Study conducted for the

International Congress

SAVE FOOD!

at Interpack2011
Düsseldorf, Germany

Global
f o o d
losses
a n d
f o o d
waste
extent,
causes and
prevention

Study conducted for the
International Congress

SAVE FOOD!

at Interpack2011
Düsseldorf, Germany

Global
by
Jenny Gustavsson
Christel Cederberg
Ulf Sonesson

f o o d
Swedish Institute for Food
and Biotechnology (SIK)
Gothenburg, Sweden

losses
a n d
f o o d and
Robert van Otterdijk

waste
Alexandre Meybeck
FAO
Rome, Italy

extent,
causes and
prevention

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2011

Recommended citation
FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome

Cover photos: Jonathan Bloom and Nick Saltmarsh
Design: Simone Morini

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-107205-9

All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in
this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon
request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational
purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO
copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by
e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office
of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,
00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2011

Conclusions 15 References 16 Further reading 17 Annexes 23 .2 Types of food losses and food waste 2 2. iii Contents Preface iv Executive summary v 1.1 Food volumes produced 4 3.2 Extent of food losses and waste 4 4. Methodology 2 2.1 Definition of food losses and food waste 2 2.3 Quantification of food losses and waste 3 3. Introduction 1 2. Causes and prevention of food losses and waste 10 5. Extent of food losses and waste 4 3.

. as well as on climate change and on the use of natural resources. Germany. Save Food! has been co-organized by Interpack2011 and FAO. The two studies on global food losses (one for high/medium-income countries and one for low income countries) have been carried out to serve as a basis for the international congress Save Food!. and on the impact of these on poverty and hunger in the world. to Simone Morini for the cover design and the layout. at the international packaging industry fair Interpack2011 in Düsseldorf. and to Larissa D'Aquilio for the graphic project coordination. Special thanks go to Jonathan Bloom. The authors would like to thank Lisa Kitinoja. Harris Graber and Nick Saltmarsh for their photos. Felicitas Schneider. Save Food! aims at awareness raising on global food losses and waste. Adel Kader. 16-17 May 2011. Vaclav Smil and Jesper Stage among other researchers who have contributed helpful inputs throughout the project.iv Preface This publication is based on studies carried out from August 2010 to January 2011 by The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) on request from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Overall. while this figure in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg/year. Given that many smallholder farmers in developing countries live on the margins of food insecurity. Farmer-buyer sales agreements may contribute to quantities of farm crops being wasted. in combination with the careless attitude of those consumers who can afford to waste food. Significant losses also occur early in the food supply chains in the industrialized regions. and that the greenhouse gas emissions caused by production of food that gets lost or wasted are also emissions in vain. meaning that it is discarded even if it is still suitable for human consumption. The results of the study suggest that roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally. This inevitably also means that huge amounts of the resources used in food production are used in vain. retailers and consumers. The study revealed that there are major data gaps in the knowledge of global food loss and waste. insufficient purchase planning and expiring ‘best-before-dates’ also cause large amounts of waste. storage and cooling facilities in difficult climatic conditions. infrastructure. v Executive summary The study highlights the losses occurring along the entire food chain. transportation. inter alia. managerial and technical limitations in harvesting techniques. We estimate that the per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95-115 kg/year. Further research in the area is urgent. on a per-capita basis.and high-income countries food is to a significant extent wasted at the consumption stage. The causes of food losses and waste in medium/high-income countries mainly relate to consumer behaviour as well as to a lack of coordination between different actors in the supply chain. The causes of food losses and waste in low-income countries are mainly connected to financial.3 billion tons per year. it identifies causes of food losses and possible ways of preventing them. At the consumer level. Investments in infrastructure. packaging and marketing systems. . Food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain. There is a need to find good and beneficial use for safe food that is presently thrown away. a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods. from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. and makes assessments of their magnitude. food industries and packaging industries are also required. much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries. Food can be wasted due to quality standards. Both the public and private sectors have a role to play in achieving this. In medium. much less food is wasted at the consumer level. The food supply chains in developing countries need to be strengthened by. encouraging small farmers to organize and to diversify and upscale their production and marketing. Further. Food waste in industrialized countries can be reduced by raising awareness among food industries. which reject food items not perfect in shape or appearance. In low-income countries food is lost mostly during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain. which amounts to about 1.

This study illustrate that one of the first mean to fight imbalances and reduce tensions between the necessary increase in consumption and the challenging increase in production. water. reducing food losses should not be a forgotten priority.vi Food security is a major concern in large parts of the developing world. Food production must clearly increase significantly to meet the future demands of an increasing and more affluent world population. energy. is to also promote food loss reduction which alone has a considerable potential to increase the efficiency of the whole food chain. In a world with limited natural resources (land. and where cost-effective solutions are to be found to produce enough safe and nutritious food for all. . fertilizer).

the priority is clearly to have access to food products that are nutritious. of course. For poor consumers (food insecure or at-risk households). which are probably substantial. and there is not much ongoing research in the area. focussing on quantitative weight losses. require that financial gains from reduced losses are not outweighed by their costs. food losses should be kept to a minimum. and consumer purchasing and food use practices. How much food is lost and wasted in the world today and how can we prevent food losses? Those are questions impossible to give precise answers to. Improving the efficiency of the food supply chain could help to bring down the cost of food to the consumer and thus increase access. making profitable investments in reducing losses could be one way of reducing the cost of food. The two studies highlighted the food losses occurring along food chains. FAO hired the services of the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) to carry out two studies on the extent and effects. and one for low-income countries. In broad terms. This is quite surprising as forecasts suggest that food production must increase significantly to meet future global demand. raise income and improve food security in the world’s poorest countries. For the international congress Save Food! at Interpack2011. Given the magnitude of food losses. internal infrastructure and capacity. It is important to note that food insecurity is often more a question of access (purchasing power and prices of food) than a supply problem. They compile. Irrespective of the level of economic development and maturity of systems in a country. on economic development and on the environment. assessments and assumptions have been made. Food losses have an impact on food security for poor people. analyze and assemble data and reports produced on the topic of global food loss and waste during recent years. Food losses represent a waste of resources used in production such as land. a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods. But that would. 1 1. marketing chains and channels for distribution. The exact causes of food losses vary throughout the world and are very much dependent on the specific conditions and local situation in a given country. Results of the two studies are combined in this paper. Insufficient attention appears to be paid to current global food supply chain losses. on food quality and safety. food losses will be influenced by crop production choices and patterns. Introduction The issue of food losses is of high importance in the efforts to combat hunger. safe and affordable. . energy and inputs. Economically avoidable food losses have a direct and negative impact on the income of both farmers and consumers. Where information was not available. water. as well as causes and prevention of food losses and food waste. one for high/medium-income countries. Producing food that will not be consumed leads to unnecessary CO2 emissions in addition to loss of economic value of the food produced. Given that many smallholders live on the margins of food insecurity. and made assessments of the magnitude of these losses.

