loss and waste reductions impact
on the incomes, and thus food securit y status,of stakeholders in the food supply chain
depends on how price changes ripple throughit. Geographical proximit y largely determines
the strength of this price transmission. The
likelihood that a reduction in losses or waste
will improve the food securit y status of groups
located far away from the point of reduction issmall. A reduction in food wasted by consumers
in high-income countries, for example, does notnecessarily mean the recovered food becomes
available to the food insecure in a low-income
countr y, nor do they automatically benefit fromthe price drop resulting from waste reduction.

 severely food insecure: no food for a day
or more; moderately food insecure: compromising onfood qualit y and variet y or reducing foodquantit y and skipping meals; mildly food insecure or food secure: potential
uncertaint y about the abilit y to obtain food.
The FIES provides useful insights into the degreeof urgency of ensuring food access, including
food quality considerations. Where severe
food insecurity is high – as in low-income andlower-middle-income countries, as shown in Table 1– the scope for food loss and waste reduction tocontribute to reducing hunger through increased
availability and access to food is potentially large.
Interventions preventing avoidable food loss canameliorate food shortages, particularly at local
level in smallholder production as these areas

Drawing on FAO’s new estimate of foodlosses (from the Food Loss Index describedin Chapter 1), Box 25 presents the results of an
economy-wide modelling exercise to assesstransmission of the impacts of a 25 percent dropin global food losses or waste on food security andnutrition across the primary production and foodprocessing stages of the supply chain and acrossregions. It shows that a worldwide reduction inp| 84 |For details on how the FIES is calculated, see FAO et al., 2019.3

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

TABLE 1

PREVALENCE OF FOOD INSECURITY (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION) BY FIES CATEGORY AND
INCOME GROUP, 2016
Severely
food insecure

Moderately
food insecure

Mildly food insecure
or food secure

Low income

27

34

39

Lower-middle income

10

20

69

Upper-middle income

4

12

84

High income

1

6

92

SOURCE: FAO et al., 20193

are not well connected to markets and therefore
trade is minimal. 74 This could increase farmers’
incomes and improve food access. If reductions inlosses are large enough to affect prices, the urban
food insecure may also stand to benefit. Overall, astrateg y aiming to reduce food loss and waste
is likely to be more effective in improving foodsecurity for the populations in these countries
than in high-income countries, particularly byfocusing on reducing losses at the farm level andearly steps in the supply chain.

It has to be borne in mind that povert y andinequalities are drivers of food insecurit y. 3
Hence, inter ventions aimed directly at reducing
povert y and inequalities may be more effective at
improving food securit y than food loss or waste
reduction. The latter can make a contribution
but cannot be considered the solution to the foodinsecurit y problem. Also note that food waste
levels on the one hand, and food insecurit y
indicators on the other, generally do not movein the same direction. A rise in incomes often
results in an increase in food waste as households
buy more food, though the share of food in theoverall household budget falls and diets shift
towards more perishable foods: meat, fruits andvegetables. An increase in food waste may thus
be a symptom of greater food securit y. However,an increase in food losses indicates that theavailabilit y of food is negatively impacted bystructural problems, such as insufficient
agricultural infrastructure. 75 n

As levels of severe food insecurity recede –in upper-middle-income and, particularly,
high-income countries – the importance of foodloss and waste reduction in terms of improvements
in food security declines. Also the nature of therequired strategies changes as more targeted
approaches are needed to reach the food insecure,e.g. through the redistribution of food in urban
areas, which often experience rising levels ofwaste. Especially in high-income countries,
problems of food access touch on a much smaller
share of the population, even though numbersof moderately food insecure remain relatively
significant. Large-scale campaigns to reducefood waste – the most pressing problem related
to food loss and waste in high-income countries– are unlikely to benefit the remaining numbersof food-insecure people. Targeted loss or waste
reduction inter ventions, such as redistributing
food, especially well-balanced meals, to thefood insecure may do more to improve access toquality and nutritious food by the severely andmoderately food insecure. However, eliminating
lingering food insecurity will also requirea broad set of social policies addressing its
underlying causes.
| 85 |

CHAPTER 4 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

THE RELATIVE(COST-)EFFECTIVENESSOF FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE REDUCTION IN
IMPROVING FOOD
SECURITY AND
NUTRITION

An innovative study found that the reductionof post-har vest food losses by improving
infrastructure lowers food prices and increases
the amount of food available, thus improving
food securit y. However, it is not as cost-effective
as investments in agricultural research anddevelopment aimed at reducing post-har vest
losses. Although both options offer higheconomic returns to investment, the returns
for agricultural research and development areconsiderably higher than those for infrastructure
improvements. 22 In addition, it has been arg uedthat the improvement in food securit y resulting
from the reduction of post-har vest losses asestimated in the study may be exaggerated, as
better infrastructure can also lead directly to
an increase in food productivit y and a drop in
retail prices. Overall, the cost-effectivenessof improving food securit y by means of
reducing post-har vest loss with infrastructure
improvements is unclear. 76 There are currently nosimilar studies available on the cost-effectivenessof food waste reduction measures.

So far, this chapter has examined whether
food securit y and nutrition can be improvedby reducing food loss and waste at different
stages in the supply chain. It has arg ued that
positive effects are not a given and that the
impact depends on location, both geographicallyand along the supply chain, of the loss or waste
reduction and of the food insecure. The
discussion has shown that loss or waste
reductions are most likely to improve foodsecurit y and nutrition if they occur near the
food insecure.

Another study into the relative effectivenessof various food securit y measures to meet the
projected food demand in 2050 finds that foodloss or waste reduction is least effective atboosting the availabilit y of food worldwide. 5
Yield gap closure through improved nutrient
supply and management, enhanced irrigation
efficiency and improved rainwater management
are found to be most effective at increasing
national food supplies, with an increase innational food production of 56 –113 percent.
A shift in diets towards more plant-based
products is estimated to boost national foodsupply by 28 –36 percent and food loss and waste
reduction by 7–14 percent. The impact of areduction in food losses or waste on foodsupplies varies widely from one countr y toanother; the increases in supply range from
2.5 to 25 percent at the moderate implementationlevel (a 25 percent reduction in losses andwaste), and from 2.5 to 100 percent at the highimplementation level (a 50 percent reduction inlosses and waste). n

This chapter has examined evidence as to theeffectiveness of loss and waste inter ventions
at different stages in the food supply chain interms of food securit y and nutrition. The limited
data available suggest that certain inter ventions
may not bring about a significant improvement.
Food waste reductions in high-income countries,
in particular, are unlikely to have a more thannegligible impact on food securit y and nutrition
in low-income countries. The reduction of
on-farm losses in these countries themselves ismore likely to have a significantly positive impact
on food securit y.
An important follow-up question is whether
loss or waste reductions are a cost-effective
way of alleviating food insecurit y. Indeed, thecost of reducing food loss and waste, including
comparing it to the costs of alternative measures
to improve food securit y and nutrition, is an
important factor in deciding on the desirabilit y ofsuch reductions. However, few studies look into
the costs of various food loss or waste reduction
measures and further research is needed to g uideappropriate policy decisions. 29| 86 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

CONCLUSIONS

not extensive and reducing food losses orwaste is unlikely to bring significant foodsecurit y benefits. Pockets of food insecurit yand malnutrition in these countries are mostoften associated with povert y. The recover y andredistribution of food may help alleviate foodinsecurit y in these cases; however, wider social
policies are necessar y to address the underlying
causes of food insecurit y.

The impact of reductions in food losses andwaste on food securit y and nutrition is notstraightforward. Assuming that loss and waste
reductions will automatically improve foodsecurit y and nutrition or eliminate hunger,
irrespective of location and cost, is incorrect.
Indeed, the impact depends on the location, both
geographically and along the supply chain, ofthe loss or waste reduction and of those who arefood insecure. The desirabilit y in terms of foodsecurit y and nutrition of reduction measuresdepends on the cost-effectiveness of thesemeasures compared to alternative measures.
Note that a certain level of loss and waste isa necessar y outcome of having enough buffer
supplies to g uarantee food securit y and adequate
nutrition across time and space. An excessive
reduction of these buffer supplies may jeopardize
the stabilit y of food supplies and prices and thus
access to food.

A reduction in the amount of food lost or wasted
in high-income countries is unlikely to boost theavailabilit y of food in other countries with highlevels of food insecurit y. Indeed, such an impact
is conditional on the possibilit y of transporting
the recovered losses or waste to food-insecuregroups abroad. Lower food prices resulting fromwaste reductions in high-income countries may
be transmitted to countries with lower incomesvia international markets; however, the size ofthe impact may not be large and will depend on a
range of factors. Loss reductions in high-income
countries may boost the competitiveness of foodimported into lower-income countries throughlower prices; this may benefit food-buying
households in those countries, but negatively
affect households that produce food.

A key question is where to reduce food losses orwaste in order to obtain the most impact in terms offood security and nutrition. The optimal entry point
for interventions depends on the context; however,general principles can offer some guidance.

There are currently no studies that demonstrate
the effect of reductions in food losses or wasteon people’s nutrient deficiencies, though a few
available studies estimate the potential effect of
this. However, estimates of the effect of food loss
and waste reduction on micronutrient deficiencies
in children may be overstated because these areoften caused by infections that reduce appetiteand hamper nutrient utilization, rather thanby a lack of food. 49, 50 Nevertheless, reducing
qualitative food losses or waste throughout the
supply chain is likely to have a beneficial impact
on nutrition in any countr y, as the availabilit y ofqualit y, nutritious and safe food increases.

In low-income countries with high levels of foodinsecurit y, food losses are often a more pressing
problem than food waste. Here, the reduction
in food losses at the early stages of the foodsupply chain is most likely to have strong positive
food securit y impacts, as its effects will be felt
throughout the rest of the chain. The reductionof on-farm losses, which constitute a critical loss
point in low-income countries, as demonstrated
in Chapter 2, may significantly improve the foodsecurit y status of poor smallholders; it may also
boost supplies in local or national food markets,
improving overall food securit y. Reductions infood losses or waste at other stages in the foodsupply chain can also have positive food securit y
impacts. A reduction in the amount of foodwasted by households, for example, improveshouseholds’ food securit y status; the potential for
improvement depends on the level of food waste.

Food loss and waste reduction is not necessarily
the most cost-effective way of improving foodsecurit y and nutrition. Increasing agricultural
productivit y through research and development
has been found to be more cost-effective inthis respect than reducing post-har vest losses.
Meanwhile, broad efforts towards agriculturaldevelopment may have positive side effects interms of loss or waste reduction. n

The retail and consumption stages are t ypicalloss points in high-income countries; however,overall food insecurit y in these countries is| 87 |

RWANDA
Farmers working in a maize
field using sustainableagricultural practices
in Ngoma district.
©FAO/Ny You

Key messages

1

Reducing food loss and waste cancontribute to feeding the world
population in an environmentally
sustainable manner as it helps to improve
resource use efficiency and decrease theamount of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
emitted per unit of food consumed.

2

To be environmentally effective,
interventions to reduce food loss andwaste need to consider where food loss
and waste has the greatest impact on
the environment – both in terms of foodproducts and the stage of the foodsupply chain.

3

Food loss and waste reduction
measures will ultimately have
implications for the environment throughlower food prices, which will reduce
production and the associated negativeenvironmental impacts.

4

Environmental improvements
associated with reductions in food loss
and waste will be difficult to target
geographically when price signals aretransmitted along geographicallywidespread supply chains.

5

CHAPTER 5
FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE ANDENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY

When targeting land and water
impacts, which are concentrated inprimary production, policymakers must beaware that their food loss and waste
reduction interventions are most effectivein the early stages of the supply chain andin geographic proximity to theenvironmental impact.

6

When targeting GHG emissions,which accumulate throughout the entire
food supply chain, policymakers must beaware that their food loss and waste
reduction interventions will be mosteffective at the consumption and retailstage, independently of the location of
the interventions.

CHAPTER 5

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
AND ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY
Reducing food loss and waste is enshrinedin SDG 12 on sustainable consumption andproduction – specifically in Target 12.3, whichcalls for the halving of food waste and reductionof food losses by 2030. It is also connectedto the environmental dimension of the other
SDGs, including SDG 6 on water and sanitation(Target 6.4 on the efficiency of water use),
SDG 13 on climate action (Target 13.2 on the
reduction of GHG emissions), SDG 14 on marine
resources (Target 14.2 on protecting marine andcoastal ecosystems) and SDG 15 on life on land
(Target 15.1 on the conser vation of ecosystems).
The inclusion of food loss and waste reductionin the SDGs ref lects the fact that producing
food that is not eaten – whether lost in the fieldor wasted on a plate – not only diminishes thequantit y of food available, but also constitutes awaste of economic and environmental resources.1

should be formulated taking into consideration
the location of the environmental damage andthe extent to which the damage is local or global.
Finally, the chapter looks at the cost-effectivenessof food loss and waste reduction to improve
environmental sustainabilit y and discusses
possible trade-offs with other environmental
objectives. n

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION ANDENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY
Feeding the world population in an environmentally
sustainable manner will become increasingly
challenging over the coming decades. The global
demand for agricultural outputs is forecast to
increase by 35 –50 percent between 2012 and 2050
as a result of population and income growth. 2
Meeting this demand will further strain theworld’s natural resources and may cause
considerable environmental damage, including
climate change, land degradation, water scarcit y,water pollution and loss of biodiversit y(see Box 26). Against this background, food loss
and waste reduction is seen as a way to improvethe environmental sustainabilit y of the global
food system.

This chapter explores the available evidence
on the impact of food loss and waste on
environmental sustainabilit y and examines thepotential for achieving environmental objectives
through food loss and waste reduction. For thispurpose, it first analyses the potential impact
on the environment of food loss and waste
reduction and discusses the factors to be taken
into account in the formulation of reduction
inter ventions with an environmental purpose.
It then describes how food loss and waste
actually affects the environment, depending on
the stage in the supply chain where the losses
or waste occur, the t ype of food, and – in somecases – the geographic location of the losses.
After discussing the potential of food loss andwaste reduction in achieving environmental
objectives, the chapter then reviews the role ofprices and the transmission of price changes indetermining the actual environmental impactof reducing food loss and waste. It arg ues thatinter ventions towards loss or waste reduction

Attempts have been made to quantif y the amountof resources wasted by producing food that is noteaten, based on average regional impact factors.
 Kummu et al. use data from the 2011 FAO
study, as well as FAO Food Balance Sheets,
to estimate the impact of food loss and waste
on natural resources. 3–5 The study finds that
24 percent of the global production of food| 90 |»

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 26

THE MOST COMMON ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT INDICATORS FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
Food loss and waste have three generally
quantifiable types of environmental footprints:
GHG emissions (carbon footprint); pressure on land
resources (land footprint); and pressure on water
resources (water footprint). These footprints may inturn affect biodiversity. 1

forests, which play an essential role in environmental
sustainability.10 Land use is therefore of criticalimportance in terms of climate change, biodiversity
and ecosystem services.
As yet, there is no generally applicable method tomeasure the entire land footprint of food production.
The present report calculates the land footprint of foodbased on the surface of land needed to produce thatfood. Under this definition, the primary production
stage accounts for nearly all land use, since otherphases of a food product’s life cycle, such asprocessing, do not occupy substantial land surfaces.1
As in the case of carbon footprint, the land footprint offood also largely depends on the type of food being
produced, as well as on the characteristics of the
production system.

Carbon footprint
The carbon footprint of food is the total amount of
GHG that is emitted throughout the food’s life cycle,
expressed in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent.8
This amount includes all GHGs emitted during
production, transportation, processing, distribution
and consumption, as well as the emissions fromwaste disposal. Indeed, in many countries, most of
the food that is lost or wasted is dumped untreated incontrolled or uncontrolled landfill, where it releases
GHGs. Some waste management systems, such asanaerobic digestion, can actually generate energy
and thus provide indirect GHG savings.1 However,waste management issues are beyond the scope of
this report.
In both developed and developing countries,
substantial GHG emissions occur during the primary
production phase; this is where agricultural inputs areused, livestock is reared and soils are cultivated. GHG
emissions further accumulate as food completes its life
cycle, during processing, transportation, distribution,
preparation and disposal.9 For this reason, the carbon
footprint of food that is lost or wasted towards the endof the supply chain may incorporate significantly larger
embedded levels of GHG emissions than food lostearlier on in the chain. Note that the carbon footprintof food losses or waste varies considerably from one
type of food to another,i while also depending heavily
on the characteristics of a country’s food production
system.1

Water footprint
From the irrigation of crops and watering of livestock
to aquaculture purposes, agriculture accounts forabout 70 percent of total global water withdrawals;ii
the remaining 30 percent is taken for industrial
production and domestic water supply.6
The water footprint of a food product is a measureof all the freshwater used to produce and supply that
product to its final consumer, at all stages of the
supply chain.
The water footprint consists of three componentsthat capture different types of water: blue water: groundwater or surface water; green water: rain; and grey water: water used to dilute pollutant
concentrations to acceptable levels. 8
Studies of the water footprint of food typically focus
on the blue-water footprint, which depends on thetype of food, as well as the characteristics of the
production system.iii Similar to the land footprint, mostof the water used to produce and supply food is usedon farm, for irrigation purposes, even though theprocessing of certain food products may also requiresignificant quantities of water.1, 11

Land footprint
Competition for land is projected to intensify in the
coming decades due to population growth, changes
in diets and consumption patterns, and a growing
demand for bioenergy. Most of the historic expansionof agricultural areas has come at the expense ofi

For information on the amount of GHG emitted per unit of agricultural product by country, see FAOSTAT, 2019.12

ii

Water for the dairy and meat industries and industrial processing of harvested agricultural products is included under industrial water withdrawal. 6iii

See Mekonnen and Hoekstra for the water footprints of different food products and production systems.13| 91 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY»

crops (in calories) is lost or wasted, accounting
for a similar proportion of natural resources
used in worldwide food crop production.

other. When thinking about water availability,
for example, it may be difficult to foresee thegeographic location of the impacts of a reductionof losses or waste. On the other hand, GHG
emissions linked to food that is lost or wasted
have worldwide repercussions independently of
where the loss or waste occurs. n Based on data from the 2011 FAO study,
another FAO study that was published in 2013 1
estimated that:i. The global carbon footprint of food loss andwaste, excluding emissions from land usechange, is 3.3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide(CO 2) equivalent, corresponding to about
7 percent of total GHG emissions.
ii. The use of surface and groundwater
resources (blue water) attributable tofood lost or wasted is about 250 km 3 ,representing around 6 percent of total water
withdrawals. 6iii. Almost 1.4 billion hectares, equal to about
30 percent of the world’s agricultural land,
are used to produce food that is later lost or
wasted. 4

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION AND THE
ENVIRONMENT –KEY QUESTIONS ANDCONSIDERATIONS
As in the case of food security, the geographic
location and stage in the supply chain of the loss
or waste and of the intervention influence theintervention’s impact in terms of environmental
sustainability. Interventions towards food loss andwaste reduction can therefore contribute towards
reaching the targets of SDG 6, SDG 13, SDG 14
and SDG 15 if formulated with due consideration
for the nature and location of the environmental
impact per type of food product and the location in
the supply chain of the loss or waste. In addition,
the costs and trade-offs associated with different
reduction interventions should be considered.

 Springmann et al. examine ways to ensure
the environmental sustainabilit y of foodproduction until 2050. 7 Food loss and waste
reduction is one of the options considered. 4, 5
Based on loss and waste percentages reported
in the 2011 FAO study, Springmann et al.
estimate that halving food loss and waste from2010 to 2050 would reduce environmentalpressures linked to agriculture by
6 –16 percent, depending on the environmental
dimension (GHG emissions, cropland use,
blue-water use, nitrogen and phosphorus
application), relative to the projected values
for 2050. The report arg ues that food loss
and waste reduction has a role to play aspart of a broader package of inter ventions
towards environmental sustainabilit y,together with, for example, dietar y change andtechnological improvements.

The following questions are essential to formulate
suitable inter ventions towards food loss andwaste reduction for environmental purposes: What is the environmental objective?
The objective is important since the carbon,
land and water footprints are affecteddifferently by food loss or waste dependingon the food product, how it is produced,
and the stage in the food supply chain
where loss or waste occurs. The land andwater footprints of food are concentrated
at the primar y production stage, although
sig nificant amounts of water may also be
used during processing, whereas GHG
emissions may occur and accumulate along
the entire supply chain. GHG emissions
per unit of food lost or wasted are therefore
higher towards the retail and consumption
stages of the chain.

Estimates such as these suggest that foodloss and waste reduction has the potential to
improve the environmental sustainability offood systems significantly. However, aggregate
estimates do not provide any indication as towhich loss or waste reduction measures aremost effective in environmental terms, nor
do they disting uish between context-specificimpacts of food loss or waste on the one hand,and broader, or even global, impacts on the| 92 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

 To what extent do different food products
contribute to food loss and waste, andwhat is their environmental footprint?
The answer to this question may var ysignificantly across countries and reg ions due
to differences in production, supply systems
and socio-economic conditions. It will also
depend on the env ironmental dimension underrev iew. For example, while cereals and pulses
may require significant amounts of water, thesame may not be the case for land.

reducing food losses or waste at specific points
in the food supply chain also depends on thecosts. A related question is: Are there any
trade-offs between different environmental
objectives? Reducing one t y pe of footprint
may lead to another t ype becoming larger.
For example, improving packaging can reducefood loss and waste and its associatedenvironmental impacts on land use, water use
and GHG emissions; however, packaging also
involves GHG emissions and an increase in
the use of plastics. Designing solutions thatminimize these trade-offs will be key in any
strateg y to reduce food loss and waste. n What is the magnitude of the food losses orwaste, and what is the potential to reduce
them, at various stages of the food supply
chain? The larger the food losses or waste areat the various stages in the food supply chain,
the greater the potential to reduce them. 4

QUANTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE What is the objective of the measure:improve resource use efficiency or reduce
the overall amount of resources used?
The reduction of food losses or waste improves
resource use efficiency and allows more food toreach consumers while using the same amountof resources. Food loss or waste reduction may
help meet the world’s growing demand for foodin a sustainable manner. However, improved
resource use efficiency does not necessarilymean that fewer resources are used, or fewer
GHGs emitted; these impacts depend on how
the reduction in losses or waste influences foodprices and thus the demand and supply of food.

This section discusses empirical evidence
related to the first three questions raised in theprevious section. It attempts to quantif y theenvironmental impacts of food loss and waste
for various food products and regions, as well as
for the different stages of the food supply chain.
By doing so, the section demonstrates that theenvironmental effectiveness of an inter vention
aimed at reducing food loss or waste depends
on the food product, as well as on the location –geographically and along the food supply chain– of the environmental damage.

 Will the environmental impact of a reduction
in food losses or waste be traceable back to
a particular geographic location or will it bemore diffuse? In practice, it may be difficult toforesee the geographic location of the impacts ofa reduction of losses or waste on land or wateruse. The environmental impact is indirect anddepends on how food loss and waste reduction
measures affect food prices and, through prices,
the use of land or water for food production
in different locations. GHG emissions haveglobal ramifications, irrespective of where theyoccur, so the geographic location of reduction
interventions is therefore irrelevant.

