# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Introduction

Attempts have been made to quantify global food waste over several decades, motivated partly by the need to highlight the scale of 'waste' in relation to global malnutrition. Such assessments are reliant on limited datasets collected across the food supply chain (FSC) at different times and extrapolated to the larger picture. The most often quoted estimate is that 'as much as half of all food grown is lost or wasted before and after it reaches the consumer' ( Lundqvist et al. 2008). Such estimates are difficult to scrutinize but highlight the need for greater resource efficiencies in the global FSC. This paper presents results from a driver review of food waste issues, combining information on food waste from the international literature and interviews with supply chain experts.

(a) Definitions

Although waste is formally defined in different legal jurisdictions, definitions relate to particular points of arising and are often framed in relation to specific environmental controls. Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC, although it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages, where outputs of the agricultural system are self-evidently 'food' for human consumption. Unlike most other commodity flows, food is biological material subject to degradation, and different food stuffs have different nutritional values. There are also moral and economic dimensions: the extent to which available food crops are used to meet global human needs directly, or diverted into feeding livestock, other 'by-products' and biofuels or biomaterials production. Below are three definitions referred to herein:

1. Wholesome edible material intended for human consumption, arising at any point in the FSC that is instead discarded, lost, degraded or consumed by pests ( FAO 1981).

2. As (1), but including edible material that is intentionally fed to animals or is a by-product of food processing diverted away from the human food ( Stuart 2009).

3. As definitions (1) and (2) but including over-nutrition-the gap between the energy value of consumed food per capita and the energy value of food needed per capita ( Smil 2004a).

The first two definitions are considered to be most relevant, although the second can only be supported if data are available that include nutritional assessment of animal feed and food processing by-products. Table 1 summarizes generalized stages in FSCs and illustrates different forms that 'food waste' may take.
Within the literature, food waste post-harvest is likely to be referred to as 'food losses' and 'spoilage'. Food loss refers to the decrease in food quantity or quality, which makes it unfit for human consumption ( Grolleaud 2002). At later stages of the FSC, the term food waste is applied and generally relates to behavioural issues. Food losses/spoilage, conversely, relate to systems that require investment in infrastructure. In this report, we refer to both food losses and food waste as food waste.

Similarly, both 'FSC' and 'post-harvest systems' are used to mean the same thing in the literature, with 'post-harvest loss' also often used when describing agricultural systems and the onward supply of produce to markets. FSC is more associated with industrialized countries where post-harvest processing and large retail sectors are important features. 'Post-consumer losses' include food wasted from activities and operations at the point at which food is consumed. The method of measuring the quantity of food post-harvest is usually by weight, although other units of measure include calorific value, quantification of greenhouse gas impacts and lost inputs (e.g. nutrients and water). Where loss data are available for each step of a crop and are applied to production estimates, a cumulative weight loss can be calculated.

2. Food waste in the supply chain

(a) Introduction

When the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was established in 1945, it had reduction of food losses within its mandate. By 1974, the first World Food Conference identified reduction of post-harvest losses as part of the solution in addressing world hunger. At this time, an overall estimate for post-harvest losses of 15 per cent had been suggested, and it was resolved to bring about a 50 per cent reduction by 1985. Consequently, the FAO established the Special Action Programme for the Prevention of Food Losses.

The main focus was initially on reducing losses of durable grain; by the early 1990s, the scope of work had been broadened to cover roots and tubers, and fresh fruits and vegetables (FFVs). Poor adoption rates for interventions led to the recognition that a purely technical focus was inadequate for solving problems within the sector and a more holistic approach was developed ( Grolleaud 2002). There is no account of progress towards the 1985 post-harvest loss reduction target, and recently Lundqvist et al. (2008) called for action to reduce food waste advocating a 50 per cent reduction in post-harvest losses to be achieved by 2025.

(b) Global trends that influence supply chain losses

Post-harvest losses are partly a function of the technology available in a country, as well as the extent to which markets have developed for agricultural produce. Three inter-related global drivers provide an overall structure for characterizing supply chains and future trends in developing and transitional countries.

Industrialized countries are experiencing other drivers, the most significant being the ageing population profile and growth in single person households.

To reflect these important global drivers, post-harvest losses are considered along a technological/economic gradient: 'developing', 'intermediate' and 'industrialized' FSCs. Figure 1 provides an overview of the development of post-harvest infrastructure along this gradient, expanded in table 2.

Developing countries: The majority of the rural poor rely on short FSCs with limited post-harvest infrastructure and technologies. More extended FSCs feeding urban populations are likely to involve many intermediaries between growers and consumers, which may limit the potential for growers to receive higher prices for quality. Farming is mostly small scale with varying degrees of involvement in local markets and a rapidly diminishing proportion of subsistence farmers who neither buy nor sell food staples ( Jayne et al. 2006). Interventions within these systems focus on training and upgrading technical capacity to reduce losses, increase efficiency and reduce labour intensity of the technologies employed. However, attempts to reduce post-harvest losses must take account of cultural implications. In years with food surpluses, the prices received for goods will be low. One option is to store surplus for lean years, but there may not be suitable storage facilities. To rectify this, investment and engineering skills are needed. There are many instances of relatively simple technologies providing effective solutions, such as an FAO project in Afghanistan and elsewhere that provided simple effective sealed storage drums for grain farmers, dramatically reducing post-harvest food losses ( FAO 2008).

Transitional and industrialized post-harvest systems have a closer integration of producers, suppliers, processors, distribution systems and markets ensuring greater economies of scale, competitiveness and efficiency in the FSC. Supermarkets are the dominant intermediary between farmers and consumers. Even in poorer transitional economies, supermarkets are the main vehicle for delivering diversified diets: for the growing middle classes and the urban poor. This is almost entirely dependent on foreign direct investment, with high growth rates in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America ( Reardon et al. 2007).

The sequence of transformation follows a different route in each country, particularly in the extent to which retailers bypass existing markets and traditional wholesalers to secure produce of the required standard and volume. There are often strong cross-links with export quality assurance, the quality standards set by supermarkets, and the procurement systems. Many of the issues identified are no different from supply chain issues in developed economies:

Literature on transitional economies lacks analysis of the relative resource efficiency of alternative models of retail development, although there are lessons that might be learnt from industrialized countries. For instance, in the UK ( DEFRA 2007), estimated contractual penalties, product take-back clauses and poor demand forecasting had a combined influence that drove 10 per cent over-production and high levels of wastage in the UK FSC.

Accounts of supermarket expansion in some countries suggest there are instances of successful adaptation to traditional supply chains ( Chen et al. 2005), particularly in regions that have not been so involved in export-orientated markets. Where central wholesale markets are used to source fresh produce, retailers may be reliant on wholesalers to perform the 'out-grading' that in developed countries is likely to occur on-farm or at front-end packing operations. In countries with traditional two-tier produce markets (higher quality export and lower quality domestic markets), local supermarkets have created a third market for intermediate to high-quality products. At the same time, retailers provide upward pressure to improve product quality and food safety in the domestic market.