This approach distinguishes “planned” non-food uses to “unplanned” non-food uses. (Parfitt et al. storage and transportation between farm and distribution. Therefore food that was originally meant to human consumption but which fortuity gets out the human food chain is considered as food loss or waste even if it is then directed to a non-food use (feed. retailers and wet markets.. “Food” waste or loss is measured only for products that are directed to human consumption. canning and bread baking. Animal commodities and products: Agricultural production: for bovine.1 Definition of food losses and food waste Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the part of the supply chain that specifically leads to edible food for human consumption. threshing or fruit picking). For milk.2 Types of food losses/waste Five system boundaries were distinguished in the food supply chains (FSC) of vegetable and animal commodities. food losses or waste are the masses of food lost or wasted in the part of food chains leading to “edible products going to human consumption”. 2. Food losses take place at production. The following aspects were considered: Vegetable commodities and products: Agricultural production: losses due to mechanical damage and/or spillage during harvest operation (e. Post-harvest handling and storage: including losses due to spillage and degradation during handling. Processing: including losses due to spillage and degradation during industrial or domestic processing. Food loss/ waste were estimated for each of these segments of the FSC. For fish. Food losses occurring at the end of the food chain (retail and final consumption) are rather called “food waste”.. excluding feed and parts of products which are not edible. post- harvest and processing stages in the food supply chain (Parfitt et al. losses refer to discards during fishing. juice production. . e. crops sorted out post-harvest. Distribution: including losses and waste in the market system. in order to quantify food losses and wastes. Consumption: including losses and waste during consumption at the household level. supermarkets. slicing and boiling or during process interruptions and accidental spillage. pork and poultry meat. Methodology The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) has reconstructed mass flows of food aimed to human consumption. from production to consumption. which are hereby accounted under losses. 2.g.2 2. 2010). Per definition.g. peeling. etc. Losses may occur when crops are sorted out if not suitable to process or during washing. losses refer to animal death during breeding. 2010). using available data. bioenergy…).g. wholesale markets. which relates to retailers’ and consumers’ behavior. at e. losses refer to decreased milk production due to dairy cow sickness (mastitis).

commodity groups and/or steps of the FSC. losses refer to death during transport to slaughter and condemnation at slaughterhouse. 2. The production volumes for oil crops and pulses were collected from FAO’s Food Balance Sheets (FAOSTAT 2010d). losses refer to spillage during industrial milk treatment (e. results from the literature on global food waste and SIK’s own assumptions. Processing: for bovine. For fish. losses refer to spillage and degradation during icing.Chapter 2 − Methodology 3 Post-harvest handling and storage: for bovine. sausage production. e. Model equations are provided in Annex 5. Consumption: includes losses and waste at the household level. retailers and wet markets. using available data. For each commodity group a mass flows model was used to account for food losses and waste in each step of the commodity’s FSC. pasteurization) and milk processing to. losses refer to trimming spillage during slaughtering and additional industrial processing. .3 Quantification of food losses and waste Physical mass of food produced for human consumption and of food lost and wasted throughout the food supply chain have been quantified.g.. At each stage of the Food Supply Chain. Allocation factors have been applied to determine the part of the produce oriented to human consumption (and not for animal feed).g. based on food waste levels in comparable regions. losses refer to spillage and degradation during transportation between farm and distribution. losses and waste were estimated using FAO’s Food Balance Sheets from the year 2007 and results from a thorough literature search on the topic of global food waste. For milk. For milk. For fish. The production volumes for all commodities (except for oil crops and pulses) were collected from the FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009 (FAOSTAT 2010a). e. The sources and assumptions behind these estimations are described in detail in the study reports from SIK.g. Conversion factors have been applied to determine the edible mass (Annex 2). wholesale markets. Where there are gaps of knowledge. pork and poultry meat. at e. SIK has made own assumptions and estimations. cheese and yoghurt. pork and poultry meat. Distribution: includes losses and waste in the market system. storage and transportation after landing. supermarkets.g. losses refer to industrial processing such as canning or smoking. The figures used are presented in Annex 4. packaging.

Meat production in Industrialized Asia was dominated by large pig (around 46 million ton) and chicken (around 12 million ton) production. except for the production volumes of oil crops and pulses which were collected from FAO’s FBS. however. Figure 1. Animal production in sub-Saharan Africa mostly consisted of cattle (around 4 million ton) and in North Africa. also occur early in the food supply chain. 3. The production volumes were compiled from the FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009. meaning that it is thrown away even if it is still suitable for human consumption. in the regions of the world studied.and high-income countries food is to a great extent wasted. from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. Meat produced in South and Southeast Asia mainly consisted of pig (7 million ton) and chicken (9 million ton). with chicken (18 million ton). West and Central Asia it was mostly chicken (around 4 million ton) production. which is about 1. In developing regions. Meat production in Europe was dominated by pig (around 27 million ton) while it was more diversified in North America and Oceania.4 3. including animal feed products (which are then factored out using allocation factors). 2007. meat in Latin America was dominated by large cattle (around 15 million ton) and chicken (around 17 million ton) production. per region (million tonnes) 700 Europe North America. West and Central Asia South and Southeast Asia 400 Latin America 300 200 100 0 Cereals Roots and Oilcrops Fruits and Meat Fish Dairy tubers and pulses vegetables . In medium. Significant food loss and waste do. Oceania 600 Industrialized Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 500 North Africa.1 Food volumes produced Figure 1 illustrates the 2007 production volumes of all commodity groups in their primary form.2 Extent of food losses and waste Roughly one-third of the edible parts of food produced for human consumption. Production volumes of each commodity group. Food is wasted throughout the FSC. In low-income countries food is mainly lost during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain. gets lost or wasted globally. Extent of food losses and waste 3.3 billion ton per year. much less food is wasted at the consumer level. cattle (16 million ton) and pig (12 million ton).

Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste 5 Figure 2. as opposed to the distribution and consumption levels. Food losses in industrialized countries are as high as in developing countries. in Europe and North-America. In the case of cereals (Figure 3). while in industrialized countries. but in developing countries more than 40% of the food losses occur at post-harvest and processing levels. in different regions Per capita food losses and waste (kg/year) 350 Consumer 300 Production to retailing 250 200 150 100 50 0 Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. between 40-50% of total cereal food waste. however. Per capita food losses and waste. also high. due to quality standards set by retailers. wheat is the dominant crop supply in medium. South and Latin America America and Asia Africa West and Southeast Oceania Central Asia Asia Figure 2 shows that the per capita food loss in Europe and North-America is 280-300 kg/year. In sub- Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia it is 120-170 kg/year. In low-income regions rice is the dominant crop. Per capita food wasted by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95-115 kg/year.and high-income countries. especially in the highly populated region of South and Southeast Asia. In the roots and tubers group (Figure 4). For these regions. Food waste at the consumer level is. while this figure in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg/year. Results indicate that all three medium. at consumption and pre-consumptions stages. . agricultural production and post-harvest handling and storage are stages in the FSC with relatively high food losses. The graphs of the seven commodity groups below show the percentage food losses and waste of the edible parts of food products that were produced for human consumption.and high-income regions loose the largest volumes during agricultural production. Food waste at consumer level in industrialized countries (222 million ton) is almost as high as the total net food production in sub- Saharan Africa (230 million ton). more than 40% of the food losses occur at retail and consumer levels. and the consumer phase is the stage with largest losses. This mainly depends on post-harvest crop grading. in sub- Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia.and high-income countries. The total per capita production of edible parts of food for human consumption is. 460 kg/year. potato (sweet potato in China) is the dominating crop supply in medium. about 900 kg/year and.

as opposed to the distribution and consumption levels. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages of the FSC for root and tuber crops in different region Food losses . for cereals in different regions Food losses . especially in the warm and humid climates of many developing countries.6 Global food losses and food waste Figure 3. South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia . One reason for this is that fresh roots and tubers are perishable.Cereals 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-harvest 10% Agriculture 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Sahara North Africa.Roots and Tubers 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-harvest 10% Agriculture 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. In the oil crops and pulses commodity group (Figure 5). South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia Cassava is the dominant supply crop in SSA and LA and potato the dominant crop in North America. Part of the initial production lost or wasted. Figure 4. West Asia and Central Asia. and South and Southeast Asia. Losses in all medium. sunflower seed and rape seed are the dominating crop supplies in Europe. which make these products easily damaged during harvest and post-harvest activities. at different FSC stages.and high-income regions are relatively large during agricultural production. while soybeans are the dominating crop supply in North America and Oceania and Industrialized Asia. contributing waste percentages between 6 and 12% during harvest. agricultural production and post-harvest handling and storage are stages in the FSC with relatively high food losses. For these regions.