The environmental footprints of food loss andwaste across food products and regions
Policymakers interested in reducing theenvironmental impact of food loss and waste
should first consider which environmental
dimension to target (carbon, land or water) andwhich food products contribute most to that
dimension’s footprint when lost or wasted.
Figure 13 provides estimates of the relative
contribution of the main food groups to overall
global food loss and waste in terms of quantities(first bar on the left), as well as to the associatedcarbon, blue-water and land footprints (second,
third and fourth bars). Note that the blue-water What are the costs of reducing food losses
or waste at different points in different
food supply chains? The desirabilit y of
| 93 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

FIGURE 13

RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MAIN FOOD GROUPS TO OVERALL FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND
THEIR CARBON, BLUE-WATER AND LAND FOOTPRINTS

Cereals and pulses

Fruits and vegetables

Roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops

Meat and animal products

BLUE-WATER FOOTPRINTLAND FOOTPRINT100

PERCENTAGE

80
60
40
20
0
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

CARBON FOOTPRINT

Note: The environmental footprints are calculated by multiplying the amount of food lost and wasted by its environmental impact factors. The carbon, blue-water and land impact
factors were taken from FAO (2013), which provides environmental impact factors for different products, regions and supply chain stages.1 For a breakdown of the impact factors byregion and food group, see Tables A7–A9 in the Statistical Annex. The carbon impact factor expresses tonnes of CO2 equivalent emitted, the land impact factor indicates hectares of land
used, and the blue-water impact factor indicates cubic metres of water used, all per tonne of food lost or wasted. The stacked bars present the relative contribution of a food group to
total food loss and waste and to each of the environmental footprints of food loss or waste. The estimations of food loss and waste differ from the ones presented in Figure 4 withrespect to the inclusion of the retail level, the share of food loss and waste being measured in terms of quantity (rather than economic value), and the use of loss and waste data for only
those commodities for which an impact factor was available. Thus, food products that do not belong to any of the groups included in the figure (e.g. coffee beans) are excluded from thegraph due to the lack of data for impact factors, despite contributing around 20 percent to food loss and waste. These data refer to 2015.
SOURCE: FAO, 2013 and 20191, 14

footprint considers the primar y production stage
only, ignoring water used during processing.
The estimates include loss and waste fromon farm post-har vest up to the retail level,
excluding consumption. Prehar vest and har vest
losses are also excluded. Since the fig ure isbased on worldwide averages, countr y-specificdata for particular supply chains may differ
from these averages. Despite these caveats,
Figure 13 presents a general indication of whicht y pes of food products should be targeted if
food loss and waste reduction is to contribute toenvironmental sustainabilit y.

and animal products to overall food loss andwaste is limited; however, their contribution to
the land footprint of food loss and waste is not.
Indeed, meat and animal products account forover 60 percent of the total land footprint (last baron the right). This percentage reflects the fact thatlivestock production requires substantial amountsof agricultural land to produce animal feed or for
grazing.1 Any interventions that aim to reduce
the land footprint of food losses or waste should
therefore focus on this product group.
If the aim of an inter vention is to address
water scarcit y, then cereals and pulses should
be targeted as a product group, followed byfruits and vegetables. Together, these twocategories account for nearly 90 percent of thewater footprint of total food loss and waste.
This percentage ref lects the fact that a significant

As illustrated by the first bar on the left of Figure 13,
cereals and pulses account for the largest share offood loss and waste in quantity terms, followed
by roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops, and thenfruits and vegetables. The contribution of meat
| 94 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 14

RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF REGIONS TO OVERALL FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND THEIR CARBON,
BLUE-WATER AND LAND FOOTPRINTS100

PERCENTAGE

80

60

40

20

0
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

Sub-Saharan Africa
Eastern and South-eastern Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean

CARBON FOOTPRINT

BLUE-WATER FOOTPRINT

Northern America and Europe
Central and Southern Asia

LAND FOOTPRINT

Australia and New ZealandWestern Asia and Northern Africa

Note: The data in the figure cover the following food groups: cereals and pulses, fruits and vegetables, roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops, meat and other animal products, and “other”
products. The stacked bars present the relative contribution of a region to total food loss and waste and to each of the environmental footprints of food loss or waste. Oceania (apartfrom Australia and New Zealand) is excluded from the graph due to its negligible contribution to food loss and waste (less than 1 percent). The estimates of food loss and waste differ
from the ones presented in Figure 3 with respect to the inclusion of the retail level and the removal of an economic weight. These data refer to 2015.
SOURCE: FAO, 2013 and 20191, 14

share of irrigation water is used to produce thesecrops, especially wheat, rice and maize.15

Meat and animal products from systems that use
feed produced on irrigated fields may well have alarger water footprint than other food groups. 8

The livestock sector contributes relatively little
to the blue-water footprint associated with foodloss and waste. This may be explained by the factthat the data on loss and waste focus mostly on
milk and eggs and less on meat and other animal
products, which may have a larger blue-water
footprint.14 Global average blue-water footprints
are estimated at 86 m 3 per tonne of milk, 244 m 3
per tonne of eggs and over 500 m 3 per tonne of beefor sheep meat.13 Another explanation is that the
average blue-water footprint of meat and animal
products incorporates the footprint of livestock
systems that do not use irrigated feed grains.

The relative contribution of meat and animal
products to total GHG emissions associated withfood loss and waste is limited, due to the limited
share of these products in total food loss andwaste, but the carbon footprint per tonne of meat
and animal products is the largest of all foodgroups, with the exception of cereals and pulses.
Indeed, emissions of methane by ruminants suchas cattle, sheep and goats account for the bulk of
agricultural GHG emissions in CO 2 equivalent,followed by emissions from feed production andmanure management.
| 95 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

FIGURE 15

OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN RESULTS OF FAO’S FOOD WASTAGE FOOTPRINT STUDY, 2013
LARGEST FOOTPRINT(S)REGIONS MOST IMPACTEDKEY FINDINGS

Carbon and land

High-income regionsand Latin America

Loss and waste volumes are relatively low in all
regions. Nevertheless, meat is a major land andcarbon hot spot.

Carbon, landand blue water

Asia

Rice is an environmental hot spot due to its
significant methane emissions during production
and its high levels of food loss and waste.

Blue water

Asia, Latin America and Europe

Fruit is a blue-water hot spot, not so much due
to its blue-water intensity, but rather to the highpercentage of fruits lost or wasted.

CarbonIndustrialized Asia, Europe andSouthern and South-eastern Asia

Vegetables are a carbon hot spot due to the highpercentage of vegetables lost or wasted. The carbon
intensity of vegetables varies between regions.

MEAT

CEREALSFRUITSVEGETABLES

STARCHY
ROOTS

Although lost and wasted in high volumes in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and industrialized Asia, starchy roots
have a low environmental impact due to their low carbon, water and land intensities.

Note: Due to data limitations, FAOSTAT, in its Food Balance Sheets, groups together a great number of fruits under the category “other fruits”; it is therefore impossible to analyse thehot spot of “fruits” in greater detail, i.e. per individual crop. “Industrialized Asia” includes China, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
SOURCE: FAO, 20131

The environmental footprint of a given foodproduct varies across regions and countries,
inter alia, due to differences in crop yields(see Figure 14). This is particularly true for waterand land footprints. Central and Southern
Asia, for example, are the largest contributors
to overall food loss and waste and accountfor over half the global blue-water footprintof food loss and waste. Latin America andthe Caribbean, on the other hand, despite
representing more than 20 percent of total
food loss and waste, account for only 9 percentof the blue-water footprint. These outcomes
are in line with the results of a 2013 FAO
study on the footprint of food wastage, which
identified cereals, especially wheat and rice,as the main contributors to the blue-water
footprint of food loss and waste in Asia
(see Figure 15 for key findings).1

Averages mask the fact that the same food productcan have different blue-water footprints dependingon the type of production system, which varies
across geographic locations. A crop grown using
irrigation has a larger blue-water footprint than
the same crop grown under a rainfed system.
Thus, geographic location is an importantconsideration when targeting interventions aimed
at reducing the blue-water footprint.

The environmental footprints of food loss andwaste at different stages in the supply chain
The environmental effectiveness of inter ventions
to reduce food losses or waste depends not only
on the t y pe of food product and the geographic
location, but also on where along the supply
chain food is lost or wasted.
| 96 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

In fact, even though all stages of the food supply
chain offer scope to mitigate the environmental
impacts of food loss and waste, the extent of thisscope at the various stages of the supply chainvaries according to a country’s level of economic
development and the environmental dimension
targeted. In industrialized countries, as most foodis wasted towards the end of the food supply chain,targeting consumer waste may bring about thelargest reductions in food loss and waste and theenvironmental damage it causes. In developing
countries, reduction measures that target on-farmlosses may be most effective in reducing theenvironmental footprints of food loss and waste.

the use of land or water, inter ventions closer tothe primar y production stage may prove mosteffective, as subsequent stages will add little tothe environmental damage.
Contrar y to GHG emissions, environmental
problems caused by the unsustainable use ofland or water are mostly specific to a geographic
location. This is another reason why it is often
advisable to inter vene in, or close to, the primar y
production stage to remedy these problems.
Inter ventions further along the supply chain may
be less effective in remedying a location-specificenvironmental problem, as not all products
targeted originate from the problem area. In otherwords, measures towards food loss or waste
reduction will improve the countr y wide average
blue-water and land use efficiency no matter
where they are implemented. However, improving
resource use efficiency where it matters mostrequires an understanding of the extent to which
land and water footprints are determined bygeographic location, as well as the location in the
supply chain of food losses or waste.

Inter ventions that aim at that stage in the supply
chain where most food is lost or wasted are notnecessarily the most effective in mitigating theenvironmental impacts of food loss and waste.
The following paragraphs demonstrate thatinter ventions should also consider the stage inthe supply chain where environmental footprints
are largest.
For instance, the carbon footprint of food loss
and waste follows a pattern throughout thevarious stages of the food supply chain quite
different from that of land or water footprints.
Hence, the location of reduction measures that
aim to reduce the carbon footprint should not, inprinciple, be the same as those aiming to reducewater scarcit y or land degradation. Indeed, GHG
emissions embedded in a food product tend
to increase as the product moves along the
supply chain and the accumulated contributionof each stage in the chain is larger than thepreceding stage. This implies that a unit of foodlost or wasted at the wholesale or retail stages
has a larger carbon footprint than a unit loston farm, especially in high-income countries.
The accumulation is much less pronounced
for land and blue-water footprints, where thebulk of the environmental impact occurs in the
agricultural production phase.

Box 27 illustrates the variabilit y of impact factors
for each environmental footprint by focusing ona single product, maize, in four different regions.
Data aggregation across commodities, countries
and regions blurs some of the specificities offootprints for particular products or geographic
locations along the supply chain, such as the
cumulative effect of the carbon footprint. But
looking at a single product provides moredetailed insight into these specificities. n

FROM POTENTIAL TOACTUAL IMPACT ON
NATURAL RESOURCE USE
AND GHG EMISSIONS –THE ROLE OF PRICES

It follows that if the main objective of measures
towards food loss and waste reduction is to
reduce GHG emissions, the greatest impact
per unit of food loss or waste avoided is at theconsumption stage, where products incorporate
all GHG emissions of the previous stages. If, on
the other hand, the main objective is to reduce

So far, the chapter has discussed the potential for
reducing the different environmental footprints
of food loss and waste based on the magnitude
of food loss and waste and its environmental
impact across commodities and locations, both
geographically and along the food supply chain.
| 97 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

BOX 27ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS OF FOOD PRODUCTION ALONG THE SUPPLY CHAIN –THE CASE OF MAIZE

TONNE OF CO2 EQUIVALENT PER TONNE OF MAIZE

The figures in this box present the carbon, water andland impact factors for maize in Europe, Western
Africa, South-eastern Asia and South America.
GHG emissions clearly accumulate as maize moves
along the food supply chain (Figure A). Consequently,
the consumption stage has the largest carbon footprint.
Here all the emissions throughout the supply chain
are embedded in the product. The land and water
footprints of losses or waste of maize are the same atall stages in the supply chain, assuming that land andblue water (Figures B and C) are used solely during
the primary production phase.

The figures below show that both GHG emissions
and natural resources used for maize production differ
from one region to the other. The production of a tonneof maize causes more GHG emissions in South-eastern
Asia and South America than in other regions. It
requires most land in Western Africa, especially incomparison to Europe, where land use efficiency
appears to be highest. However, maize production in
Europe is much more water-intensive than in the otherregions, most likely because of the more widespreaduse of irrigation in Europe.

A. CARBON IMPACT FACTOR
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0
ON-FARM OPERATIONSEuropeSTORAGE

Western Africa

PROCESSING

South-eastern Asia

WHOLESALE AND RETAILCONSUMPTIONSouth America

B. LAND USE IMPACT FACTOR
0.70
HA PER TONNE OF MAIZE

0.60
0.50

R TONNE OF MAIZE

The extent andamount of natural resources and emitting the0.40 location where reductions infood losses or waste will actually lead to reduced
same amount of GHGs. Likewise, it means the
0.30
environmental footprints is a more complex
same amount of food can reach the consumer
0.20 is because the impact of any
question. This
using fewer natural resources and emitting fewer
inter vention 0.10
to reduce food losses or waste
GHGs. In other words, natural resources will besomewhere in 0a supply chain will depend on how
used more efficiently and GHG emissions per
prices for suppliersON-FARM
andOPERATIONS
consumers change
unit of foodconsumed
will CONSUMPTION
be reduced. Still, an
STORAGE both
PROCESSING
WHOLESALE
AND RETAIL
along the supply chain and across geographic
increase in resource use efficiency or a decrease
EuropeWestern Africa
South-eastern Asia
South America
areas. These price transmission effects are crucial
in GHG emissions intensit y does not necessarily
to how the impacts play out.
translate into a decrease in the total amount of
C. BLUE-WATER IMPACT FACTOR
resources used and GHGs emitted. The extent
140 loss and waste means that more
Reducing foodto which resource use and GHGs are reduced
food can reach
will depend on how prices change as a result of
120 the consumer using the same
100
80
60

| 98 |TONNE OF CO2 EQUIVALENT PER TONNE OF MAIZE

BOX 27

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

A. CARBON IMPACT FACTOR
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0

(CONTINUED)

ON-FARM OPERATIONSEuropeSTORAGE

Western Africa

PROCESSING

South-eastern Asia

WHOLESALE AND RETAILCONSUMPTIONSouth America

B. LAND USE IMPACT FACTOR
0.70
HA PER TONNE OF MAIZE

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0
ON-FARM OPERATIONSEuropeSTORAGE

Western Africa

PROCESSING

South-eastern Asia

WHOLESALE AND RETAILCONSUMPTIONSouth America

C. BLUE-WATER IMPACT FACTOR
140

M3 PER TONNE OF MAIZE

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ON-FARM OPERATIONSEuropeSTORAGE

Western Africa

PROCESSING

South-eastern Asia

WHOLESALE AND RETAILCONSUMPTIONSouth America

Note: Regions were selected based on the availability of region-specific data for impact factors. In this case, on-farm operations include preharvest, harvest and post-harvest operations.
SOURCE: FAO, 20131

the reduction in food loss and waste and how
suppliers and consumers react to those pricechanges. In theor y, a decrease in the amount offood lost by producers or suppliers will boost
the supply of food. Similarly, a decrease in foodwasted by consumers will dampen the demand
for food. In both cases, since more food isavailable, food prices fall. This reduction in prices
is transmitted through the food supply chain.

across geographic locations. Assuming that
individual producers cannot inf luence prices,
the fall in prices will incite producers to reduce
their output, ultimately leading to reduced useof natural resources and lower GHG emissions.
However, there may be counterbalancing
second-round effects if the reduced food prices
lead to an increase in demand. This, in turn,would lead to higher food prices and a renewed
increase in supply and natural resource use.
This may counterbalance, at least in part, theinitial impact. The exact outcome will be an
empirical question.

To the extent that markets are closely integrated
and interdependent, the price changes will
also be transmitted to a greater or lesser extent| 99 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

In contrast, in situations where the adoption of loss
reduction measures are the result of regulation,
the increased costs associated with reducing
food loss and waste may have a limiting effect on
supply in combination with an increase in prices.
As production declines, natural resources will beconserved and fewer GHGs emitted.

Operators located well after the primar y
production stage may still produce considerable
GHG emissions. A reduction in food losses at an
early stage of the supply chain that lowers thecosts of inputs for those operators may inducethem to expand their output, and as more foodmoves throughout the supply chain, the eventual
result would be increased GHG emissions.

The following section will look more carefully at
the role of price changes and their transmission,
which has important implications in terms of where
to intervene to reduce food loss and waste based on
environmental objectives. The first part looks at
price transmission along the food supply chain,
while the second part focuses on transmission
across geographic areas. The third part presents
empirical evidence. It emerges that the environmental
effectiveness of an intervention to reduce food loss
or waste depends on the location of the environmental
damage geographically and along the supply chain,
as well as on the impact of the reduction on theprices of inputs and outputs.

This is illustrated in Figure 16. Here, food incorporates
the accumulated emissions of all the preceding
stages of the supply chain, meaning that a unit of
avoided food loss or waste has the strongest impact
on GHG emissions at the retail and consumption
stages. Therefore, reduction measures aimed at
reducing the carbon footprint of food loss andwaste should intervene at the later stages.

Price transmission and the geographic locationof environmental damage
In the previous part it was pointed out how
price changes associated with a reduction infood loss and waste are transmitted throughout
the supply chain to reach the operators causing
the environmental damage, and how thisdetermines the environmental outcome of the
reduction. A similar reasoning can be appliedwith respect to the geographic location where theenvironmental damage occurs.

Price transmission and the location ofenvironmental damage along the foodsupply chain
A reduction in food losses or waste at a particularlocation in the supply chain affects prices both
upstream and downstream from that location,
assuming the reduction is large enough to havean impact on prices. How those price changes aretransmitted throughout the supply chain to reachthe operators causing the damage determines theenvironmental outcome of the reduction.

In fact, if the reduction of food loss and waste
occurs close to the location of the environmental
damage, the resulting change in prices islikely to be transmitted more strongly to thosecausing the damage; hence, it will be more
effective at inducing those actors to adjust their
output and thus resource use. To illustrate, if
the environmental objective being pursued iswater-scarcity reduction, decreasing food losses inwater-scarce areas near or at primary production,
where the bulk of water resources are used,
may prove the most effective. Indeed, farmers
using those same water resources would feel the
resulting fall in prices more strongly, therefore
discouraging production and resource use.

The bulk of the land and blue-water footprint offood losses or waste originates in the primar y
production stage (see Box 27). Therefore, a
reduction in food losses or waste that depresses
farmgate prices and thereby induces producers toscale back their production – and thus their use ofnatural resources – will lead to an environmental
improvement, irrespective of the location along
the supply chain of the losses or waste.
Contrar y to the land and blue-water footprints,
which originate above all in the primar y
production stage, the carbon footprint of foodlosses or waste grows incrementally as
food progresses along the supply chain.

If, instead, interventions occur further away fromthose actors, price effects must ripple throughthe supply chain to reach them but may be
weakened by the time they do so, lowering the| 100 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 16

CARBON IMPACT OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION ALONG THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN
AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION AND
HARVEST, SLAUGHTER
OR CATCH

POST-HARVEST,SLAUGHTER OR CATCHOPERATIONSPROCESSING

WHOLESALE AND
RETAILCONSUMPTION:
HOUSEHOLDS AND
FOOD SERVICES

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
REDUCTION

FOOD LOSS
OR WASTE
REDUCTION

FOOD WASTE
REDUCTION

Point of loss or waste reduction

GHGs accruing after loss
and waste reduction

GHGs that are avoided due to loss and waste
reduction; same or decreased production

SOURCE: FAO

incentive for output and resource use adjustment.
While they can impact on natural resource use
across a system, they may well fail to target
specific critical areas. This is important forenvironmental harm that is highly localized,
as is often the case for land and water stresses.
To build on the previous example, if reduction
measures occur instead at the wholesale level,
policymakers risk not reducing water scarcity
in water-scarce regions, as food products may
derive from many geographically dispersed
farmers who do not necessarily suffer from water
scarcity. Hence, by the time prices are transmitted
to farms in water-scarce regions, the diluted

price effect may not be strong enough to induce
farmers to adjust production and resource use.
Price transmission is likely to be stronger between
suppliers who are directly linked, as opposed toindirectly through other agents.
How changes in prices resulting from a reduction
in food losses or waste are transmitted along the
supply chain also depends on the geographic
spread of that chain. In a geographicallyconcentrated supply chain, a loss or waste
reduction targeting a local environmental
problem is likely to “hit” its target as pricechanges are transmitted clearly and directly| 101 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

between suppliers and consumers. In supply
chains with a wide geographic spread, food at theconsumption stage may be sourced from manydifferent locations, including other countries.
Here, reductions in consumer waste are unable
to target location-specific environmental
damage; this must be done through reduction
inter ventions close to the location of the damage,geographically and in the supply chain. q

confirms that interventions early on in the
supply chain may reduce land stress, while GHG
emissions should be addressed further down the
chain. Although the modelling framework does
not account for income or population growth, its
results are nevertheless very relevant in light of
the growing demand for agricultural products
expected over the coming decades.16
Alongside the issue of where in the supply chain
reductions in food loss occur, further complexit yis added when considering interactions between
different parts of the food system, as well aswith other sectors. In this respect, another study
finds that reducing assumed food losses from
20 percent of production to 5 percent would
decrease agricultural prices by about 4 percent,which in turn would boost the production of meatand biofuels benefiting from lower agricultural
input prices. Overall, the reduction in loss andwaste would cut the use of agricultural land by
4.5 percent, reducing the increase in GHG
emissions over the 2000 –2020 period from anestimated 25 percent under a business-as-usual
scenario to less than 8 percent. However, thestudy does not assess the feasibilit y of specificmeasures for food loss or waste reduction, nordoes it outline how those measures could be
implemented in practice.16 n

The dilution of the price effects of loss or waste
reductions – for example, from waste reduction by
consumers back to the farmer – may not be an issue
for non-location-specific environmental damage,such as GHG emissions. Here, a small drop in
production by a large number of farmers following
a diluted price signal will help mitigate climatechange. In other words, the geographic location ofinterventions to reduce food losses or waste does
not matter for policymakers aiming to reduce GHG
emissions, which are a global concern.
In conclusion, while irrelevant for GHG emission
reductions, location is important for interventions
aimed at alleviating localized environmental harm,
for instance to land or water resources. However, inthese cases, it may well be advisable to address
location-specific environmental stresses throughmeasures targeted directly at those stresses, rather
than by reducing food loss or waste.

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
REDUCTION IN THE
BROADER CONTEXTOF SUSTAINABILITY –COMPARATIVEEFFECTIVENESS AND
TRADE-OFFS

Empirical evidence on the effects of pricetransmission across sectors and regions
The impact through prices of a reduction infood losses or waste on food demand and supply
depends on how the price changes affect actors
within and across markets and countries. Box 28
illustrates the complexities of these effects, basedon the results of an economy-wide modelling
framework. It shows how a global 25 percent
reduction in food losses at the primary production
and processing stages reduces the use of land but
fails to bring about any significant reduction in
GHG emissions at the global level. This result

The environmental sustainabilit y of the global
food system is put at risk by the increasing
demand for food from a growing world
population, as well as by dietar y changes
associated with rising incomes. Against thisbackground, food loss and waste reduction is oneof various possible inter ventions to ensure that
9.7 billion people are fed in an environmentally »q In certain cases, such as pollution of large watersheds, water issues
can no longer be considered “local”. For example, agricultural runoff
into the Mississippi River causes eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico.
Given the scale of the Mississippi River Basin, even an untargeted
campaign towards food loss or waste reduction may mitigate thisdamage.

| 102 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 28

THE IMPACTS OF A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION IN GLOBAL FOOD LOSSES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
AND GHG EMISSIONSThe effect of a reduction in food losses or waste on
land and water use and GHG emissions is determinedby how the price changes caused by that reduction
are transmitted throughout the supply chain and thewider economic system.
Wageningen University and Research used a
global, economy-wide model known as MAGNET tosimulate a 25 percent reduction in losses at the primary
production and processing stages based on FAO’s mostrecent food loss estimates (see also Box 25).i
This reduction in losses can be represented aschanges in productivity that increase global production
by 4.3 percent, of which 2 percent is at the primary
production stage and 2.3 percent at the processing
stage. The impacts of the reduction on agricultural land
use and GHG emissions are summarized in the table inthis box.
The study shows that a 25 percent loss reduction at
the primary production and processing stages has avery limited effect on global GHG emissions(-0.07 percent). Two separate phenomena may
explain this result. First, GHG emissions
accumulate as food moves along the supply chain.
A loss reduction early in the chain means that more
food reaches the retail level, which boosts
aggregate GHG emissions. A reduction in
consumer food waste comparable to the reduction
in losses earlier in the supply chain, as simulated in
the model, can be expected to have a greater
impact on GHG emissions. Second, a reduction inlosses may result in the reallocation of resources toother sectors. If these sectors emit more GHGs thanthe one where the food loss is avoided, overall
GHG emissions may rise.
Both processes are at the root of increases in
GHG emissions in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin
America and the Caribbean resulting from thesimulation. These occur in spite of decreased

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION IN FOOD LOSSES AT THE PRIMARY PRODUCTION
AND PROCESSING STAGES, PERCENTAGE CHANGE
Economic
impactGlobalEnvironmental impact

GDP

Agricultural land use

GHG emissions

0.12

-0.68

-0.07

Total effectBy region

Contributions
Domestic

Foreign

Total effectContributions
Domestic

Foreign

Sub-Saharan Africa

0.57

-1.29

-0.62

-0.67

0.26

0.58

-0.33

Central andSouthern Asia

0.22

-0.41

-0.24

-0.17

-0.33

-0.06

-0.27

Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia

0.19

-0.49

-0.29

-0.20

-0.10

-0.02

-0.07

Western Asia andNorthern Africa

0.10

-0.33

-0.12

-0.22

-0.09

0.03

-0.12

Latin America andthe Caribbean

0.20

-1.18

-0.41

-0.77

0.10

0.36

-0.26

Northern America
and Europe

0.06

-0.30

-0.11

-0.19

-0.05

0.04

-0.08

Oceania

0.09

-0.16

0.04

-0.19

-0.09

0.71

-0.80

NOTE: “Domestic” refers to the impact of loss reductions within a region on the region itself; “Foreign” refers to the impact on a region of reductions in losses occurring inother regions.

| 103 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

BOX 28(CONTINUED)

resource use intensity per unit of food reaching theconsumer. Regions showing a significant economic
expansion following the loss reduction are more likely toexperience a net increase in GHG emissions (e.g. subSaharan Africa). Changes in GHG emissions that result
from the shifting of resources between sectors are
typically beyond the scope of any policies that target the
food system and are difficult to predict.
The reduction in food losses in one country may
affect GHG emissions in another. A reduction in losses
overseas may make imported foods cheaper, resulting
in a substitution away from domestically produced
foods, thereby causing a drop in domestic GHG
emissions.
The model predicts a decrease of nearly
0.7 percent in agricultural land use following a
25 percent reduction in food losses at the primary
production and processing stages. While still limited,
this impact is considerably larger than for GHG
emissions and may serve to counterbalance theprojected increase in the demand for agricultural land
associated with growing food requirements over the
coming decades. The background paper of the study
demonstrates that interventions close to the primary
production stage are more effective at reducing thedemand for agricultural land than interventions at theprocessing stage, due to the stronger transmission ofprice changes between directly linked producers andbuyers (not shown in the table).
According to the model, both domestic andforeign loss reductions decrease the use of
agricultural land in all regions, except for Oceania,
where domestic food loss reductions result in a slightincrease in land use. Foreign loss reductions tend tohave a stronger limiting impact on land use; only inCentral and Southern Asia and in Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia is the effect of domestic reductions
stronger. The significant impact of foreign food loss
reductions on land use is explained by thesubstitution of imports for domestically produced food(see also “availability” in the table in Box 25), which

reduces the pressure on domestic land. Domestic loss
reductions, on the other hand, may have the opposite
effect on the use of land. Indeed, improved
productivity following a loss reduction makes
domestic foods more competitive relative to imported
foods, which may provide a boost to domestic
production. The resulting increase in land use works
against the initial limiting effect on land use ofdomestic food loss reductions; in some cases, the net
result may be a heavier land footprint. The policy
implication is that reducing food loss in one region ismore likely to have an effect on demand for
agricultural land outside of that region than inside it.
There are a number of caveats to the interpretationof the simulation results for policy purposes. First, themodel assumes that loss reductions are the result of thevoluntary adoption of measures that lower production
costs and thus boost profits. However, some loss
reduction measures may cause production costs toincrease, for example in the case of taxes or bans
imposed by law. This negatively affects thecompetitiveness of domestically produced food,
reducing GHG emissions and domestic land use, but
may increase environmental damage in other regions.
Second, the results of the simulation depend on the
degree to which price changes are transmitted acrossregions. This transmission determines whether loss
reductions have an impact on GHG emissions and land
use in locations far from those where the reductions
take place. The degree to which price changes aretransmitted across regions depends on the type of foodproduct, the structure of the supply chain that brings the
product to consumers and whether the product istraded between regions. How price changes will betransmitted across regions is not straightforward to
predict. The results of the model as to the domestic
effects of loss reductions are therefore more robust thanthose that concern the effects of foreign loss reductions.
For this reason, the model’s results as to domestic
effects on the one hand, and foreign effects on theother, are presented separately in the table.