Growth in FFV production has been particularly strong in the Asia-Pacific region ( Rolle 2006), although the replacement of traditional markets with supermarkets has been slower in the fresh produce sector, compared with other food sectors. Within the region, FFV producers can be grouped into small farmers, groups of farmers, cooperatives, commercial farmers and foreign entities/multinationals. These producers target different markets, and show a gradient in their production capabilities, access to technologies, markets information and infrastructure. Production is dominated by small farmers with limited access to resources and technology. Growers generally focus on production activities, showing little interest in post-harvest and marketing, which are primarily undertaken by middlemen and traders. Their major markets include highly disorganized traditional wholesale and wet markets, though many supply the requirements of institutions, supermarkets and fast food chains. With limited access to financial resources and low returns from agricultural production, these farmers do not invest in new technologies or improve yields through increasing inputs to production ( Mittal 2007).

Development of more industrialized FSCs can also result in growth in the food processing sector. In some BRIC countries, public sector investment is being considered to accelerate this process. In India, the government is discussing an 'evergreen revolution', which will involve the build-up of food processing units. While this is a sensitive issue because of concerns about the industrialized sector taking control over small farmers, the improved infrastructure has helped farmers branch out into new foods, diversifying their incomes.

Industrialized FSCs: medium-high income countries often argue that better resource efficiency and less waste are achieved through centrally processing food. Although more food wastage occurs at the factory, logic suggests less waste overall is generated as there is less 'scratch-cooking' at home. However, research on post-consumer food waste suggests that this is not the case, as consumers still waste significant quantities of food, thus potentially negating the benefits of centralized food processing.

(c) Estimates of FSC losses

(i) Introduction

The distinction between perishable and non-perishable food stuffs is an important consideration in post-harvest losses and the adequacy of FSC infrastructure ( table 3). The following sections review post-harvest losses for cereals (non-perishables) and FFVs (perishables); few sources were found for other food types.

non-perishable food crops

perishable food crops

harvest mainly seasonal, need for long-term storage

possibility of permanent or semi-permanent production, short-term storage needs

preliminary treatment (except threshing) of the crop before storage exceptional

processing of dried products-an alternative to the shortage of fresh products

products with low level of moisture content (10-15% or less)

products with high level of moisture in general between 50 and 80%

small 'fruits' of less than 1 g

voluminous and heavy fruits from 5 g to 5 kg or more

respiratory activity of stored product very low, heat limited

high or even very high respiratory activity of stored products inducing heat emission in particular in tropical climates

hard tissues, good protection against injuries

soft tissues, highly vulnerable

good natural disposition for storage even for several years

products easily perishable, natural disposition for storage between some weeks and several months

losses during storage mainly from exogenous factors (moisture, insects or rodents)

losses owing partly to endogenous (respiration, transpiration, germination) and to exogenous factors (rot, insects)

(ii) Post-harvest loss estimates for non-perishable food crops

Losses in industrialized countries are not included as loss rates are generally considered to be low (e.g. barley losses can be as low as 0.07-2.81%; Smil 2004a) and are not considered significant under normal circumstances.

Grain losses occur in post-harvest systems owing to physical losses (spillage, consumed by pests) or loss in quality. Few datasets were found relating to loss of grain quality, owing to difficulty in measurement. As most of the global production of maize, wheat, rice, sorghum and millet must be held in storage for periods from one month to more than a year, many studies focus largely on storage losses.

Data available for rice post-harvest losses, based on field surveys and used here as an example, are quite extensive ( table 4) and represent the 'best case' compared with data for other crops. More extensive studies suggest that about 15 per cent of grain may be lost in the post-harvest system ( Liang et al. 1993), with higher storage losses associated with the 80 per cent of China's grain stored by peasants inside their houses or in poorly constructed granaries. The extent to which variations in data presented in table 4 might relate to different levels of post-harvest technology is unclear. For instance, data discussed by Grolleaud's review (2002) found the heaviest losses at the milling stage, perhaps attributable to case studies from more mechanized systems than Liang's data, where storage losses were predominant. This emphasizes the need for post-harvest loss data to be regularly updated and more fully described, particularly for transitioning economies.

Climatic conditions are also an important consideration in determining the wider applicability of data. In humid climates, rice losses are generally greater at the drying stage ( Grolleaud 2002). Hodges (undated) reviewed grain losses in East and South Africa, attempting to compare loss rates in hot humid climates (where open storage structures were required to maintain airflow) and hot dry climates (favouring sealed storage designs). Hodges concluded that data on storage losses were too limited to permit reliable comparisons of loss rates under different climates. In common with other authors, Tyler (1982) suggested that the aggregated data reflecting losses on a worldwide basis are of little value. Long-term studies of post-harvest losses in Zambia and India were identified as using 'reliable methodology' and indicative of the fact that when post-harvest losses are determined by field survey, storage and related post-harvest losses are usually lower than previously reported ( table 5; Tyler 1982).

In summary, the main factors contributing to overestimation of grain losses were: (i) where extremes are taken rather than averages: ideally sample size and standard deviation should be quoted with the loss estimate to avoid this; (ii) removal from store over the season are not always accounted for and where they do occur, percentage losses calculated on the basis of grain remaining in store will be overestimates unless an inventory is kept; (iii) treating partial damage as a total loss, when the damaged grain would be used by farmers for home consumption or animal feed; and (iv) potential for double-counting losses at different stages in the post-harvest system.

(iii) Post-harvest losses for perishable crops

The causes and rates of post-harvest losses for perishable crops are substantially different from those for grains. Horticultural products generally suffer higher loss rates within industrialized and developing countries, although at different points in the FSC and for different reasons. Table 6 summarizes post-harvest loss estimates for FFVs for both developing and industrialized FSCs.

Kader (2005) estimated that approximately one-third of all FFVs produced worldwide is lost before it reaches consumers. Losses in the USA are estimated from 2 to 23 per cent, depending on the commodity, with an overall average of 12 per cent. A tentative estimate from the UK suggests losses of 9 per cent ( Garnett 2006), but this disregards produce that might be left in the field after failing to meet cosmetic or quality criteria. Although not necessarily a post-harvest loss, out-grading represents a significant aspect of waste that is difficult to quantify and largely anecdotal ( Stuart 2009), with some produce likely to enter the food processing sector if it does not meet the criteria. In the EU, quality and size classifications for marketing FFVs have excluded non-conforming produce from the market. Recent moves have relaxed these rules to allow the sale of such FFVs where they are labelled appropriately ( EC 2008).

The general difference between developed and developing countries is that FFV infrastructure losses are greater in developing than in developed countries. As with grain, more data on post-harvest losses are required to better understand the current situation, and uncertainties around how post-harvest loss data are extrapolated are broadly similar.

As with grain, there is evidence of overestimation of perishable crop losses from traditional subsistence systems. Within such agriculture, the chain from field-to-consumer is usually short, both in time and distance. Traditional harvesting techniques, e.g. using sticks to harvest papaya and mango, may bruise fruit, with loss implications for more extended supply chains. However, a high proportion of FFVs are consumed because every quality finds a ready consumer within the locality.

Where FFVs are marketed, there is potential for FSCs to be ill-adapted to the changing circumstances. Post-harvest loss literature cites measures to reduce these losses, including gentler handling of produce, better conditioning, faster transportation and proper storage ( FAO 1981; Rolle 2006). These measures require improved infrastructure and a heightened interest in quality of produce by the grower. Choudhury (2006) highlights high loss rates associated with a lack of packing houses in India, with FFVs generally packed in the field and some even transported without transit packaging. Furthermore, 30 per cent of FFV production in India is wasted through lack of a cold chain ( Mittal 2007). Government-supported cold chain programmes are operational in countries such as Thailand and Taiwan. In lower income countries, low-cost energy-efficient cool storage systems have been developed and implemented in an effort to minimize FFV storage losses.

