Cutting postharvest losses could, presumably, add a sizable quantity to the global food supply, thus reducing the need to intensify production in the future. Surprisingly little solid information exists on the precise amount and nature of loss. Just how much of that loss can be prevented, and by what degree of effort and expense, is not known. Nor is there clear evidence that if losses were reduced, the food thus rescued would find its way onto the plates of those who need it most. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the problem of food loss is locally significant, especially where it concerns staple crops.
Rice is a good example.
During the postharvest period, another 5 to 21 percent disappears in drying, storage, milling, and processing. Although these figures are already high, they do not tell the whole story. Food losses, according to those who study them, cannot be reckoned solely in terms of physical losses. There is a natural inclination to focus on how many hungry people a ton of lost maize or potatoes would feed, but qualitative factors are important, too. Consumers demand for cosmetically perfect produce often means that much of the food successfully harvested is wasted.