In developing regions losses in agricultural production dominate total losses throughout the FSC. Waste at the end of the FSC is also substantial in all three regions. also due to the fact that oil crops in the distribution and consumption stages are mainly consumed as vegetable oils. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages in the FSC for oilseeds and pulses in different regions Food losses . Losses in these regions are largest in agricultural production and during post-harvest handling and storage.Oilseeds and Pulses 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-harvest 10% Agriculture 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. however. In the fruits and vegetables commodity group (Figure 6). South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia Groundnut is a dominant oil crop in SSA. products which are wasted relatively little compared to fresh products. with 15-30% of purchases by mass discarded by consumers.Fruits and vegetables 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-harvest 10% Agriculture 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. losses in agricultural production dominate for all three industrialized regions.Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste 7 Figure 5. Losses during post-harvest and distribution stages are also severe. West and Central Asia. soybean and coconut in South and Southeast Asia and soybean in Latin America. mostly due to post-harvest fruit and vegetable grading caused by quality standards set by retailers. This is. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages of the FSC for fruits and vegetables in different regions Food losses . which can be explained by deterioration of Figure 6. South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia . soybean and olives in North America.

Part of the initial production lost or wasted for meat products at different stages in the FSC in different regions Food losses . pneumonia.S. lost and wasted in different regions and at different stages in the FSC Food losses . South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia . Waste at the consumption level makes up approximately half of total meat losses and waste.8 Global food losses and food waste Figure 7. explained by a high per capita meat consumption combined with large waste proportions by retailers and consumers. The relatively low levels of waste during agricultural production and post-harvest handling and storage can be explained by relatively low losses due to animal mortality during breeding and transportation to slaughter.Meat 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Slaughter 10% Animal production 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa.Fish and seafood 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-catch 10% Fisheries 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. This is explained by high animal mortality. In the case of meat and meat products (Figure 7): losses and waste in industrialized regions are most severe at the end of the FSC. caused by frequent diseases (e. Losses in all developing regions are distributed quite equally throughout the FSC. digestive diseases and parasites) in livestock breeding. Part of the initial catchings (fish and seafood harvested) discarded.g. especially in Europe and the U. but notable is the relatively high losses in agricultural production in SSA. Figure 8. South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia perishable crops in the warm and humid climate of many developing countries as well as by seasonality that leads to unsaleable gluts.

For all three industrialized regions. For milk (Figure 9): waste at the consumption level makes up approximately 40-65% of total food waste in all three industrialized regions. A large proportion of purchased fish and seafood is also wasted by consumer households. as well as at the distribution level. dying or badly damaged). represent a significant part of the world’s marine catches and is generally considered a wasteful misuse of marine resources. The latest global study conducted by FAO in 2005 suggests that discard have dropped to 7. South and Latin America and Asia Africa West and Southeast America Oceania Central Asia Asia . large variations among fishing methods and regions exist (Kelleher. Losses in agricultural production are significant since dairy cow illness (mostly mastitis infections) causes an approximate 3-4% decrease in milk yield. reductions seem to have been significant. losses in primary production mostly depend on discard rates between 6-8% of marine catches. The first global assessment was published in 1994 and it identified a total discard of 27 million ton (Alverson et al. The latest assessment corresponds to a weighted global discard ratio of 8%.. High losses at the distribution level can be explained by high levels of deterioration occurring during fresh fish and seafood distribution. However. 2005).Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste 9 Box 1. Snapshot case: fish discards Fish discards as potential human consumption Discards. losses in primary fish and seafood (Figure 8) production are significant due to discard rates of between 9-15% of marine catches. the proportion of total catch that is returned to the sea (in most case dead.Dairy products 60% 50% 40% Consumption 30% Distribution Processing 20% Post-harvest 10% Agriculture 0% Europe North Industrialized Sub-Saharan North Africa. is relatively high. For all developing regions. 1994). In developing countries. Even if the first was overestimated and the latter underestimated. Figure 9.3 million but the figures are not totally comparable. Part of the initial milk and diary production lost or wasted for each region at different stages in the FSC Food losses . waste of milk during post-harvest handling and storage.

In order to ensure delivery of agreed quantities while anticipating unpredictable bad weather or pest attacks. developed countries. the food incurs a loss in nutritional and economic value. At the farm.and high-income countries food is to a high extent wasted.10 4. In low-income countries food is mostly lost during the production-to-processing stages of the food supply chain. also occur earlier in the food supply chain. all carrots passed through photographic sensor machines. however. Carrots that were not bright orange. were sent off as animal feed. Box 2. In developing countries and. Tristram Stuart visited several British farms in order to understand how quality standards affect the level of food waste. 2009).H. In the packing house. Causes and prevention of food losses and waste Food is wasted throughout the FSC. In the case of having produced more than required. such as being the wrong shape or size. Prevention: Organizing small farmers and diversifying and upscaling their production and marketing. Cooperation among farmers could reduce risk of overproduction by allowing surplus crops from one farm to solve a shortage of crops on another (Stuart. Poor farmers sometimes harvest crops too early due to food deficiency or the desperate need for cash during the second half of the agricultural season. However. even if it is still suitable for human consumption. Poskitt Carrots were out-graded. Poskitt Carrots in Yorkshire. Small resource-poor farmers can be organized in groups to produce a variety of significant quantities of cash crops or animals. some surplus crops are sold to processors or as animal feed. being broken or having a cleft or a blemish. meaning that it is thrown away. farmers sometimes make production plans on the safe side. As staff at the farm put it: “Asda insist that all carrots should be straight. Stuart visited M. food may be lost due to premature harvesting. Prevention: Communication and cooperation between farmers. and may get wasted if it is not suitable for consumption. which. In total. so customers can peel the full length in one easy stroke” (Stuart. this is often not financially profitable considering lower prices in these sectors compared to those from retailers. Significant food loss and waste do. searching for aesthetic defects. sometimes. by the supermarket chain Asda As research for the book ‘Waste – understanding the global food scandal’ (2009). . the author was shown large quantities of out-graded carrots.H. Among others. even if conditions are “average”. In medium. and end-up producing larger quantities than needed. a major supplier to the supermarket chain Asda. In this way. had a blend or blemish or were broken were swept off into a livestock feed container. 2009). About half of these were rejected due to physical or aesthetic defects. having a slight bend. In industrialized countries food gets lost when production exceeds demand. In this way they can receive credit from agricultural financial institutions or advance payments from buyers of the produce. from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. 25-30% of all carrots handled by M. Snapshot case: appearance quality standards Carrot quality standards.