(d) Overview of food processing and retail losses: UK example

This review of post-harvest losses has considered wastage rates from the perspective of different food types. For industrialized countries, where waste arising data are compiled, it is possible to quantify total food losses across different sectors of the FSC. Figure 2 provides this profile for the UK, with the post-consumer element included for comparison.

Food and drink waste is estimated to be approximately 14 megatonnes (Mt) in the UK, of which 20 per cent is associated with food processing, distribution and retail. Household food waste makes the largest single contribution, but reliable estimates of other post-consumer wastes (hospitality, institutional sources) have yet to be published. The estimated total waste arisings from the food and drink manufacturing and processing sector is 5 Mt per annum, where approximately 2.6 Mt is estimated to be food waste; a further 2.2 Mt of by-products are diverted into animal feed ( WRAP 2010). Waste production surveys have identified that a large proportion of these arisings originate from meat and poultry, FFVs and beverage sectors. These wastes largely consist of by-products and unsold prepared food products.

As an indication of the overall resource efficiency of the sector, a mass balance estimated that nearly 56 Mt of ingredients are used annually to produce 59 Mt of food products ( C-Tech 2004). More mass balances conducted at food and drink manufacturing sites suggested that around 16 per cent of raw materials were wasted ( WRAP 2010).

A small number of large retailers in the UK exercise market power over the 7000 suppliers within the sector. To avoid being 'de-listed', food manufacturers will often over-produce in case extra quantities are required at short notice. For manufacturers of supermarkets' own brands, packaged surplus production cannot be sold elsewhere and becomes waste; however, the sector is adept at reusing the majority of food waste generated ( C-Tech 2004). More detailed supply chain mapping studies are under way to understand where the greatest opportunities for increased resource efficiency lie ( WRAP 2010).

At the retail and distribution stage, the most recent estimate suggests 366 kt per annum ( WRAP 2010). Amounts of waste produced by food retailers vary between outlet types. Small grocery stores produce proportionately more waste than large supermarkets, as the former tend to be used by consumers for top-up shopping, which makes demand unpredictable.

3. Post-consumer food waste

This section summarizes knowledge of post-consumer food waste, focusing on household sources and quantities of food wasted. Data from a handful of OECD countries and economies in transition were reviewed. We were unable to find published studies relating to post-consumer food waste in the developing world, where a 'buy today, eat today' food culture exists.

(a) Types of study and data on post-consumer food waste

Methodologies for post-consumer waste analysis vary, from small numbers of households weighing food waste or using kitchen diaries to waste compositional and behavioural studies involving thousands of households (WRAP 2008, 2009a). Others have used contemporary archaeological excavations of landfill sites to determine historical levels of food waste ( Jones 2006); estimated household food waste indirectly from loss coefficients based upon existing research ( Sibrián et al. 2006); or estimated wastage using statistical models relating population metabolism and body weight ( Hall et al. 2009).

Some studies have measured household food waste as a percentage of total consumed calories, others as a percentage of the total weight of consumed food or of the consumed food items. Some studies have sought to estimate the environmental impact of food waste, including the embodied greenhouse gas emissions (WRAP 2008, 2009a) or water ( Lundqvist et al. 2008).

Most of the estimates relying on exogenous food loss coefficients come from studies dating back to the 1970s. Since then, technological progress resulting in fast changes in markets, distribution systems and household storage facilities have rendered these estimates outdated ( Kantor 1998; Naska et al. 2001). Increased consumer choice and a decrease in the proportion of disposable income spent on food have tended to increase wasteful behaviour. As such, any study where waste was measured over time as a constant proportion of food consumed is in danger of being inaccurate ( Sibrián et al. 2006).

In many studies, food scraps fed to domestic animals and sink disposals were not included, thus yielding inaccurate estimates for total food waste ( Harrison et al. 1975; Wenlock & Buss 1977; T. Jones 2003, unpublished data). In some cases, the wastage owing to feeding to pets reached 30 per cent of the total food wastage in dietary energy terms ( Mercado-Villavieja 1976; Wenlock et al. 1980; Osner 1982).

(b) Definition of household food waste

Sources of food and drinks that are consumed within the home include retail and contributions from home-grown food and takeaways. Figure 3 indicates which disposal routes are classified as household waste streams. In effect, this excludes significant quantities of food and drink eaten 'on-the-go', in the workplace or in catering establishments. Wherever possible, the distinction is made between three classifications of household food waste ( figure 4): 'avoidable', 'possibly avoidable' and 'unavoidable'.

(c) How much food is wasted in the home?

(i) UK studies

Pre-Second World War studies ( Cathcart & Murray 1939) showed that 1-3% of food was wasted in the home in Britain. The next major study, by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1976, investigated the 25 per cent 'crude energy gap' between estimates of embodied energy in domestically grown and imported food (an average of 12.3 MJ (2940 kcal) of energy to each person per day), and the average physiological requirement for energy according to the UK Department of Health and Social Security (9.6-9.8 MJ (2300-2350 kcal)/person per day) ( Wenlock et al. 1980; Osner 1982). The resultant survey of 672 households recorded all the potentially edible food wasted in a week, and found that, when assessed against the expected usage of food in the home, wastage accounted on average for 6.5 per cent of the energy intake in summer and 5.4 per cent in winter ( Osner 1982).

More recently, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has shown that household food waste has reached unprecedented levels in UK homes (WRAP 2008, 2009a,), with 8.3 Mt of food and drink wasted each year (with a retail value of £12.2 billion, 2008 prices) and a carbon impact exceeding 20 Mt of CO ₂ equivalent emissions. The amount of food wasted per year in UK households is 25 per cent of that purchased (by weight).

(ii) US studies

A 1998 study by Kantor et al. of food waste in the USA revealed that 25 per cent of food was wasted. Archaeological excavations of US landfills by the University of Arizona ( Griffin et al. 2009) also drew attention to food waste in the USA and provided quantitative data on the likely scale.

Jones et al. (T. Jones, A. Bockhorst, B. McKee & A. Ndiaye 2003, unpublished data) estimated that American households discarded 211 kg of food waste per year, not including food to drain, into home composting or feed to pets. The amount of food loss at the household level was estimated to be 14 per cent (T. Jones, A. Bockhorst, B. McKee & A. Ndiaye 2003, unpublished data), costing a family of four at least $589.76 annually ( Jones 2004). Jones has estimated that overall food losses in the USA amount to US$90-100 billion a year, of which households threw away US$48.3 billion worth of food each year ( Jones 2006). Finally, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that food waste in 2008 accounted for 12.7 per cent (31.79 Mt) of municipal solid waste stream ( USEPA 2009).

(iii) Miscellaneous studies from other countries

Despite the dearth of food waste data in Australia, a submission to the Senate inquiry estimated that food waste comprises 15 per cent of the 20 Mt of waste that goes to landfill each year ( Morgan 2009).