FAO’s Statistics Division provided food loss estimates by food group, country group and supply chain stage. In the simulation, food loss reductions vary across food products, regions
and supply chain stages. However, due to differences between FAO’s food loss estimation methodology and the structure of MAGNET, the supply chain stages included in the simulation
are limited to primary production and processing stages; the simulation does not cover other supply chain stages, such as storage, transportation, wholesale and retail.
SOURCE: Kuiper and Cui, 201917
i| 104 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 29WATER USE IN THE PRODUCTION OF MANGOES IN AUSTRALIA – TARGETING RESOURCEUSE EFFICIENCY VERSUS ACTUAL WATER USE
A study of the use of water to produce mangoes
in Australia analyses the environmental impacts ofthree possible interventions for water saving.21 Of
these, reducing loss and waste is found to be themost effective in terms of resource use efficiency.
Halving wastage at the distribution and consumption
stages would cut the water footprint of 1 kg of
fresh mango from 87 to 57 litres, a reductionof 34 percent. A reduction of 40 percent of thewater used to irrigate half of Australia’s mangoorchards would reduce the water footprint of eachkilogram of fruit by 18 percent. An expansion ofmango production in water-abundant regions by
20 percent would reduce the average water footprintof 1 kg of fruit by 11 percent. This is an interesting
case, showing the difference between resource
use efficiency and actual use. Reducing waste
guarantees more efficient use of resources but notnecessarily a comparable reduction in use, while
reducing irrigation acts directly on the amount ofirrigated water used but at a smaller gain in resource
use efficiency.

» sustainable way in 2050. 2 By improving resource

2050. It then assesses the impact by 2050 of anumber of inter ventions: reductions in food loss
and waste by 50 and 75 percent respectively;
moderate and strong technological progressin agriculture; widespread adoption of more
plant-based (f lexitarian) diets; and a combinationof these inter ventions, implemented moderately
and intensely. The inter ventions are different
in nature. Even in this case, they could becomparable if there was a sense of the costs ofimplementing them, but this information is notprovided by the study. Although the results ofthe different inter ventions are not comparable inpractical terms, they can provide a sense of theorder of magnitude of the environmental effectof inter ventions that seem within reach in the
coming decades.

use efficiency, food loss and waste reduction canhelp boost food supplies without aggravating
the damage inf licted on the environment, evenif overall resource use (or GHG emissions) andenvironmental impacts are not reduced (see Box 29
for an example).

The environmental impacts of food loss andwaste reduction as compared to those of otherinterventions towards sustainability
The available evidence suggests that while
food loss and waste reduction can contributetowards environmental sustainabilit y, it must
be complemented by other inter ventions tosignificantly alleviate the damage inf licted by thefood system on the environment. Among theseother possible inter ventions are improving
agriculture technolog y or promoting dietar ychange.18

The study finds that of the single inter ventions
analysed, improved technolog y is the mosteffective inter vention towards reducing cropland,
blue-water and fertilizer use. A reduction infood loss and waste by 50 or 75 percent is thesecond most effective inter vention in thisrespect, cutting cropland use by 14–21 percent,blue-water use by 13 –19 percent, nitrogen by
16 –24 percent and phosphorus by 15 –23 percent.
Dietar y change is found to be least effective interms of cropland, blue-water and fertilizer use.
In terms of the impact on climate change, foodSpringmann et al. estimate the impacts of a rangeof possible inter ventions aimed at reducing theenvironmental footprint of the global agrifood
system. 7, 19 The study delineates baseline
trajectories for GHG emissions, cropland andblue-water use and the application of nitrogenand phosphorus in the global food system until| 105 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

loss and waste reduction is the least effective at
reducing GHG emissions, resulting in a reductionof 6 –9 percent by 2050. Dietar y change brings
about a reduction of 29–52 percent in global GHG
emissions, making it the most effective measure.

Ensuring the availabilit y of safe, qualit y foodaround the world, especially in the face ofclimate change, requires adequate cold chain
facilities. 22 In 2009, the International Instituteof Refrigeration estimated that if developing
countries acquired the same cold chain capacities
as those in developed countries, over 200 million
tonnes of food would be saved annually.
According to the same study, this corresponds
to roughly 14 percent of consumption in thesecountries. 23

Note that the simulations in Springmann et al.,aside from not factoring in the costs associatedwith the inter ventions, do not consider the
institutional and organizational changes
necessar y to formulate and implement them.
Indeed, the barriers to adopting certainchanges may be considerable, e.g. in the caseof technologies and practices to mitigate andadapt to the effects of climate change. 20 On
the other hand, reducing food loss and waste
has one possible advantage over other options
for reaching environmental objectives suchas technological change or dietar y change:
it can save people money. Institutional andorganizational aspects are facilitated when there
is a private motivation for reducing loss andwaste, both for businesses that save on inputs andfor consumers saving money by avoiding wastage.

Improving the energ y use efficiency of cold chain
technologies may help reduce GHG emissions
from refrigeration. An example is the replacementof current refrigerators, including those in homes,
with greener alternatives. r Box 30 illustrates how
implementing clean-energ y technologies mayhelp save food, while at the same time reducing
GHG emissions.
Adequate packaging may prevent food losses
or waste by protecting and extending the shelf
life of food products. The use of reusable plastic
crates instead of wooden crates or bamboo
baskets for transporting fruits and vegetables in
the Philippines, for example, was found to reduce
losses at low cost. 27

All in all, food loss and waste reduction will not
resolve all environmental problems associatedwith food production and must be complemented
by other improvements, such as technologicalprogress and dietar y change, to ensure theenvironmental sustainabilit y of the foodsystem. While assessments at the global levelprovide an indication of the order of magnitudeof the impacts of these improvements, moredetailed information is needed to identif y themost effective and cost-effective measures.
Gathering such detailed information will
constitute a major challenge for researchers incoming years.

While packaging may help avoid losses or waste,
its production generates GHG emissions.
The packaging itself also becomes waste at
the end of its life cycle unless recycled. 28
Packaging accounted for 36 percent of the total
400 million tonnes of plastic produced in 2015
and 47 percent of the total 300 million tonnesof primar y plastic waste. 29 It is estimated that
40 percent of all packaging material, plastic andother, produced in 2007 (as measured in USD)
was to package food. 30

Trade-offs between the environmental impactsof food loss and waste reduction

Packaging is increasingly blamed for having
one of the highest environmental footprints inthe food system. However, assessments of its

While the reduction in food losses or waste is byand large beneficial for the environment, certain
reduction measures may add to environmental
stresses. Improvements in cold storage facilities
aimed at loss or waste reduction, for example,
may increase the use of energ y in the food systemand thus GHG emissions. 22

r Household refrigerators are often overlooked as part of the cold
chain, even though it is estimated that there are 1 billion domestic
refrigerators worldwide. Most of these are in industrialized countries,
although their use in developing countries is rising steadily.22, 24
Estimates suggest that domestic refrigeration represents around
6 percent of the total emissions of GHGs from refrigeration.
Commercial, industrial and transport refrigeration accounts for theremaining 94 percent.25| 106 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 30FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CLEAN-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MILK SUPPLY CHAIN

Milk spoils quickly if it is not chilled, yet manyrural areas lack adequate cold storage facilities.
Off-grid cooling technologies may help prevent milklosses without adding to GHG emissions. A recent
FAO study analysed the financial and economic
benefits of milk-cooling systems powered by biogas
or solar energy in Kenya, Tunisiai and the United
Republic of Tanzania.
In Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania, theadoption of a biogas-powered domestic milk chiller
requires an upfront investment of USD 1 600 but
brings direct private benefits in the form of better
quality milk and increased sales for farmers. Dairy
farmers in Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania
can earn an additional USD 1.96 and USD 2.17 perday, respectively, by chilling the evening milk. At thesame time, using a biogas milk chiller generates anadditional annual value of USD 531 and USD 128
throughout the supply chain in Kenya and the United
Republic of Tanzania, respectively. The introduction ofchillers also creates jobs for skilled workers andimproves health by reducing indoor air pollution fromthe use of conventional solid fuels, such as fuelwood
and charcoal. In terms of environmental impacts, eachchiller is estimated to make an annual reduction of

1.68 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in GHG emissions byreplacing solid biomass fuels. However, since thebiogas used to run the milk cooler is produced bymeans of a digester, and each digester system requires
between 50 and 100 litres of water per day to mix themanure, around 25 000 litres of additional water are
required per year.
Solar coolers are an alternative to biogas-poweredsystems and are particularly suitable for sunny regions.
In Kenya, for farmers who already have a system
powered by a diesel generator, the solar cooler brings
an additional USD 876 annually by cooling milk faster.
In Tunisia and the United Republic of Tanzania,
revenues increase by around USD 10 800 and
USD 8 400, respectively.ii A solar cooler also brings
economic benefits by generating employment andadditional revenues throughout the supply chain in all
three countries. By reducing milk loss, the technology
also has the capacity of saving around 1 million litresand 3 million litres of water per year in the United
Republic of Tanzania and Tunisia, respectively.
However, this impact is negligible for Kenya.iii Despite
the overall environmental benefits, the required initialinvestment of USD 40 000 presents a substantial
barrier to adoption.

i

For Tunisia, only the solar cooler intervention is mentioned, since the biogas domestic milk chiller was not analysed in the country.

ii

Unlike Kenya, no diesel-powered system or other cooling facilities are assumed as benchmark.

iii

The benchmark for Kenya uses similar amounts of water.

SOURCE: FAO, 201926

environmental impact often overlook the benefits
that it brings in reducing food losses or waste. 31–33
To evaluate the total environmental burden offood packaging adequately, the environmental
footprint of the losses or waste that are avoided
by using it, as well as the potential for recycling
the packaging, must be considered. The netbalance of environmental benefits and damage
varies between food products. Using packaging
to avoid losses of products with a heav y footprintin production may bring more environmental
gains than not using packaging and facing ahigher level of losses. 31, 32, 34 Avoiding the loss
or waste of meat or dair y products – which havea large GHG footprint – by using packaging,for example, may result in a net cut in GHG
emissions. Box 31 discusses in greater detail thetrade-off between the environmental footprintof food packaging on the one hand, and thatof food losses or waste avoided on the other.
Maximizing the environmental performance of
packaging, for example by optimizing formats orusing recyclable materials, is challenging but may
bring considerable environmental benefits. n| 107 |

CHAPTER 5 FOOD LOSS AND WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

BOX 31

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF PACKAGING TO REDUCE FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

Food packaging can help avoid food loss andwaste and thus lessen the environmental burden;
however, the production and disposal of packaging
also harms the environment. The outcome of the
trade-off depends on the environmental footprint of
the food product (which varies across types of foodand locations) as well as the packaging material
used.35 Glass, metal, plastic, paper, paperboard andbiodegradable polymers each have their advantages
and disadvantages.36 The food-to-packaging ratio
is defined as GHG emissions per kilogram of foodproduced and processed, divided by the GHG
emissions associated with packaging 1 kg of thatfood. An extensive literature review found the range ofthe ratio to be from 0.06 to 700, depending on foodand packaging configurations.32 Generally speaking,the higher this ratio, the larger the benefits in termsof avoiding GHG emissions obtained by reducing
losses through packaging. While the study only lookedat the impact of the production and packaging offood on GHG emissions, it demonstrates how theresource intensity of food determines the environmental
performance of its packaging.
A sensible and practical approach to the reductionof food loss and waste through packaging technologies
considers the environmental footprints associated withdifferent product categories. There are greater
environmental benefits from reduced food loss andwaste through packaging for categories of food with ahigh environmental footprint (e.g. meat and dairy
products) than for those with a lower environmental
footprint (e.g. vegetables and cereals).

CONCLUSIONS

resource use and GHG emissions, throughchanges in prices. How these changes aretransmitted, both within the supply chain andacross the wider economic system, determines
their impact on the environmental footprints offood losses or waste.

Reducing food loss and waste can help meetthe future demand for food from a growing
and increasingly wealthy world population ina sustainable manner. Achieving sustainabilit yrequires more efficient natural resource use andreductions in the amount of GHGs emitted perunit of food consumed. Reducing food loss andwaste can contribute towards this goal.

Overall, the theor y and case studies discussed
in this chapter provide indications as to where tointer vene to reduce food losses or waste, along
the supply chain and geographically, dependingon the environmental objective pursued. To
address location-specific environmental stresses,
inter ventions aimed at reducing losses shouldbe implemented within the supply chain andgeographically as close as possible to the locationof the stresses. This will ensure that price signals
are transmitted strongly to the actors causing thedamage. Thus, inter ventions aimed at alleviatingpressures on land or water resources should beundertaken at the primar y production stage,
where the bulk of the land and water footprintof the food system is concentrated. As GHG
emissions accumulate when food products movealong the supply chain, inter ventions to reducethe carbon footprint of food losses or waste

The linkages between food loss and waste andthe sustainabilit y of the food system are complex
and context-dependent; they need to be wellunderstood to formulate effective policies aimed
at addressing environmental concerns throughfood loss or waste reduction. For example,
improving the resource use efficiency of food at
one stage in the supply chain may depress foodprices and thus boost demand at subsequent
stages; this can lead to an increase in overall
resource use.
Food loss and waste reduction affects production
and consumption decisions, and thus natural| 108 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019should therefore target stages towards the end of
the chain. Since cuts in GHG emissions benefit
the environment irrespective of where they occur,
such inter ventions need not target a specificgeographic location.

lack of data on the costs and environmental
benefits of measures towards food loss andwaste reduction complicates any assessmentof the efficiency and effectiveness of reducing
food loss and waste as a means to improving
environmental sustainabilit y. Data gaps need
to be overcome if reducing food loss and waste
is to be widely adopted as part of a strateg y formeeting the SDG targets relating to land, waterand climate change.

Other elements to be considered in formulatinginter ventions are the potential to reduce foodlosses or waste at a particular location, the costs
associated with particular inter ventions and theircost-effectiveness in comparison with alternative
strategies. It is generally advisable to complement
measures towards food loss and waste reduction
with other t ypes of inter ventions.

Finally, although not the focus of this chapter,
it is important to be aware that climate change
may lead to greater levels of post-harvest losses,
especially at the primary production stage. 37
Extreme weather events, such as droughts or
floods, can destroy crops and livestock and damage
infrastructure, while erratic rainfall may reduce
harvests, impair drying processes and promote thedevelopment of moisture-reliant pathogens such as
mycotoxins. 38, 39 In addition, higher temperaturesand greater humidity are likely to favour the
spread of transboundary crop and animal pests
and diseases. Temperature increases can also
accelerate food spoilage, adding to concerns overfood safety. An increase in climate-induced foodlosses may trigger an expansion in agricultural landat the expense of forests – which hampers GHG
sequestration. n

Policymakers must take due account of the fact thatmeasures to reduce food losses or waste may also
have some negative impacts on the environment.
The use of packaging to protect and preserve food,for example, may lead to increased levels of plastic
pollution. Similarly, refrigeration helps prevent foodlosses or waste but also causes GHG emissions.
Taking a longer-term view, reducing food loss
and waste will always improve the efficiency ofnatural resource use and GHG emissions per unitof food consumed. The above considerations canprovide initial g uidance on where to focus efforts
in reducing food loss and waste. However, the| 109 |GUATEMALA
School Feeding being
prepared by volunteer mothers
who have been trained innutrition, food handling andpreparation, and goodhygiene practices.
©Pep Bonet/NOOR for FAO

Key messages

1

Food loss and waste reduction can play
an important role in achieving the SDGs,
in particular those related to food security
and nutrition and environmental
sustainability. However, the linkages
between food loss and waste reduction
and these objectives are complex.

2

Public interventions – in terms of policies
and infrastructure investments – may
create an enabling environment that allows
private actors to invest in the reduction offood losses or waste; such interventions
should be chosen in line with policymakers’
ultimate objective, whether related toeconomic efficiency, food security andnutrition, or environmental sustainability.

3

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a
global problem and any intervention that
reduces food losses or waste may help cut
them, irrespective of location in the world;
but interventions that target the final stagesof the supply chain are likely to have thebiggest impact.

4

Food loss or waste reduction measures
are likely to be most effective at
alleviating stresses on natural resources
such as land or water if implemented near
the location of these stresses, both
geographically and along the supply chain.

CHAPTER 6
POLICYMAKINGFOR FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE
REDUCTION –GUIDING
PRINCIPLES

5

To improve food security and nutrition,
reduction interventions must target
vulnerable populations. In countries where
food insecurity is highest, policymakers
should intervene early on in the supply
chain, where food security impacts arelikely to be strongest.

6

To ensure these reduction interventions
are effective, current data collection
methods need significant improvement toallow monitoring and impact assessments.
Countries should share practicalexperiences, for example as to theidentification of critical loss points as wellas the costs of monitoring efforts.

CHAPTER 6

POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD
LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION– GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Earlier chapters of this report discussed the
motives of private actors for investing infood loss or waste reduction (the businesscase), as well as the rationale for public
inter vention. The arg ument has been made thatpublic inter ventions may be justified by the
economy-wide efficiency gains to be had fromloss or waste reduction (the economic case), as
well as its potential contribution to improved
food securit y and nutrition or environmental
sustainabilit y. This chapter discusses the t ypesof public inter ventions that can reduce foodlosses or waste, not as a goal in themselves
but rather as a means towards wider social orenvironmental goals. The scarcit y of reliable dataas to how much and where food is lost or wasted,
and the lack of information regarding the costsof reduction efforts, are a major obstacle to theformulation of effective policies for loss or waste
reduction. The chapter therefore also presents a
possible road map for the collection of reliable,comparable data worldwide. n

improved productivit y, job creation, and better
food securit y and nutrition and/or environmental
sustainabilit y. Innovative loss-reducing
technologies, for example, can significantly
improve the efficiency of production, as well as
environmental sustainabilit y.
Conversely, there are also situations where thebusiness case for reducing food loss and waste
may be weak, i.e. where suppliers and consumers
face constraints when deciding on levels of foodloss or waste that they consider optimal. 3, 4 For
example, though smallholders may benefit fromreductions in post-har vest losses, they often
lack the necessar y funds to bring about such
reductions. 5 Other prominent barriers include
lack of information, distance to markets, accessto social capital, weak tenure securit y andexposure to risks and shocks. 4 These barriers
are often more severe for women than for men.
Moreover, even if private stakeholders, driven by
private profit motives, implement solutions thatindeed result in food loss and waste reduction,
the impact on levels of food loss and waste is
likely to be limited.

ENABLING PRIVATEACTORS TO REDUCE
FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

Given the potential for food loss and waste
reduction to boost economic growth and create
jobs, there may be a justification for public
interventions to eliminate these barriers andencourage actors to further reduce losses or waste.
For example, providing consumers and supplierswith information on options to reduce food losses
or waste has proven to be a cost-effective strateg yfor policymakers (see Boxes 18 and 32).

Actors in the food supply chain are primarily
driven by self-interest: producers aim to
maximize profits and consumers their well-being.
As rational decision makers, they reduce foodlosses or waste as long as the benefits outweighthe costs. Completely eliminating all food loss
and waste is unrealistic, as the costs would be
exorbitant.1

Public inter ventions that affect food prices canalso inf luence incentives for consumers andproducers to avoid food losses or waste, since
the higher the price of food, the greater thefinancial incentive for suppliers or consumers to
avoid losses or waste. On the other hand, policy

Chapter 3 has arg ued there may be a businesscase for private actors to reduce food losses orwaste. 2 While driven by financial motivations,this may also contribute to wider societal goals:| 112 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 32

FOOD WASTE REDUCTION CAMPAIGNS – CHINA, TURKEY, NORTH MACEDONIA AND DENMARKAn NGO in China launched the Clean Your Plate
campaign in 2013 to raise consumer awareness aboutfood waste. More than 750 restaurants in Beijing
participate in the campaign, which has also received
considerable public support. Restaurants serve smaller
dishes, encourage the use of doggy bags or offer
discounts and certificates to customers who do not leave
any food on their plate.8 The following year, the Chinese
Government took several steps towards food loss andwaste reduction, issuing a circular on “Practising strict
economy and fighting against waste”. Evidence of the
impact is unclear.
Turkey launched a campaign to reduce bread waste
in 2013 to raise public awareness about waste, avoid
losses throughout the supply chain and promote
consumption of whole wheat bread. Despite the factthat any efforts in the campaign are voluntary, it has
resulted in fewer loaves being wasted daily, down from
5.9 million in 2012 to 4.9 million in 2013. By
encouraging consumers to purchase only the breadthey can actually eat, the campaign resulted in a dropin bread purchases of 10 percent and consumers saved
a total of USD 1.1 billion in 2013.9, 10
Since 2017, a North Macedonian civic-led network
set up in 2011 to reduce national organic and nonorganic waste, has focused on food waste.11 Initiatives
include a web platform that allows businesses fromfarmers to food service providers to post food
donations online and civil society organizations toclaim these donations for redistribution. The

organization further advocates legislative changes on
broadening food surplus donation regulations,
including tax benefits for food donors.12 Anotherinitiative is a pilot learning programme about foodwaste targeting secondary school students, the Food
Waste Experiential Program.13
Denmark provides an interesting example of the
impact that awareness raising can have on food loss
and waste. The country reduced food waste by
25 percent between 2010 and 2015 through a numberof initiatives, including educating consumers andsupermarkets offering discounts on food near its
expiration date or with superficial flaws.14 Leading thismovement is the Stop Wasting Food campaign,
supported by both the private and the public sector.14, 15
As part of the initiative, consumers received tips on
how to best plan food purchasing and prepare meals.
It also stimulated innovation among food manufacturers
and retailers, for example in packaging design andportion sizing. Because they wasted less food,consumers saved money and a number of price-related
initiatives meant that food prices decreased too.16, 17
Local authorities responsible for waste disposal
benefited from lower waste disposal costs: primarily
incineration, as most food waste in Denmark is
incinerated.15 Besides improving their reputation forsocial and environmental stewardship, participating
businesses also increased sales – through being able tosell products that would otherwise be thrown away –and decreased their costs (e.g. disposal).17

inter ventions in agriculture or food that keep
food prices artificially low (e.g. through foodsubsidies) may have the unintended consequenceof encouraging food loss or waste (see Box 33).

ser vices, such as credit and insurance, may
allow suppliers to invest in technologies that
also reduce food loss and waste. An example
of an economic development inter vention witha side benefit of reducing food losses is theInternational Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment’s financing of improved grain
storage in Mexico, boosting smallholders’competitiveness. 6

Public policies to promote overall economic
development can have the side benefit ofpromoting food loss and waste reductions by theprivate sector. For instance, inclusive financial| 113 |

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

BOX 33

REFORMING BREAD SUBSIDIES IN THE NEAR EAST

While food subsidies may be an element in social
safety nets and increase food security, they can also
induce consumers to waste more food.18 Dependingon their design, the benefits may be largely captured
by high-income consumers, without necessarily helping
the poor.19
Before its reform in 2014, the bread subsidy system
in Egypt was believed to encourage consumers to waste
bread and suppliers to behave opportunistically.9
Subsidized flour was often bought at low cost andresold at higher prices, either as flour or bread, or
leaked from the supply chain. This leakage occurred at
all stages of the supply chain, in warehouses, mills andbakeries. The 2014 reform introduced a smart card
system that subsidizes bread rather than flour and limits
the number of loaves a person can buy each day.
Unused credit can be used to buy other subsidized fooditems. Thus, consumers – and through them, suppliers– have an incentive to manage their bread purchases
more efficiently.9, 20, 21 After the reform there was adecrease of 15–20 percent in the demand for bread,as consumers started to adjust their consumption.9
Other countries in the region, such as Jordan, haveadopted a similar approach. There bread subsidies areseen as a way to improve food security and thus ensurestability, especially after the bread riots of 1996.
However, it is estimated that the needy consume only
13 percent of subsidized bread, while 12 percent isconsumed by wealthy segments of society.22 Low-priced
subsidized wheat flour is often resold by bakers orused to produce non-subsidized bread; livestock
owners even use it as animal feed.22, 23 To reduce public
spending and avoid food wastage, in 2018 thegovernment replaced its broad bread subsidy
programme with a targeted assistance system that sets
new price caps for bread without directly subsidizing
bakeries.23, 24 Beneficiaries are paid through anelectronic benefit transfer card to counter fraud andwaste. The new system is expected to reduce
government spending by around USD 106 million.23

Another strateg y to promote such reductions
is through public–private partnerships.
Coordinating public and private investment ininfrastructure and logistics (for example, throughWorld Bank Sustainable Development Bonds)
may improve producers’ access to markets, thus
reducing losses. s International trade cooperation
or free trade agreements that reduce delays inmoving perishable food products across borders
can also help avoid losses.

instance, a reduction in food losses by processors
may reduce demand from processors for farmers’
output, thus depressing farmers’ income.
The distribution of the costs and benefits along
and beyond the food supply chain is of major
importance when formulating policies to reducefood loss and waste.
Apart from the financial gains, private initiatives
to reduce food loss and waste may also bringconsiderable benefits to wider societ y in terms offood securit y and nutrition (see Chapter 4) andenvironmental sustainabilit y (see Chapter 5).
The precise linkages between food loss and waste
reduction and these societal objectives are notalways straightforward and are discussed in thefollowing section. n

One important aspect that public inter vention
must take into consideration is that food loss
and waste reductions have winners and losers.
The benefits (or costs) are not always enjoyed(or borne) by those implementing them.1 For
s World Bank Sustainable Development Bonds allow investors to help
borrowing member countries achieve their development goals throughfinancial services, access to experts and a pool of knowledge indevelopment-related disciplines.7| 114 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

PUBLIC INTERVENTIONSFOR BETTER FOOD
SECURITY AND
NUTRITION ANDENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY

Policy decisions related to food loss or waste
reduction also depend on where in the foodsupply chain most food is lost or wasted.
Indeed, there is little point in focusing
on locations where the levels are low.
However, targeting the locations in the foodsupply chain where losses or waste are highest
is not necessarily the most effective strateg y
in achieving societal objectives. For example,
policies aimed at improving environmental
sustainabilit y should also take into accountwhere in the food supply chain environmental
impacts of food loss and waste are largest.

