Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development

Abstract

There has been growing interest in establishing food waste prevention and recovery programs throughout the world. The drive to target food waste stems from increasing concerns about resource conservation, food security, food waste's environmental and economic costs, and a general trend in the waste management industry to transition to more sustainable practices. Here the drivers of residential, institutional, and commercial food waste generation in developed countries, particularly in the U.S., are explored. The impacts of food system modernization on food waste generation are examined, including impacts related to food system industrialization, urbanization, globalization, and economic growth. Socio-demographic, cultural, political, and economic drivers of food waste are described with emphasis on how food waste perspectives may vary globally. Specific behaviors and attitudes which result from many of these waste drivers are then discussed. The examination of the range of food wastage drivers are used to provide insight into the best policy approaches to sustainably manage food waste. Food waste prevention policies are placed in context of the waste generating behaviors and attitudes that they address. A review of important background information on food waste is also provided, including definitions of key terms, food waste history, quantities of food waste generated, and the importance of food waste prevention for sustainability, as this information is all critical for effective policy development.

Full text

Resources,
Conservation
and
Recycling
106
(2016)
110–123
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Resources,
Conservation
and
Recycling
jo
u
r
n
al
homep
age:
www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Review
Drivers
of
food
waste
and
their
implications
for
sustainable
policy
development
Krista
L.
Thyberg∗,
David
J.
Tonjes
Department
of
Technology
and
Society,
Stony
Brook
University,
Stony
Brook,
NY
11794-3760,
USA
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
29
August
2015
Received
in
revised
form
24
October
2015
Accepted
25
November
2015
Keywords:
Food
waste
Waste
management
Waste
prevention
Sustainability
Behavior
Policy
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
There
has
been
growing
interest
in
establishing
food
waste
prevention
and
recovery
programs
throughout
the
world.
The
drive
to
target
food
waste
stems
from
increasing
concerns
about
resource
conservation,
food
security,
food
waste’s
environmental
and
economic
costs,
and
a
general
trend
in
the
waste
manage-
ment
industry
to
transition
to
more
sustainable
practices.
Here
the
drivers
of
residential,
institutional,
and
commercial
food
waste
generation
in
developed
countries,
particularly
in
the
U.S.,
are
explored.
The
impacts
of
food
system
modernization
on
food
waste
generation
are
examined,
including
impacts
related
to
food
system
industrialization,
urbanization,
globalization,
and
economic
growth.
Socio-demographic,
cultural,
political,
and
economic
drivers
of
food
waste
are
described
with
emphasis
on
how
food
waste
perspectives
may
vary
globally.
Specific
behaviors
and
attitudes
which
result
from
many
of
these
waste
drivers
are
then
discussed.
The
examination
of
the
range
of
food
wastage
drivers
are
used
to
provide
insight
into
the
best
policy
approaches
to
sustainably
manage
food
waste.
Food
waste
prevention
poli-
cies
are
placed
in
context
of
the
waste
generating
behaviors
and
attitudes
that
they
address.
A
review
of
important
background
information
on
food
waste
is
also
provided,
including
definitions
of
key
terms,
food
waste
history,
quantities
of
food
waste
generated,
and
the
importance
of
food
waste
prevention
for
sustainability,
as
this
information
is
all
critical
for
effective
policy
development.
©
2015
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
2.
Background:
food
waste
definitions,
history,
and
quantities
generated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
2.1.
Food
waste
definitions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
2.2.
Food
waste
history
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
2.3.
Food
waste
quantification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
112
3.
The
importance
of
food
waste
prevention
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
112
3.1.
Environmental
impacts
of
food
production,
storage,
and
transportation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.112
3.2.
Economic
losses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
3.3.
Food
insecurity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
3.4.
Environmental
impacts
of
food
waste
disposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
4.
Drivers
of
residential,
institutional
and
commercial
food
waste
generation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
4.1.
Modernization
of
food
systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
4.1.1.