A South Korean study ( Yoon & Lim 2005) followed their 2002 landfill ban on food waste in the municipal waste stream and suggested that food accounted for 26-27% of household waste ( Baek 2009). Despite an awareness-raising effort in advance of the ban, food waste increased by almost 6 per cent over 4 years after the ban, with increased consumption of FFVs linked to higher incomes cited as a reason.

The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has estimated that Dutch consumers throw away approximately 8-11% of food purchased (2009), equating to 43-60 kg of food waste with an average value of €270-400 per person per year ( Thönissen 2009).

Finally, a UN FAO study ( Pekcan et al. 2006) estimated household food wastage using a sample of 500 households in Ankara, Turkey, grouped according to socio-economic status. Mean energy intake levels per consumption unit and per person were 2692.6 and 2207.9 kcal d ⁻¹, respectively. The mean daily energy loss from acquisition of food to plate waste was 481.7 kcal by the average household and 215.7 kcal per person, amounting to 8.9 per cent of daily per person dietary energy consumption. The average daily discards per household and per person were 816.4 and 318.8 g, respectively.

(iv) Comparison of food waste arisings between countries

The few quantitative studies that relate to post-consumer food waste are difficult to compare in terms of food wastage per household, as demonstrated in table 7. Different methods and definitions applied to the measurement of food waste reduce comparability of data and some methods do not provide robust estimates owing to small samples. Different definitions of food waste are applied, particularly with regard to 'edible' and 'inedible' fractions and the extent to which alternative disposal routes are considered. When differences are identified, the post-consumer element must also be considered in the context of the whole FSC.

(d) What types of food are being wasted?

Most studies that have sought to identify the main food types wasted find that it is the most perishable food items that account for the highest proportion of food waste. FFVs are usually among the most-wasted items, followed by other perishables like bakery and dairy products, meat and fish ( Pekcan et al. 2006; WRAP 2008; Morgan 2009; Thönissen 2009).

There is often a large variation in the wastage rates for different food types: WRAP (2009a) found that 7 per cent of milk purchases is wasted, 36 per cent of bakery and over 50 per cent of lettuce/leafy salads (by weight), while Jones et al. (T. Jones, A. Bockhorst, B. McKee & A. Ndiaye 2003, unpublished data) found similar variations in the average wastage rates for different food types.

Although food and drink categories are not fully consistent across studies, figure 5 serves to highlight variation in household food waste composition. Thönissen (2009) found an unusually high proportion of food waste consisted of dairy products, while in the Turkish data, wasted FFVs accounted for the highest proportion ( Pekcan et al. 2006). The extent to which such differences relate to consumption patterns or different wastage rates cannot be divined from these data alone, although the Turkish study noted the importance of fruit in the diets of households studied. Nor do these compositional data distinguish between avoidable and unavoidable food waste, the exception being the UK data shown in figure 6.

(e) Who is wasting all of this food?

The following factors may help to explain variation in quantities of household food waste generated.

Food waste studies in the UK ( Brook Lyndhurst 2007) and Australia ( Hamilton et al. 2005) have sought to profile segments of the population according to their attitudes and behaviours with respect to food, drawn from household survey work and waste compositional data. Such studies are a useful tool in targeting particular elements of the population with waste reduction messages and information.

(f) Why are we wasting all of this food?

There are a limited number of studies focusing specifically on the reasons for householders wasting food, largely restricted to the UK ( Exodus 2006; Brook Lyndhurst 2007; WRAP 2008, 2009a,), the USA ( Van Garde & Woodburn 1987) and Australia ( Hamilton et al. 2005).

These studies highlight a complex array of consumer attitudes, values and behaviours towards food and how varying degrees of food knowledge affect individual's propensity to waste food. It is possible to group identified attitudes, values and behaviours by using a combination of qualitative and quantitative consumer research techniques thereby determining key claimed behaviours, and waste compositional analysis. The resultant information is then used to establish those attitudes, values and behaviours that are the strongest drivers of household food waste. In the UK, detailed research findings described in figure 7 for the two principal reasons why avoidable food waste occurs are: 'food is not used in time' and 'too much food is cooked, prepared or served'.

Bracketed figures show the tonnages and economic values for food and drink separately.

These two broad categories are explained below:

From the research conducted in the UK ( table 8), Australia and the USA, some conclusions can be drawn about the main factors that drive food waste in the home and practical solutions can be shaped that make it easy for consumers to reduce the amount of food they waste.

4. Food waste to 2050: projections and uncertainties

Food wasted along the FSC is the outcome of many drivers: the market economy, resource limitations and climate, legislation and cultural differences being just a few. We have outlined the difficulties in defining and quantifying such waste and described how production of waste differs within the developing, transitional and developed worlds. Here we discuss the trends likely to drive waste production in future, where there could be the greatest potential for reduction of food waste to occur in developing and developed worlds, and what policies and systems may be required to reduce food waste to 2050.

(a) Future trends

In the developing world, lack of infrastructure and associated technical and managerial skills in food production and post-harvest processing have been identified as key drivers in the creation of food waste, both now and over the near future ( WFP 2009). This situation contrasts with that in developed countries where our interviewees forecast the majority of food waste continuing to be produced post-consumer, driven by the low price of food relative to disposable income, consumers' high expectations of food cosmetic standards and the increasing disconnection between consumers and how food is produced. Similarly, the increasing urbanization within transitioning countries will potentially disconnect those populations from how food is grown, which is likely to further increase food waste generation.

Across the globe, resource and commodity limitations, in part as a result of an increasing population but also owing to impacts of climate change, were viewed as being likely to increase the economic value of food, potentially driving more efficient processes that could lead to food waste reduction. Industrialized FSCs will continue to develop in response to these wider challenges by the development of shared logistics (e.g. collaborative warehousing), identification and labelling of products (use of barcodes and RFID tags) and better demand forecasting ( Global Commerce Initiative 2008), and domestic kitchen technologies (smart fridges, cookers, online meal planning and recipe resources) may make it easier for consumers to manage their food better and waste less of it.

(b) The greatest potential for food waste reduction

Interviewees emphasized the importance of implementing sustainable solutions across the entire FSC to fully realize the potential for food waste reduction. In developing and emerging economies, this would require market-led large-scale investment in agricultural infrastructure, technological skills and knowledge, storage, transport and distribution. Such investments have been shown to stimulate rural economies ( WFP 2009), e.g. the development of the Nile Perch Fishery in East Africa. In this case, and despite the unintended consequences of over-fishing and disruption of local communities, the international market for Nile perch stimulated infrastructure development and considerably reduced post-harvest losses.

Where international markets and local policies and investment are lacking, large-scale capital investment in infrastructure in developing countries has often failed ( FAO 2003; Kader 2005). For long-term sustainability, development across the FSC in the developing world requires locally supported government policies and investment alongside any market-led private investment with reach through into developed world markets. Examples of integrated cross-FSC approaches to food waste reduction include various cooperative schemes, e.g. the Common Code for Coffee Community, and the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative.

Conversely, the greatest potential for the reduction of food waste in the developed world lies with retailers, food services and consumers. Cultural shifts in the ways consumers value food, stimulated via education, increased awareness of the FSC and food waste's impact on the environment have the potential to reduce waste production. Improved food labelling and better consumer understanding of labelling and food storage also have food waste reduction potential. WRAP's ongoing activities in this area, through programmes such as 'Love Food Hate Waste', are very recent and their impact is yet to be established. With food price recognized as the most important factor in determining consumer decisions, anecdotal evidence suggests that the economic crisis has stimulated a shift in consumer attitude to food waste.