large portions of crops never leave the farms. drying and winnowing. Prevention: investment in infrastructure and transportation. 2009). Prevention: Consumer surveys by supermarkets. such as naturally occurring toxins in food itself. This could be achieved through. Proper storage facilities are also important in order to reduce the amounts of food lost during post-harvest handling and storage.. This could be done by questioning them and offering them a broader quality range of products in the retail stores. Some produce is rejected by supermarkets at the farm gate due to rigorous quality standards concerning weight. Consumers have the power to influence the quality standards. Failure to comply with minimum food safety standards can lead to food losses and. Tajikistan A farmer winnowing rice in Tursunzade. contaminated water. and veterinary drug residues. Governments should improve the infrastructure for roads. unsafe use of pesticides. A range of factors can lead to food being unsafe. Subsequently. Prevention: Sales closer to consumers. Tajikistan in 2010. Even though some rejected crops are used as animal feed. 2006). Maximov . farmers markets and farm shops (Stuart. size or appearance. Poor storage facilities and lack of infrastructure cause post-harvest food losses in developing countries. Poor and unhygienic handling and storage conditions. and lack of adequate temperature control. vegetables. private sector investments can improve storage and cold chain facilities as well as transportation (Choudhury. impact on the food security status of a country. size and appearance would possibly reduce the amount of rejected crops. which may eat or damage the harvested crops. Chapter 4 − Causes and prevention of food losses and waste 11 High ‘appearance quality standards’ from supermarkets for fresh products lead to food waste. Stuart. Fresh products like fruits. e. Selling farm crops closer to consumers without having to pass the strict quality standards set up by supermarkets on weight. Foods need to Box 3.g. Sun drying exposes rice to rodents and parasites. size. Food chain operators should be skilled and knowledgeable in how to produce safe food. Surveys do however show that consumers are willing to buy heterogeneous produce as long as the taste is not affected (Stuart. energy and markets. Unsafe food is not fit for human consumption and therefore is wasted. cooling and markets (Rolle. Prevention: develop knowledge and capacity of food chain operators to apply safe food handling practices. shape and appearance of crops. Snapshot case: poor post-harvest facilities Lack of facilities for rice threshing. 2009). meat and fish straight from the farm or after the catch can be spoilt in hot climates due to lack of infrastructure for transportation. 2009). 2006. Supermarkets seem convinced that consumers will not buy food which has the ‘wrong’ weight. storage. ©FAO / V. Therefore. can also cause unsafe food. the quality standards might divert food originally aimed for human consumption to other uses (Stuart. in extreme cases. 2009).

The unwanted products are sorted out and occasionally end up wasted. SEPA. ©FAO / g. This requires the application of good agricultural and good hygienic practices by all food chain operators to ensure that the final food protects the consumer. D. Errors during processing lead to final products with the wrong weight. 2004). ‘Disposing is cheaper than using or re-using’ attitude in industrialized countries leads to food waste. Box 5. some potatoes are sorted out prior to entering the factory. handled and stored in accordance with food safety standards. without affecting the safety. could be used for human consumption but are usually disposed of. 2008). shape or appearance. Both commercial and charity organizations could arrange for the collection and sale or use of discarded ‘sub-standard’ products that are still safe and of good taste and nutritional value (SEPA 2008). Somsen interviewed a Dutch french fries producer to better understand the causes of food waste in the french fries production line (Somsen. Transporting milk in the warm and humid climate of Bangladesh without a proper cold chain may cause milk losses. 2009. French fries are fragile and easily break when transported during processing as well as when packaged. Food is also lost during processing because of spoilage down the production line. In addition to this. © H. Prevention: develop markets for ‘sub-standard’ products. taste or nutritional value of the food. The rickshaw transportation on narrow and winding roads prolongs the time milk is handled in warm temperatures. Snapshot case: disposing is cheaper than using or re-using French fries production in The Netherlands During his thesis. due to damage during loading. in some cases. In a standardized production line these products often end up being discarded (Stuart. Snapshot case: food safety at risk Rickshaws transporting milk in Bangladesh Rickshaws transporting milk from the countryside to processing plants in Baghabarighat. Industrialized food processing lines often carry out trimming to ensure the end product is in the right shape and size. diana be produced.g. . or damaged packaging. during the size reduction in which potatoes are cut into strips. e. Bangladesh. The company reported several steps in the production line where raw material was lost and wasted. Trimmings. Graber transport from producer to factory and/or during storage. 12 Global food losses and food waste Box 4.

To minimize losses. Chapter 4 − Causes and prevention of food losses and waste 13 Box 6. Part of the problem stems from the seasonality of production and the cost of investing in processing facilities that will not be used year-round. . In many situations the food processing industry doesn’t have the capacity to process and preserve fresh farm produce to be able to meet the demand. continually replenished supplies mean that food products close to expiry are often ignored by consumers. unsanitary and lacking cooling equipment (Kader. the commodities produced by farmers need to reach the consumers in an efficient way. to stimulate the private sector to invest in the food industry and to work more closely with farmers to address supply issues. often just enough for meals on the day of purchase. and thereby wasted. A wide range of products does. overcrowded. causing major health hazards since food is handled and piled on the ground close to the gutter. A contributing factor is that consumers in developing countries generally buy smaller amounts of food products at the time. The marketing cooperatives should be able to reduce food losses by increasing the efficiency of these activities. This kind of market environment also causes food waste. Inadequate market systems cause high food losses in developing countries. 2005). consumers expect store shelves to be well filled. When shopping. This is particularly difficult for small retail stores (SEPA. Governments should create a better ‘enabling environment’ and investment climate. 2008). 2005). Marketing cooperatives are organizations providing a central point for assembling produce from small farmers and preparing commodities for transportation to markets and other distribution channels. Large quantities on display and a wide range of products/ brands in supply lead to food waste in industrialized countries. These bananas are traded among unsanitary conditions. Food wasted at consumer level is minimal in developing countries. Poverty and limited household income make it unacceptable to waste food. Consumers also expect a wide range of products to be available in stores. There are too few wholesale. Retail stores need to order a variety of food types and brands from the same manufacturer to get beneficial prices. Although the development of wholesale and retail markets should preferably be done by the private sector. Although certainly beneficial for sales statistics. since the unsanitary conditions and rough handling cause deterioration of fragile fresh products. Snapshot case: poor market facilities Central wholesale market in Pakistan Central wholesale market in Lahore. however. argenti Lack of processing facilities causes high food losses in developing countries. Wholesale and retail markets in developing countries are often small. Prevention: develop contract farming linkages between processors and farmer. ©FAO / o. Prevention: Marketing cooperatives and improved market facilities. local governments and marketing cooperatives can be instrumental in establishing and improving market facilities (Kader. increase the likelihood of some of them reaching their “sell-by” date before being sold. supermarket and retail facilities providing suitable storage and sales conditions for food products. Pakistan.

Retail stores offer large packages and “getting one for free” bargains. The amount of available food per person in retail stores and restaurants has increased during the last decades in both the USA and the EU. . suppliers. 2009). Prevention: Public awareness. universities. Education on these matters in schools and political initiatives are possible starting points to change people’s attitudes towards the current massive food waste. WRAP partners with packaging manufacturers. design agencies and environmental and design consultants. Likewise. retailers. Perhaps one of the most important reasons for food waste at the consumption level in rich countries is that people simply can afford to waste food. Snapshot case: public awareness raising Voluntary initiatives ‘Stop Wasting Food’ in Denmark give guidance to consumers on how to avoid wasting food by shopping according to daily needs of households.14 Global food losses and food waste Box 7. A lot of restaurants serve buffets at fixed prices. research institutes. the Waste Reduction Action Plan (WRAP) encourages leading retailers. and promotes better household planning and shopping patterns in order to encourage a movement away from impulsive to rational food shopping and consumption patterns In the UK. brands. brand owners and their supply chains to identify collaborative approaches towards reducing the amount of food and packaging waste that ends up in the household bin and ultimately in landfill. food manufactures produce oversized ready to eat meals (Stuart. Abundance and consumer attitudes lead to high food waste in industrialized countries. by guidance on best practices and by promotion. WRAP aims at reducing packaging waste and consumer food waste by carrying out R&D work. which encourages people to fill their plates with more food than they can actually eat.