Industrialization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
4.1.2.
Economic
growth.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.116
4.1.3.
Urbanization.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.116
4.1.4.
Globalization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
116
4.2.
Cultural
factors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
117
4.3.
Socio-demographic
factors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
117
∗Corresponding
author.
E-mail
address:
KLThyberg@gmail.com
(K.L.
Thyberg).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016
0921-3449/©
2015
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.

K.L.
Thyberg,
D.J.
Tonjes
/
Resources,
Conservation
and
Recycling
106
(2016)
110–123
111
4.4.
Policies
driving
food
waste
generation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
117
5.
Behaviors
and
attitudes
leading
to
residential,
institutional,
and
commercial
food
wastage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
5.1.
Institutional
and
commercial
behaviors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
5.2.
Residential
behaviors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
6.
Discussion:
policies
for
food
waste
prevention
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
6.1.
Policies
to
prevent
food
waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
119
6.2.
A
multi-faceted
policy
approach.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.119
6.3.
Selecting
the
best
policy
approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
7.
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
Acknowledgements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
1.
Introduction
In
the
U.S.,
food
waste
makes
up
nearly
15
percent
of
the
dis-
posed
municipal
waste
stream
and
Americans
dispose
over
0.6
pounds
of
food
waste
per
person
per
day.
The
amount
of
food
waste
disposed
has
been
increasing
over
time
(Thyberg
et
al.,
2015).
Glob-
ally,
it
has
been
estimated
that
one-third
of
the
edible
parts
of
food
produced
for
human
consumption
is
lost
or
wasted
(Gustavsson
et
al.,
2011).
Wasted
food
is
a
considerable
component
of
the
world’s
food
system
challenges.
The
global
population
is
quickly
growing,
urbanizing,
and
becoming
wealthier,
leading
to
a
diver-
sification
of
dietary
patterns
and
an
increase
in
demand
for
land,
resources,
and
greenhouse
gas
intensive
foods,
such
as
meat
and
dairy.
It
is
estimated
that
continuing
population
and
consumption
growth
worldwide
will
lead
to
an
increase
in
the
global
demand
for
food
for
at
least
40
more
years,
leading
to
intensified
use
of
natural
resources,
especially
land,
water,
and
energy
(Godfray
et
al.,
2010).
These
difficulties
are
exacerbated
by
the
world’s
changing
environ-
mental
conditions
which
cause
food
production
to
be
unpredictable
and
increasingly
difficult
globally
(Garnett,
2014).
It
is
becoming
clear
that
the
many
negative
environmental
effects
of
food
systems
must
be
minimized
to
ensure
enough
food
is
available
to
feed
the
world’s
growing
population
in
a
sustain-
able
way
(Tilman
et
al.,
2001).
Shifting
toward
more
sustainable
food
systems
is
both
essential
and
urgent,
and
actions
are
needed
throughout
food
systems
on
moderating
demand,
producing
more
food,
improving
governance,
and
reducing
waste
(Godfray
and
Garnett,
2014).
By
wasting
edible
food,
all
of
the
resources
spent
growing,
producing,
processing,
and
transporting
that
food
are
also
wasted,
resulting
in
potentially
needless
environmental
impact
(Gustavsson
et
al.,
2011).
Reduced
food
waste
and
proper
waste
management
can
also
save
economic
resources,
contribute
to
food
security,
and
minimize
negative
impacts
of
food
waste
on
waste
management
systems.
Interest
in
food
waste
prevention
and
recovery
has
grown
rapidly
in
the
U.S.
and
abroad,
as
reflected
in
federal
and
state
policies
(Pearson
et
al.,
2013;
Platt
et
al.,
2014).
A
recent
survey
indicated
that
awareness
of
food
waste
has
begun
to
grow
among
U.S.
consumers
(Neff
et
al.,
2015).
However,
currently
very
little
food
waste
is
recovered
(USEPA,
2014)
and
prevention
initiatives
are
limited.