Innovative technology throughout the FSC, in both developed and developing worlds, particularly in packaging, contributes to improving shelf life for perishable foods and semi-prepared meals. Continued developments in packaging, e.g. utilizing nanotechnology and materials science, have the potential to further increase shelf life.

(c) Policy, systems and practices

In the developing world, transfer of existing technologies and the spread of good practice, allied to market-led investment, have the greatest potential to reduce food waste across the FSC. It is of key importance, however, that practical developments address the problems of local farmers, using indigenous knowledge where that has been shown to be sustainable. Without participation of local farmers, such knowledge transfer is unlikely to succeed.

While attempts to shift consumer behaviour may result in reduction in food waste in developed countries, changes in legislation and business behaviour towards more sustainable food production and consumption will be necessary to reduce waste from its current high levels. An example might be through the development of closed-loop supply chain models ( WEF 2010). In such models, waste of all forms would be fed back into the value chain (such as packaging waste being re-used), food graded as lower quality for cosmetic reasons and food that is surplus to retailer or manufacturers, to be made available through alternative routes (e.g. Fareshare or as cheaper alternatives), while unavoidable food waste would be utilized as a by-product, e.g. in providing energy from waste using the appropriate technology.

5. Conclusions

A firm evidence base from which to assess food waste globally is lacking, with no specific information on the impact of food waste in BRIC countries a major concern, and with much of the loss estimates from developing countries collected over 30 years ago. There is a pressing need for quantitative evidence covering developing countries and the rapidly evolving BRIC country FSCs. Without systematic evidence, the arguments over the potential for reducing global food waste as a contribution to feeding nine billion people by 2050 will remain largely rhetorical, and measuring progress against any global reduction target impossible.

As a consequence of the information gaps and uncertainties, there is no consensus on the proportion of global food production that is currently lost. Ranges between 10 and 40 percent of total global food production and as high as 50 per cent are quoted, but on closer examination, these estimates all link back to the same limited primary datasets, where much of the published data relates to fieldwork undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s. Recent reviewers of these data claim there is a tendency to over-state losses in relation to traditional agricultural systems in developing countries, a point reiterated in this review.

The lack of infrastructure in many developing countries and poor harvesting/growing techniques are likely to remain major elements in the generation of food waste. Less than 5 per cent of the funding for agricultural research is allocated to post-harvest systems ( Kader 2003), and yet reduction of these losses is recognized as an important component of improved food security ( Nellemann et al. 2009). Irrespective of global region, there is a need for successful introduction of culture-specific innovations and technologies across the FSC to reduce losses.

Linked to the above, market transformation has enormous potential to develop FSC infrastructure and reduce waste in developing and BRIC countries. Account should be taken of the impact of market transformation on the local communities to whom food may no longer be available.

The rapid expansion of FFVs supplied to consumers in transitional countries is highly likely to have resulted in significant post-harvest losses, owing to inadequate infrastructure. In the industrialized world meanwhile, post-harvest losses have been squeezed out of grain supply through heavy technological investments, while for FFVs, retailers' and consumers' demand for 'cosmetically perfect' produce has created significant post-harvest losses through 'out-grades'. There is also strong evidence of an increase in post-consumer waste over the past several decades, particularly in the developed world, with pockets of data supporting similar behaviour in BRIC countries.

The majority of studies show that as the proportion of income spent on food declines, food waste increases. There is clear evidence of a distribution of waste across demographic groups, with the lowest wastage rates in the immediate post-war age generation. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the demographic distribution will remain the same in the future, as today's elderly generally exhibit a 'waste not want not' mentality, while the elderly of the future are likely to continue to retain the same attitudes and behaviours to food that they have today.

There are clearly fundamental factors affecting post-consumer food waste worldwide, some of which may require solutions that involve direct communication and awareness-raising among consumers of the importance of reducing food waste. Others require government interventions and the support and cooperation of the food industry itself, such as improving the clarity of food date labelling and advice on food storage, or ensuring that an appropriate range of pack or portion sizes is available that meets the needs of different households.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge input to this review by those individuals interviewed during the course of the work. We are also grateful to the Foresight Team, David Lawrence, WRAP and Gaby Bloem of the Science and Innovation Network.

Footnotes

While the Government Office for Science commissioned this review, the views are those of the author(s), are independent of Government, and do not constitute Government policy.

References

Recent developments in reducing post-harvest losses in the Asia-Pacific region Choudhury M. L.. 2006 .. Reports of the APO Seminar on Reduction of Postharvest Losses of Fruit and Vegetables, October 2004 (ed. & Rolle R. S.), pp. 5-11. Tokyo, Japan: FAO, Asian Productivity Organization (APO). Google Scholar

Wasteful consumption in Australia Hamilton C., Denniss R.& Baker D.. 2005 .. Discussion Paper Number 77, March 2005. Manuka, Australia: The Australia Institute. ISSN 1322-5421. Google Scholar

Jones T.. 2006 Addressing food wastage in the US.Interview: The Science Show, 8 April. See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1608131.htm. Google Scholar

Kantor L.. 1998 A dietary assessment of the U.S. food supply: comparing per capita food consumption with Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations. Report no. 772. Washington, DC: Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. Google Scholar

Morgan E.. 2009 Fruit and vegetable consumption and waste in Australia. Victoria, Australia: State Government of Victoria, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Google Scholar

Sibrián R., Komorowska J.& Mernies J.. 2006 Estimating household and institutional food wastage and losses in the context of measuring food deprivation and food excess in the total population. Statistics Division, Working Paper Series no: ESS/ESSA/001e.Rome, Italy: FAO. Google Scholar

Smil V.. 2004 bFeeding the world: how much more rice do we need? In Proc. of the World Rice Research Conf. held in Tokyo and Tsukuba, , Rice is life, scientific perspectives for the 21st century. Japan, pp. 21-23. Google Scholar

Thönissen R.. 2009 Food waste: The Netherlands. Presentation to the EU Presidency Climate Smart Food Conf., , Lund, Sweden. Google Scholar

United Nations. 2002 COMTRADE, Commodity Trade Data Base. New York, NY: United Nations Statistical Division. See http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx. Google Scholar

United Nations. 2008 World Urbanization Prospects. http://esa.un.org/unup/. The 2007 Revision Population Database. See Google Scholar

USEPA. 2009 Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: facts and Figures for 2008(November 2009). See http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf. Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2010 Redesigning business value: a roadmap for sustainable consumption, p. 16, Geneva, Switzerland. Google Scholar

WRAP. 2009 b Down the drain: quantification and exploration of food and drink waste disposed of to the sewer by households in the UK. Banbury, UK. ISBN: 1-84405-431-4. Google Scholar

WRAP. 2010 A review of waste arisings in the supply of food and drink to UK households. Banbury, UK. Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050 | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste in the global food supply chain is reviewed in relation to the prospects for feeding a population of nine billion by 2050. Different definitions of food waste with respect to the complexities of food supply chains (FSCs)are discussed. An ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Americans are – and aren’t – making eco-friendly lifestyle changes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two-thirds of Americans say people will have to make major changes in the way they live to reduce the effects of climate change, but data on how much people have actually adopted several recommended lifestyle changes paints a very mixed picture.