The previous section focused on the role ofpublic inter ventions in facilitating the businesscase of reducing food loss and waste, which
may contribute to economic growth and job
creation, thus benefiting not only private actors
but also societ y at large. Aside from objectives
linked to such financial gains by producers or
consumers, the report has focused on two key
objectives associated with the reduction of foodloss and waste: food securit y and nutrition (seeChapter 4) and environmental sustainabilit y(see Chapter 5). Public inter ventions that aim to
produce these societal gains through food loss
and waste reduction can do so by, for example,
reducing market failures and missing markets,
as well as the negative externalities caused byprivate actors.

Low-income countries with high food insecurit y
may focus on working to improve food securit yand nutrition; at the same time, ensuring
sustainable use of land and water resources
may also have a strong positive impact on foodsecurit y and nutrition. Countries with suchcharacteristics tend to inter vene early on in the
supply chain and often at the primar y production
stage, where food securit y impacts are likely to
be strongest and losses highest.
High-income countries – where food insecurity is
generally low, and nutrition better – are likely tofocus on environmental objectives and especiallycutting GHG emissions. Reducing food loss or
waste is more effective in cutting these emissions at
the later stages of the supply chain and particularly
the retail and consumption stages. Here, the GHG
emissions embedded in food products are highest;in addition, in high-income countries, most foodwastage occurs at these stages.

As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, the impactsof loss or waste reductions on food securit yand nutrition and environmental sustainabilit ydepend inter alia on the location of the
reductions, both geographically and in the foodsupply chain.
 Loss or waste reductions are expected to havea greater impact on food securit y if they focus
on the earlier supply chain stages, by boosting
supplies and reducing food prices throughout
the supply chain, to the particular benefit of
the most v ulnerable populations.
 Inter ventions towards loss or waste reductions
may aim to improve the environmental
sustainabilit y of the food system by, forexample, reducing pressures on land or water
resources, or lowering GHG emissions.
This is achieved by inter vening after theenvironmental damage has occurred. This isparticularly important for cutting GHG
emissions, which accumulate as a food productmoves along the supply chain.

There may also be synergies between objectives;
reduced on-farm losses in low-income
countries, for example, may lessen stresses
on natural resources, while at the sametime improving food securit y. There may
also be synergies with broader development
objectives, including an enabling businessenvironment. Indeed, investments aimed atbroader agricultural development – for example,
to improve infrastructure or storage facilities,
enhance rural finance ser vices or boost market
opportunities – may also reduce losses or waste
as a side effect.
Note that there may be trade-offs between
objectives, as an inter vention may contribute| 115 |

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Figure 17 illustrates the linkages between various
objectives of food loss and waste reduction
inter ventions and their entr y points in the
supply chain. This fig ure can help policymakers
narrow down the area for inter vention
based on the objective so that they focus
efforts (e.g. information gathering) on thoseinter ventions that are most likely to contribute tothat objective.

towards one objective but worsen outcomes inanother. Improving access to diversified andnutritious diets, for example, entails a certain
level of food loss or waste and possibly of foodproducts with a high environmental footprint. 25
Another example of the trade-off between
objectives is boosting cold chain capacities,
which may improve food securit y and nutrition
but also result in greater GHG emissions.
Sustainable cooling solutions that use renewableenerg y resources present a good solution toprevent food spoiling without adding to GHG
emissions. Local off-grid or microgrid-based
solutions are an attractive option, since
installation costs are now comparable to, oreven lower than, connecting to electricit y grids(see Box 30 for a feasibilit y analysis of off-gridcooling technologies in Kenya, Tunisia andthe United Republic of Tanzania). 26 Other
small-scale, simple, self-build cooling solutions
may offer an affordable and more sustainable
alternative to conventional cold rooms.
An example is Coolbot, a device that converts
a standard window air conditioner unit to awalk-in refrigerator cooler unit; it can also be
powered by an off-grid system (using solar
power, for example). It is estimated to be about
25 percent more efficient than conventionalcooling systems. A study in Kenya foundCoolbot prolonged the shelf life of mangoes
by up to 23 days compared to ambient storage
conditions. 27 n

The colour of the boxes indicates whether an
objective is related to food securit y and nutrition(orange) or the environment (green), while
the positioning indicates the best entr y point
along the supply chain for measures aimed at
the objective. For example, inter ventions toboost farmers’ incomes may focus on on-farmloss reduction, while GHG emissions are best
addressed by focusing on consumer waste.
Certain objectives can only be addressed in thelater stages of the supply chain because they
concern either the final product or the packagingof that product.
Figure 17 does not disting uish between
objectives that are global and those restricted
to a local area. However, a number of basic
conclusions in this respect can be drawn from
Chapters 4 and 5: If the objective is to lower GHG emissions,then the geographic location of reduction
inter ventions does not matter; reducing GHG
emissions by 1 tonne of CO 2 will have thesame global impact irrespective of where
it occurs.
 Inter ventions aimed at improving food securit yand nutrition should be implemented at the
local level, as those in one part of the world areunlikely to affect food securit y and nutrition
thousands of kilometres away.
 At the local level, synergies exist between
the objectives of improving access to foodand reducing environmental footprints
through inter ventions earlier in the supply
chain. However, reducing food losses isunlikely to be the most effective way to tackle
local environmental problems as a primar yobjective. These are best addressed by directly
improving resource use efficiency.

PUBLIC INTERVENTIONSIN PRACTICE – LINKING
POLICY OBJECTIVE AND
ENTRY POINT ALONG
THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN
This section elaborates on the synergies andtrade-offs between food loss and waste measures
aimed at promoting food securit y and nutritionon the one hand and improving environmental
sustainabilit y on the other. It also discusses
policies to encourage the private sector to invest
in food loss and waste reduction.

| 116 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE 17

OBJECTIVES OF LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES AND THEIR ENTRY POINTS ALONG THE FOOD
SUPPLY CHAIN

INTERVENTION LOCATION IN THE SUPPLY CHAINDOWNSTREAM

UPSTREAM
FARM

CONSUMER

Increase water quality
and reduce water scarcity

GHG emission reduction

Preserving land

Plastics reduction

Increased quality and nutritional
food content

Farmer income
generation

Post-harvest loss reduction for increased foodavailability

Environmental sustainability objectives

Food redistribution

Reduced prices for
consumers

Food security and nutrition objectives

SOURCE: FAO

ENSURING COHERENTPOLICIES FOR FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE REDUCTION

Table 2 shows a number of examples of interventions
towards food loss or waste reduction around theworld. They include both public interventions –aimed at improving food security and nutrition
or environmental sustainability, or creating an
enabling environment to allow private actors
to reduce losses or waste – and measures
implemented by private actors. Interventions
may have more than one objective and may also
bring side benefits. Improving “best before” and“use by” labelling may enable retailers to sell foodthat would otherwise be wasted. It may also help
consumers diversify their diets, thus contributing
to better nutrition. n

Food loss and waste reduction should be seen not
only as a goal in its own right but also as a means
to achieve other objectives, such as food nutritionand securit y and environmental sustainabilit y.
Policies aimed at promoting broad agriculturalor economic development may enable suppliers
along the food supply chain to make investmentsthat reduce food losses or waste as a side benefit. »| 117 |

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLESTABLE 2

Food supply
chain stage

Scope

Co-benefit(s)Objective(s)EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTIONS TOWARDS FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION AROUND THE WORLD

Improving storage to reduce on-farm losses and boost farmers’ incomes
Adequate storage conditions give stability to smallholders by preventing post-harvest losses andallowing them to sell their produce later in the season at favourable prices. A cost–benefit analysis
for the maize, bean and cowpea supply chains in Benin and Mozambique found the investment inhermetic bags and metal silos to be beneficial for farmers. Results suggest that farmers in bothcountries may realize an up to 11-fold return on investment. The return will largely depend onwhether farmers sell their crops immediately after harvest or during the lean season, on the prices
paid for stored crops later in the season, and on the level of post-harvest losses avoided in a given
context. One limitation of the analysis is that it assumes that metal silos and hermetic bags are
100 percent effective in preserving the produce until the lean season (i.e. eight months later), which
may not be the case in practice. The initial investment costs also present a significant barrier toadoption, especially for the metal silo, and it can take farmers up to seven years to pay back thecost of the investment. Public policies should promote inclusive financial services, such as credit orlower import taxes, so that modern technologies are accessible to farmers. 28, 29

n n¥ é

Improving fish smoking and dr ying practices to prevent losses
Smoking and drying fish are the most common small- and medium-scale processing methods. Theiruse has a great impact on the level of post-harvest losses, the environmental footprint of the fish
sector and consumer health. FAO has pioneered an innovative technique to smoke and dry fish, the
FAO-Thiaroye Technique, which has greatly improved smoking and drying practices. The
FAO-Thiaroye Technique can be used regardless of climatic conditions and increases the range of
species that can be processed, which strengthens fish processors’ resilience in the face of climatic
variability. The technique has resulted in a near complete elimination of losses at the processing
stage and enhances the quality and safety of the finished product. In Côte d’Ivoire, the technique isestimated to reduce losses of smoked fish rejected on food safety or quality grounds to the tune of
USD 1.7 million annually. 30

n np In

Climate-friendly cold storage
In Morocco, FAO and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) assessed thepotential for more efficient climate control techniques, including cold storage. Improving theefficiency of the cold chain was found to be a low-hanging fruit, offering the greatest potential toreduce GHG emissions and improve resource use efficiency of all the 12 technologies andpractices reviewed. However, limited access to capital, uncertainty as to the financial return on
investments and regulatory issues constitute barriers to adopting efficient cold storage
technologies. The Finance and Technology Transfer Centre for Climate Change (funded by the
EBRD and the Global Environment Facility) helps businesses adopt green cooling technologies andovercome problems related to malfunctioning markets for climate technology, largely throughgrants and technical support. 31

n n m I

Extending shelf life without plastics or cold storage
Apeel is an innovative natural technique to coat fresh fruits and vegetables with a thin peel of
edible plant material that slows down water loss and oxidation – the factors that cause spoilage. 32
The start-up that developed the technique was launched in 2012 in the United States of America. 33
It claims Apeel extends the lifespan of avocadoes by almost a week and doubles their ripenesswindow from two to four days by reducing water loss by 30 percent and slowing down softening by
60 percent, relative to untreated avocadoes. The developers also claim that their technique results ina fivefold reduction in mechanical damage. 34nnn| 118 |

êp ê

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

TABLE 2

Food supply
chain stage

Scope

Co-benefit(s)Objective(s)(CONTINUED)

Discounting ageing produce
Wasteless, an innovative pricing technology using machine-learning, helps retailers cut waste andincrease their revenues through dynamic pricing. The technology ensures that electronic shelf labels
automatically discount the prices of food products as their expiration date comes near. Wastelessallows for a continuous inventory of products according to their expiration dates and connects tostores’ point-of-sales systems. A pilot at a leading Spanish retailer resulted in an average decreaseof 32.7 percent in overall waste and an average revenue boost of 6.3 percent. Two-thirds ofconsumers faced with choosing between a discounted product with a shorter expiration date andthe same product with a longer expiration date sold at its full price chose the discounted product. 35

n n¥ ê

Innovative solutions for food redistribution in the European Union
In recent years, EU countries have been applying solutions to encourage food operators to donate
their surplus food. For example, in 2016, a law was passed in Italy to relax regulations that madedonations for food redistribution cumbersome. The law allows food to be donated even if it is past
its “best before” date or is mislabelled (as long as it does not pose any risks in terms of foodsafety), and allows farmers to donate unsold produce to charities without incurring costs. 36 Belgium
and France provide other examples of how the administrative requirements of donating food can be
simplified and donation by businesses encouraged. 12nNational strategies for food loss and waste reduction and prevention in Chile and Argentina
In Latin America, several countries have adopted policies to stem food loss and waste. In 2017, forexample, Chile established the National Committee for Food Loss and Waste Prevention andReduction, to facilitate and coordinate strategies to prevent and reduce food loss and waste.
Formed by public institutions and private organizations, the Committee’s 2018–2019 action plan
focuses on three pillars: (i) governance; (ii) information and communication; and (iii) research,technology and knowledge required to reduce food loss and waste. 37 Similarly, Argentina created a
National Programme for the Reduction of Food Loss and Waste in 2015; more than 80 public andprivate institutions have since joined to form the National Network for the Reduction of Food Lossand Waste. As part of the programme, a national campaign named “Valoremos los Alimentos” waslaunched, providing information and videos on how to prevent food loss and waste. 38nIê

OBJECTIVE

SCOPE

FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN STAGEn Food security and nutrition objective
n Environmental objectiven Business-enabling objective¥ Location-specificp National or regionalm Globalé Upstream
I Midstream
ê Downstream» However, food loss or waste reductions do not

p é

p é
I
ê

Certain public interventions, especially those
aimed at improving food utilization and stability,
may lead to increased food losses or waste.
Efforts to ensure access to nutritious diets for all,for example, may result in such a rise, as the shareof highly perishable products in these diets ishigh. Efforts to reduce food losses or waste should
not compromise food security and nutrition.
Note that as their incomes rise, consumers may
actually waste increasing amounts of food.

g uarantee improved food securit y and nutritionand environmental sustainabilit y. Measures may
contribute towards one objective but lead toa deterioration in another, depending on thelocation of the supply chain reduction. It istherefore of crucial importance to ensure policy
coherence by considering the potential andactual impacts of all reduction options.

| 119 |

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

BOX 34REGIONAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKS TO TACKLE FOOD LOSS AND WASTE EFFECTIVELYRegional and national platforms between governmental
and non-governmental actors in Africa, Latin America
and the Caribbean contain food loss and waste
reduction goals in their strategic frameworks.
The Inter-American Development Bank has created#SinDesperdicio, a platform aimed at promoting
innovation and improving the quality of public
interventions on food loss and waste reduction in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Actors including FAO, theConsumer Goods Forum, the Global FoodBanking
Network, IBM and other companies participate in theplatform.

The African Union has developed a regional
strategy to reduce post-harvest losses with the supportof FAO. The regional strategy helps countries in the
African Union achieve the goal of the Malabo
Declaration of halving post-harvest losses by 2025
(see Box 22) by aligning national strategies as much as
possible. The strategy targets interventions at selectedstages of the supply chains of particular food products.
Data collection focuses on the indicator for post-harvest
losses agreed by member countries and on monitoringand evaluation.

The alignment of strategies can ensure resources
are used in the most efficient way possible, bothin collecting data and carr ying out the actualinter ventions. Boxes 34 and 35 provide examplesof regional strategies for food loss and waste
reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean
and Africa, and the EU, respectively.

 Are they appropriate in the cultural and social
context of the supply chain and can they be
adopted widely to have a long-term impact onlosses or waste?47
Finally, it is imperative to assess accurately
whether reduction inter ventions achieve theirobjectives. This calls for the exact measurementof the problem targeted, as well as precise
monitoring and evaluation of the inter ventions –all of which requires reliable data on the level offood losses and waste. The current lack of solid
data constitutes a serious barrier to successfulpolicymaking. The following section lays out aroad map for improved data collection on foodloss and waste. n

To achieve long-lasting food loss and waste
reduction results, policy inter ventions must be
designed and implemented in a way that accounts
for gender. To ensure this happens, policymakers
should: consider the results and recommendations ofgender-sensitive maps and analyses of foodsupply chains; identif y the gender constraints that actors faceat critical loss points in the food supply chain; duly consider the differences in needs,
constraints and preferences between womenand men active in the food supply chain; and assess the gender and social implications ofany proposed solutions.

TOWARDS BETTER DATAON FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE – A ROAD MAP
Obtaining reliable information on the amount ofloss and waste for a wide range of commodities
along the whole food supply chain is challenging.
Although food loss and waste research has beenongoing for the past 40 years, there are still nointernationally used standards, concepts ordefinitions of food loss and waste; current

Questions to consider in gender-responsiveplanning include: Do the suggested solutions exacerbate
gender inequalities?
| 120 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 35

REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND WASTE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The EU is committed to the global fight against foodloss and waste. Food waste prevention was singled
out as a priority area in the EU Circular Economy
Action Plan, adopted in 2015.39, 40 This called on theEuropean Commission to establish a multi-stakeholder
platform dedicated to food waste prevention.i The EU
Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, establishedin 2016, brings together all key actors representing
both public and private interests from farm to fork
to advance EU progress towards SDG Target 12.3.
Members include international organizations (FAO,
UN Environment, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development), EU institutions,experts from EU Member States, and stakeholders
from the food supply chain, including food banks
and other NGOs.41
The Platform aims to support all actors in defining
measures to prevent food waste, including possible
recommendations for EU-level action, sharing bestpractices and evaluating progress. With the support of
the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, theEuropean Commission has adopted EU guidelines tofacilitate food donations and the redirection of food nolonger fit for human consumption into feed. It hasdeveloped a food waste measurement methodology
and is working to improve date labelling practices.42, 43
Measurement is critical to food waste prevention.
Revised EU waste legislation adopted in May 2018i

has introduced specific measures which will provide theEU with new and consistent data on food waste
levels.44 On 3 May 2019 the European Commission
adopted a Delegated Act laying down a common foodwaste measurement methodology to help Member
States quantify food waste at each stage of the foodsupply chain. Based on a common definition, themethodology will ensure coherent monitoring of foodwaste levels across the EU. The Delegated Act is
expected to come into force in autumn 2019.45
EU Member States are expected to provide data
separately for five stages of the food supply chain:primary production, processing and manufacturing,retail and other distribution of food, restaurants andfood services, and households. This covers the scope ofboth sub-indicators proposed to measure progress
towards SDG Target 12.3 – the FLI and the FWI. The
collected data will contribute in a significant way toreporting for both indices.
The European Commission’s Reflection paper,“Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030”, highlights
the importance of pursuing the EU Action Plan to fightfood waste to strengthen the sustainability of our foodsystems.46 The forthcoming “Recommendations foraction in food waste prevention”, to be adopted by the
EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste by theend of 2019, are expected to make an important
contribution to this redesign of EU food systems.

EU legislation does not use the concept of food loss and its definition of food waste covers the whole food supply chain.

measurement methods have not proved effectivein generating data; 48 and properly conductedsur veys tend to be costly and time-consuming.
Given these obstacles, ver y few countries havemeasured their full loss and waste accurately
along the food supply chain.

run, though, the strateg y is to replace modelled
estimates with data using the g uidelines andmethodolog y developed for the Food Loss
Index (FLI). Activities are organized around:(i) a methodological agenda; (ii) a capacit ydevelopment agenda; (iii) a data collection
agenda; and (iv) advocacy and partnerships.
More details are provided in Box 36.

However, progress is being made. As of now,
FAO is producing model-based estimates offood losses as a short-term benchmark in theabsence of nationally collected food loss data.
These are used in Chapters 1 and 2. In the long

It is widely assumed that food waste is not amajor problem in the developing world, when
in fact data are entirely absent and the problem| 121 |»

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

BOX 36

A ROAD MAP FOR IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION ON FOOD LOSSES

The methodological agenda – international concepts anddefinitions and a standardized approach to estimating
food loss
A consensus on a precise definition of food loss andwaste does not exist and the concepts of loss andwaste are often used interchangeably. As a result,data across countries are hardly comparable. FAO has
worked to consolidate definitions, both with external
partners and through internal consultations, and has
agreed on definitions of food loss and waste fromseveral perspectives. A detailed description of concepts
related to food loss and waste can be found in
Chapter 1 of this report (see Boxes 1 and 2).
Measuring food loss is not an easy task, given themultidimensional nature of losses, the different productcharacteristics, the variety of supply chains and typesof actors (from small household farms to largecommercial holdings), the various supply chain stages
where losses occur and need to be measured, and the
difficulty of objective measurements. To this end, in2018 FAO and the Global Strategy to Improve
Agricultural and Rural Statistics developed “Guidelines
on the measurement of harvest and post-harvest
losses”, covering the production (harvest), post-harvestand processing stages in the food supply chain.49 The
Guidelines offer cost-effective statistical methods andare targeted primarily, but not exclusively, towards
developing countries. Those for grains are being tested
in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Three
additional guideline documents, covering loss
measurement of fruits and vegetables, animal products
and fish products, have also been developed.50 The
Guidelines are complemented by field test reports
providing practical experience and solutions for
specific contexts.
Using comparable methods within and acrosscountries will help improve the modelled estimates andenhance understanding of the levels and causes oflosses; this will lead to more informed decisions on
how to tackle the problem.

A capacity development agenda – supporting countries incollecting food loss data
As a starting point, a set of resources is being madeavailable online, including the Guidelines, the reports
from the field tests, eLearning courses (on the FLI
and the Guidelines for data collection), standard
questionnaires and training material. These resources
are complemented by a round of international training
workshops in all regions to transfer knowledge andhelp countries tackle the measurement issue in all its
complexity. The next steps will be to plan support incollecting data through new or existing initiatives ina set of priority countries. These will be grounded innational statistical systems to ensure sustainability ofdata collection and to strengthen the capacity of thesystems themselves. Additional tools will be available,
including guidance for post-harvest loss surveys,
building on the Census of Agriculture framework– designed to provide support and guidance forcountries to carry out national agricultural censuses– or adding a sub-survey on farm losses in the
Agricultural Integrated Survey (AGRIS), a farm-based,
multi-year survey programme proposed by FAO to
improve agricultural and rural statistics.51, 52 The tools
will cover sample design issues and the questionnaires
or questions to be used or added to existing surveys.
In the short term – and in the absence of data –modelled estimates will be used within the frameworkof Food Balance Sheets (FBS). Since estimating losses
with econometric modelling can help reduce datacollection costs and increase the quality of data, FAO
has developed a loss imputation model which countries
may choose to adopt and adjust to generate improved
data on food loss.49, 50
A data collection agenda – mining existing information toestimate food losses
In parallel with the capacity development agenda, as
custodian agency of the FLI, FAO regularly collects
available loss data from all countries, along with its
annual Agricultural Production Questionnaire.

| 122 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

BOX 36(CONTINUED)

Data collection started in 2016 and has beenstrengthened in 2019: a separate questionnaire on
food losses went out in spring 2019 to all countries togather all existing data for the past decade andvalidate the historical data collected so far by FAO for
its Supply Utilization Accounts. Later on, a separate
questionnaire will be merged with the annual
Agricultural Production Questionnaire to ease theburden for respondents.
The data thus obtained will be used to compile the
FLI, where possible, and to improve the model-based
estimates.

Engaging countries in measuring food waste in retail,food services and households
Despite FAO’s efforts, no single institution can tackle
food loss and waste alone or unilaterally address themany dimensions of food loss and waste at the local
and global level. Partnerships to align and join efforts
with technical and political stakeholders, private andpublic entities, both nationally and internationally,
will be critical. Such partnerships should ensure a
consistent and integrated food systems approach topolicy formulation, technical support and measurementof food losses and waste.

» may be much greater than anticipated, especiallyand waste (see, for example, Boxes 34 and 35).
However, commitments are often collective
expressions of intent that still need to betranslated into action so that reductions canbe monitored.

in emerging economies. UN Environment is
adopting a two-tier approach in developing
the F WI to measure and monitor food waste
worldwide. A draft methodolog y has beendeveloped, with a first tier building upon the
Food Loss and Waste Accounting and ReportingStandard (FLW Standard) published in June
2016. Given the lack of national data on foodwaste (it is estimated that currently data are
available for only 10 percent of the world’s
population), UN Environment is developing asecond-tier method involving a model that will
provide food waste estimates for all countries.
The precise road map for data collection on foodwaste will depend on the final design of the F WI
under development.