especially considering that food security is a major concern in large parts of the developing world. Therefore. The impact of growing international trade on food losses still has to be better assessed. 15 5. Actions should not only be directed towards isolated parts of the chain. The studies first reveal the major data gaps in available knowledge of global food waste. Efficient solutions exist along the whole food chain. Due to lack of sufficient data. In low income countries. many assumptions on food waste levels at foremost the distribution and consumption levels had to be made. and the cost of food loss prevention. In industrialized countries on the other hand. for reducing total amounts of food lost and wasted. . they are often accompanied with major uncertainties. And when data are available. tensions between production and access to food can also be reduced by tapping into the potential to reduce food losses. storage facilities and cooling chains. farmer education.g. Waste levels and waste volumes in each step of the food supply chain were estimated. Consumer households need to be informed and change the behavior which causes the current high levels of food waste. Conclusions This study has compiled and analyzed a magnitude of data and reports on food losses and waste. While increasing primary food production is paramount to meet the future increase in final demand. e. by improving harvest techniques. since what is done (or not done) in one part has effects in others. especially with regard to the quantification of food losses by individual cause. Another point to be stressed is that the food supply chain of today is more and more globalized. measures should foremost have a producer perspective. transformed and consumed in very different parts of the world. Further research in the area is urgent. Certain food items are produced. solutions at producer and industrial level would only be marginal if consumers continue to waste at current levels. Causes of and possible ways to prevent food losses and waste in each step of the food supply chain were reported. the results in this study must be interpreted with great caution.

available at: http://faostat. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome. 2010a. vol. ISHS 2005.aspx Kader. From: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region.. Soc. 2008. Proc. ISBN 978-91-620-5885-2 Stuart. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. Penguin Books: London. Kelleher. Rome. D. Fisheries Technical Paper No. Freeberg. T. M. Acta Hortic. ISBN: 978-0-141- 03634-2 . Svinn I livsmedelskedjan – möjligheter till minskade mängder. From: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region. FAO. 2005. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. 5th Int. Phil. Barthel... Discards in the world’s marine fisheries – an update. 2009. 339. available at: http://www.. R. 1994. K. APO.A. pp.org/site/354/default. Bromma. 682. FAOSTAT. ISBN 92-5-105289-1 Parfitt. M. 2010. 2005. org/economic/ess/publications-studies/statistical-yearbook/fao-statistical-yearbook-2009/b-agricultural- production/en/ FAOSTAT. Postharvest Symp. S.A. Recent developments in reducing postharvest losses in the Asia-Pacific region. Waste – uncovering the global food scandal. M. ISBN: 92-833-7051-1.16 References Alverson.H. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. 2006. 2010d. J. 2006.G. Improving postharvest management and marketing in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and challenges. & Pope. 3065-3081 Rolle. Sweden.L. & Macnaughton. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. APO.fao. 365.fao. Food Balance Sheets 2007. ISBN: 92-833-7051-1 SEPA. S. Murawaski.L.Agricultural Production. Trans. A. J. Choudhury. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009 .

Yahia.E.C. J.G. LCA Food. Naskar.. Béchir. Animal Handling and Stunning Conference on February 21-22. R. A.. 17 Further reading Aerni.gov... Post-harvest losses in small-scale fisheries – cases studies in five sub- Saharan African countries. 2008. pp. M. 169-174. R. 2009. Alexander. N.. Uppsala. I. and Lamb. 25-40. Tawfeig. A. K. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome. D. A. vol. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. B.C. S.D. & Strid. Final report CF # 6/08. Cranfield University and Defra. ISBN 978- 92-5-106671-3. B.. T. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. available at: http://ressources. Appleby.defra. G. & Ohlsson. World’s Poultry Journal. Undated. M. & Pauly.. G.. Andersson. Åhnberg. 2002. & Wack. pp. Animal Handling and Stunning Conference on February 21-22. 32. Babiker. Nago. G. S.grandin. Life Cycle Assessment of bread produced on different scales. J..com/meat/hand. 2002. & Smaje. When food turns into waste – a study on practices and handling of losses of fruit and vegetables and meat in Willys Södertälje Weda. K.org/om/pdf/c42/CI020469. 6:42. 2010.. Factors associated with whole carcass condemnation rates in provincially-inspected abattoirs in Ontario 2001-2007: implications for food animal syndromic surveillance. Akande. Handbook for the prevention and minimization of waste and valorization of by-products in European agro-food industries. 130-138. Kumaresan. E. Use of African cassava varieties for the production in Benin of sour starch.cranfield. 123.A.E. Aidoo. .stun. V. American Wasteland.pdf Bedford. pp.. How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it).ac. Bangladesh Agricultural University. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aciaries: a systematic review. ISBN-13:978 1 845934033. Cambridge. ANNEX 5. Brinkhof.K. Pork. Cussen. 52. 1993.E.quality. 2000.G. Haque. 4(1).quality. 161-173. Kaschner.. 61. CABI: Wallingford. Presented at the American Meat Institute Foundation. 264-269. Livestock Science. Wechsler. & Majumdar. Scanga.. Bricas. J. G. Karpouzi.A.L.grandin. vol. Postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables in Tunisia. Hounhouigan. Stockholm... J.. K. pp. Available at: www. The Relationship Between Good Handling / Stunning and Meat Quality in Beef... V.A. Brabet.L. & Turner. Campbell. 2009. & Diei-Ouadi. M. Lambert... 1999. Int J of LCA. Pearl. 2010. L. C..com/meat/hand. a traditional Latin-American baking product. & Berke. V. D. 2008. I.relate. Y. conservation and recycling. wheat and maize production system: assessment and measures for strengthening food security. H. 2010. T. Alton. Basumatary.html. BMC Veterinary Research. Anon.uk Belk. Post harvest loss and technical efficiency of rice.relate. vol. K. C.. The Federation of Swedish Farmers. 2010. Smith.ciheam.. 2008.K. G. & Noura. Surplus retail food redistribution: An analysis of a third sector model.stun. Khargharia. pp. B. & Grandin. International Journal of Poultry Science. J. Oester.D. 8. Bala.C. Mortality and diseases status in layer chicken flocks reared in traditional farms in Khartoum-Sudan. Hossain. Annual Reviews in Environment and Resources 33: 153-166 [+ 8 pages of figures]. pp. Analysis of mortality pattern among indigenous and upgraded pigs under tropical hill agro climatic conditions in eastern Himalayas.html Bloom. 1290-1298. Garcés. 1998. Bateman. McNab. M. Alder.. K. vol.silsoe. 2010.uk and www. 2005. & Bardoloi. vol. & Fröhlich. W. 2010-12-16. Post-harvest storage and preservation of tropical crops.) 2003. 2002. available at: http://www. Da Capo Press. A.A. AWARENET (Agro-food waste minimization and reduction network) (Ed. Forage fish: from Ecosystems to Markets. M. International biodeterioration & Biodegradation. O. A. C.B. L.W. Kadirvel. K. Resources.. In: Triennal Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops – African Branch (ISTRC-AB). Available at: http://www. K. vol.