# data[].attributes.body
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-005-0147-0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Rapid economic growth in Asia and the increasing transboundary movement of secondary resources will increasingly require both 3R endeavors (reduce, reuse, recycle) in each country and appropriate control of international material cycles. Recently, managing electrical and electronic waste (E-waste) has become an important target for domestic and international material cycles from the viewpoints of environmental preservation and resource utilization efficiency. To understand the current status of E-waste issues in the context of international material cycles and to discuss the future tasks related to achieving 3R in the region, we organized the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) E-waste Workshop in December 2004. This article reviews past studies on E-waste and briefly describes the topics presented and discussions held at the workshop. The topics at the workshop included E-waste generation, recycling systems, international trade, and environmental impacts. In addition, we discussed various issues such as terminology, current environmental concerns, and possible solutions. Transboundary shipments of E-waste should be conducted taking into consideration the concept of sustainable development. The direction of future research and possible collaborations are also discussed.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

1. 1
T Matsuto CH Jung N Tanaka (2004) ArticleTitleMaterial and heavy metal balance in a recycling facility for home electrical appliances Waste Manag 24 425-436 Occurrence Handle10.1016/j.wasman.2003.12.002 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXjs1eqsbg%3D

2. 2
A Terazono A Yoshida Y Yang Y Moriguchi S Sakai (2004) ArticleTitleMaterial cycles in Asia: especially the recycling loop between Japan and China J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 6 82-96

Google Scholar

3. 3
ALN Stevels AA Ram E Deckers (1999) ArticleTitleTake-back of discarded consumer electronic products from the perspective of the producer: Condition for success J Cleaner Prod 7 383-389 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00152-3

Article Google Scholar

4. 4
M Macauley K Palmer JS Shih (2003) ArticleTitleDealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal J Environ Manag 68 13-22

Google Scholar

5. 5
BAN, SVTC (2002) Exporting harm: the high-tech trashing of Asia. The Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.pdf pp 51

6. 6
H Alter (2000) ArticleTitleEnvironmentally sound management of the recycling of hazardous wastes in the context of the Basel Convention Resour Conserv Recycl 29 111-129 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00061-0

Article Google Scholar

7. 7
Sakai S (2004) E-waste recycling and chemical issues in Japan. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

8. 8
InstitutionalAuthorNameAnon (2002) ArticleTitleEU government to enforce E-waste recycling: new rules make producers pay Waste Age 33 IssueID12 14

Google Scholar

9. 9
N Johnstone (1998) ArticleTitleThe implications of the Basel Convention for developing countries: the case of trade in nonferrous metal-bearing waste Resour Conserv Recycl 23 1-28 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00002-0

Article Google Scholar

10. 10
Anon (2005) Asia: waste not, want not? Recycling in Asia sized up by Japan. International Herald Tribune/Asahi Shinbun, February 12

11. 11
Bo Q, Lin P, Xijin X, Xinsheng L, Jidan H, Xia H (2005) Medical investigation of E-waste demanufacturing industry in Guiyu Town. Presented at the International Conference on Electric Waste and Producer's Environmental Responsibilities in China, April 21-22, 2004, Beijing, China

12. 12
Eugster M (2004) Knowledge partnership with developing and transition countries in E-waste recycling. Presented at the International Conference on Electric Waste and Producer's Environmental Responsibilities in China, April 21-22, 2004, Beijing, China

13. 13
Williams E (2004) International activities on E-waste and guidelines for future work. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

14. 14
EMPA (2005) International E-waste generation. http://www.ewaste.ch/facts_and_figures/statistical/quantities/

15. 15
Peralta GL, Fontanos PM (2004) E-waste issues and measures in the Philippines. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

16. 16
Matthews H, McMichael F, Hendrickson C, Hart D (1997) Disposition and end-of-life options for personal computers. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10

17. 17
Yang JX, Xu C, Liu XL (2004) E-waste issues and measures in China. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

18. 18
Jain A, Sareen R (2004) E-waste in India: assessment, validation and future implications. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

19. 19
T Tasaki M Oguchi T Kameya K Urano (2001) ArticleTitleEstimation of end-of-life durable products (in Japanese) J Jpn Soc Waste Manag Expert 12 IssueID2 49-58 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXjtVGrtLg%3D

20. 20
InstitutionalAuthorNameJapan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA) (2005) Report on the recovery, treatment and recycling of IT equipment JEITA Tokyo

Google Scholar

21. 21
Terazono A (2004) International material cycles and E-waste in Asia. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

22. 22
Kim IS (2004) E-waste issues and measures in Korea. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

23. 23
Lin CC, Lin CH (2004) The E-waste status and management structure in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

24. 24
Li J, Honda SI, Liu TZ (2004) Survey and analysis on the management of electronic and electric wastes in typical countries of Asia. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

25. 25
Mungcharoen T (2004) Current status and issues of E-waste recycling in Thailand. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

26. 26
Yoshida A, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2004) E-waste recycling in China - can the new formal sector beat the informal sector? In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

27. 27
Kojima M, Yoshida A (2004) International recycling of E-waste in Asian countries. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES_E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

28. 28
Leung A, Cai ZW, Wong MH (2004) Environmental contamination from electronic-waste recycling at Guiyu, Southeast China. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

29. 29
Inanc B (2004) Landfill/dump sites as pollution sources in Asia. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste Management in Asia (NIES E-waste Workshop), December 14-15, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

30. 30
H Takatsuki (2003) ArticleTitleThe Teshima Island industrial waste case and its process towards resolution J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 5 26-30 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s101630300005 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXjt1ynsbw%3D

31. 31
Kojima M (2002) Pollution prevention measurements by small- and medium-sized enterprises and informal sectors. In: Terao T, Ohtsuka K (eds) Policy process and dynamism of "Development and Environment." IDE/JETRO, Chiba, Japan

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

1. National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan

Atsushi Terazono, Shinsuke Murakami, Naoya Abe, Bulent Inanc & Yuichi Moriguchi

2. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

Shin-ichi Sakai

3. Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO, Chiba, Japan

Michikazu Kojima

4. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Aya Yoshida

5. Tsinghua University and Basel Convention Regional Center China, Beijing, China

Jinhui Li

6. Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Beijing, China

Jianxin Yang

7. Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, SAR, China

Ming H. Wong

8. IRG Systems South Asia Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India

Amit Jain

9. LG Environmental Strategy Institute, Seoul, Korea

In-Suk Kim

10. University of the Philippines, Diliman, The Philippines

Genandrialine L. Peralta

11. Institute of Environment and Resources, Taipei, Taiwan

Chun-Chao Lin

12. Kasetsart University and National Metal and Materials Technology Center, Bangkok, Thailand

Thumrongrut Mungcharoen

13. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Eric Williams

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsushi Terazono.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Current status and research on E-waste issues in Asia - Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rapid economic growth in Asia and the increasing transboundary movement of secondary resources will increasingly require both 3R endeavors (reduce, reuse, recycle) in each country and appropriate control of international material cycles. Recently, managing electrical and electronic waste (E-waste) has become an important target for domestic and international material cycles from the viewpoints of environmental preservation and resource utilization efficiency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recycling perceptions, realities vary widely in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just over a third of U.S. trash is recycled or composted, and about three-in-ten Americans say they live in places where recycling is strongly encouraged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

What is e-waste? And how do we dispose of it?