Prevention
programs
aim
to
reduce
the
amount
of
food
waste
generated
and
recovery
programs
typically
aim
to
divert
food
waste
from
disposal
(landfill
or
incineration)
and
treat
it
with
biological
treatment
(composting
or
anaerobic
digestion
[AD])
to
capture
nutrients
and/or
energy.
Food
waste
prevention
has
the
highest
economic,
social,
and
environmental
benefit
relative
to
other
waste
management
approaches.
The
environmental
bene-
fits
related
to
prevention
are
largely
explained
by
avoided
food
production
(Schott
and
Canovas,
2015).
Prevention
also
enables
economic
and
social
priorities
to
be
achieved
(e.g.,
money
saved
by
not
purchasing
food
that
is
disposed,
reallocated
excess
food
to
charity).
Effective
policies
for
food
waste
prevention
should
address
the
behaviors
and
motivations
of
food
waste
generation.
Some
past
work
has
focused
on
identifying
behavioral
causes
of
food
waste
using
surveys
and
interviews
(e.g.,
Graham-Rowe
et
al.,
2015;
Jorissen
et
al.,
2015;
Neff
et
al.,
2015;
Parizeau
et
al.,
2015).
Here
the
drivers
of
these
behaviors
are
first
explored
to
provide
a
broad
picture
of
food
waste
generation.
The
impacts
of
food
system
modernization
on
food
waste
generation
are
examined,
particu-
larly
impacts
related
to
food
system
industrialization,
urbanization,
globalization,
and
economic
growth.
Socio-demographic,
cultural,
political,
and
economic
drivers
of
food
wastage
are
reviewed
with
emphasis
on
how
food
waste
perspectives
may
vary
globally.
Next,
specific
behaviors
which
result
from
many
of
these
waste
drivers
are
discussed.
This
knowledge
of
food
wastage
drivers
and
behav-
iors
are
then
used
to
provide
insight
into
the
best
policy
approaches
to
sustainably
manage
food
waste.
Food
waste
prevention
policies
are
placed
in
context
of
the
waste
generating
behaviors
and
atti-
tudes
that
they
address.
This
research
can
be
used
to
guide
the
development
and
implementation
of
multi-faceted
food
waste
pre-
vention
programs
which
address
the
three
aspects
of
sustainability
(economic,
environmental,
and
social
factors).
2.
Background:
food
waste
definitions,
history,
and
quantities
generated
2.1.
Food
waste
definitions
Definitions
of
food
waste
are
not
universally
agreed
upon
(Lebersorger
and
Schneider,
2011),
which
makes
studying
and
quantifying
food
waste
difficult
(Buzby
and
Hyman,
2012).
Dif-
ferent
categorizations
are
generated
based
on
what
materials
are
included,
means
of
production,
and
management
approaches
(Gjerris
and
Gaiani,
2013).
Multiple
terms
have
been
used
inter-
changeably,
such
as
food
loss,
food
waste,
biowaste,
and
kitchen
waste
(Schneider,
2013a).
Also,
often
the
same
terms
are
used,
but
with
different
meanings
(Gjerris
and
Gaiani,
2013).
This
is
exac-
erbated
when
reports
are
translated
(Schneider,
2013a).
Table
1
provides
an
overview
of
previously
used
definitions;
Table
2
pro-
vides
a
complete
definition
of
both
food
loss
and
food
waste
as
used
in
this
paper.
Here
focus
is
placed
on
food
waste
rather
than
food
loss
because
in
the
developed
world,
food
waste
is
generated
in
higher
quantities
than
food
loss.
Therefore,
the
greatest
potential
for
reduction
lies
with
the
generators
of
food
waste
(retail
and
con-
sumer
sectors)
rather
than
loss
(production
and
processing
sectors)
(NRDC,
2012;
Papargyropoulou
et
al.,
2014;
Parfitt
et
al.,
2010).
2.2.