Rome. Citrus industry in Mexico. 48.org/inpho/content/compend/toc_main. FAO. Available at: http://www.fao. China yearbook of agricultural price survey. Sobal. AP Technology Development Manager.J.. S.htm FAO. A. available at: http://www. 253-263. U. Food losses in food service institutions – examples from Sweden. Beranger. pp. Castro-Garcia.com/longtou/ShowArticle. Economic Information Bulletin Number 44. J. J.albc-usa. J. Cederberg. Res. Krueger.net/kns55/navi/YearBook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. available at: http://tongji. & Romão. SIK Report 772. JBT Corporation. Compendium on post-harvest operations.htm FAO. Sugar and beverages group. vol. available at: http://www. Cheng. pp. Meat. Cornell Waste Management Institute.. 2010b. FAO Fisheries technical paper 470. Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit. 2010b. S.fao. Rome. Flysjö.org/library/ac/1993d/ Gan Su Potato Network.. 2009. Natural rendering: Composting livestock mortality and butchers waste.pdf Guajardo. FAO. M. Development and Sustainability. Harvesting and marketing problems faced by citrus (kinnow) growers of Tehsil Toba Tek Singh. I.18 Global food losses and food waste Buzby. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture department.aspx?id=N2009060178&floor=1 . Definitions and Classifications. vol. & Carlsson-Kanyama. 1989. FAO. D. vol. FAOSTAT. M. Muhammad. B.. Clearwater Beach.pdf Engström. Video evaluation of table olive damage during harvest with a canopy shaker. A.A. An analysis of a community food waste stream. 2010c.org/economic/ess/methodology/methodology-systems/ crops-statistics-concepts-definitions-and-classifications/en/ FAOSTAT.cnki. 2009. Available at: http://www. available at: http://www. Bender. Technology. Smith. NY. Mehmood Ch.agnet. 2010-12-03. Measurement of fruit and vegetable losses in Brazil – A case study. 2002. Pasturing turkeys. & Mickey. D. Lakeland. Citrus production and utilization in China. available at: http://www. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rosa.H.C.. Gliever. 2010. M. FAO. pp.G. vol. Publications on Statistical Methods and Standards: Crops statistics – Concepts. 2005.org/documents/turkeymanual/ALBCturkey-3.gsnsupotato. and Seafood and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data.. LCA Data base for conventional feed ingredients. Grimes. 2001. Randhawa. FL.. Hor. A. Gothenburg. FL. Publications on Statistical Methods and Standards: Livestock statistics – Concepts. How to raise heritage turkeys on pasture: Chapter 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. T.. vol. C & Strid I. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. 2008.. available at: http://www. 3. Postharvest losses of fruit and vegetables in Asia. Agric. J.egfar. 2009. 2010. Griffin.org/egfar/lfm/gphi_documents/02_Region_specific_documents/B_West_Asia_and_ North_Africa_(AARINENA)/02_Background_Documents/06_Commodities/B-6-001-B12_Citrus_in_ WANA. W.fao. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. J. FAO Technical paper 309. M. . 260-266. M. & Glozer. Axtman. Farah Wells. Food Policy. SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. Agric Hum Values. Undated.. 26.A.K. 2007. Citrus production and handling in West Asia and North Africa region.. 203-213. C. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries – an update. Definitions and Classifications. Department of Crop & Soil Sciences: Ithaca. Rome. Poultry. asp?ArticleID=519 Ghafoor. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific region. L. in Swedish... Rome.org/economic/ess/methodology/methodology- systems/crops-statistics-concepts-definitions-and-classifications/en/ Fehr.fao. & Walters. K. Fresh Produce Technologies. Undated.M. 2010. Environment. S.org/focus/e/fisheries/proc. United States Department of Agriculture. U. pp. & Ashraf. Economic Research Service. Burns.C. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 67-81. J.. Market profile on tropical fruits in India. 2009. R. CNKI.. 2004. Undated. Sweden. H. & Lyson.. Vegetables. 19. Post-harvest losses in artisanal fisheries. S. 29. Elyatem. K.A. 2010. 2008. Ferguson. Beverage Conference September 16-19. 2008. J. Central America and the Caribbean. available at: http://www.

A. D.phlosses. Thesis. C. Balaine. 94. R.Further reading 19 Gustavsson. & Miah.pdf Huq. S.N. A look at postharvest in Iran. U. pp.org/assets/pdfs/farm/HSUS-Report-on-Turkey-Welfare. 5th Int. C. vol.M. pp. Omony. M.. & Roque. 81. The environmental impact of mastitis: a case study of dairy herds. Wilkins. & Bruce. Lipton.A. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.S. 2008. I.J. & Sonesson. pp. 343. available at: http://www. C. Degree project for Master of Science in Environmental Sciences. N. Fraiture.. vol. P. African Journal of Agricultural Research. pp. 2005.. Cereals production in Nigeria: Problems.. K.. Nigeria. Risk and indicators of condemnation of male turkey broilers in western France. World Food Logistic Organization. Proc.E. Adejuwon. Identification of appropriate postharvest technologies for improving market access and incomes for small horticultural farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. pp. & Nicol. The WorldFish Center. V. 49. 271-281. . Hossain. Khan.. Ibironke. Fisheries and HIV/AIDS in Africa: Investing in Sustainable Solutions. Ahmad. Losses associated with mortality of cattle and camels during transportation to Oko-Oba abattoir. Khan. L.M. 9. Lundqvist. V. J.. Ismaila. Lupo. A. 16-21. 71-82. 2010. T. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. A. Kantor. Potato processing for the consumer: developments and future challenges. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin. 51. J. 240-250. Z. HSUS.. M. Keijbets. pp. 13-16. A. 2004. S. Knowles. 2010. Aladetohun. S.K. Mohammadpour. SIWI Policy Brief.. Kumolu-Johnson. T. A. C. D. African Journal of Biotechnology. Lagos State. 2. 1. & Cadmus. Farshadfar. N.. 281-286. 682. 2007. University of Gothenburg. & Ndimele. C. Seed loss when cutting a standing crop of oilseed rape with two types of combine harvest header. Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences. Sc.F.S. Colin. Prevalence and factors associated with it.G. M.N. Tswanya. 2010a. 143. Bangladesh. Israel.A. Postharvest weight loss estimates for cereal supply calculations in East and Southern Africa. T. The climate change impact of retail waste from horticultural products. Undated. Jowkar.H. of birds dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse and other rejection conditions in broiler chickens. R..J. Hodges.G. The role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality and safety of horticultural produce. 2008.U.. The humane society of the United States. 2002. Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. pp. D. Gana. vol. Biosystems Engineering. de & Molden. A review of the road transport of slaughter sheep. 073-076. The welfare of animals in the turkey industry. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. N.A. R.S. Sweden.. The effects of smoking on the nutritional qualities and shelf-life of Clarias gariepinus.M.R. M. Hobson. Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. February-July 2006.. 2002.H. Food Review 20.. Undated. vol..C. A. 2010. A. 2005. 2000.. V. 212-219.net/downloads/Postharvest-losses-report. L. vol. Science of the Total Environment. P..pdf Hospido.A. Veterinary Record. 685-696. Investigation of mortality incidence and managemental practices in buffalo calves at commercial dairy farms in Peshawar City. vol. Brown. M. 2010. H.. Final Report CF # 2/08. 2009. Knowles. vol. & Jowkar. Makati City. Longitudinal Study of the Causes of Mortality of Chickens in Parent Stock Flocks of the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) of Bangladesh with a Special Emphasis on Esherichia coli Infection. & Chauvin. A. pp. 2008. R. 2-12. C. & Hüsken. British Poultry Science.G. vol. SIWI.J. Kader.. 2009..IB. European Journal Translational Myology – Basic Applied Myology.C. 1998.M. & Raziq.D. Post harvest losses and technical efficiency of potato storage systems in Bangladesh. 1341- 1350. vol.C. Kabahenda. Kestin. PIDS – Philippine Institute for Development Studies. P.M. Post-harvest handling of low-value fish products and threats to nutritional quality: a review of practices in the Lake Victoria region. L. 5(12).. & Oliveira. S. Allain. ISHS 2005.humanesociety. Potato Research. Le Bouquin.. & Dogara. S. Z. Manchester. Michel. Kitinoja. U. ISSN: 1010-1365. Acta Hort. S.. McCrindle. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. Warriss. pp. & Rolle. E. vol. available at: http://www. pp.M. D. 2010. S. Part 2: Postharvest Loss Assessments. pp. Haslam. L. P.ME. 1997. Postharvest Symp.. Analysis of fishing ports in the Philippines. constraints and opportunities for betterment. Petetin.