E-waste is electronic products that are unwanted, not working, and nearing or at the end of their "useful life." Computers, televisions, VCRs, stereos, copiers, and fax machines are everyday electronic products.

The ongoing challenge of how best to dispose of used and unwanted electronics isn't a new one and dates back at least to the 1970s. But a lot has changed since then, particularly the number of electronics being discarded today.

We also have something else today: a term for this issue. After several terms got suggested, including "Digital rubbish," a consensus formed around the simple word "e-waste."

E-waste Defined

E-waste is any electrical or electronic equipment that's been discarded. This includes working and broken items that are thrown in the garbage or donated to a charity reseller like Goodwill. Often, if the item goes unsold in the store, it will be thrown away. E-waste is particularly dangerous due to toxic chemicals that naturally leach from the metals inside when buried.

List of Common E-waste Items:

Leftover 'New' Technology

Today, though, a growing amount of e-waste is not considered to be products that have stopped working or become obsolete.

Technological advances are coming at us at such a dizzying speed that a lot of electronic devices that still work fine are the ones considered obsolete.

Think of the many VCR players that got replaced when the DVD player hit the market, and now the DVD players getting replaced by Blu-ray players. If a product is powered electronically and someone thinks they can create a better version, that contributes to e-waste.

And we care about this because, for years now, unwanted electronic devices have been filling landfills across the globe. In the U.S. alone, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 60 million metric tons of e-waste end up in landfills every year.

E-waste Hides Toxic Materials

While above ground, modern electronics are safe to use and be around. However, most electronics contain some form of toxic materials, including beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and lead, which pose serious environmental risks to our soil, water, air, and wildlife.

When E-waste gets buried at a landfill, it can dissolve in microscopic traces into the gross sludge that permeates at the landfill. Eventually, these traces of toxic materials pool into the ground below the landfill. This is known as leaching.

The more E-waste and metals at the landfill, the more of these trace toxic materials show up in the groundwater.

Leeching Poisons Nearby Water

The problem is that there is so, so much E-waste that the trace amounts have ballooned over the years. That toxic water under the landfill doesn't stop below the landfill. It continues to the groundwater and the sources to all the freshwater in the surrounding area.

Not only is this bad for anyone using a natural well, but it hurts the nearby wildlife. That, in turn, causes the wildlife to get sick from lead, arsenic, cadmium, and other metal poisonings due to the high concentration of these minerals.

Mining For New Metals Causes This Too

Not only is this a problem for E-waste in landfills, but this is a side effect of mining for new sources of metal too.

Having an environmentally-friendly source of recycled metal is better for the environment than a company digging up new sources of ore. Every time you recycle your electronics, you are preventing your E-waste from leaching toxic metals into your groundwater. But you're also preventing it from happing at a mine somewhere else.

How You Can Help

Fortunately, there's a proven solution. The recycling of e-waste serves a lot of useful purposes. For instance, include protecting human and environmental health by keeping those devices out of landfills. Or recovering the parts within the devices that still have value, and providing manufacturers with recycled metals that can be used to make new products.

Virtually all electronic waste contains some form of recyclable material. That includes materials like plastic, glass, and metals, which is why they may be considered "junk" or "obsolete" to consumers but still serve an essential purpose. It's ironic, in some ways, that these devices are called "e-waste," since they're not waste at all. But in far too many instances, they are thrown away.

With electronic recyclers like GLEC, we have a solution. The challenge is getting recycling rates, still stubbornly low, to increase.

E-waste Problems

The definition of e-waste is likely to keep expanding. In an era of rapid technological advancement, more and more highly sophisticated electronic goods are being invented and manufactured. Just think of the concept of the "smart home." It's easy to recognize how many electronic devices can now do everything from offer security to turning lights on and off, to having fresh coffee ready before we wake up.

Unfortunately, a skyrocketing amount of e-waste is being written off by owners as junk. There's no more significant example of that than computers, laptops, and smartphones.

New models arrive even as the current one appears to be working just fine. Despite that, the latest version always provides additional features that make it seem too enticing to resist.

So in answer to the question, "What is e-waste?" a good response today might be, "It depends."

The technology innovators continue to create electric devices designed to make our lives easier and more convenient in every conceivable way. Still, we seem all too susceptible to quickly pitching the machines we already have. It doesn't matter how satisfied we've been with them up until now.

How Did We Get to This Point?

In 1976, Congress first addressed the issue of hazardous waste disposal with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This act sets standards for protecting human health and the natural environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal.

One of the goals of the law was to ensure the management of waste in an environmentally sound manner.

The next major step was the Basel Convention in March 1989, an international treaty designed to reduce the movements of hazardous waste between nations and prevent the transfer of hazardous waste from developed to less-developed countries.

One thing that's grown significantly since then has been the e-waste recycling industry. This industry has the most proven way of keeping e-waste out of landfills or from being burned in incinerators.

The recycling industry has been devoted to taking reusable parts from discarded electronic devices and recycling them for the benefit of local businesses and manufacturers.

As the amount of e-waste keeps rising, so has this industry, which today creates hundreds of thousands of jobs across the world by recycling the electronics we no longer want.

So much of what's in e-waste still has value. Circuit boards contain valuable metals like silver, tin, gold, palladium, and copper.

Hard drives can be shredded and processed into aluminum ingots for use in the automotive industry.

In 1991, the first electronic waste recycling system was implemented in Switzerland with the introduction of a system to collect refrigerators. Other electric and electronic devices got added to the system in later years.

A decade later, the European Union implemented a similar system called the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive to establish e-waste recycling requirements for member nations.

In the U.S., there are no federal laws governing e-waste, although 25 states have their own e-waste rules.

Is "e-waste" clearly defined?

The term "e-waste" usually applies to consumer and business electronic equipment that's no longer wanted, but that contains material that renders them hazardous when placed in landfills.

But we know that every year, the list of e-waste items gets longer - and longer. In January, when the Consumer Electronics Show opened in Las Vegas, there was a steady stream of new product announcements, like the one by Audio Technica. A Japanese company that unveiled two new wood-based, belt-drive turntables, the AT-LPW40TN, and AT-LPW30TK, created to deliver high-fidelity audio performances.

At the same show, TCL Communication debuted a brand new Alcatel smartphone with a Full View Display.

Other new devices on the market today include FXD, which can instantly diagnose car problems when your "Check Engine Light" comes on. Or, the KeySmart Pro, which is an organizer providing a better way to organize and carry your keys. And HeatBuddy, an energy-efficient plug-in heater for any room in the house, that's small and compact.

And new ideas keep coming. And each one likely means something else that we've relied on in the past will become "obsolete."

The Dangers of E-waste

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health risks may result from direct contact with toxic materials that leach from e-waste. These include minerals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, brominated flame retardants, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Danger can come from inhalation of the toxic fumes, as well as from the accumulation of chemicals in soil, water, and food.

This puts not just people in danger but land and sea animals as well. In developing countries, the risks are exceptionally high because some developed countries send their e-waste there. Studies have shown this global e-waste has detrimental effects on the people that work with the e-waste but also the people that live around it.