Food
waste
history
A
history
of
food
waste
issues
in
the
U.S.
is
given
in
Table
3.
Examining
the
history
of
food
waste
provides
a
foundation
for

112
K.L.
Thyberg,
D.J.
Tonjes
/
Resources,
Conservation
and
Recycling
106
(2016)
110–123
Table
1
Food
waste
definitions.
Author
Year
Definition
Kling
1943
Food
waste
is
the
destruction
or
deterioration
of
food
or
the
use
of
crops,
livestock
and
livestock
products
in
ways
which
return
relatively
little
human
food
value.
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
(FAO)
1981
Food
waste
is
all
food
products
allocated
for
human
consumption
that
are
instead
discarded,
lost,
degraded,
or
consumed
by
pests
at
any
stage
of
the
food
chain.
FAO
2013
Food
waste
is
food
appropriate
for
human
consumption
that
is
discarded
(generally
at
retail
and
consumption
stages).
European
Commission
2014
Food
waste
is
food
(including
inedible
parts)
lost
from
the
food
supply
chain,
not
including
food
diverted
to
material
uses
such
as
bio-based
products,
animal
feed,
or
sent
for
redistribution.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
2014
Food
waste
is
uneaten
food
and
food
preparation
wastes
from
residences,
commercial,
and
institutional
establishments.
So,
food
wastes
from
homes,
grocery
stores,
restaurants,
bars,
factory
lunchrooms,
and
company
cafeterias
are
included.
Pre-consumer
food
waste
generated
during
food
manufacturing
and
packaging
are
excluded.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
(Buzby
et
al.,
2014)
2014
Food
waste
is
a
subset
of
food
loss
and
occurs
when
an
edible
item
goes
unconsumed.
Only
food
that
is
still
edible
at
the
time
of
disposal
is
considered
waste.
World
Resources
Institute
(WRI)
2015
Food
loss
and
waste
refers
to
food,
as
well
as
associated
inedible
parts,
removed
from
the
food
supply
chain.
Table
2
Food
waste
and
loss
definitions
used
in
this
study.
Term
Definition
Drivers
Sectors
included
Examples
Food
loss
Decrease
in
edible
food
mass
throughout
the
part
of
the
supply
chain
that
specifically
leads
to
edible
food
for
human
consumption
-
Infrastructure
limitations
-
Climate
and
environmental
factors
-
Quality,
esthetic,
or
safety
standards
Production,
post-harvest,
and
processing
-
Edible
crops
left
in
the
field
-
Food
that
spoils
due
to
poor
transportation
infrastructure
from
factory
to
supermarket
-
Food
that
is
contaminated
during
food
processing
Food
waste
Food
which
was
originally
produced
for
human
consumption
but
then
was
discarded
or
was
not
consumed
by
humans.
Includes
food
that
spoiled
prior
to
disposal
and
food
that
was
still
edible
when
thrown
away
-
Decisions
made
by
consumers
and
businesses
-
Quality,
esthetic,
or
safety
standards
Retail
and
consumer
-
Plate
waste
-
Food
that
spoils
due
to
poor
storage
in
home
or
restaurant
-
Restaurant
food
prepared
but
discarded
due
to
lack
of
demand
understanding
how
perceptions
of
food
waste
have
evolved
over
time
and
why
certain
food
wasting
behaviors
occur
today.
2.3.
Food
waste
quantification
Quantification
of
the
magnitude
of
food
waste
is
essential
for
the
development
of
effective,
well-planned
food
waste
manage-
ment
policies,
and
can
be
used
to
determine
if
future
food
waste
recovery
and
prevention
efforts
considerably
change
the
residual
waste
stream
(Thyberg
et
al.,
2015).
Understanding
the
extent
of
food
waste
may
provide
an
impetus
for
people
to
change
their
atti-
tudes
and
potentially
their
behaviors
toward
food
waste.