Africa and Latin America. vol. 1660-1664 Post Harvest Losses Information Systems. R.. & Chau. vol. Natural Resources Institute. 2002. Factors associated with lamb mortalities in Muzaffarnagari sheep. J.R. pp.S. S.. 35-41. J.. V. available at: http://www.L.V. M.. Khan. L. Dairy Sci. Processing of fruits and vegetables in Kenya. Final Project 2004. 2000.aspx Rajendran. Waste management & Research. & Sharma. vol.. 2002.. Proc. Tembely. L. M. I. S. 70. Post-harvest losses on tomato. 2-4. Gaspari. pp. Agricultural mechanization in Asia. Anindo.. Post harvest losses prevention in Iceland and making of a model to be applied in Malaysia.. 1997. Webster. Reardon. M. H. 150-156. Kent. ACIAR.A. Kumar.. Interview in the Financial Express. 2009. C. 2009. G. Kozak. pp. ACTA VET. 2002.net/index. vol. Supermarkets and farming in Latin America: Pointing directions for elsewhere? Natural Resource Perspective. Opara. A. Emond. R. turkeys. Sahoo. 2005. A length-based analysis of haddock discards in Icelandic fisheries. 2008. Papadopulos. & Garry. T. Hetherington. Ku. & Lavazza. Evaluation of postharvest losses in Mango.E. & Nissen. Nurullah. Dea.M. L. J.. Traditional fish processing and marketing of the Gambia. Status of fisheries postharvest industry in the Sultanate of Oman: Part 2-Quantification of fresh fish losses..D. Pandey. Final project.S.. 59.za/processing-industry. 91. Project No. vol. 51..K. P. vol. 594-602. vol. pp. Mapping stone fruit supply chains in North West Vietnam.B. M.. GTZ – Integration of tree crops into farming systems project. N.A. R.co. 2006. M. Njai. M. 2007. Steinhauser.S. Pre slaughter mortality in broiler chickens..potatoes. M. S. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. F.processing industry. C.. 14. UNU-Fisheries Training Program. S. 1423-1432 Mukasa-Mugerwa.A. E.E. Prasad. Different beef production in EU. 85. Nunes. & Sahoo. M.20 Global food losses and food waste Malena. pp. Hermansen. Belobradadek. S.N.. Nguyen. T. 2003.M. J. pp. Azimuddin. 109-116. 2006. P. Acta Hort.. Chu.M. Cavani. K. Tibbo... Rege.com/news/ processing-industry-to-consume-10-of-potato-output-by-201011/443390/0 Petracci.. Production . 2007. McConnel. Small Ruminant Research. Ó.C. Rauth. & Al-Jufaili. J. Jager de. 2010. Potatoes South Africa. Z. ISBN: 978-0-8247-0632-6. Voslarova. Bedanova. M.U. 1-12. G.. Poultry Science. Reza. Bianchi. 33. Environmental conditions encountered during typical consumer retail display affect fruit and vegetable quality and waste.. E.V. Newman. 2010. available at: http://www. 2005. of Cleaner Production.. 273-279. K. Md. Small Ruminant Research. & Czarick.K. Lombards.W. H. Mandal. 27.. Lahlou-Kassi. 2008. A. Monsooon season post-harvest fish losses in India. D.K. Nairobi. pp. Pálsson.M. A0665.U.J. Evaluation of factors associated with increased dairy cow mortality on United States dairy operations. N. Wagner. 8. NRI. M. Tran.. 2004. S.K. M.L. Framework paper on postharvest loss reduction in Africa. Studies on the traditional drying activities of commercially important marine fishes of Bangladesh. A. A. Waste-handling practices at red meat abattoirs in South Africa. Rome. 18. T. Poultry Science Association. 2009. J.R.E. L.L. and spent hens under commercial slaughtering. Between and within breed variation in lamb survival and the risk factors associated with major causes of mortality in indigenous Horro and Menz sheep in Ethiopia. & Mazhar. 76. S. & Mogensen. cabbage and cauliflower. & Baker. A. 2009.financialexpress. 756-766.O. vol. Postharvest Biology and Technology. pp. A.. University of Greenwich.. 232–241.J. vol 37. pp. & Kamal.. Bapary. Econ. Pal. J. Available at: http://www.P.V. Postharvest pest losses. Evaluation of hot weather thermal environment and incidence of mortality associated with broiler live haul.. Comparison of mortality rates in different categories of pigs and cattle during transport for slaughter. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research. J. Roberts. .D.E. Berdegué. 11nd IS on Supply Chains in Transit. pp. Malik. UNU-Fisheries Training Programme. 1303-1310. Ritz. 437-446. vol. vol. M. V. Encyclopedia of Pest Management. pp. FAO. 2000. 2000. 2010. V.php?form=losses_estimates (year 2007). 25-30. & Blight.S. Natural Resources Institute. nr 81.. J.. & Farrington. pp. Journal of fisheries international.aphlis. S...B. vol. C. D. Nor. pp. 2007. Mungai. ICRAF House. Fisheries Research. B.. U. A. & Vecerek. vol. Roy.

pdf Tokarnia. Average household size. UNIDO. vol.. B.. UNIDO.. 2008. ISBN 91-620-5979-8. V. Stockholm. BRNO. Production yield analysis in food processing – applications in the French-fries and the poultry industries. 2002. Singleton. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. available at: http://usda. (Ed. available at: http://usda.edu/On%20Site%20Composting%20of%20Meat%20 By%20Products. M.R. Hantering av restprodukter inom bageriverksamhet – fallstudie Pågen AB. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development..mannlib. Los Baños. Wasting food – An insistent behavior. Mortality rates in poultry species and categories during transport for slaughter. J. Natural Resource Institute. & Johnson. The environmental food crisis. pp. Trent. ISBN 0-7084-0644-5. Stull.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.H. Bedanova. Waldron. ACTA VET. F. A Review of definitions.do?documentID=1235 USDA. Technology Manual. SEPA. A. L.cornell. Technology Manual.S. Elsevier.. 2002. 2004. 2009. M. UNICEF. J.usda. Potato Statistics. Sweden. 25. and economic impact. B. Cornell University. Encyclopedia of Energy. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soa_ii_chap12. 2004b. equipment and quality assurance practices.htm 100921 USDA. 404-414.researchintouse.. Rome. Small-scale Root Crops and Tubers Processing and Products – production methods.. Wolter. equipment and quality assurance practices. available at: http://www. thesis.S Department of Agriculture. Garcia de Siles. University of Greenwich. Kozak. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 2009. Faulds. The state of meat production in developing countries: 2002. BOKU. The professional animal scientist. L.K. available at: http://www. Total Food – Exploiting co products – minimizing waste. C. Siemens. Wageningen University: The Netherlands.. Söderlund. Rubesova. Cassava utilization. available at: http://www. M.humanesociety.do?documentID=1377 Ventour. & Smith. K. Rome. FAO. 1635-1660. Packaging. L. E. M. Niekamp. Technology Manual. Cassava in tropical Africa.. Heinz. Review: Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. & Bürkert. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.L.cornell. pp.. 2007. V.. T. Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook Spreadsheet Files. The Cornell Waste Management Institute. equipment and quality assurance practices. Stockholm. I. On-site composting of meat by-products. Incidence. UNEP. Ormel. Tyedmers. 2.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo. P. 2004. Small-scale Fruit and Vegetable Processing and Products – production methods. 2003. N. Vienna. Vol. 2001.University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. UNECE. UNIDO. Somsen. C. Janackova. Nigeria. Lund University. 2010c. Rapport 5979. P. & James. 2004. Environmental Sciences. J. Whiting. Sterle. vol. A. Poisonous plants affecting livestock in Brazil. S. G. Peixoto. Thesis in Industrial Economy. UNIDO. U. ISBN: 978-82-7701-054-0.B. G. 2010a. 76... K. Norwich. 1990. 1978. 2007. Impacts of rodents on rice production in Asia.. Tuszynski.) 2004. D. Trends in Europe and North America – The statistical yearbook of the economic commission for Europe 2005. Laguna: IRRI.com/nrk/RIUinfo/outputs/R7497_a. 2004a. The food we waste. W. potatoes. 2010b. ISBN: 90-5808-967-3. Hensel.ers.pdf Tröger. Institute of Food Research. vol.. & Vecerek. Banbury: WRAP. UNIDO. Minskat svinn av livsmedel I skolkök – erfarenheter och framgångsfaktorer. 2009.mannlib. 2002. available at: http://cwmi. U. 1. USDA. SEPA. Loss-Adjusted Food Availability: Spreadsheets. 40. Ph.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets. Smith. O.cornell. FAO. Conservation of onion and tomato in Niger – Assessment of post- harvest losses and drying methods.S. 17-26. & Ali. A. Döbereiner. Utilization of U. P. Kent. D. pp. 101-108. N. Fisheries and Energy Use. 2004c. Steinhauser.. A. Toxicon. A.. vol. ISBN: 1-84405-383-0 (version 2). 2005. Improving efficiency and reducing waste in our food system. Westby. 30p Smil. storage and distribution of processed milk. Austria.. Minskat svinn av livsmedel i skolkök – erfarenheter och framgångsfaktorer. UNIDO. Small-scale Cereal Milling and Bakery Products – production methods.css.pdf .Further reading 21 Salak-Johnsson. Undated. pp. 2007. Waste from food – Review of developing and transitional countries. C. Schneider. storage and small-scale processing. J. Voslarova.

