Interview with Felicitas Schneider: “There is no silver bullet to solve this problem” 

On the eve of International Food Loss and Waste Awareness Day, we spoke about this matter of concern with Dr. Felicitas Schneider, coordinator of the Collaboration Initiative Food Loss and Waste launched at Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists of G20 countries, and affiliate to the Thünen Institute of Market Analysis. Don’t miss it! 

What are the consequences of food loss and food waste (FLW)? 

There are various negative consequences of FLW on global scale. Food is resource-demanding during production and processing which relates to a relevant environmental impact e.g., due to released emissions. It is estimated that 8 to 10 % of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to food loss and waste. Also, the water demand of food products which are not eaten by humans at the end is huge and estimated to be equal to three times the water volume of Lake Geneva per year.  

In addition, a lot of food is landfilled on global scale without any pre-treatment, leading to further release of methane due to anaerobic microbiological degradation. But there is also a considerable economic impact in case already produced food is not sold to be eaten which leads e.g., to income losses of farmers. In addition, if some countries demand more food than they really need, they induce higher prices on global scale which are not affordable for other countries anymore and thus reduce the access to sufficient food for specific groups.  

Another negative social impact refers not only to the 780 million hungry people but also to the fact that the most lost and wasted food items are nutrient dense as fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. The arable land which is used for producing food which is lost and wasted cannot be used for other purposes and may induce also land use conflicts in some regions. The considerable reduction of FLW is recognised as one important action to contribute to the projected gap of land, gap of food production and demand and the urgent need to reduce emissions from agriculture in the next decades.  

What importance is being given to this problem on the global agenda? 

The facts briefly summarised above is why halving FW and reducing FL is part of the Sustainable Development Goals of the Agenda 2030 but we have still a long way to go. In order to raise awareness towards the SD subgoal 12.3, our Collaboration Initiative Food Loss and Waste supported the Government of Argentina in 2018 to submit a proposal to the United Nations to implement the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. It was implemented on September 29th 2020 for the first time and aims to support ongoing global activities, share best practise and motivate stakeholders and individuals to join prevention actions. We as Thünen Institute e.g. organise public events on that day in cooperation with other initiatives. There, we process rescued surplus food which was dedicated to be wasted together with the public and in parallel, we provide information on the consequences of FLW as well as potential prevention action for everyone. But although there are a lot of success stories, we still have to work on optimisation of processes as well as public behaviour and attitudes in order to achieve considerable progress. 

We are in the age of hyperconnection and technologies available are increasingly advanced, why are we still not finding more efficient supply chains to prevent waste by getting it to the people most in need?  

In recent years, there was considerable progress in developing and implementing tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) supporting planning of production and forecasting demand in different levels of the food supply chain. I think that the use of those tools will increase in the next years and that there will be more and more cooperation between suppliers and clients to further optimise the processes in their relationship. In parallel, we have to address also the public and policy makers.  

The change of behaviour of individuals is very difficult and needs a long time, but there are promising trends that the young generation is more sensitive to environmental as well as social issues and that nudging activities can address and exploit the potential of change. Nevertheless, we must take care of the trade-offs which are not well researched at present to avoid the shift of negative impact from one stakeholder to another. Thus, policy makers should enhance science-based tools to monitor effectivity and efficiency of FLW prevention measures. 

Are we talking about a multifactorial problem? 

Yes, FLW prevention is very complex due to the complex food supply chains and related economic and social interrelations. We need to address trade-offs to find the best solution along the food supply chains in order to achieve sustainable strategies for the future. Therefore, we still need more cooperation among policy makers, researchers, companies and other stakeholders. 

There are valuable initiatives such as in Korea, where citizens pay for their waste, or in California, where grocery stores must donate their unsold food. Do you consider these initiatives to be valuable? If so, do you know of other proposals that could inspire cities around the world? 

There is no silver bullet to solve this problem, and this includes that each FLW prevention measure must be carefully selected according to local framework conditions like social norms, behaviour, attitudes and perception of the regional population, available infrastructure and many other factors. For example, the “Pay as you throw” scheme (PAYT) fits very well to societies who are used to behave according to the laws and strong social norms forcing the individual to do so.  

In other communities, such schemes would only induce illegal dumping (dumping food waste somewhere but not into organised waste collection) or so-called waste tourism (to dispose your waste e.g., at the office, university or other public places).  

The obligation to donate surplus food must be framed into accompanying measures which ensure that e.g., the quality of the donated products is safe and the logistic to redistribute that food is ensured. There must be a comprehensive strategy and a bundle of prevention measures which support each other in order to achieve positive impact. This would also include a monitoring system to be able to track changes, to identify trade-offs and to readjust accordingly. Unfortunately, in most cases we miss such monitoring systems.  

In addition, we should keep in mind, that food loss and waste prevention at source should be the highest priority and that other measures like redistribution and processing of surpluses etc. are only measures to manage misfunctions of the system but not to solve the problem itself. I am aware that zero waste strategy is not possible everywhere and at any time, but it should be the vision. 

Is the problem the same in all countries or is there more waste in rich countries than in poor countries? 

According to the recent reports from FAO and UNEP which are custodians to track progress of SDG 12.3 by using the Food Loss Index and the Food Waste Index, the problem is more or less the same everywhere.  

Past assumptions that food loss is only a problem in the Global South and food waste is a problem in industrialised regions turned out to miss reality. The reasons for food loss and waste might differ but we have to implement action and achieve progress for both indicators throughout all countries. 

Is it necessary to strictly follow the expiration dates of all products? That is, the day after a product expires, can it no longer be eaten, or does it depend on the food? 

In Europe the most used dates are the best before date (BBD) and the use by date. The BBD is only referring to specific (expected or promised) characteristics of a certain product and determined by the food producer. This means that most products are safe to eat also after they reached the BBD. You can use your senses to detect if the food is still edible or not – look, smell and taste.  

The use by date should only be used for super perishable products where there is the risk of harmful impact to health due to microbiological spoilage. Products which are labelled with a use by date should not be eaten anymore. We also have to keep in mind that there are plenty of products which are sold unpacked, and no date labelling is available. Also here, consumers must use their senses and experience to decide if the food is still safe to eat.  

Advanced technology will also be able to support real data-based decisions related to the actual condition of perishable food like raw meat, fish, mayonnaise etc. implemented in active packaging and monitored by different indicators showing the state of the food. I do hope that there will be a shift from the static date labelling to a dynamic one which will increase the use of food. 

If as a citizen you would like to be doing everything in your power to prevent food loss and waste, what series of actions should you be taking? 

From my point of view, there is a need to address the problem holistically and therefore, collaboration between stakeholders seems to be an important key in order to implement already existing measures. There is a further need to know more about the progress which can be achieved in practice and thus, monitoring tools have to be developed and implemented as well. This is to track progress and to identify advantages and disadvantages and to be able to adjust the implemented measures accordingly.  

Food loss and waste prevention should not be a burden and additional efforts implemented in future resilient food systems benefiting all stakeholders should be perceived as natural.