However,
definitional
issues,
the
absence
of
sound
quantification
methods,
and
a
general
lack
of
imperative
or
political
drive
have
led
to
con-
siderable
data
gaps
regarding
food
waste
quantities
(Parfitt
et
al.,
2010).
A
range
of
diverse
methodologies
have
been
used
to
quantify
food
waste,
all
of
which
have
some
drawbacks.
Some
approaches,
such
as
waste
characterization
sorts
and
materials
flow
modeling,
attempt
to
quantify
the
amount
of
food
waste
disposed
in
munici-
pal
solid
waste
(MSW)
(wastes
from
residential,
institutional,
and
commercial
sectors).
Other
methods
(e.g.,
food
diaries,
qualitative
surveys/interviews,
and
food
supply
and
nutrition
data
analyses)
focus
on
overall
generated
food
waste
amounts
from
specific
sec-
tors
(e.g.,
households,
restaurants)
or
aim
to
link
disposal
amounts
with
behavioral
actions.
Some
studies
focus
only
on
formal
wastes
and
exclude
wastes
that
escape
through
pathways
other
than
the
traditional
waste
management
systems
(e.g.,
waste
that
goes
down
the
drain,
food
that
is
composted
at
home,
food
fed
to
animals).
An
Australian
study
estimated
that
informal
food
waste
disposal
rep-
resented
20
percent
of
Australian
food
waste
flows
(Reynolds
et
al.,
2014),
which
suggests
that
informal
disposal
of
food
waste
in
the
U.S.
may
be
considerable.
Some
recent
efforts
have
been
made
to
standardize
or
improve
quantification
methods
(e.g.,
WRI,
2015;
Thyberg
et
al.,
2015),
although
estimates
are
still
varied
and
differ
in
their
definitions
and
methodologies
(WRI,
2015).
Table
4
presents
some
recent
pub-
lished
countrywide
and
global
estimates
of
food
loss
and
waste
and
illustrates
the
diversity
in
scope,
scale,
and
quantification
method-
ologies.
3.
The
importance
of
food
waste
prevention
A
sound
understanding
of
the
importance
of
studying
food
waste
provides
a
foundation
for
developing
sustainable
policies
to
address
it.
In
particular,
teaching
people
about
the
implications
of
food
waste
can
alter
their
perceptions
and
attitudes
toward
it,
potentially
yielding
behavior
changes
that
can
reduce
waste.
There-
fore,
the
four
primary
motivations
for
studying
food
waste
which
address
environmental,
economic,
and
social
issues
are
reviewed
here.
3.1.
Environmental
impacts
of
food
production,
storage,
and
transportation
There
is
growing
recognition
that
there
are
substantial
envi-
ronmental
burdens
associated
with
the
food
supply
system
(production,
packaging,
distribution,
and
marketing).
Producing
food
affects
the
environment
to
the
detriment
of
humans,
animals,
plants,
and
ecosystems
generally
(Gjerris
and
Gaiani,
2013).
There
has
been
a
decadal
shift
in
demand
from
local
and
seasonal
foods

K.L.
Thyberg,
D.J.
Tonjes
/
Resources,
Conservation
and
Recycling
106
(2016)
110–123
113
Table
3
U.S.
food
waste
history
timeline.
Period
Food
waste
activity
Pre-industrial(1750–1850)
-
Food
waste
accounted
for
the
majority
of
household
solid
waste
-In
the
U.S.,
these
wastes
were
often
fed
to
animals,
usually
pigs,
because
pigs
are
effective
at
turning
food
and
plant
wastes
back
into
food
(Ackerman,
1997)
1895
-
Atwater
(1895)
conducted
a
visual
survey
of
residential
New
York
waste
bins
and
noted
upper
class
areas
showed
a
large
portion
of
food
purchased
but
thrown
away;
waste
was
less
in
more
moderate
neighborhoods
1902
-
Atwater
(1902)
found
student
clubs
wasted
10–14%
of
nutritive
value
of
food;
institutions
wasted
up
to
25%
Early
1900s