The private sector also has a central role to playwhen it comes to measuring losses or waste.
Business-level data are valuable for tracking
industr y progress over time, identif ying criticalloss points within businesses, filling data gaps innational sur veys, sharing best practices, further
motivating other companies to reduce their losses
or waste, and prompting inter ventions and policy
analysis. Even though businesses have been
making progress in measuring and reducing foodloss and waste over the past few years (see Box 15),
the private sector will need to step up if the scaleof reductions called for by SDG Target 12.3 is tobe achieved. Only when countries and businesses
start to establish more solid baselines, develop
credible means of monitoring and measuring
food loss and waste, and make their results
publicly available and easily accessible, will
an assessment of national and global progress
towards SDG Target 12.3 be possible. n

To achieve SDG Target 12.3, efforts by FAO and
UN Environment to develop the FLI and FWI,
respectively, will need to be supplemented bymuch government action at the country or even
subnational level. Designing interventions foraction requires ex-ante assessment of potential
interventions such as those suggested in thisreport or ex-post assessment of interventions
already in place; these assessments requiremeasurement in the first place. Indeed, a numberof countries have already taken steps to startor improve the measurement of their losses| 123 |

CHAPTER 6 POLICYMAKING FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION – GUIDING PRINCIPLESCONCLUSIONS

later stages of the supply chain, particularly at
the retail and consumption stages, where the
GHG emissions embedded in food products
are highest.

This report has discussed the role that food loss
and waste reduction can play in achieving thetargets of the SDGs – not only SDG Target 12.3,
which explicitly calls for a reduction in foodlosses and waste, but other targets, too(see Figure 1). Private stakeholders may have afinancial incentive to invest in the reduction offood losses or waste and their efforts may havepositive impacts on the wider societal goals offood securit y and nutrition and environmental
sustainabilit y, the focus of this report. Public
inter ventions may provide incentives to private
actors to reduce food losses or waste and help
them overcome constraints.

GHG emissions have a global impact, irrespectiveof where they occur. The geographic locationof inter ventions to reduce GHG emissions
through food loss or waste reduction is therefore
irrelevant. Food loss or waste reduction measures
are likely to be most effective in alleviatingstresses on natural resources (such as land or
water) if implemented near the location of thesestresses, both geographically and along the
supply chain. Note that measures aimed directly
at better efficiency in the use of natural resourcesor reducing environmental stresses are often
more effective in this regard than food loss or
waste reduction.

This report has arg ued that public inter ventions
aimed at broad economic development may
have the side effect of leading to reduced foodlosses or waste. Public inter ventions on foodloss or waste reduction must be formulated
in line with policymakers’ ultimate objectiveof increasing economic efficiency, improving
food securit y or nutrition, or ensuring
environmental sustainabilit y.

Any reductions in the amount of food wasted byconsumers in high-income countries are unlikely
to have a more than negligible effect on the foodsecurit y status of v ulnerable groups in distant
low-income countries.
The formulation of effective policies towards foodloss and waste reduction requires comprehensive
information as to how much and where – both
geographically and along the supply chain –various food products are lost or wasted.
The current lack of comparable and reliable
information constitutes a major obstacle to thedevelopment of effectively targeted policies toreduce food losses or waste. Improving statistics
on food loss and waste is therefore a priorit y area
for FAO – as it should be for the international
communit y and national governments,
particularly in monitoring progress towards
achieving the SDGs. n

Low-income countries with high levels of foodinsecurit y may choose to focus on improving
food securit y and nutrition. Inter ventions
focusing on losses early on in the supply chain –and especially on-farm losses – are likely to havethe strongest impact.
High-income countries – where food insecurit y
is generally low, and nutrition better – are likely
to focus on environmental objectives, especiallyreduced GHG emissions. Efforts towards foodloss or waste reduction are more effective at
reducing these emissions if implemented at the| 124 |TECHNICAL ANNEX

FOOD LOSS INDEX METHODOLOGY
The loss estimates used in this report are basedon the methodolog y developed by FAO tomonitor food losses within SDG Target 12.3 –“By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at
the retail and consumer levels and reduce foodlosses along production and supply chains,
including post-har vest losses”. Under thistarget, FAO developed a Food Loss Index (FLI)
monitoring food losses on a global level fora basket of key commodities covering crops,
livestock and fisheries products from har vest
up until retail. The index focuses on the supply
stages of food chains and measures changes inpercentage losses over time measured by the
Food Loss Percentage (FLP).
The FLI is expressed in a base 100 and allows
for looking at positive and negative trends in
FLP compared to the base period of 2015 andfor assessing countries’ progress in reducing
losses. The index is comprised of annual FLP
data, which are interpreted as the percentage of
production that does not reach the retail stage.
The FLP is a relative measure of a countr y’s
food system efficiency compared to othercountries. The FLP can be disaggregated into loss
percentages by commodit y and food supply chain
stage (where stage level information exists). The
overarching objective is that countries will wantto make reductions overall at the national level,
while developing policies and tracking progressin finer detail. FAO, as the custodian agency, will
track post-har vest losses and progress against
SDG Target 12.3.1.a at the global level, report onchanges in the Global FLI and assist countries incompiling their own national FLIs. This annex
will describe the salient methodological aspects
developed for estimating the FLP and the FLI.

1. FLI AND FLP DESIGNThe FLI has a traditional Laysperes fixed-baseformula comparing percentage losses of countr y(i) in a current period (t) to the percentage losses
in the base period (t 0 ) for a basket of commodities(j), using value of production (q ijt 0*p jt 0) in the baseperiod as the weights. The index is a composite ofcommodities that are key in national agricultural
production or food systems, including crops,
livestock and fisheries. It tracks losses as apercentage of total supply (l ijt) in order to exclude
the impact of production variabilit y on losses
measured in weight. The index formula is:

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼$% =∑* 𝑙𝑙$*% ∗ (𝑞𝑞$*%. ∗ 𝑝𝑝*%. )∗ 100∑* 𝑙𝑙$*1 ∗ (𝑞𝑞$*%. ∗ 𝑝𝑝*%. )𝐹𝐹𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐼$% =𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹$%∗ 100
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹$%(

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹$% =∑* 𝑙𝑙$*% ∗ (𝑞𝑞$*%. ∗ 𝑝𝑝*%. )∑* (𝑞𝑞$*%. ∗ 𝑝𝑝*%. )The indices are also equal to the ratio of an
average FLP in the current period and the FLP
in the base period (multiplied by 100) and can be
expressed with the following alternative andsimpler formula:

Where FLP it is the country’s FLP, itself anaggregation of the loss percentages of eachcommodity l ijt , weighted by its value of production.
The FLP has been estimated and reported in thisreport at several aggregation levels:

The FLPs l ijt which compile the national indices,
and are the most critical pieces of information,
will be the nationally representative loss

| 125 |TECHNICAL ANNEX

Why focus on FLPs and not on quantities lost?

percentage for each commodit y along the supply
chain. In the absence of data, these percentages
have been estimated with a model.

The FLI is based on the loss percentages foreach commodit y in the basket. This decision
stemmed from the assumption that percentages
will help isolate the signal and not the noise,as production varies from year to year and loss
quantities will var y with total production, while
long-term loss trends will be relatively stableand be a factor of other relevant indicators (e.g.
investments, technolog y, incidence of pests,
capacit y of the supply chain, etc.).

2. CONSTRUCTING THE FLI AND FLP
Selecting the commodities basket
Measuring post-har vest losses is especiallycomplex and costly because of the multiple
sources of losses, the many nodes of the supply
chain where they can appear, and the difficultyof capturing them using either declarative or
physical measurement techniques. In addition,
it is not feasible to collect data in ever y year,
for all commodities, at all stages. A review ofloss reduction policies has shown that countries
focus investment and decisions where theimpact can be greatest, that is on a few strategiccommodities, and that diverse diets and foodsecurity are key priorities related to this indicator.

This is especially visible when countries apply
a constant loss factor based on expert opinion
to estimate losses. In the anonymized example
below (Figure A1), wheat losses were set at a f lat
15 percent of supply across all years, yet total
losses f luctuate over time in line with production.
Carr y-over factors are commonly used and occur
in the dataset for the Food Balance Sheets (FBS)
when new data collection or modelling are notapplied, as well as in other data sources suchas the African Posthar vest Losses Information
System (APHLIS).

No single list of ten commodities can be relevant
for all countries, yet comparability is an importantstatistical quality. To allow for some international
comparability while ensuring relevance, thebasket is structured in five standard headings tocover the whole diet, and the two commodities
per heading can indicate the variation in losses
for each country within similar supply chains ofeach heading. Countries can go above and beyond
and build on their experiences in measuring
these ten commodities, as country priorities andresources allow.

An index based on losses in tonnes would
show annual variations and a trend, while theunderlying loss factor is constant. The FLP and
FLI are both constant in this case, neutralizing
the noise coming from annual variations in
production and yields.

Weighting pattern, reference period
and scope of the FLP

The commodities baskets were set by applying
the default method, where the countr y’s
production of primar y commodities is ranked byeconomic value (using the international dollar
price) and then sorted by the five headings:(i) cereals and pulses; (ii) fruits and vegetables;(iii) roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops; (iv) meat
and animal products; (v) fish and fish products.
For each heading, the top two items are selected.
For a list of the commodities appearing in thebasket of at least one countr y’s FLI, see FAO,
2018.1After significant discussion, the chosen weights
are in terms of the commodities’ economic valueof production on the assumption that markets
operate efficiently in valuing the commodities’importance. While there are known biases inutilizing economic weights, it may be the least
biased of the potential aggregation methods andprovide a context for the cost-effectiveness ofinter vention strategies. The weights for the FLI
and FLP are the value of the commodities baskets
at an international average price in international
dollar terms in the reference year.
When aggregating countries’ loss percentages
into regional or global losses, countries areweighed by their overall agricultural value,| 126 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE A1

WHEAT PRODUCTION AND LOSSES IN TONNES ESTIMATED APPLYING CONSTANT LOSSES
OF 15 PERCENT FACTOR

Production (tonnes)

Loss (tonnes)

Loss (%)
16

6 000 000

14

5 000 000

8

3 000 000

6

2 000 000

4
1 000 000

2
0

15
20

14

13

20

12

20

11

20

10

20

09

20

08

20

07

20

06

20

05

20

04

20

03

20

02

20

01

20

00

20

99

20

98

19

97

19

96

19

95

19

94

19

93

19

92

19

19

91

0

19

TONNES

10PERCENTAGE

124 000 000YEAR
SOURCE: FAO, 20181

always in international dollar terms, relative tothe rest of the world. In other words, the mostvaluable commodities will impact more on the
FLP at countr y level and countries with larger
agricultural sectors will weigh more heavily inthe regional and global FLP estimates. However,with the selection of commodities acrosscommodit y headings, the production bias is
overcome slightly, as different regions aremajor producers in different commodities.

and estimates are due in part to the differencesin the abilit y and cost in tracking losses andwaste by individual commodities versus volume(as is the case for consumer waste) and theabilit y to focus on different policies that will
target different stakeholders within countries.
In cases where the countries can measure bothindicators, a positive outcome will be if bothindicators decrease.

3. ESTIMATING FLPs

The FLI and FLP scope in terms of the foodsupply chain starts on the farm after har vest
and up to, but not including, the retail stage (seeChapter 1). The scope is different from that in the
FAO 2011 study, 2 which included har vest losses
as well as the demand-side of the food supply
chain, which will be represented in the F WI
under development. The division of the indicators

Food loss data scarcity and the need to impute themissing data
Data scarcit y is a leading issue in the
introductor y chapters of this report and themeta-analysis. Notwithstanding the factthat more than 40 years have passed since
the first UN resolution to halve post-har vest
| 127 |TECHNICAL ANNEX

losses by 1985, the lack of data is still dire.
These persisting data gaps have driven manydecisions in designing the FLI methodolog yfor the SDGs. One of the main limitations
on measuring losses in the past has been the
costliness of data collection along complex andfar-reaching supply chains, which is still themain known challenge for most countries in
obtaining the FLPs, by commodit y over time.
In order to increase the information base for
SDG measuring and monitoring, FAO adopted a
two-tier approach:available information (which will be publishedconcurrent to this report) and the default basket
of commodities.

1. Improve the collection of data along the
supply chain in the medium to long termwith a range of possible sur veys and otherstatistical tools to be integrated into national
agricultural statistics systems. To this end,
FAO has produced g uidelines for countries on
cost-effective methods to estimate food losses
along the supply chain.
2. Use model-based loss estimates where data are
not available in the short term. To this end,
FAO developed an estimation model thatincorporates explanator y variables grounded inreviewing available information at the stage,
countr y and commodit y level. 3 The model will
add value for countries seeking to bothdecrease losses and focus on factors that makethe greatest impacts. A succinct description of
the model follows below.

Missing data proved to be a problem for boththe independent and the dependent variables.
The first model by Klaus Grünberger adopted anannual time trend, the percentage of paved roads
in countries, GDP per capita and dummy variables
for each region, single commodity and commodity
group. Of the independent variables, only thecommodity and the time trend were considered
suitable and effective. The second model wasa purely statistical hierarchical mixed-effectmodel that could be used to fill gaps but not foranalytical purposes in looking at relationships
between losses and explanatory factors.

Justification for the model
Modelling efforts to estimate loss factors bycountr y, commodit y and year started as early as
2013. Two previous attempts, both using loss datafrom the Supply Utilization Accounts (SUA)/FBS,
did not yield satisfactor y results but provided
the starting ground for the food loss modelled
estimates used in this report.

The new model is structured to create acomparable, transparent method for countries
that do not have officially reported data andto estimate loss while addressing many ofthe previous limitations. It builds on existing
efforts and includes more policy-relevant
variables and proxies for known causes oflosses. Moreover, it was designed to provide
a mechanism for aggregating losses at thestage level into a national estimate for eachcountr y/commodit y/year along the whole supply
chain, thus solving one of the under-coverage
issues. It fosters a standardized, homogenous
approach for estimating losses and selecting
explanator y variables.

Data reported from countries through the
FBS only covered 7 percent of the necessar ycommodities, countries and years needed for a
full dataset. In addition, the national estimatesusing carr y-overs provide a modelling challenge,
indicating that losses do not change irrespectiveof policy and inter ventions. With the underlying
paucit y of basic loss data, the model did notdisplay a significant trend following 2011,
the benchmark year of FAO’s earlier model. 2
Incorporation of secondar y sources has improved
the abilit y for the model to estimate losses
for some regions and commodities; however,there are still untapped sources of information
available and more movement is required
towards measurement standards. The loss
estimates in this report therefore refer to thelatest available year, i.e. 2016, with currently

Input data
The model rests on three sets of input data:(i) officially reported loss data; (ii) information
obtained through a literature review onfood losses; and (iii) explanator y variables
representing causal relationships with food losses
found in the literature.
| 128 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

Officially reported loss data

Loss data from the literature review

Chapter 2 extensively describes the challengesof data collection and analyses available data
densit y (or scarcit y) in Figure 9, by use of heatmaps. As mentioned in the chapter, only
39 countries have officially reported loss dataon an annual basis through FAO’s annual
Agricultural Production Questionnaires for theperiod 1990 –2017.

An extensive review of literature in the publicdomain was carried out in 2016 –17 and is stillongoing. It gathered additional informationfrom almost 500 publications and reports fromvarious sources (national institutions, academic
institutions, international organizations such as
the World Bank, GIZ, FAO, IFPRI, etc.).
In some cases, the studies were conducted tofocus on a narrow slice of the food supply chain,
which may also over-represent segments ofthe supply chain (e.g. storage has been widely
analysed for grains and pulses) or segmentsof the population (e.g. smallholder farmers)that meet development objectives. At the
opposite end, certain commodit y groups areunder-represented (fish and meat), as are thelater stages of the supply chain. In addition,a critical loss point of har vest losses has not
traditionally been collected as it occurs before
the point at which production is measured
and reported.

In the questionnaires, countries report on total
losses at the national level for a whole tract of the
supply chain defined the SUA/FBS frameworkwith no breakdown by stages. These estimatesfrom countries may be modelled, measured
or come from a variet y of internal sourcesand expert opinions. Countries may provide
source documentation, if available, through the
improved official loss questionnaire startingin 2019.
A preliminar y analysis of the national derived
loss percentages showed that they are lower
than those found in the scientific literatureand sector reports, even after aggregation to anational number. This is because, on the one
hand, case studies and experiments are carriedout where losses are reputed problematic and theresults will therefore be higher than the national
average; and, on the other hand, the SUA/FBS
suffer from under-reporting by countries, which
set losses to nil even on highly perishable
products in the absence of information, and fromunderestimation in inter view-based sur veys. t
An increase in the reported loss level must be
therefore expected with the improvement ofavailable data.

In many cases, the additional data allowed forconsidering losses at the various stages andthen aggregating them to the national level.
Although imperfect, these additional studies add
necessar y variation and potential upper boundsof what loss estimates may be in countries.
However, the studies are also part of a countr y’s
overall loss estimation strateg y in intermittent
data collection years and thus use inconsistent
data sources and methods.
The data have been used and extensively
described for the meta-analysis in Chapter 2.
They are organized in a database with many
metadata dimensions and a user quer y interface.
Links to the source document will be madeavailable to the public on FAO’s website. u

The estimation model had therefore to expand
its input data to include loss percentages bystage from other available sources. However, thisinformation is not used in the place of officiallyreported data; instead, it is used to inform theloss model estimations.

Explanatory variables and their selection
A dataset of >200 possible explanator y variables
was created tapping from various international
databases (International Energ y Agency, World
Bank, FAO, etc.) to represent the numerous causal
factors from the literature. Different proxies att A field test in Ghana highlighted systematic under-reporting by thefarmers.4

u| 129 |

www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data

TECHNICAL ANNEX

Model assumptions

the national level as a means of measuring
micro-level effects could be grouped undercommon themes to be managed by a single
model. The common themes were: energ y, inputs
and associated costs; investment and monetar ypolicy; social and economic factors; storage,transportation and logistics; weather andcrop cycles.

The model rests on a number of key assumptions:

Estimation of missing explanatory variable data
The explanator y variables time series are in somecases incomplete or low-frequency. The model
fills in the missing data only after the Random
Forest selects the variables, so as not to bias thetime trends with potential smoothing efforts.

The Random Forests algorithm was used tostandardize the selection of variables and choose
the five most important ones, by commodit ygrouping. The purpose was to better capture
the variation in the causes of losses by countr y/region and commodit y without limiting thepotential by setting few factors applied widely
without significance, as was the challenge
remaining from the Grünberger approach.

Use of clusters by commodity group and of ahierarchy of models
In many instances, there are fewer than threeobser vations by countr y and commodit y, whichis considered a bare minimum to run the model
for a countr y–commodit y combination. In all
those cases, available information has beenclustered by commodit y group on the assumptionthat causes and rates of losses are more similar
within the groups than across them (for example,
losses of maize and lentils are more similar
than losses of maize and fresh milk); the samehas been assumed for the t y pes of value chain
and solutions. Moreover, clustering scarce data
will even out the impact of potential outliers on
the results.

Model specifications
A widely used econometric model, the Random
Effects Model, has been chosen to exploit
the data in a cross-section – by commodit yand countr y – and longitudinally over time.
The model assumes that the index-specific effect(that is, the countr y-commodit y-specific effect)
is a random variable uncorrelated with the
explanator y variables selected. The model is
specified as:

The coexistence of countr y-level estimates andcluster-level estimates requires a model hierarchy
to fill in the results matrix. The process protects
countr y-level official data and carr y-over data(the cases where countries have in the pastreported the same estimates from year to year)
from being over-written by the model.

)
𝑦𝑦"#$ = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝑥𝑥"#$
𝛽𝛽 + 𝑧𝑧"#) 𝛾𝛾 + 𝑢𝑢"#$

where:

y ijt is the percentage of food losses for the countr yi, for a given commodit y, j, at time t

The model is then applied by countr y andcommodit y group, where loss data are available
for different commodities in each group, toestimate the loss percentages for each of the fivecommodit y groups. For example, if countr y A
needs an estimate for wheat losses, the modeldraws on countr y A’s “cereals and pulses”
basket to create this estimate. This processrepeats for all countr y–commodit y and basket
combinations where there is information for theother commodities in the basket. Each of theseestimations will use a different selection of
explanator y variables based on what is relevant
for that countr y–commodit y basket. For example,
losses in countr y A may be correlated with thex Tijt is the k-dimensional row vector of time andcommodit y-var ying explanator y variables
x Tij is an M-dimensional row vector oftime-invariant dummy variables based on theindices i,ju ijt is the idiosyncratic error term
α is the intercept| 130 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019

FIGURE A2

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE MODELDATA IN

Loss % estimatesfrom other sources

CLUSTERING AND SUBSETTING DATA IN (REPEAT FOR ALL CLUSTERS)

Cereals –loss % on
production+ imports

Cereals –loss %
on production

Country cereal crops

Protected loss % data

Globalcerealcrops

Global cereal
model, estimates
for all countries

Country cereal model, estimates
only for the country selected;
repeat for each country with data
Carry-over estimates where no
variation exists; repeats over eachcommodity within cereals for the
specific country

DATA OUT

Global % estimates (same variable for eachcommodity group; differences between
estimates in this group will be driven by thecountry and commodity dummy variables,
and levels of the variables)

Country % estimates(different variables selected foreach country and commodity group)

Country % carry-overs

Protected % data

SOURCE: Fabi et al., 2018 3

price of transportation fuels, while in countr y B
temperature and humidit y may be more highly
correlated with loss percentages.

Aggregation of loss factors by stage to thewhole supply chain and imputation of themissing stages

In the remaining cases where a countr y does
not have any loss data for an entire commodit yheading, then the loss estimates come from a
global model estimated by commodit y heading.
This indicates that countr y C’s loss estimates
may depend on what data are available incountr y A and countr y B. In some cases, themodel may not perform well (e.g. when mostestimates are f lat carr y-overs) as no factors canbe correlated to the loss percentages. In thesecases, a simple average of available loss factors
by countr y-cluster is applied. Figure A2 illustrates
the model f low.

While the officially reported data cover
the whole supply chain, studies are rarely
carried out across multiple stages of the foodsupply chain. To aggregate those loss factors
along the supply chain, a simplified Markov
process that assumes that losses at each point
are independent of each other was used.
Though losses may be caused by upstream
behaviour, the measured losses at each stage are
independent: for instance, losses due to poor
handling in processing have no relationshipwith the losses that occurred in transportation.
This process needed to be standardized giventhat studies would often add loss percentages
across supply stages and not account for| 131 |TECHNICAL ANNEX

the amount decreased (due to losses or own
consumption) at each of the preceding stages.

been made to the FLI methodolog y where thedenominator in those cases is equal to domestic
production plus import quantities. Ver y low
percentages occur in some officially reported
data, with losses lower than 2 percent across thewhole supply chain.

In the case of some commodities, there was no
information at all for some stages of the supply
chain. For example, if countr y A measured lossesof x percent in maize-storage-2000 and not inmaize-storage-2001, losses in storage for 2001
would be considered as a zero. The Markov
aggregation process in these cases produced
biased results due to under-coverage over time.
Losses for missing stages of the value chain havetherefore been estimated using a simple ordinar yleast squares model with losses at each stage
based on countr y, commodit y or cluster, andtime, and integrated in the Markov chain where
the missing value was.

An evolving process
With all its limitations, the food loss estimation
model marks an important step for ward inanalysing, describing and estimating foodlosses at commodit y, countr y and global level.
Contrar y to the FAO 2011 study on Food Losses
and Waste, 2 the model is entirely open-sourceand estimates are reproducible. Moreover, themodel can incorporate new information as it
becomes available, including from new andavailable literature, and be tailored to countries
without chang ing the structure. The literature
rev iew is still ongoing and data from a large
number of studies are still to be added to the
input dataset. Additional information on morecountries and commodities certainly exists but
has not been accessed yet. The model itself
could be improved in some aspects, but therisk is to over-eng ineer it until it produces“expected” results on the same exceedingly
weak information base.

In other cases, more than one loss percentage wasavailable for the same year-country-commodity-stageor year-country-cluster-stage combination.
A simple average has been used in these cases
before applying the simplified Markov process.

Final adjustments
In some cases, the input data may have been
considered as outliers both on the high and on
the low end of the distribution. Thresholds were
set to exclude those outliers from the model, atthree standard deviations below and above thewhole dataset.

The endeavour for the food losses and waste
stakeholders and communit y should rather be
to improve the loss data by supporting datacollection in the countries to build a soundevidence base. Good-qualit y data will help inmaking informed decisions and in achieving
national and global sustainabilit y targets.

Ver y high percentage losses can be found inimport-dependent countries, where loss
quantities of imported products are compared toa small domestic production. An adjustment has| 132 |STATISTICAL ANNEXNOTES ON THE STATISTICAL ANNEX
KEY
The following conventions are used in the tables:.. = not available
0 or 0.0 = nil or negligible
Numbers presented in Tables A2–A6 can be replicatedstarting from the original data sources and thenfollowing the operations of data management
implemented through the Stata software,available upon request. To separate decimals
from whole numbers, a full point (.) is used.
For Tables A2–A6:
 The mean (or average) is the resulting number
determined by adding all the food loss andwaste estimates reported in each respective
variable (e.g. commodit y group as shown in
Table A2) and then dividing the total by the
number of obser vations.
 Median is the value separating the higher halffrom the lower half of the food loss and waste
estimates for each respective variable.
 The standard deviation measures the dispersion(i.e. the amount of variation) of the food loss
and waste estimates. A low standard deviation
signifies that the obser vations tend to be close
to the mean (or average) of each respective
variable.
 Minimum and maximum present the lowest andhighest food loss and waste estimates of eachvariable, respectively.
 Total summarizes the statistics (obser vations,mean, median, standard deviation, minimum
and maximum) for all of the food loss andwaste estimates.

TABLE A1
List of countries officially reporting data on foodloss to FAO for at least one year between 1990
and 2019, number of commodities in eachcommodity group
Source: FAO. 2019. Questionnaire on Crop andLivestock Production and Utilization (2000 –2017).
Rome.

Cereals and pulses refer to the number of thesecommodities for which countries reported dataon the losses in at least one year between 1990
and 2019.

Fruits and vegetables refer to the number of thesecommodities for which countries reported dataon the losses in at least one year between 1990
and 2019.