Because of this, a proper recycling process needs to be put in place to protect us and future generations.

E-waste Disposal

Since we know consumers will keep buying new devices, it's important to keep reinforcing that message that we need to recycle the older models, not throw them out.

There are serious environmental risks if we send our electronics to a landfill. In contrast, recycling provides considerable benefits to our environment.

The solution is to turn those devices over to an experienced firm like Great Lakes Electronics Corporation, which has years of experience performing environmentally friendly recycling of electronic products.

The process is simple: gather your old and unused electronics like you would your garbage. A trash can or bin is perfect for this. For larger appliances, you usually want to gather them along with your smaller electronics in a garage. Then, bring them into Great Lakes Electronics. For consumers, the scheduled drop off day is Friday between the hours of 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. For businesses, give us a call at (586) 759-5000 to arrange pick-up service or to schedule a delivery.

Beyond The Environment - Data Security

Other than helping the environment, businesses are starting to wake up to the dangers of throwing away electronics. In an era where phishing scams are the biggest security threat for your business, most overlook their trash, putting them at risk.

How E-waste Results in Data Theft

You may have heard before that critical documents, and serial numbers need to be shredded before you throw them out. You probably know this is to stop someone from stealing your identity or signing up for a credit card with your information. Throwing out, or donating, a smartphone or laptop isn't much different.

For both businesses and consumers, the hard drive inside your computer, or the memory stick inside your smartphone is a significant liability. All someone has to do is plug it into a new computer. There are dozens of methods of disposal, but most of them aren't perfect. Physical destruction or dismantling of your electronics is the only sure-fire way to get it done. However, it should be done by a professional-modern laptop and smartphone batteries can explode if heavily damaged or dismantled incorrectly.

So why is this important for a business?

Businesses can be held liable for the security of their clients and employee's data being misused or stolen. Throwing out or donating your old business electronics can be a legal liability because of it.
We created a guide that you can follow on how to prepare your business electronics the next time you're planning to upgrade the office computers.
Great Lakes Electronics Corporation - E-waste Recyclers

The team at Great Lakes Electronics Corporation will disassemble these items into parts, and the ones that still have value can be sold for reuse. Other parts are used for metals recovery. Everything within your devices gets recycled. To learn more, contact Great Lakes Electronics Corporation at 888-392-7831 today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is E-waste? Definition and Why It's Important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
E-waste, also known as techwaste, is dangerous to the environment and needs to be recycled. Learn more about what is e-waste, and why it's so important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How much food waste is there in the United States?

In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply. This estimate, based on estimates from USDA's Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010. This amount of waste has far-reaching impacts on society:

Wholesome food that could have helped feed families in need is sent to landfills.

Land, water, labor, energy and other inputs are used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing, and disposing of discarded food.

What causes food loss and waste?

Food loss occurs for many reasons, with some types of loss-such as spoilage-occurring at every stage of the production and supply chain. Between the farm gate and retail stages, food loss can arise from problems during drying, milling, transporting, or processing that expose food to damage by insects, rodents, birds, molds, and bacteria. At the retail level, equipment malfunction (such as faulty cold storage), over-ordering, and culling of blemished produce can result in food loss. Consumers also contribute to food loss when they buy or cook more than they need and choose to throw out the extras ( See Buzby et al (2014)).

Does the U.S. have a goal to reduce food loss and waste?

In 2015, the USDA joined with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set a goal to cut our nation's food waste by 50 percent by the year 2030.

What baseline estimates of food loss and waste will be used to measure progress in reaching the 50 percent reduction goal?

The United States currently does not have a single baseline estimate of food loss and waste. Instead, two very different measures describe the amount of food loss and waste in the United States:

EPA estimates: 2010 was selected as a baseline at 218.9 pounds of food waste per person sent for disposal. The 2030 FLW reduction goal aims to reduce food waste going to landfills by 50 percent to 109.4 pounds per person.

USDA estimates: amount of food loss and waste from the food supply at the retail and consumer levels: in 2010 food loss and waste at the retail and consumer levels was 31 percent of the food supply, equaling 133 billion pounds and almost $162 billion.

Neither estimate provides a comprehensive evaluation of food loss and waste in the United States. However, reductions in both these estimates will provide evidence of progress in reducing food loss and waste and the serious environmental impacts associated with landfilling food. A variety of other data collection efforts across the country will help provide information on other segments of the supply chain.

How is food loss and waste defined in the context of the U.S. reduction goal?

USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) defines food loss as the edible amount of food, postharvest, that is available for human consumption but is not consumed for any reason. It includes cooking loss and natural shrinkage (for example, moisture loss); loss from mold, pests, or inadequate climate control; and food waste. For the reduction goal, USDA is adopting the convention of using the general term "food loss and waste" to describe reductions in edible food mass anywhere along the food chain. In some of the statistics and activities surrounding recycling, the term "waste" is stretched to include non-edible (by humans) parts of food such as banana peels, bones, and egg shells.

What are some ways to reduce food loss and waste?

The best approach to reducing food loss and waste is not to create it in the first place. Waste can be avoided by improving product development, storage, shopping/ordering, marketing, labeling, and cooking methods. If excess food is unavoidable, recover it to donate to hunger-relief organizations so that they can feed people in need. Inedible food can be recycled into other products such as animal feed, compost and worm castings, bioenergy, bioplastics and clothing.

USDA and EPA created the food recovery hierarchy to show the most effective ways to address food waste.

For more on the hierarchy, visit EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy website.

What is the U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champion program?

Launched by USDA and EPA in 2016, U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions are businesses and organizations that have made a public commitment to reduce food loss and waste in their own operations in the United States by 50 percent by the year 2030. Note: The U.S. Food Waste Challenge group has been retired. Companies and organizations that had joined the Food Waste Challenge are encouraged to become U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions.

How does a company become a U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champion?

To join the U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions, organizations complete and submit the 2030 Champions form (PDF, 472 KB), in which they commit to reduce food loss and waste in their own operations and periodically report their progress on their website.

Does USDA or EPA verify the Champions' food loss and waste reduction estimates?

The exact definition of food loss and waste could vary by country, business and consumer. U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions are encouraged to consult the Food Loss and Waste Protocol for information on defining and transparently measuring food loss and waste. It is at the Champion's discretion whether to calculate the 50 percent reduction on an absolute or per customer/consumer basis.

What is the EPA's Food Recovery Challenge?

EPA's Food Recovery Challenge offers participants access to data management software and technical assistance to help them quantify and improve their sustainable food management practices. Participants enter goals and report food waste diversion data annually into EPA's data management system. They then receive an annual climate profile report that translates their food diversion data results into greenhouse gas reductions as well as other measures such as "cars off the road" to help participants communicate the benefits of activities implemented. EPA provides on-going technical assistance to EPA's Food Recovery Challenge participants to encourage continuous improvement.

Businesses that are not ready to make the 50-percent reduction commitment but are engaged in efforts to reduce food loss and waste in their operations can be recognized for their efforts by joining the Food Recovery Challenge.

U.S. Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions can also join EPA's Food Recovery Challenge to access technical assistance for measuring food waste and assessing the positive environmental benefits of waste reduction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much food waste is there in the United States? In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30-40 percent of the food supply. This estimate, based on estimates from USDA's Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010.