FOOD WASTE

Mattias Eriksson
Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences
Foto: Anna hnberg
Department of Energy and Technology
Definitions
Definitions have large influence
30% waste = All food that could have been eaten if treated different
57% waste = All eatable crops not eaten
61% waste = All unneccesary crops not eaten
Examples of other
possible losses:

Unharvested crops
Dead animals
Unused land
Lack of efficency
Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden. Saving Water: From Field to Fork
Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI, 2008.
In the world
4%
34%
FAO (2011): 1/3 of the food that is
produced for human consumption is lost
Different causes of losses
Low income countries
Rich countries
the food is rejected
Packaging
Unbroken cold chains
High hygien levels
Fast transports
Animals (insects, rodents)
Heat, microorganisms
Open storage
the food is lost
Unplanned purchases
Fear of Best-before-dates
We can afford it

Foto: David Ljungberg, SLU
Foto: Anna hnberg
In Sweden

Official Swedish Food
Waste Data
Sector Wasted quantity (ton) Share (%)
Agriculture ? ?
Food Industry 171 000 16
Retail 67 000 6
Restaurants 127 000 12
School kitchens 30 000 3
Households 674 000 63
Total 1 070 000 100

source: SMED, 2013, http://www.smed.se/avfall/rapporter/rapportserie-smed/2911
Does the food wastage
matter?
Food: ca 25 % of the
Swedes climate impact
The households discard
ca 14% of the purchased
weight of foods 7% of
the food carbon footprint.
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-
620-5903-3.pdf
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/rapporter/mat_miljo/2011_livsmed
elsverket_4_livsmedelssvinn_i_hushall_och_skolor.pdf
http://www.konsumentforeningenstockholm.se/Global/Konsument%20och%20M
ilj%c3%b6/Rapporter/Rapport_KfS_Klimatavtryck%20fr%c3%a5n%20hush%c3
%a5llens%20matavfall_aug%202009.pdf
Examples from Swedish
supermarkets
From quantification to reduction

1. Quantification of waste
2. Identification of causes
3. Design of measures
4. Evaluation of measures
Quantities and hot spots
Different units influence results
Average waste per store and per year
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
86 ton 1.6 MSEK 130 ton CO2e
S
h
a
r
e

f
r
o
m

e
a
c
h

d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
%
)

Cheese
Dairy
Meat
Fresh fruits and
vegetables
Deli
Tomato, sweet pepper and
banana dominates carbon
footprint of F&V dept.

Minced meat dominates carbon
footprint of meat department

Causes
Commonly mentioned causes
Short best before dates
Bad orders
Empty shelf not allowed
Unsufficient quality of deliverd goods
Legal requirements



Banana waste in supermarket 1&2
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101103
W
a
s
t
e

(
%
)

Week (Supermarket 1)
In-store waste Pre-store waste
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101103
W
a
s
t
e

(
%
)

Week (Supermarket 2)
Seasonal waste (Prins sausage)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
W
a
s
t
e

(
%
)

Week
Sold mostly at Easter, Midsummer and Christmas; 30 days shelf life
Best before
dates
Turnover
Shelf life
Measures for reduced retail
food waste
Proposed target from the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency:

20% reduction of food waste
from 2010 to 2020
Svinnreducerande tgrder i butik
Effekter p kvantitet, ekonomi och klimatpverkan
Mattias Eriksson och Ingrid Strid
rapport 6594 d ecember 2013
Measures for food waste reduction in retail stores
- capacities, economy and climate impact

Mattias Eriksson and Ingrid Strid
Two management strategies:
Reduce the inflow or valorize the waste
Meat
Prevention Valorization
Frozen minced meat
Dairy
Computer aided
ordering system
Deli
Cheese
Fruit and
vegetables
W
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

Charity donations
Second hand
market
Restricted
reclamations
N
o

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s

Results for waste reduction
Measure
Reduced quantity
(%)
Reduced carbon footprint
(%)
Restricted reclamations 40 22
Charity donation 35 15
Active ordering with forecast
system
7,0 24
Second hand market for
meat (beef and pork cuts)
1,8 17
Ban on F&V campaigns 0,75 0,44
Frozen minced meat instead
of chilled
0,40 5,3
If prevention or valorization for
human consumption is not possible,
which option comes next?
Valorisation of food waste
Valorisation of food waste
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
banana chicken lettuce beef bread
G
W
P

f
o
r

W
M

(
k
g

C
O
2
/
k
g

F
W
)

Waste managemanet scenario and type of food wasted
Landfill Incineration Composting Anaerobic digestion Animal feed Donation
Questions
Thank you for your attention!
Life cycle assessment of food


Cecilia Sundberg
cecilia.sundberg@slu.se
Outline
An environmental engineering perspective on
sustainability
Quantifying environmental impacts with LCA
Applying knowledge from LCA
A few words on transition
Can sustainability be quantified?
time
past now future
sustainability
Can sustainability be quantified?
time
past now future
sustainability
Defintion
of indicator
?
Accuracy
of data
?
Changes in
production
systems?
Changes in
consumption
patterns?
Sustainability?
Our life and future, together, on this planet.

We need food and fuel
Can sustainability be quantified?
time
past now future
sustainability
Defintion
of indicator
?
Multiple dimensions of
sustainability
biodiversity
resource use
climate change
environmental
economic
social
phosphorous
fossil fuel
water
Why life cycle assessment
(LCA)?
Why LCA?
How large are the environmental impacts from
the food sector?
How much can the environmental impacts be
reduced by minimising food waste?

Decision-makers in business and
government need answers!

LCA adresses these questions!

Life cycle assessment of 1 kg bread
Farming Production
and
packaging
Transports
Emissions
Energy
and
materials
Consumption
Phases in LCA
Wikimedia Commons
Can sustainability be quantified?
time
past now future
sustainability
Accuracy
of data
?
Climate impact of food
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Potato CF (g CO2e per kg)
D
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

d
a
t
a


95 % of all results
Rs, Sundberg & Hansson 2010, Int J LCA

g

C
O
2
e

p
e
r

k
g

p
o
t
a
t
o
e
s

Rs, Sundberg & Hansson 2010, Int J LCA
Then what
how can LCA data be used?

How can LCA data be used?
Guiding research priorities
Choice of waste treatment methodology
Diets environment and nutrition
Future scenarios
Guiding research priorities
Identifying knowledge gaps

Rs, Sundberg & Hansson 2010, Int J LCA
From production to consumption
- from foods to diets
environment
health
References
On Waste management in Uganda: Allan Kommakech,
PhD thesis to be published in October 2014
http://epsilon.slu.se
Organic Production and climate change
http://www.slu.se/Documents/externwebben/centrumbi
ldningar-projekt/epok/Publikationer/Klimatsyntes-
broshyr-webb-eng.pdf
Rs, Karlsson, Witthft, Sundberg, Evaluating the
sustainability of diets combining environmental and
nutritional aspects. Submitted manuscript

Conclusion?
LCA of agricultural systems
Gives one important perspective on sustainability of society
Can inform about environmental impacts of production - in
numbers
Is crucial for decisions about technical systems, production and
consumption
The decision-makers dream: condensing all information to
a single number
The scientists job: interpreting all the numbers and
combining them to useful information