Meat and animal products refer to the number of thesecommodities for which countries reported dataon the losses in at least one year between 1990
and 2019.

Roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops refer to the number ofthese commodities for which countries reported
data on the losses in at least one year between
1990 and 2019.

Other refers to the number of other commodities
for which countries reported data on the losses inat least one year between 1990 and 2019.

Total refers to the sum of commodities for whichcountries reported data on the losses in at least
one year between 1990 and 2019.
For a list of the commodities appearing in thebasket of at least one countr y’s FLI, see:
FAO. 2018. Methodological proposal for monitoring
SDG target 12.3. The Global Food Loss Index design,
data collection methods and challenges. Rome.
| 133 |STATISTICAL ANNEXTABLE A2
Dataset of food loss and waste estimates fromgrey literature, national and sectoral reports, bycommodity group between 2000 and 2017
Source: FAO. 2019. Dataset of food loss estimatesfrom grey literature, national and sectoral
reports. Online statistical working system forloss calculations (available at w w w.fao.org/
food-loss-and-food-waste/f lw-data).

Roots and tubers refer to fresh cassava, dried cassava,

Observations count the number of food loss andwaste data points for each commodit y groupas reported in grey literature and national andsectoral reports, excluding the officially reported
loss estimates.

TABLE A3
Dataset of food loss and waste estimates fromgrey literature, national and sectoral reports, byregion between 2000 and 2017
Source: see Table A2.

Cereals refer to amaranth red, amaranths, bajra,

Observations count the number of food loss andbarley, grains, millet, maize (corn), rice, r ye,sabdariffa grain, sorghum, teff and wheat.

waste data points for each region as reported ingrey literature and national and sectoral reports,
excluding the officially reported loss estimates.

sweet potatoes, sweet potato leaves, tapioca,
yams and potatoes .

Other commodities refer to spices (bell peppers,
black peppers, chillies, Chinese hot peppers,
coriander, mustard, sweet peppers, turmeric),
sugars and syrups (sugar cane and sapota
sweetners) and tree nuts and ground nuts.

Pulses refer to yardlong bean, beans, dry beans, drychickpeas, cowpea, field peas, gram black, gram
green, green peas, legumes and pigeon peas.

There are no data for Western Asia, Northernand Southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand,
Micronesia and Polynesia, and Eastern andSouthern Europe.

Fruits refer to apples, apricots, peaches, plums,
avocadoes, citrus, figs, fresh fruits, processed
fruits, grapes, g uava, jackfruit, kinnow, kiwi
fruits, litchis, mandarin, mango, oranges,
papayas, pears, persimmons, pineapples,
plantains, plums, sloes, pomegranate,raspberries, strawberries and sweet cherries.

Northern America in the dataset refers to theUnited States of America only.
TABLE A4
Dataset of food loss and waste estimates fromgrey literature, national and sectoral reports, byfood supply chain stage between 2000 and 2017
Source: see Table A2.

Vegetables refer to broccoli, cabbages, carrots,
caulif lowers, Chinese cabbage, Chinese kale,
cucumber, eggplant, garlic stalks, lettuce,
mushrooms, okra, onions, Oriental bunching
onion, pak choi, radish, tomatoes, other fresh
vegetables and processed vegetables.

Observations count the number of food loss andwaste data points for each food supply chain
stage as reported in grey literature and nationaland sectoral reports, excluding the officiallyreported loss estimates.

Meat refers to chicken, other poultr y, pork andother meats.

TABLE A5
Dataset of food loss and waste estimates fromgrey literature, national and sectoral reports, bydata collection method between 2000 and 2017
Source: see Table A2.

Animal products refer to eggs, milk (f luid and other)and other dair y products, fish (inland andmarine) and seafood.

Oil-bearing crops refer to coconut, cottonseeds, fats

Observations count the number of food loss andand oils, groundnuts, safflower, sesame seeds,soybeans, sunflower and sunflower seed.

waste data points for each data collection method
as reported in grey literature and national and| 134 |

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2019sectoral reports, excluding the officially reported
loss estimates.

farming/har vest/catch/slaughter practices but
also for wholesale and retail stages.

Data collection methods used

Laboratory trials evaluate losses or waste via

The most used data collection method is thesurvey, i.e. inter views with a defined set ofquestions. Sur veys considered in the dataset
have a sampling methodolog y and a frame
predetermined to the collection of information.

random assignment after trials conducted notin the field. Laborator y trials are done in a
fully controlled environment, often with small
sample sizes, and probably do not mimic theconditions that would occur under normal
circumstances of practice.

The literature review method is when losses or waste
are based on findings from the literature.

Modelled estimates refer to estimation of losses
or waste via statistical models.

The expert opinion method consists in the advice,
belief or judgement given by an expert on thelosses or waste.

The World Resources Institute Protocol provides loss andwaste estimates. However, the protocol does
not predefine a method of data collection nor
does it require consistency across entities onwhat data are collected. As such, entities doing
the measurement that use this protocol may
have comparable results over time, but results
may not be expandable for a wider sample
or population.

The rapid assessment data collection method canbe described as assessing a product via a
visual damage scale and then the estimationof sample weight loss or waste by using
a simple equation. In the database, rapid
assessments include collecting information froma variet y of stakeholders and sources, such as
semi-structured inter views, reviews of existing
estimates and development of the broad structureand f low of a commodit y within a countr y.
They can focus on a specific group or area of the
supply chain and identif y critical loss points.
No direct measurement or systematic sur veying
across the wider population is done.

TABLE A6
Dataset of food loss and waste estimates fromgrey literature, national and sectoral reports, bycountry between 2000 and 2017
Source: see Table A2.

Observations count the number of food loss andwaste data points for each countr y as reported ingrey literature and national and sectoral reports,
excluding the officially reported loss estimates.

Case studies examine food losses or waste ofspecific persons or groups over a period oftime. Case studies are often limited to a small
set of participants, which may or may not be
representative of the overall population.

TABLE A7
Carbon impact factors (tonne CO2 equivalent/
tonne of food lost) used in Figures 13 and 14
Source: Data elaboration based on inputs(available upon request) developed for FAO.
2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural
Resources – Summary Report. Rome.

Crop cutting includes direct measurement of apre-sampled area of production and follows
the local har vesting practices. This is acost-intensive measurement that can benchmark“sur vey-inter view-only” questionnaires.

Carbon impact factors measure the carbon footprint

Field trials estimate losses or waste via randomof a specific food product by expressing
1 tonne of that food product in 1 tonne of CO 2
equivalent, in each stage of the food supply
chain. The employed impact factors cover the
food supply chain from farm up to and including
retail. Given that GHG emissions accumulate

assignment after field studies. They areexperiments undertaken at an extension farmor semi-controlled for aspects related to theoutcomes of an experiment, but non-laborator ybased. They often produce loss factors for| 135 |STATISTICAL ANNEX

cover the food supply chain from farm up to
and including retail. Given that the primar y
production stage accounts for nearly all land used
to produce food, the land impact factors remain
the same at all stages in the food supply chain.

as food moves along the food supply chain, theretail stage has the largest carbon impact factor.
The carbon footprint of lost food is thenexpressed as a multiplication of the lost foodquantities, in tonnes, provided by the model
developed for the FLI, and the correspondent
carbon impact factor. Minimum and maximum present
the lowest- and highest-impact factors for eachspecific region and food group and the average isthe average impact factor for each specific region
and food group, across the food supply chain.

The land footprint of lost food is then expressed
as a multiplication of the lost food quantities,
in tonnes, provided by the model developed
for the FLI, and the correspondent land impact
factor. Minimum and maximum present the lowest andhighest impact factors used from the inputs for
FAO (2013) whereas the average represents theaverage impact factor of the specific region andfood group, across the food supply chain.

TABLE A8
Blue-water impact factors (m 3/tonne of food lost)used in Figures 13 and 14
Source : see Table A7.

COUNTRY GROUPS AND REGIONAL AGGREGATESBlue-water impact factors measure the blue-water

Regional groupings and the designation ofnames of the countries follow the UNSD M49
classification of the United Nations Statistics
Division, available at:https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodolog y/m49/

footprint of a specific food product by expressing
1 tonne of food in cubic metres (m 3) of blue waterused to produce that tonne of food, in each stageof the food supply chain. The employed impact
factors cover the food supply chain from farm
up to and including retail. Given the assumptionthat blue water is used during agricultural
production only, the blue-water impact factors
remain the same at all stages of the foodsupply chain.
The blue-water footprint of lost food is thenexpressed as a multiplication of the lost foodquantities, in tonnes, provided by the model
developed for the FLI, and the correspondent
blue-water impact factor. Minimum and maximum
present the lowest and highest impact factors
for each specific region and food group andthe average is the average impact factor for eachspecific region and food group, across the foodsupply chain.
TABLE A9Land impact factors (ha/tonne of food lost) used in
Figures 13 and 14
Source: see Table A7.

Land impact factors measure the land footprint of a
specific food product by expressing 1 tonne offood in hectares (ha) of land used to producethat tonne of food. The employed impact factors| 136 |TABLE A1

LIST OF COUNTRIES OFFICIALLY REPORTING DATA ON FOOD LOSS TO FAO FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR BETWEEN 1990
AND 2019, NUMBER OF COMMODITIES IN EACH COMMODITY GROUP
Cereals andpulsesFruits andvegetables

Meat andanimalproducts

Eritrea600Ethiopia

20

Malawi

2

Mauritius

1

RwandaZambiaCOUNTRY/TERRITORY

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Other

Total

0

0

6

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

6

1

1

0

9

4

0

0

3

0

7

2

0

0

0

0

2

Chad

4

0

0

0

0

4

Democratic Republic of the Congo

1

0

0

0

0

1

Mali

5

0

0

5

0

10

Togo

5

0

0

1

0

6

Algeria

0

0

0

0

1

1

Egypt

9

0

0

8

1

18

Sudan

5

0

0

0

0

5

Armenia

6

1

0

1

0

8

Azerbaijan

6

1

0

1

0

8

Cyprus

1

0

0

0

0

1

Georgia

2

1

0

1

0

4

Israel

0

1

1

1

0

3

Jordan

2

0

0

2

0

4

Syrian Arab Republic

1

0

0

0

0

1

Kazakhstan

5

0

3

2

1

11

Kyrgyzstan

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tajikistan

0

0

0

1

0

1

Japan

4

0

2

3

0

9

Republic of Korea

2

0

0

1

0

3

Indonesia

2

1

1

4

0

8

Myanmar

0

0

0

1

0

1

Philippines

2

0

0

0

0

2

Viet Nam

1

0

0

0

0

1

AFRICA
Sub-Saharan Africa
Eastern Africa

Middle Africa

Southern Africa
Western Africa

Northern Africa

ASIA
Western Asia

Central Asia

Eastern Asia

South-eastern Asia

| 137 |TABLE A1(CONTINUED)
Cereals andpulsesFruits andvegetables

Meat andanimalproducts

Afghanistan

4

0

0

India

4

0

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

0

Nepal

3

Pakistan
Sri Lanka

COUNTRY/TERRITORY

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Other

Total

0

0

4

0

0

0

4

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

4

2

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

0

3

0

6

Belarus

0

0

2

0

0

2

Czechia

4

0

0

0

0

4

Southern Asia

EUROPE
Eastern Europe

Hungary

14

20

4

7

0

45

Poland

10

7

2

6

1

26

Republic of Moldova

0

0

0

2

0

2

Romania

6

8

0

1

1

16

Russian Federation

0

0

2

1

0

3

Slovakia

3

0

0

1

0

4

Ukraine

11

0

2

1

0

14

Denmark

7

0

0

0

0

7

Estonia

4

0

0

1

0

5

Ireland

3

0

0

0

0

3

Latvia

4

0

1

0

0

5

Lithuania

10

0

1

1

0

12

Norway

0

0

0

1

0

1

Sweden

5

0

1

1

0

7

United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland

3

6

1

0

0

10

Albania

0

0

2

0

0

2

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0

1

0

0

0

1

Croatia

0

1

0

0

0

1

Italy

2

2

1

0

0

5

North Macedonia

7

0

0

4

0

11

Portugal

1

0

0

0

0

1

Serbia

2

0

5

0

0

7

Spain

4

0

0

1

0

5

Austria

12

15

3

6

0

36

Belgium

2

0

1

1

0

4

Northern Europe

Southern Europe

Western Europe

France

8

1

3

2

0

14

Germany

9

0

1

5

0

15

Luxembourg

2

0

0

1

0

3

Netherlands

5

2

1

1

0

9

Switzerland

6

0

0

1

0

7

| 138 |TABLE A1(CONTINUED)
Cereals andpulsesFruits andvegetables

Meat andanimalproducts

Cuba

2

7

0

Jamaica41Guatemala5

MexicoNicaragua
PanamaCOUNTRY/TERRITORY

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Other

Total

2

0

11

0

3

0

8

5

1

0

2

13

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

4

5

4

1

20

Argentina

0

0

1

0

0

1

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

1

0

0

3

0

4

Ecuador

8

22

0

6

1

37

Peru

16

38

8

9

6

77

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

7

10

6

7

2

32

Canada

9

27

2

0

0

38

United States of America

0

0

0

2

3

5

2

0

0

0

0

2

Fiji

3

1

0

4

0

8

New Caledonia

2

0

0

0

0

2

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Caribbean

Central America

South America

NORTHERN AMERICA

OCEANIA
Australia/New Zealand
New Zealand
Melanesia

Micronesia
Polynesia

TABLE A2DATASET OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ESTIMATES FROM GREY LITERATURE, NATIONAL AND SECTORAL REPORTS,
BY COMMODITY GROUP BETWEEN 2000 AND 2017
Commodity group

Observations

Mean

MedianStandard deviation

Min

Max

Cereals and pulses

650

4.6

1.3

8.3

0.0

89.5

Fruits and vegetables

756

6.9

3.0

10.3

0.0

75.4

Meat and animal products

215

2.6

0.8

5.4

0.0

37.0

Roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops

364

4.1

1.0

8.4

0.0

72.0

Other

307

1.2

0.3

2.9

0.0

33.7

Total

2 292

4.6

1.4

8.6

0.0

89.5

| 139 |TABLE A3DATASET OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ESTIMATES FROM GREY LITERATURE, NATIONAL AND SECTORAL REPORTS,
BY REGION BETWEEN 2000 AND 2017
SDG region

Observations

Mean

MedianStandard deviation

Min

Max

1 524

2.2

0.6

5.4

0.0

75.4

Eastern and South-eastern Asia

203

7.8

5.5

7.9

0.0

50.0

Latin America and the Caribbean

40

9.9

8.8

7.3

0.8

42.5

Northern America and Europe

141

9.8

7.0

9.5

0.0

69.4

3

5.1

6.4

4.5

0.1

8.8

381

10.1

5.0

13.3

0.0

89.5

2 292

4.6

1.4

8.6

0.0

89.5

Central and Southern Asia

Oceania
Sub-Saharan Africa
Total

TABLE A4DATASET OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ESTIMATES FROM GREY LITERATURE, NATIONAL AND SECTORAL REPORTS,
BY FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN STAGE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2017
Stage of food supply chain

Observations

Mean

MedianStandard deviation

Min

Max

1 163

3.3

0.8

7.3

0.0

81.5

Storage

507

4.9

1.1

9.5

0.0

89.5

Transportation

140

6.7

3.4

9.5

0.1

74.0

Processing and packaging

173

5.6

1.7

9.7

0.0

69.4

Wholesale and retail

279

6.8

4.5

8.8

0.0

75.4

Consumption: households and foodservices

30

14.9

15.0

9.1

1.0

37.0

2 292

4.6

1.4

8.6

0.0

89.5

On-farm post-harvest/slaughter

Total

TABLE A5DATASET OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ESTIMATES FROM GREY LITERATURE, NATIONAL AND SECTORAL REPORTS,BY DATA COLLECTION METHOD BETWEEN 2000 AND 2017
Method of data collection

Observations

Mean

MedianStandard deviation

Min

Max

60

11.4

5.3

16.0

0.5

79.0

Crop cutting field

8

4.4

3.4

2.9

2.3

10.6

Expert opinion

142

7.5

4.7

9.1

0.0

50.0

Field trial

24

13.0

6.7

14.9

1.1

57.3

Laboratory trial

12

26.5

20.0

23.4

2.5

72.0

Literature review

454

4.8

1.2

8.6

0.0

74.0

Modelled

42

13.7

12.0

7.7

4.0

37.0

Rapid assessment

105

13.5

9.5

14.9

0.2

89.5

1 367

2.5

0.7

5.2

0.0

69.4

46

4.9

3.0

5.9

0.0

30.0

32

9.3

6.1

8.0

0.5

26.7

2 292

4.6

1.4

8.6

0.0

89.5

Case study

SurveyWorld Resources Institute Protocol
Not specified
Total| 140 |TABLE A6DATASET OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ESTIMATES FROM GREY LITERATURE, NATIONAL AND SECTORAL REPORTS,
BY COUNTRY BETWEEN 2000 AND 2017
COUNTRY/TERRITORY

Standard
deviation

Min

Max

4.6

4.7

0.1

14.9

6.0

10.2

0.2

40.0

Observations

Mean

MedianEthiopia

10

6.0

Kenya

31

9.0

AFRICA
Sub-Saharan Africa
Eastern Africa

Madagascar

8

1.8

1.6

0.6

1.0

2.5

Malawi

14

10.2

10.5

5.5

1.4

20.3

Mozambique

8

14.0

14.5

13.5

0.0

43.0

Rwanda

16

14.9

14.8

7.0

4.9

26.7

Uganda

10

8.3

4.4

10.3

2.0

35.0

United Republic of Tanzania

50

12.8

8.4

12.8

0.0

63.0

Cameroon

1

35.0

35.0

..

35.0

35.0

Gabon

1

35.0

35.0

..

35.0

35.0

Benin

21

29.6

22.0

26.3

1.6

89.5

Burkina Faso

2

1.6

1.6

0.4

1.3

1.9

Gambia

1

12.8

12.8

..

12.8

12.8

Ghana

131

8.3

2.5

13.5

0.0

72.0

Niger

5

13.3

15.0

3.5

8.6

17.1

Nigeria

67

6.1

4.4

6.3

0.1

28.0

Sierra Leone

5

6.6

6.6

1.1

5.0

8.0

5

12.3

12.5

5.9

4.0

20.0

China

106

8.1

5.0

9.5

0.0

50.0

Republic of Korea

29

13.8

14.0

3.9

8.0

24.0

Cambodia

14

5.5

4.3

2.6

3.0

12.5

Indonesia

9

3.6

1.2

4.7

0.2

15.0

Malaysia

5

5.6

6.0

2.5

2.0

9.0

Philippines

17

6.9

8.4

4.4

1.0

15.5

Thailand

3

7.0

8.5

4.0

2.5

10.0

Timor-Leste

19

2.3

1.3

2.5

0.5

10.0

Viet Nam

1

2.0

2.0

..

2.0

2.0

89

7.4

7.2

4.6

0.2

35.0

1 296

1.0

0.4

2.9

0.0

62.5

69

4.8

3.0

4.4

1.0

16.5

Middle Africa

Northern Africa
Southern Africa
Western Africa

ASIA
Western Asia
Central Asia
Kazakhstan
Eastern Asia

South-eastern Asia

Southern Asia
Bangladesh
India
Iran (Islamic Republic of)| 141 |TABLE A6(CONTINUED)
Observations

Mean

MedianStandard
deviation

Min

Max

Nepal

43

15.5

10.0

14.7

0.6

74.0

Pakistan

22

12.2

5.0

17.7

0.0

75.4

Denmark

13

9.4

5.6

6.7

0.0

21.0

Finland

9

9.4

6.2

6.1

2.3

17.7

Norway

12

11.0

6.1

19.0

0.9

69.4

Sweden

16

14.2

14.3

10.5

0.2

33.5

United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

46

4.9

3.0

5.9

0.0

30.0

2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1

20.0

20.0

..

20.0

20.0

Guatemala

5

15.6

14.7

16.2

2.9

42.5

Honduras

4

8.6

8.5

5.5

3.7

13.7

Mexico

13

8.0

7.7

5.4

0.8

20.0

Brazil

12

10.0

11.6

3.6

2.4

16.0

Ecuador

2

6.5

6.5

5.7

2.5

10.5

Peru

3

8.8

9.6

6.2

2.3

14.5

43

13.7

12.0

7.6

4.0

37.0

3

5.1

6.4

4.5

0.1

8.8

2 292

4.6

1.4

8.6

0.0

89.5

COUNTRY/TERRITORYEUROPE
Eastern Europe
Northern Europe

Southern Europe
Western Europe
Switzerland
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Caribbean
Haiti
Central America

South America

NORTHERN AMERICA
United States of America
OCEANIA
Australia/New Zealand
Melanesia
Fiji
Micronesia
Polynesia
Total| 142 |TABLE A7

CARBON IMPACT FACTORS (TONNE CO2 EQUIVALENT/TONNE OF FOOD LOST) USED IN FIGURES 13 AND 14
Cereals and pulses

SDG region

Fruits and vegetables

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Meat and animal products

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Australia and New
Zealand

0.4

2.2

1.6

0.3

2.8

1.8

0.7

1.7

1.4

0.2

0.8

0.6

Central and Southern
Asia

0.5

3.3

2.2

0.1

1.8

1.1

1.0

5.5

2.3

0.1

1.6

1.0

Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia

0.6

3.7

2.6

0.2

1.2

1.0

4.5

6.5

5.6

0.4

1.1

1.0

Latin America andthe Caribbean

0.1

3.3

1.7

0.1

1.5

1.1

0.7

6.1

4.4

0.1

2.4

1.3

Northern America
and Europe

0.4

1.9

1.5

0.3

3.0

1.5

0.7

2.0

1.6

0.2

0.9

0.7

Oceania (excluding
Australia and
New Zealand)

0.5

3.3

2.3

0.3

1.4

1.1

0.7

6.0

3.6

1.6

2.4

2.3

Sub-Saharan Africa

0.1

5.3

1.9

0.1

1.5

0.5

1.0

6.2

2.3

0.1

1.2

0.5

Western Asia andNorthern Africa

0.8

2.7

2.0

0.5

1.7

1.3

1.0

5.6

4.2

0.1

1.7

1.1

TABLE A8

BLUE-WATER IMPACT FACTORS (M3/TONNE OF FOOD LOST) USED IN FIGURES 13 AND 14
SDG region

Cereals and pulses

Fruits and vegetables

Meat and animal products

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Australia and
New Zealand

16.5

98.1

57.3

124.1

301.8

212.9

82.0

82.0

82.0

96.7

96.7

96.7

Central andSouthern Asia

77.5

1 177.8

609.1

95.9

301.8

266.7

212.1 1 018. 6

564.6

50.6 3 100.5

741.8

Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia

57.9

202.1

130.0

301.8

301.8

301.8

179.9

188.3

181.6

17.9

17.9

17.9

Latin America andthe Caribbean

22.4

383.4

146.9

72.1

301.8

271.8

46.0

268.8

168.1

8.5

74.3

28.0

Northern America
and Europe

38.9

124.4

64.3

33.3

301.8

242.3

61.1

77.3

65.2

9.0

158.6

39.7

Oceania (excluding
Australia and
New Zealand)

21.3

687.3

354.3

301.8

301.8

301.8

92.7

256.6

174.7

14.0

14.0

14.0

Sub-Saharan Africa

7.0

631.3

146.7

44.8

301.8

239.9

59.3

218.6

161.5

1.3

339.7

147.9

322.3

1 008.5

538.0

158.0

301.8

226.8

497.7 1 217.0

977.3

185.4 1 501.3

624.1

Western Asia andNorthern Africa| 143 |TABLE A9LAND IMPACT FACTORS (HA/TONNE OF FOOD LOST) USED IN FIGURES 13 AND 14
Cereals and pulses

Fruits and vegetables

Meat and animal products

SDG region

Roots, tubers andoil-bearing crops

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Min

Max

Avg

Australia and
New Zealand

0.7

0.9

0.8

0.0

0.1

0.1

2.5

2.5

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Central andSouthern Asia

0.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

4.6

18.9

12.6

0.1

0.5

0.2

Eastern andSouth-eastern Asia

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

11.6

12.6

11.8

0.2

0.2

0.2

Latin America andthe Caribbean

0.2

1.2

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.1

3.4

5.5

4.0

0.1

0.4

0.2

Northern America
and Europe

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.7

2.5

1.2

0.0

0.3

0.1

Oceania (excluding
Australia and
New Zealand)

0.3

0.8

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.1

3.4

5.5

4.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

Sub-Saharan Africa

0.3

2.4

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.1

9.3

19.8

17.0

0.1

1.1

0.6

Western Asia andNorthern Africa

0.1

1.4

0.9

0.1

0.1

0.1

18.9

34.3

0.2

0.1

0.5

29.1

| 144 |

REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1

12. FAO. 2019. Food Loss Index. Online statistical working system for loss
calculations (available at http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/

1. Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P. &Matthews, E. 2018. Creating a sustainable food future – a menu ofsolutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Washington, DC,
World Resources Institute. (also available at https://www.wri.org/
publication/creating-sustainable-food-future).

flw-data).
13. FAO. 1998. Storage and Processing of Roots and Tubers in the
Tropics, Rome.
14. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes andprevention. Rome.

2. Chaboud, G. & Daviron, B. 2017. Food losses and waste: navigating
the inconsistencies. Global Food Security, 12: 1–7.

15. FAO. 2018. Methodological proposal for monitoring SDG target 12.3:
the Global Food Loss Index design, data collection methods andchallenges. Rome.

3. Bellemare, M.F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H.H., Novak, L. & Rudi, J. 2017.
On the Measurement of Food Waste. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 99(5): 1148–1158.

16. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. & Emanuelsson, A.
2013. The methodology of the FAO study: “Global food losses and foodwaste – extent, causes and prevention”. FAO, 2011. SIK report No. 857.
Lund, Sweden, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK).

4. Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. 2019. Quantity and quality
food losses across the value chain: a comparative analysis. Background
paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on
food loss and waste reduction. Washington, DC, IFPRI. Unpublished.

17. Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å.,O’Connor, C., Östergren, K. & Cheng, S. 2017. Missing food, missing
data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data.
Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12): 6618–6633.

5. WHO & FAO. 2013. Codex Alimentarius Commission – Procedural
Manual. Twenty-First edition. Rome, Secretariat of the Joint FAO/WHO
Food Standards Programme.
6. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste
in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome.

18. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O. &Ward, P.J. 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain
losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use.
Science of the Total Environment, 438: 477–489.

7. Rutten, M.M. 2013. What economic theory tells us about the impactsof reducing food losses and/or waste: implications for research, policy
and practice. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(1): 13.

19. Segrè, A., Falasconi, L., Politano, A. & Vittuari, M. 2014. Background
paper on the economics of food loss and waste – working paper. Save
Food: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction – working
paper. Rome, FAO.

8. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Food Service
Industry [online]. [Cited 11 June 2019]. https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/food-markets-prices/food-service-industry.aspx

20. Oxford Reference. 2019. Opportunity cost [online]. [Cited 9 May
2019]. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/
authority.20110810105528518

9. Champions 12.3. 2017. Guidance on Interpreting Sustainable
Development Goal Target 12.3. Washington, DC.

21. Anríquez, G., Foster, W., Santos-Rocha, J., Ortega, J. & Jansen, S.
2019. Refining the definition of food loss and waste from an economic
perspective: producers, intermediaries, and consumers as key
decisionmakers. Santiago, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.

10. Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs).
2019. Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators. New York, USA,Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal
Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and United Nations Statistics Division.
11. UNSD. 2018. Goal 12. New York, USA, United Nations Statistics
Division (UNSD).

| 145 |

REFERENCES

22. Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. 2017. Reality of food losses: a
new measurement methodology. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01686.
Washington, DC, IFPRI.

4. FAO. 2018. State of Food and Agriculture in Asia and the PacificRegion, including Future Prospects and Emerging Issues. Thirty-fourth
Session. Paper presented at Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific(APRC), 9 April 2018, Nadi, Fiji.

23. The New Indian Express. 2018. Farmers dump tomatoes on roads as
prices fall. In: The New Indian Express [online]. http://www.
newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2018/jun/26/farmers-dumptomatoes-on-roads-as-prices-fall-1833732.html

5. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste
in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome.

24. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. &Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. Installment Two of

6. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes andprevention. Rome.

‘Creating a sustainable food future’. Working Paper. Washington, DC,
World Resources Institute.

7. Goldsmith, P.D., Martins, A.G. & de Moura, A.D. 2015. The economics
of post-harvest loss: a case study of the new large soybean – maize
producers in tropical Brazil. Food Security, 7(4): 875–888.

25. Gromko, D. & Abdurasulova, G. 2018. Climate change mitigationand food loss and waste reduction: exploring the business case. Working
Paper No. 246. Wageningen, The Netherlands, CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

8. Kitinoja, L. & Kader, A.A. 2002. Small-scale postharvest handlingpractices: a manual for horticultural crops. 4th edition. University ofCalifornia, Davis, Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center.

26. Gravelle, H. & Rees, R. 2004. Microeconomics. 3rd edition. Harlow,
Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

9. Kaaya, A., Kyamuhangire, W. & Kyamanywa, S. 2006. Factors
affecting aflatoxin contamination of harvested maize in the threeagroecological zones of Uganda. Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(11):2401–2407.

27. Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic analysis. 3rd edition. New York,USA, Norton.
28. Krugman, P.R. & Wells, R. 2013. Economics. 3rd edition. New York,USA, Worth Publishers.

10. FAO. 2018. Étude diagnostique de la réduction des pertes après
récolte de trois cultures: manioc – tomate – pomme de terre. Rapport desynthèse: Cameroun. Rome.

29. Heller, W.P. 1999. Equilibrium market formation causes missing
markets. Markets, Information and Uncertainty: Essays in Economic Theory
in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow: 235.

11. Lewis, L., Onsongo, M., Njapau, H., Schurz-Rogers, H., Luber, G.,
Kieszak, S., Nyamongo, J., Backer, L., Dahiye, A.M., Misore, A.,
DeCock, K. & Rubin, C. 2005. Aflatoxin contamination of commercial
maize products during an outbreak of acute aflatoxicosis in eastern andcentral Kenya. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(12): 1763–1767.

30. Burningham, D. & Davies, J. 2004. Environmental Economics.
Oxford, UK, Heinemann.
31. Wijewardena, W.A. 2011. Why did the good-intentioned public
intervention go wrong? In: FT Online [online]. http://www.ft.lk/columns/
why-did-the-good-intentioned-public-intervention-go-wrong/4-61137

12. Kaaya, A.N., Warren, H.L., Kyamanywa, S. & Kyamuhangire, W.
2005. The effect of delayed harvest on moisture content, insect damage,moulds and aflatoxin contamination of maize in Mayuge district ofUganda. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(15):2595–2599.

CHAPTER 2

13. Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. 2017. Reality of food losses:
a new measurement methodology. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01686.
Washington, DC, IFPRI.

1. FAO. 2019. Food Loss Index. Online statistical working system for loss
calculations (available at http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/
flw-data).

14. Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. 2019. Quantity and quality
food losses across the value chain: a comparative analysis. Background
paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on
food loss and waste reduction. Washington, DC, IFPRI. Unpublished.

2. FAO. 2019. Dataset of food loss and waste estimates from grey
literature, national and sectoral reports. Online statistical working system
for loss calculations (available at http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-foodwaste/flw-data).

15. Ambler, K., De Brauw, A. & Godlonton, S. 2018. Measuring
postharvest losses at the farm level in Malawi. The Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 62(1): 139–160.

3. Nanda, S.K., Vishwakarma, R., Bathla, H.V.L., Rai, A. & Chandra, P.
2012. Harvest and post harvest losses of major crops and livestock
produce in India. Ludhiana, India.

| 146 |

16. Abdoulaye, T., Ainembabazi, J.H., Alexander, C., Baributsa, D.,
Kadjo, D., Moussa, B., Omotilewa, O., Ricker-Gilbert, J. & Shiferaw, F.
2016. Postharvest loss of maize and grain legumes in sub-Saharan Africa:
insights from household survey data in seven countries. West Lafayette,
IN, USA, Purdue Extension Agricultural Economics.

29. Awono, A., Ingram, V., Schure, J. & Levang, P. 2013. Guide for small
and medium enterprises in the sustainable non-timber forest product tradein Central Africa. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (alsoavailable at http://www.cifor.org/library/4053/guide-for-small-andmedium-enterprises-in-the-sustainable-non-timber-forest-product-trade-incentral-africa).

17. John, A. 2014. Rodent outbreaks and rice pre-harvest losses inSoutheast Asia. Food Security, 6(2): 249–260.
18. Tefera, T. 2012. Post-harvest losses in African maize in the face ofincreasing food shortage. Food Security, 4(2): 267–277.

30. Kumar, D. & Kalita, P. 2017. Reducing postharvest losses duringstorage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries.
Foods, 6(1). (also available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC5296677/).

19. HLPE. 2014. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security
and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.

31. COMCEC Coordination Office. 2017. Reducing food waste in the OIC
countries. Ankara, Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial
Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC).

20. Diei-Ouadi, Y. & Mgawe, Y.I. 2011. Post-harvest fish loss assessment
in small-scale fisheries: a guide for the extension officer. FAO fisheries andaquaculture technical paper No. 559. Rome, FAO.

32. Fonseca, J. & Vergara, N. 2015. Logistics in the horticulture supply
chain in Latin America and the Caribbean. Regional report based on fivecountry assessments and findings from regional workshops. Rome, FAO.

21. FAO. 2014. Food loss assessments: causes and solutions. Casestudies in small-scale agriculture and fisheries subsectors. Kenya: banana,maize, milk, fish. Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction –Save Food. Rome.

33. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste withinfood supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
365(1554): 3065–3081.

22. FAO. forthcoming. Estudios de casos sobre la estimación de pérdidasde pescado en la cuenca amazónica. Rome.

34. Liu, G. 2014. Food losses and food waste in China. A first estimate.
OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 66. Paris, OECD
Publishing.

23. FAO. 2018. The Republic of Rwanda: maize, potato, tomato, milk.
Food loss analysis: causes and solutions. Case studies in the small-scale
agriculture and fisheries subsectors. Rome.

35. FAO. 2016. Developing the cold chain in the agrifood sector in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Agroindustry Policy Brief 2.

24. Nakasone, E., Delgado, L. & Vos, R. 2019. Determinants of farmpost-harvest losses in developing countries. Background paper for The
State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss andwaste reduction. IFPRI.

36. Kitinoja, L. 2013. Use of cold chains for reducing food losses indeveloping countries. No. 13-03. The Postharvest Education Foundation.
37. Salin, V. 2018. 2018 GCCA Cold storage capacity report. Arlington,
USA, Global Cold Chain Alliance.

25. World Bank. 2011. Missing food: the case of postharvest grain losses
in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Other Operational Studies 2824.
Washington, DC. (also available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/
wboper/2824.html).

38. Kitinoja, L. & AlHassan, H.Y. 2012. Identification of appropriate
postharvest technologies for small scale horticultural farmers andmarketers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia – Part 1. Postharvest
losses and quality assessments. Acta Horticulturae, 934(934): 31–40.

26. Bett, C. & Nguyo, R. 2007. Post-harvest storage practices andtechniques used by farmers in semi-arid Eastern and Central Kenya.
8th African Crop Science Society Conference, El-Minia, Egypt,
27–31 October 2007: 1023–1227.

39. Rosegrant, M., Magalhaes, E., Valmonte-Santos, R. & Mason-D’Croz, D.
2015. Returns to investment in reducing postharvest food losses andincreasing agricultural productivity growth – Post-2015 consensus. Food
Security and Nutrition Assessment Paper. Copenhagen Consensus Center.

27. Rolle, R.S. 2006. Improving postharvest management and marketingin the Asia-Pacific region: issues and challenges. Postharvest managementof fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region, 1(1): 23–31.

40. Martínez Z., N., Menacho P., Z. & Pachón-Ariza, F. 2014. Food loss
in a hungry world, A problem? Agronomía Colombiana, 32(2): 283–293.

28. IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers). 2013. Global food.
Waste not, want not. London.

41. FAO. 2017. Policy measures for managing quality and reducing postharvest losses in fresh produce supply chains in South Asian Countries.
Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i7954e.pdf).

| 147 |

REFERENCES

42. FAO. 2011. Value chain development and post-harvest loss reduction
for smallholders. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
mc762e/mc762e.pdf).

55. Baptista, P., Campos, I., Pires, I. & Sofia, G. 2012. Do campo ao
garfo. Desperdício alimentar em Portugal. Lisbon, Cestras.
56. Evans, D. 2011. Blaming the consumer – once again: the social andmaterial contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English
households. Critical Public Health, 21(4): 429–440.

43. Rapusas, R. & Rolle, R. 2009. Management of reusable plastic crates
in fresh produce supply chains. A technical guide. Bangkok, FAO
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. (also available at www.fao.
org/3/a-i0930e.pdf).

57. Evans, D. 2012. Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domestic
practice and a sociological approach to household food waste.
Sociology, 46(1): 41–56.

44. FAO. 2011. Packaging in fresh produce supply chains in Southeast
Asia. Bangkok. (also available at www.fao.org/3/ba0135e/

58. Quested, T., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. & Parry, A. 2013. Spaghetti soup:
the complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 79: 43–51.

ba0135e00.htm).
45. FAO. 2018. Case studies on managing quality, assuring safety andreducing post-harvest losses in fruit and vegetable supply chains in South
Asian Countries. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/I8616EN/
i8616en.pdf).

59. Soyeux, A. 2010. La lutte contre le gaspillage. Quel rôle face auxdéfis alimentaires? Futuribles, 362: 57–67.

46. Alavi, H.R. 2011. Trusting trade and the private sector for foodsecurity in Southeast Asia. Directions in Development – General. The
World Bank. (also available at https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/
abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-8626-2).

60. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M. & Gustafsson, A.
2012. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to
packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24: 141–148.
61. WRAP. 2008. Research into consumer behaviour in relation to fooddates and portion sizes. Banbury, UK.

47. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B. & Yurt, O. 2011. The causes of foodwaste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6): 648–658.

62. Esguerra, E.B., Del Carmen, D.R. & Rolle, R.S. 2017. Purchasing
patterns and consumer level waste of fruits and vegetables in urban andperi-urban centers in the Philippines. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 08(10):961–977.

48. FAO. 2018. Methodological proposal for monitoring SDG target
12.3. The Global Food Loss Index design, data collection methods andchallenges. Rome, FAO Statistical Division.

63. Canali, M., Amani, P., Aramyan, L., Gheoldus, M., Moates, G.,Östergren, K., Silvennoinen, K., Waldron, K. & Vittuari, M. 2016. Foodwaste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions.
Sustainability, 9(1): 37.

49. Buzby, J.C., Farah-Wells, H. & Hyman, J. 2014. The estimatedamount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail andconsumer levels in the United States. No. ID 2501659. Rochester, NY,
Social Science Research Network.

64. WRAP. 2011. Investigation into the possible impact of promotions onfood waste. Banbury, UK.

50. Hanssen, O. & Stensgård, A. 2016. Food waste in Norway
2010–2015 – Final report from the ForMat Project. Østfoldforskning. (alsoavailable at https://www.ostfoldforskning.no/no/publikasjoner/
Publication/?id=2011).

65. Stuart, T. 2009. Waste: uncovering the global food scandal. New
York, USA, W.W. Norton & Company.

51. Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C. & Bennett, B. 2011. Postharvest losses andwaste in developed and less developed countries: opportunities to improve
resource use. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1): 37–45.

66. Cohen, J.F.W., Richardson, S., Austin, S.B., Economos, C.D.
& Rimm, E.B. 2013. School lunch waste among middle school students.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(2): 114–121.

52. WRAP UK. 2017. Household food waste in the UK, 2015. Finalreport. Research date: September–October 2016 edition. Banbury, UK.
53. WRAP. 2013. Household food and drink waste in UK. Banbury, UK.

67. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. &Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. Installment Two of‘Creating a sustainable food future’. Working Paper. Washington, DC,
World Resources Institute.

54. HISPACOOP. 2012. Estudio sobre el desperdicio de alimentos en loshogares. Confederación Española de Cooperativas de Consumidores y
Usarios (HISPACOOP).

68. Edwardson, B. 2018. Status report on critical loss points andunderlying causes of food losses in selected crop supply chains indeveloping countries. Draft. FAO.

| 148 |

69. FAO. 2016. Food loss analysis: causes and solutions. Case studies inthe small-scale agriculture and fisheries subsectors. Methodology. Rome,
Save Food: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. (alsoavailable at www.fao.org/3/a-az568e.pdf).

decisionmakers. Santiago, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.
5. Chegere, M.J. 2018. Post-harvest losses reduction by small-scale maize
farmers: The role of handling practices. Food Policy, 77: 103–115.

70. Compton, J.A.F. & Sherington, J. 1999. Rapid assessment methods
for stored maize cobs: weight losses due to insect pests. Journal of Stored
Products Research, 35(1): 77–87.

6. Gromko, D. & Abdurasulova, G. 2018. Climate change mitigation andfood loss and waste reduction: exploring the business case. Working
Paper No. 246. Wageningen, The Netherlands, CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

71. GSARS. 2018. Guidelines on the measurement of harvest and postharvest losses recommendations on the design of a harvest and post-

7. World Bank. 2011. Missing food: the case of postharvest grain losses
in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Other Operational Studies 2824.
Washington, DC. (also available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/
wboper/2824.html).

harvest loss statistics system for food grains (cereals and pulses). Rome,
FAO.
72. FAO. 2019. Questionnaire on Crop and Livestock Production andUtilization (2000–2017). Rome.

8. FAO, IFAD & WFP. 2019. Food loss analysis for identification ofcritical loss points and solutions of maize, sunflowers and beans value
chains in Uganda. Rome.

73. Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S.,
Wells, V.K., Evans, D., Koh, L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., Katzeff, C.,
Svenfelt, Å. & Jackson, P. 2019. Review: Consumption-stage food waste
reduction interventions – What works and how to design betterinterventions. Food Policy, 83: 7–27.

9. Bediako, J.A., Nkegbe, P. & Iddrisu, A. 2005. Establishing the future
potential for the use of mud silos by smallholder farmers: an assessment of
mud silo promotion in the Northern Region of Ghana. Tamale, Northern
Region, Ghana, University of Development Studies.

74. Lebersorger, S. & Schneider, F. 2011. Discussion on the methodology
for determining food waste in household waste composition studies.
Waste Management, 31(9): 1924–1933.

10. ReFED. 2016. A roadmap to reduce US food waste by 20 percent.
Berkeley, USA. (also available at https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/
pages/operations/articles/refed-roadmap-to-reduce-us-food-waste.html).

75. Hanssen, O. & Møller, H. 2013. Food wastage in Norway 2013.
Status and trends 2009–13. ForMat Project.
76. FLW Protocol (Food Loss and Waste Protocol). 2016. The food loss
and waste accounting and reporting standard. Washington, DC.

11. ICF. 2016. Massachusetts Commercial Food Waste Ban Economic
Impact Analysis. Paper presented for the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Cambridge, USA.

77. World Resources Institute. Forthcoming. Reducing food loss andwaste: getting across the tipping point. Washington, DC, World
Resources Institute.

12. WRAP. 2017. Household food waste in the UK, 2015.
Final report. Research date: September–October 2016 edition.
Banbury, UK.

CHAPTER 3

13. Venkat, K. 2011. The climate change and economic impacts of foodwaste in the United States. International Journal on Food System
Dynamics, 2(4): 431–446.

1. Hanson, C. & Mitchell, P. 2017. The business case for reducing foodloss and waste. A report on behalf of Champions 12.3. Washington, DC,
Champions 12.3.

14. WRAP. 2013. Household food and drink waste in the United Kingdom
2012. Final report. Research date: May 2012–July 2013. Banbury, UK.

2. Ellison, B., Muth, M.K. & Golan, E. 2019. Opportunities andchallenges in conducting economic research on food loss and waste.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 41(1): 1–19.

15. Rutten, M.M. & Kavallari, A. 2013. Can reductions in agricultural
food losses avoid some of the trade-offs involved when safeguarding
domestic food security? A case study of the Middle East and North
Africa. Paper presented at 16th Annual Conference on Global Economic
Analysis, June 2013, Shanghai, China.

3. Quested, T., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. & Parry, A. 2013. Spaghetti soup:
the complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 79: 43–51.

16. Okawa, K. 2015. Market and trade impacts of food loss andwaste reduction. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 75.
Paris, OECD.

4. Anríquez, G., Foster, W., Santos-Rocha, J., Ortega, J. & Jansen, S.
2019. Refining the definition of food loss and waste from an economic
perspective: producers, intermediaries, and consumers as key| 149 |

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 4

17. Rutten, M.M., Nowicki, P.L., Bogaardt, M.-J. & Aramyan, L.H. 2013.
Reducing food waste by households and in retail in the EU: a prioritisation
using economic, land use and food security impacts. LEI Report
2013-035. The Hague, LEI, Wageningen UR.

1. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2017. The State of Food Security
and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building resilience for peace and foodsecurity. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-I7695e.pdf).

18. Fonseca, J. & Vergara, N. 2015. Logistics in the horticulture supply
chain in Latin America and the Caribbean. Regional report based on fivecountry assessments and findings from regional workshops. Rome, FAO.

2. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2018. The State of Food Security
and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for foodsecurity and nutrition. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
i9553en/i9553en.pdf).

19. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes andprevention. Rome.

3. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2019. The State of Food Security
and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against economic
slowdowns and downturns. Rome.

20. Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C. & Bennett, B. 2011. Postharvest losses andwaste in developed and less developed countries: opportunities toimprove resource use. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1): 37–45.

4. Neff, R.A., Kanter, R. & Vandevijvere, S. 2015. Reducing food loss
and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, 34(11):1821–1829.

21. WRAP. 2015. Strategies to achieve economic and environmental
gains by reducing food waste. Banbury, UK.
22. WRAP. 2009. The economics of food waste. Unpublished conference
paper prepared by Fathom Financial Consulting.

5. Kummu, M., Fader, M., Gerten, D., Guillaume, J.H., Jalava, M.,
Jägermeyr, J., Pfister, S., Porkka, M., Siebert, S. & Varis, O. 2017.
Bringing it all together: linking measures to secure nations’ food supply.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29: 98–117.

23. FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains –A guiding note. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
I8620EN/i8620en.pdf).

6. Shafiee-Jood, M. & Cai, X. 2016. Reducing food loss and waste toenhance food security and environmental sustainability. Environmental
Science & Technology, 50(16): 8432–8443.

24. Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. 2019. Quantity and quality
food losses across the value chain: a comparative analysis. Background
paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on
food loss and waste reduction. Washington, DC, IFPRI. Unpublished.

7. Candel, J. & Tielens, J. 2014. Reducing food wastage, improving foodsecurity? The Hague, Food & Business Knowledge Platform.

25. FAO. 2018. The Republic of Rwanda: maize, potato, tomato, milk.
Food loss analysis: causes and solutions. Case studies in the small-scale
agriculture and fisheries subsectors. Rome.

8. Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P. & Borgemeister, C. 2015.
Unpacking postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis.
World Development, 66: 49–68.

26. Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, Food Recovery
Project & University of Arkansas. 2016. Federal enhanced tax deduction
for food donation: a legal guide.

9. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste
in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome.

27. Shih-Hsun Hsu, T., Ching-Cheng, C. & Nguyen, T.T.T. 2018. APEC
survey report on feasible solutions for food loss and waste reduction.
Singapore, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

10. COMCEC Coordination Office. 2017. Reducing food waste in the OIC
countries. Ankara, Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial
Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC).

28. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2016. World Economic Outlook:
Subdued demand – symptoms and remedies. Washington, DC.

11. Gaiani, S., Rezaei, M., Liu, B., Nana Heyl, J. & Bucatariu, C.
forthcoming. Guiding principles for recovery and redistribution of safeand nutritious food for human consumption. Draft. FAO.

29. Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition. 2017. Food Sustainability Index
2017. Global Executive Summary. Parma, Italy.

12. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition(GLOPAN). 2018. Preventing nutrient loss and waste across the foodsystem: policy actions for high-quality diets. Policy Brief No. 12. London.

30. FAO. 2015. The FTT-Thiaroye processing technique, an innovation forpost-harvest loss reduction in fisheries and aquaculture. Paper presented
at the First International Congress on Food Loss Prevention, 2015, Rome.
(also available at www.fao.org/food-loss-reduction/news/detail/en/c/359611/).

13. Springmann, M. 2018. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food
Systems for Nutrition (GLOPAN) background paper on the nutritional
aspects of food loss and waste. Oxford, UK, University of Oxford.

| 150 |

14. World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008. Agriculture forDevelopment. Washington, DC.

29. Okawa, K. 2015. Market and trade impacts of food loss and waste
reduction. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 75. Paris, OECD.

15. FAO. 2013. The State of Food and Agriculture 2013. Food systems forbetter nutrition. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/i3300e/
i3300e.pdf).

30. Rutten, M., Verma, M., Mhlanga, N. & Bucatariu, C. 2015. Potential
impacts on sub-Saharan Africa of reducing food loss and waste in theEuropean Union: a focus on food prices and price transmission effects.
Rome, FAO & LEI Wageningen UR.

16. FAO. 2016. Influencing food environments for healthy diets. Rome.
(also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6484e.pdf).

31. Rutten, M.M., Nowicki, P.L., Bogaardt, M.-J. & Aramyan, L.H. 2013.
Reducing food waste by households and in retail in the EU: a prioritisation
using economic, land use and food security impacts. LEI Report

17. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2016. Sustainable agriculturaldevelopment for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? Rome.

2013-035. The Hague, LEI, Wageningen UR.
32. Tefera, T., Kanampiu, F., De Groote, H., Hellin, J., Mugo, S.,
Kimenju, S., Beyene, Y., Boddupalli, P.M., Shiferaw, B. & Banziger, M.
2011. The metal silo: an effective grain storage technology for reducing
post-harvest insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving
smallholder farmers’ food security in developing countries. Crop
Protection, 30(3): 240–245.

18. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2017. Sustainable forestry forfood security and nutrition. Rome.
19. Rutten, M.M. 2013. What economic theory tells us about the impactsof reducing food losses and/or waste: implications for research, policy
and practice. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(1): 13.

33. Gitonga, Z., De Groote, H. & Tefera, T. 2015. Metal silo grain
storage technology and household food security in Kenya. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics, 7(6): 222–230.

20. Chaboud, G. & Daviron, B. 2017. Food losses and waste: navigating
the inconsistencies. Global Food Security, 12: 1–7.
21. Bahadur, K., Haque, I., Legwegoh, A. & Fraser, E. 2016. Strategies toreduce food loss in the global south. Sustainability, 8(7): 595.

34. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Comprehensive Initiativeon Technology Evaluation (CITE). 2016. Scaling adoption of hermetic
post-harvest storage technologies in Uganda. Full report. Cambridge,
USA.

22. Rosegrant, M., Magalhaes, E., Valmonte-Santos, R. & Mason-D’Croz, D.
2015. Returns to investment in reducing postharvest food losses andincreasing agricultural productivity growth – Post-2015 consensus. Food
Security and Nutrition Assessment Paper. Copenhagen Consensus Center.

