Speakers
Description
In 2011, FAO estimated that about one third of the world’s food goes lost or wasted. About 60% is lost in supply chains, while the other 40% is wasted after retail, at the level of the consumer. To produce all that food, we need land, water, inputs, energy. It requires labor and effort and generates an environmental cost. Food loss and waste generates about 24% of greenhouse gas emissions from food, or about 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts to reduce food loss and waste are needed and the SDG target 12.3 aims to “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.”
In this World Café we take a closer look at some questions that arise around the target of reducing food loss and waste.
Table 1 - Conceptualizing Food Loss and Waste
In our common understanding, food loss and waste refer to the loss, destruction or lost value of a product that has first been generated. That means, it existed and has had at some point in time a certain value. But then, (some part of) its value was lost. This speaks to the imagination as an absurd waste of resources and something that should obviously be avoided. Yet, how conceptually different is food loss and waste from other inefficiencies (i.e., potential value/output that has never been realized in the first place) and does this justify a specific focus? Could some level of food waste be an acceptable trade-off for other efficiencies, such as higher productivity or lower costs? What should policy makers prioritize?
Table 2 - Technological Innovations
Technological innovations offer significant potential to reduce food loss and waste by improving efficiency (e.g., precision agriculture), extending shelf life (e.g., solar-powered refrigeration and vacuum packing) and enhancing traceability and communication across the supply chain (e.g., blockchain and online platforms). However, the adoption and impact of these technologies are influenced by regional differences in infrastructure, economic capacity, and specific challenges within the supply chain. Which technologies look most promising across low-, middle- and high-income countries? Does the stage of the supply chain at which these technologies are to be adopted coincide with the stage at which most of the economic and environmental costs of food loss and waste occur? What are the barriers to adopting these technologies at the stage of the greatest loss and waste in each context?
Table 3 - Food loss and waste and Global Food Security and Nutrition
The issue of food insecurity has many faces, as it encompasses not only hunger, but also poor dietary quality, especially in terms of fruit and vegetable consumption. These foods, although essential for a balanced and nutritious diet, are highly perishable, making them particularly vulnerable to food loss and waste. While in many high-income countries fruits and vegetables are wasted at the retail and consumer level, in lower-income countries, higher rates of loss due to factors such as improper handling, lack of cold storage, and transportation challenges, often drive-up prices and make them less affordable, especially for those already facing food insecurity. What is the connection between food loss and waste and global food security and nutrition? Can a focus on food loss and waste address global food security and nutrition? What approaches are needed?
Table 4 - The Need for Data on Food Loss and Waste
Measuring food loss and waste along the supply chain is critical for understanding the scale of the problem and identifying where interventions can be most effective. However, obtaining accurate and comprehensive data is challenging due to the complexity and variability of food systems across different regions and stages of the supply chain. What data do we have available on food loss and waste, along the supply chain? How does data availability vary across different regions and supply chain stages? Are these data comprehensive and accurate enough to inform policies? Is there enough consensus over definitions and metrics to come up with comparable and useful statistics?
