Elsevier

Science of The Total Environment

Volume 685, 1 October 2019, Pages 1240-1254
Science of The Total Environment

Review
A systems approach to assessing environmental and economic effects of food loss and waste interventions in the United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.230Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • An estimated 30% to 50% of food is lost or wasted in the United States.

  • FLW has multidimensional upstream and downstream environmental impacts.

  • FLW prevention efforts may have greater environmental benefits than recovery.

  • Better measures of environmental impacts associated with interventions are needed.

  • FLW interventions should be evaluated within an economic analysis framework.

Abstract

Reducing food loss and waste (FLW) is critical for achieving healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Within the United States, 30% to 50% of food produced is lost or wasted. These losses occur throughout multiple stages of the food supply chain from production to consumption. Reducing FLW prevents the waste of land, water, energy, and other resources embedded in food and is therefore essential to improving the sustainability of food systems. Despite the increasing number of studies identifying FLW reduction as a societal imperative, we lack the information needed to assess fully the effectiveness of interventions along the supply chain. In this paper, we synthesize the available literature, data, and methods for estimating the volume of FLW and assessing the full environmental and economic effects of interventions to prevent or reduce FLW in the United States. We describe potential FLW interventions in detail, including policy changes, technological solutions, and changes in practices and behaviors at all stages of the food system from farms to consumers and approaches to conducting economic analyses of the effects of interventions. In summary, this paper comprehensively reviews available information on the causes and consequences of FLW in the United States and lays the groundwork for prioritizing FLW interventions to benefit the environment and stakeholders in the food system.

Abbreviations

BTU
British thermal unit
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CEC
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CH4
methane
CO2
carbon dioxide
EEIO
environmentally extended input-output
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERS
Economic Research Service
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FDA
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FLW
food loss and waste
FWRA
Food Waste Reduction Alliance
GHG
greenhouse gas
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
K2O
potash
LAFA
Loss-Adjusted Food Availability
LCA
life-cycle assessment
MMT
million metric tons
MSW
municipal solid waste
N2O
nitrous oxide
NGO
nongovernmental organization
NH3
ammonia
NH4
ammonium
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NO3
nitrate
NRDC
Natural Resources Defense Council
P2O5
phosphorus
PO4
phosphate
ReFED
Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
VNF
virtual N factor
WARM
Waste Reduction Model
WRI
World Resources Institute
WWF
World Wildlife Fund

Keywords

Food loss and waste
Food system
Environmental impacts
Interventions
Cost-benefit analysis

Cited by (0)

This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1639145. The funder had no involvement in the research or preparation of the article.