35. Tanager International. 2018. AgResults Kenya On-Farm Storage
Challenge Project – Summary Report. Kenya.
36. FAO. 2018. Food loss and waste and the right to adequate food:making the connection. Rome.

23. Sheahan, M. & Barrett, C.B. 2017. Review: Food loss and waste in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70: 1–12.

37. WRAP. 2018. Surplus food redistribution in the UK; 2015 to 2017.
Banbury, UK.

24. African Union Commission. 2018. Post-harvest loss management
strategy. Addis Ababa.

38. Berkenkamp, J. & Phillips, C. 2017. Modeling the potential toincrease food rescue: Denver, New York City and Nashville.
No. R-17-09-B. New York City, USA, Natural Resources Defense Council.

25. Conrad, Z., Niles, M.T., Neher, D.A., Roy, E.D., Tichenor, N.E. &Jahns, L. 2018. Relationship between food waste, diet quality, andenvironmental sustainability. PLOS ONE, 13(4): e0195405.

39. Daily Table. 2019. FAQs [online]. [Cited 9 January 2019].
https://dailytable.org/faqs/

26. FAO. 2017. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems in practice– options for intervention. Rome. (also available at www.fao.
org/3/a-i7848e.pdf).

40. Daily Table. 2019. Daily Table SNAP Challenge [online]. [Cited
9 January 2019]. https://dailytable.org/snap/

27. Barbosa-Cánovas, G., Altunakar, B. & Mejía-Lorio, D. 2005.
Freezing of fruits and vegetables – an agri-business alternative for ruraland semi-rural areas. Agricultural Services Bulletin 158. Rome, FAO. (alsoavailable at http://www.fao.org/3/y5979e/y5979e00.htm#Contents).

41. Adams, S. 2017. How Daily Table sells healthy food to the poor atjunk food prices. Forbes [online]. [Cited 9 January 2019]. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2017/04/26/how-daily-table-sellshealthy-food-to-the-poor-at-junk-food-prices/

28. Miller, D. & Welch, R. 2013. Food system strategies for preventing
micronutrient malnutrition. ESA Working Paper No. 13-06. Rome, FAO.
(also available at www.fao.org/3/CA2243EN/ca2243en.pdf).

42. Mesa Brasil SESC. 2017. Resultados – 2017/janeiro a maio [online].
[Cited 15 April 2019]. http://www.sesc.com.br/mesabrasil/resultados.html| 151 |

REFERENCES

43. Egyptian FoodBank. 2016. Experience and achievements.
In: Egyptian FoodBank [online]. [Cited 17 April 2019].
https://www.egyptianfoodbank.com/en/experience-and-achievements

56. Hoffmann, V., Jones, K. & Leroy, J. 2015. Mitigating aflatoxin
exposure to improve child growth in Eastern Kenya: study protocol for arandomized controlled trial. Trials, 16(1): 552.

44. FAO. forthcoming. Food recovery and redistribution: a practical guidefor favourable policies and legal frameworks in Europe and Central Asia.
Draft working document. Budapest, Hungary, Save Food: Global Initiativeon Food Loss and Waste Reduction and FAO.

57. Hoffmann, V., Jones, K. & Leroy, J.L. 2018. The impact of reducing
dietary aflatoxin exposure on child linear growth: a cluster randomised
controlled trial in Kenya. BMJ Global Health, 3(6): e000983.
58. Hasib, N.I. 2015. FAO expert tells Bangladesh formalin in food is nota health hazard. In: bdnews24.com [online]. [Cited 31 January 2019].
http://bdnews24.com/health/2015/03/30/fao-expert-tells-bangladesh-

45. Blondin, S.A., Cash, S.B., Goldberg, J.P., Griffin, T.S. & Economos, C.D.
2017. Nutritional, economic, and environmental costs of milk waste in aclassroom school breakfast program. American Journal of Public Health,107(4): 590–592.

formalin-in-food-is-not-a-health-hazard
59. Hoffmann, V. & Moser, C. 2017. You get what you pay for: the link
between price and food safety in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 48(4):449–458.

46. Ritchie, H., Reay, D.S. & Higgins, P. 2018. Beyond calories: a holistic
assessment of the global food system. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, 2: 57.

60. WHO. 2018. Aflatoxins. Food Safety Digest No. WHO/NHM/
FOS/RAM/18.1. World Health Organization (WHO) Department ofFood Safety and Zoonoses.

47. Lee, W.T.K., Tung, J.Y.A. & Paratore, G. 2019. Evaluation of
micronutrient losses from postharvest food losses (PHL) in Kenya,
Cameroon and India – implications on micronutrient deficiencies inchildren under 5 years of age. Rome, FAO.
48. Katona, P. & Katona–Apte, J. 2008. The interaction between nutrition
and infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 46(10): 1582–1588.

61. Leroy, J.L., Wang, J.-S. & Jones, K. 2015. Serum aflatoxin B1-lysine
adduct level in adult women from Eastern Province in Kenya depends onhousehold socio-economic status: a cross sectional study. Social Science& Medicine, 146: 104–110.

49. Bourke, C.D., Berkley, J.A. & Prendergast, A.J. 2016. Immune
dysfunction as a cause and consequence of malnutrition. Trends in
Immunology, 37(6): 386–398.

62. De Groote, H., Kimenju, S.C., Likhayo, P., Kanampiu, F., Tefera, T. &Hellin, J. 2013. Effectiveness of hermetic systems in controlling maizestorage pests in Kenya. Journal of Stored Products Research, 53: 27–36.

50. Syed, S., Ali, A. & Duggan, C. 2016. Environmental entericdysfunction in children: a review. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology
and Nutrition, 63(1): 6–14.

63. Williams, S.B., Baributsa, D. & Woloshuk, C. 2014. Assessing Purdue
Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags to mitigate fungal growth and aflatoxin
contamination. Journal of Stored Products Research, 59: 190–196.

51. WHO. 2018. Micronutrient deficiencies – vitamin A deficiency.
In: Nutrition [online]. [Cited 10 January 2019]. https://www.who.int/
nutrition/topics/vad/en/.

64. Wahed, P., Razzaq, M.A., Dharmapuri, S. & Corrales, M. 2016.
Determination of formaldehyde in food and feed by an in-house validated
HPLC method. Food Chemistry, 202: 476–483.

52. FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016.
Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome.

65. FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains –A guiding note. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
I8620EN/i8620en.pdf).

53. Husein, Y., Secci, G., Dinnella, C., Parisi, G., Fusi, R., Monteleone, E.
& Zanoni, B. 2019. Enhanced utilisation of nonmarketable fish: physical,
nutritional and sensory properties of ‘clean label’ fish burgers.
International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 54(3): 593–601.

66. Petros, S., Abay, F., Desta, G. & O’Brien, C. 2018. Women
Farmers’ (dis)empowerment compared to men farmers in Ethiopia.
World Medical & Health Policy, 10(3): 220–245.

54. East African Community. 2017. Disposal and alternative use ofaflatoxin contaminated food. Policy Brief No. 9.

67. USAID/Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in
Nutrition Globally (SPRING) Project. 2014. Understanding thewomen’s empowerment pathway. Improving Nutrition through
Agriculture Technical Brief Series No. 4. Arlington, USA.

55. Smith, L.E., Prendergast, A.J., Turner, P.C., Mbuya, M.N.N., Mutasa, K.,
Kembo, G. & Stoltzfus, R.J. 2015. The potential role of mycotoxins as acontributor to stunting in the SHINE trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases,
61(S7): S733–S737.

68. Malapit, H.J.L. & Quisumbing, A.R. 2015. What dimensions of
women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana?
Food Policy, 52: 54–63.

| 152 |

69. Cunningham, K., Ploubidis, G.B., Menon, P., Ruel, M.,
Kadiyala, S., Uauy, R. & Ferguson, E. 2015. Women’s
empowerment in agriculture and child nutritional status in rural
Nepal. Public Health Nutrition, 18(17): 3134–3145.

6. FAO. 2016. Water withdrawal by sector, around 2010. In: AQUASTAT
database [online]. www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/tables/WorldDataWithdrawal_eng.pdf
7. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B.L.,
Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S.J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K.M.,
Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L.J., Zurayk, R.,
Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray, H.C.J.,
Tilman, D., Rockström, J. & Willett, W. 2018. Options for keeping thefood system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728): 519–525.

70. Ruel, M.T. & Alderman, H. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive
interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate
progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet,
382(9891): 536–551.
71. FAO. 2013. Toolkit: reducing the food wastage footprint. Rome.

8. FAO. 2013. Toolkit: reducing the food wastage footprint. Rome.
72. Kuiper, M. & Cui, H.D. 2019. Using food loss reductions toreach nutritional and environmental objectives – a search forpromising leverage points. Background paper for The State of Foodand Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste
reduction. The Hague, Wageningen Economic Research.

9. Wunderlich, S.M. & Martinez, N.M. 2018. Conserving natural
resources through food loss reduction: Production and consumption stagesof the food supply chain. International Soil and Water Conservation
Research, 6(4): 331–339.

73. Beal, T., Massiot, E., Arsenault, J.E., Smith, M.R. & Hijmans, R.J.
2017. Global trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and estimatedprevalence of inadequate intakes. PLOS ONE, 12(4): e0175554.

10. de Ruiter, H., Macdiarmid, J.I., Matthews, R.B., Kastner, T., Lynd, L.R.
& Smith, P. 2017. Total global agricultural land footprint associated with
UK food supply 1986–2011. Global Environmental Change, 43: 72–81.

74. FAO. 2019. Crop Market. In: Family Farming Knowledge
Platform [online]. [Cited 16 May 2019]. http://www.fao.org/
family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/crop-market/en/

11. Chapagain, A. & James, K. 2011. The water and carbon footprint ofhousehold food and drink waste in the UK. Edinburgh, UK, World
Wildlife Fund.

75. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2014. Food loss and its
intersection with food security. Global food security index 2014:
Special report. London, The Economist.

12. FAO. 2018. Online statistical database. In: FAOSTAT [online].
http://faostat.fao.org
13. Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010. The green, blue and grey
water footprint of animals and animal products. Delft, Netherlands,
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education. (also available athttps://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-green-blue-and-greywater-footprint-of-animals-and-animal-pro).

76. Barrett, C. 2015. Benefits and costs of the food security andnutrition targets for the post-2015 development agenda. Copenhagen
Consensus Center Food Security and Nutrition Perspective Paper.

CHAPTER 5

14. FAO. 2019. Food Loss Index. Online statistical working system for loss
calculations (available at http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/
flw-data).

1. FAO. 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources –Summary Report. Rome.
2. FAO. 2018. The future of food and agriculture. Alternative pathways to2050. Rome.

15. Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2011. The green, blue and grey
water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences Discussions, 8(1): 763–809.

3. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O. & Ward, P.J.
2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses andtheir impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the
Total Environment, 438: 477–489.

16. Westhoek, H., Rood, T., van den Berg, M., Janse, J., Nijdam, D.,
Reudink, M., Stehfest, E., Lesschen, J.P., Oenema, O. & Woltjer, G.B.
2011. The protein puzzle: the consumption and production of meat, dairy
and fish in the European Union. No. 500166001. The Hague,
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (also available at
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/406619).

4. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes andprevention. Rome.
5. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. & Emanuelsson, A. 2013.
The methodology of the FAO study: “Global food losses and food waste –extent, causes and prevention”. FAO, 2011. SIK report No. 857. Lund,
Sweden, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK).

17. Kuiper, M. & Cui, H.D. 2019. Using food loss reductions to reachnutritional and environmental objectives – a search for promising leverage
points. Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2019.
Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. The Hague,
Wageningen Economic Research.

| 153 |

REFERENCES

18. Kummu, M., Fader, M., Gerten, D., Guillaume, J.H., Jalava, M.,
Jägermeyr, J., Pfister, S., Porkka, M., Siebert, S. & Varis, O. 2017.
Bringing it all together: linking measures to secure nations’ food supply.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 29: 98–117.

31. Licciardello, F. 2017. Packaging, blessing in disguise. Review on its
diverse contribution to food sustainability. Trends in Food Science &Technology, 65: 32–39.
32. Heller, M.C., Selke, S.E.M. & Keoleian, G.A. 2019. Mapping theinfluence of food waste in food packaging environmental performanceassessments. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(2): 480–495.

19. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T.,
Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M.,
Clark, M., Gordon, L.J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J.A.,
De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M.,
Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V.,
Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S.E., Srinath Reddy, K., Narain, S.,

33. Wikström, F. & Williams, H. 2010. Potential environmental gains fromreducing food losses through development of new packaging – a lifecycle model. Packaging Technology and Science, 23(7): 403–411.

Nishtar, S. & Murray, C.J.L. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene:
the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable foodsystems. The Lancet, 393(10170): 447–492.

34. Hellström, D. & Olsson, A. 2016. Managing packaging design forsustainable development. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (also available athttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119151036.fmatter).

20. FAO. 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016. Climatechange, agriculture and food security. Rome.

35. Wikström, F., Verghese, K., Auras, R., Olsson, A., Williams, H.,
Wever, R., Grönman, K., Kvalvåg Pettersen, M., Møller, H. & Soukka, R.
2018. Packaging strategies that save food: a research agenda for 2030.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(3): 532–540.

21. Ridoutt, B.G., Juliano, P., Sanguansri, P. & Sellahewa, J. 2010. The
water footprint of food waste: case study of fresh mango in Australia.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16): 1714–1721.

36. Marsh, K. & Bugusu, B. 2007. Food packaging – roles, materials,
and environmental issues. Journal of Food Science, 72(3): R39–R55.

22. James, S.J. & James, C. 2010. The food cold-chain and climatechange. Food Research International, 43(7): 1944–1956.

37. CDKN. 2014. The IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report – What’s in it for
Africa? In: Climate and Development Knowledge Network [online]. [Cited
21 March 2019]. https://cdkn.org/resource/highlights-africa-ar5/

23. International Institute of Refrigeration. 2009. The role of refrigeration inworldwide nutrition – 5th informatory note on refrigeration and food. Paris.
24. International Institute of Refrigeration. 2002. Report on refrigeration
sector achievements and challenges. Paris.

38. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2012. Food security andclimate change. Rome.

25. IPCC & UNEP. 2005. IPCC/TEAP special report on safeguarding theozone layer and the global climate system: issues related tohydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Cambridge.

39. IPCC. 2015. Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Expert Meeting on Climate Change, Food, andAgriculture. M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, V.R. Barros, T.E. Bilir,
D.J. Dokken, O. Edenhofer, C.B. Field, T. Hiraishi, S. Kadner & T. Krug,eds. Geneva, Switzerland, World Meteorological Organization.

26. FAO & GIZ. 2019. Measuring Impacts and Enabling Investments in
Energy-smart Agrifood Chains. Findings from four country studies. Rome,FAO.

CHAPTER 6

27. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. &Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. Installment Two of‘Creating a sustainable food future’. Working Paper. Washington, DC,
World Resources Institute.

1. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste
in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome.

28. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of theCommittee on World Food Security (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste
in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome.

2. Hanson, C. & Mitchell, P. 2017. The business case for reducing foodloss and waste. A report on behalf of Champions 12.3. Washington, DC,
Champions 12.3.

29. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R. & Law, K.L. 2017. Production, use, and fateof all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7): e1700782.

3. FAO. 2014. The State of Food and Agriculture 2014. Innovation infamily farming. Rome.

30. Schönrock, D. 2008. Hochkonjunktur für Schweizer Verpackungen.
Pack Aktuell.

4. FAO. 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016. Climate change,
agriculture and food security. Rome.

| 154 |

5. Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C. & Molden, D. 2008. Saving water: fromfield to fork. Curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. SIWI Policy
Brief. Stockholm, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI). (alsoavailable at http://hdl.handle.net/10535/5088).

18. Capone, R., Bilali, H.E., Debs, P., Bottalico, F., Cardone, G., Berjan, S.,
Elmenofi, G.A.G., Abouabdillah, A., Charbel, L., Arous, S.A. & Sassi, K.
2016. Bread and bakery products waste in selected Mediterranean Arabcountries. American Journal of Food and Nutrition, 4(2): 40–50.

6. World Bank. 2017. Mexico – Grain Storage and Information for
Agricultural Competitiveness Project. (English). Washington, D.C.

19. AFED. 2015. Arab Environment: Sustainable Consumption. Annual
Report of Arab Forum for Environment and Development, 2015;
Abdel Gelil, I. and Saab, N. (Eds.); Beirut, Lebanon. Technical Publication.

7. World Bank. 2018. Information Statement: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development. In: The World Bank [online].
[Cited 1 June 2019]. www.worldbank.org/en/who-we-are/ibrd

20. World Bank. 2015. Building resilience and opportunity: social
protection reform in Egypt. In: The World Bank [online]. [Cited 11 March2019]. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/06/09/
building-resilience-and-opportunity-social-protection-reform-in-egypt

8. Mirosa, M., Yip, R. & Lentz, G. 2018. Content analysis of the ‘Clean
Your Plate Campaign’ on Sina Weibo. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 24(5): 539–562.

21. FAO. 2013. Report of the Expert Consultation Meeting on Food Losses
and Waste Reduction in the Near East Region. Towards a Regional
Comprehensive Strategy. Cairo.

9. FAO & CIHEAM. 2016. Mediterra 2016. Zero Waste in the
Mediterranean. Natural Resources, Food and Knowledge. Paris, Presses
de Sciences Po.

22. Duwayri, M. 2016. Rethinking food subsidy in Jordan. In: IFPRI[online]10. Turkish Grain Board (TMO). 2014. The meeting held for theannouncement of the results of the Campaign for Preventing Bread Waste.
In: TMO [online]. [Cited 1 April 2019]. http://www.tmo.gov.tr/Main.
aspx?ID=1045

23. Khraishy, M. 2018. Jordan ends bread subsidies, implements
USDA-style SNAP EBT program. No. JO18001. US Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service.

11. Ajde Makedonija. 2019. Ajde Makedonija – History. In: Ajde Makedonija[online]. [Cited 13 June 2019]. http://ajdemakedonija.mk/history/

24. FAO. 2019. FAO GIEWS Country Brief on Jordan [online]. [Cited
13 May 2019]. www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=JOR

12. FAO. forthcoming. Food recovery and redistribution: a practical guidefor favourable policies and legal frameworks in Europe and Central Asia.
Draft working document. Budapest, Hungary, Save Food: Global Initiativeon Food Loss and Waste Reduction and FAO.

25. Conrad, Z., Niles, M.T., Neher, D.A., Roy, E.D., Tichenor, N.E. &Jahns, L. 2018. Relationship between food waste, diet quality, andenvironmental sustainability. PLOS ONE, 13(4): e0195405.
26. IMechE. 2014. A tank of cold: Cleantech leapfrog to a more foodsecure world. London, Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

13. Ajde Makedonija. 2019. Food Waste Experiential Learning Program –Ajde Makedonija [online]. [Cited 13 June 2019]. http://ajdemakedonija.
mk/campaign/food-waste-experiential-learning-program/

27. Ambuko, J., Karithi, E., Hutchinson, M. & Owino, W. 2018. Modified
atmosphere packaging enhances the effectiveness of CoolbotTM cold
storage to preserve postharvest quality of mango fruits. Journal of Food
Research, 7(5): 7.

14. FUSIONS. 2015. Food waste in Denmark reduced by 25% and 4,4billion DKK [online]. [Cited 2 May 2019]. https://www.eu-fusions.org/
index.php/about-fusions/news-archives/238-food-waste-in-denmarkreduced-by-25-and-4-4-billion-dkk

28. FANRPAN. 2017. Cost benefit analysis of post-harvest management
innovations in Mozambique. Pretoria.

15. Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C. & Magid, J.
2014. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49:
294–301.

29. FANRPAN. 2017. Cost benefit analysis of post-harvest management
innovations. Benin case study report. Pretoria.

16. Kulikovskaja, V. & Aschemann-Witzel, J. 2017. Food waste
avoidance actions in food retailing: the case of Denmark. Journal ofInternational Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 29(4): 328–345.

30. FAO. 2015. The FTT-Thiaroye processing technique, an innovation forpost-harvest loss reduction in fisheries and aquaculture. Paper presented
at the First International Congress on Food Loss Prevention, 2015, Rome.
(also available at www.fao.org/food-loss-reduction/news/detail/en/c/359611/).

17. Kulikovskaja, V. & Aschemann-Witzel, J. 2016. Food waste
avoidance initiatives in Danish food retail. No. WP6.2 Report. Aarhus,
Denmark, Aarhus University, Department of Management.

31. FAO & EBRD. 2016. Morocco – adoption of climate technologies in theagrifood sector. Country Highlights edition. Rome, FAO Investment Centre.

| 155 |

REFERENCES

32. Apeel Sciences. 2018. Science. In: Apeel [online]. [Cited 12 March2019]. https://apeelsciences.com/science/(also available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0851).

33. Pellman Rowland, M. 2017. Apeel’s invisible coating could be agame-changer. In: Forbes [online]. [Cited 13 March 2019].
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2017/10/19/
apeel-sustainable-fruit-veggies/

45. European Commission. 2019. Commission Delegated Decision (EU)…/… of 3.5.2019 supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council as regards a common
methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform
measurement of levels of food waste. C(2019) 3211 final. Brussels.

34. Simon, M. 2018. The amphiphilic liquid coating that keeps youravocados fresh. Wired [online]. [Cited 11 March 2019].
https://www.wired.com/story/apeel/

46. European Commission. 2019. Towards a sustainable Europe by2030. Reflection paper. COM(2019)22. Brussels.

35. Wasteless. 2018. Case studies – leading Spanish retailer cuts a thirdof its food waste using Wasteless Dynamic Pricing. In: Wasteless [online].
[Cited 31 January 2019]. https://www.wasteless.co/case-studies

47. FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains –A guiding note. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
I8620EN/i8620en.pdf).

36. Kirchgaessner, S. 2016. Italy tackles food waste with law
encouraging firms to donate food. The Guardian, 3 August 2016. (alsoavailable at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/03/italyfood-waste-law-donate-food).

48. Fabi, C., English, A., Mingione, M. & Jona Lasinio, G. 2018. SDG
12.3.1: Global Food Loss Index. Imputing Food Loss Percentages in theabsence of data at the global level. Rome, FAO.
49. GSARS. 2018. Guidelines on the measurement of harvest and postharvest losses recommendations on the design of a harvest and post-harvest
loss statistics system for food grains (cereals and pulses). Rome, FAO.

37. ACHIPIA. 2017. Comité intersectorial presenta plan de acción para la
reducción de desperdicios de alimentos en Chile [online]. [Cited 13 June2019]. https://www.achipia.gob.cl/2017/12/13/comite-intersectorialpresenta-plan-de-accion-para-la-reduccion-de-desperdicios-de-alimentosen-chile/

50. FAO. 2018. Methodological proposal for monitoring SDG target
12.3. the Global Food Loss Index design, data collection methods andchallenges. Rome, FAO Statistical Division.

38. Ministerio de Agroindustria. 2017. Valoremos los alimentos – Guía
integral para municipios. Government of Argentina.

51. Fonteneau, F. 2017. The Agricultural Integrated Survey (AGRIS):
rationale, methodology, implementation. ICAS VII 2016: SeventhInternational Conference on Agriculture Statistics Proceedings.

39. European Commission. 2015. Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic andSocial Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Closing the loop –An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. Brussels.

52. FAO. 2017. World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2020.
FAO Statistical Development Series No. 1. Rome.

40. European Commission. 2016. Food Waste. In: Commission and its
priorities: Policies, information and services [online]. [Cited 13 June 2019].
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en

TECHNICAL ANNEX
1. FAO. 2018. Methodological proposal for monitoring SDG target 12.3.
the Global Food Loss Index design, data collection methods andchallenges. Rome, FAO Statistical Division.

41. European Commission. 2015. European Union Platform on Food
Losses and Food Waste. Brussels. (also available at https://ec.europa.
eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/eu-platform_en).

2. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes andprevention. Rome.

42. European Commission. 2017. European Union guidelines on food
donation. Brussels.

3. Fabi, C., English, A., Mingione, M. & Jona Lasinio, G. 2018.
SDG 12.3.1: Global Food Loss Index. Imputing Food Loss Percentages
in the absence of data at the global level. Rome, FAO.

43. European Commission. 2018. Guidelines for the feed use of food nolonger intended for human consumption. Brussels. (also available athttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:
52018XC0416(01)).

4. Global Strategy to improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics (GSARS).
2017. Field test report on the estimation of crop yields and post-harvest
losses in Ghana. Technical Report no. 29. Global Strategy Technical
Report. Rome.

44. European Commission. 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending
Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Text with EEA relevance). Brussels.

| 156 |

2019
THE STATE OF

FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE
MOVING FORWARD ON FOOD LOSS
AND WASTE REDUCTION
The need to reduce food loss and waste is firmly embedded in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Food loss and waste reduction is considered important for improving food security
and nutrition, promoting environmental sustainability and lowering production costs. However,efforts to reduce food loss and waste will only be effective if informed by a solid understanding of
the problem.
This report provides new estimates of the percentage of the world’s food lost from production up to
the retail level. The report also finds a vast diversity in existing estimates of losses, even for the samecommodities and for the same stages in the supply chain. Clearly identifying and understanding
critical loss points in specific supply chains – where considerable potential exists for reducing foodlosses – is crucial to deciding on appropriate measures. The report provides some guiding principles
for interventions based on the objectives being pursued through food loss and waste reductions, bethey in improved economic efficiency, food security and nutrition, or environmental sustainability.

ISBN 978-92-5-131789-1 ISSN 0081-4539

THE STATE OF

THE WORLD

9789251317891
CA6030EN/1/10.19