48. Disappearing food: How big are postharvest losses?. Banbury. J. 100. Bengaly. 2006. Household food and drink waste in the UK.wri.. Livestock Science. Banbury. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. B.defra. World resources 1998-99. WRAP. World Bank. G.uk Wirsenius.. Main Report. Tembely. International Comparison Program database.22 Global food losses and food waste Williams. Banbury. 103. use. Report prepared by WRAP. 2009. E. Tanner. DL. Schelling.. PPP. WRAP. Report prepared by WRAP. and potential consequences. P. A. 169-178. Bedford. pp. available at: www. Understanding food waste – Key findings of our recent research on the nature.php?theme=3&fid=13 WRAP. pp. E. Wymann. S. Audsley.org/features/view_feature. S.gov. available at: http://earthtrends.. 2006. M. M. Fish waste as an alternative resource for gulls along the Patagonian coast: Availability.N.G. vol. 778-783. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra.. Packaging technologies with potential to reduce the amount of food thrown away. 1998. pp. vol. . How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural systems. & Zinsstag. Yorio. S. 2004. Marine Pollution Bulletin. GDP per capita.. & Caille. scale and causes of household food waste.ac. vol. C. 2010. 2010.silsoe. 621-638. Calf mortality rate and causes of death under different herd management systems in peri-urban Bamako. Mali. Azar. Report prepared by WRAP. & Sandars.cranfield. Berndes.uk and www.. 2007. Bonfoh.. G. 2006.

Region 1: Europe Albania France Netherlands Armenia Georgia Norway Austria Germany Poland Azerbaijan Greece Portugal Belarus Hungary Romania Belgium Iceland Russian Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina Ireland Serbia Bulgaria Italy Slovakia Croatia Latvia Slovenia Cyprus Lithuania Spain Czech Republic Luxemburg Sweden Denmark Macedonia Switzerland Estonia Moldova Ukraine Finland Montenegro United Kingdom Region 2: USA. 23 Annex 1. Canada. West South and sub-Saharan Africa Latin America and Central Asia Southeast Asia Angola Liberia Algeria Afghanistan Argentina Benin Malawi Egypt Bangladesh Belize Botswana Mali Iraq Bhutan Bolivia Burkina Faso Mauritania Israel Cambodia Brazil Burundi Mozambique Jordan India Chile Cameroon Namibia Kazakhstan Indonesia Colombia Central African Rep Niger Kuwait Iran Costa Rica Chad Nigeria Kyrgyzstan Laos Cuba Congo-Brazzaville Rwanda Lebanon Malaysia Dominican Rep Congo-Kinshasa Senegal Libya Myanmar Ecuador Cote d’Ivoire Sierra Leone Mongolia Nepal El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Somalia Morocco Pakistan Guatemala Eritrea South Africa Oman Philippines Guyana Ethiopia Sudan Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka Haiti Gabon Swaziland Syria Thailand Honduras Gambia Tanzania Tajikistan Vietnam Jamaica Ghana Togo Tunisia Mexico Guinea Uganda Turkey Nicaragua Guinea-Bissau Zambia Turkmenistan Panama Kenya Zimbabwe Utd Arab Emirates Paraguay Lesotho Uzbekistan Peru Yemen Suriname Uruguay Venezuela . Oceania Region 3: Industrialized Asia Australia Japan Canada China New Zealand South Korea United States of America Countries included in world regions 4-7 – Low-income countries. Region 5 Region 6 Region 4 Region 7 North Africa. Grouping of world regions Countries included in world regions 1-3 – Medium/High-income countries.

sunflower seeds. other oil crops. 2. other meat. dates. palm kernels. oats. onions. coconuts (incl. 5. demersal fish. Meat: bovine meat. other aquatic animals. copra). apples (excl. sorghum. cephalopods. 6. Fruit and Vegetables (including bananas): oranges and mandarins. other mollusk. crustaceans. rye.24 Annex 2. mutton/goat meat. rape and mustard seed. millet. 3. 4. bananas. other aquatic products. barley. grapes (excl. Fish and seafood: freshwater fish. poultry meat. other vegetables. tomatoes. sweet potatoes.org/corp/statistics/en/): 1. groundnuts (shelled). lemons and limes. cider). cassava. Roots and Tubers: potatoes. other roots. Cereals (excluding beer): wheat. Dairy products: milk. yams. pineapples. aquatic plants. wine). pelagic fish. offals. sesame seed. pig meat.fao. other fruit. olives. plantains. rice (milled). maize. 7. Oilseeds and Pulses (including nuts): soybeans. . aquatic mammal meat. other marine fish. Commodity groups The different commodities addressed are grouped according to FAOSTAT’s Food Balance Sheets (http://www. other cereals. other citrus. grapefruit. cottonseed.

Industrial peeling = 0.75. mean = 0.WA&CA = 0. Source: Guajardo (2008). Mattsson (2001).60. sorghum =0. Source: FAO (1989).8. In Europe and NA&Oce = 40%.: Conversion factor determines the part of the agricultural product that is edible.79 (LIC). Source: FAO (2009) Conversion factor: Average conversion factor for fish and seafood = 0. in MHIC = 4 %. In Ind. In S&SE Asia = 95%.12. Source: Pendey (2009) and Keijbets (2008). Roots and tubers: Proportion of roots and tubers utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of cassava utilized fresh in SSA = 50%. Oil crops and pulses: Allocation factors: SSA = 0.WA&CA = 81%. Source: FAO (undated). S&SE Asia = 0. Source: FAOSTAT (2010d) Fruit and vegetables: Proportion of fruit and vegetables utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of fruit & vegetables utilized fresh in SSA = 99%. FBS: food balance sheets. Additional references for quantifying food losses/waste NB. Source: own investigation and UNIDO (2004c) Fish and seafood: Proportion of fish and seafood utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of fish and seafood utilized fresh in LIC = 60%. Cereals: Conversion factors: wheat.12  . LIC: low-income countries.78. Asia = 85%. rye = 0. .WA&CA = 0. In Ind. S&SE Asia = 0.90. maize. NA&Oce = 0. Conversion factors: Peeling by hand = 0.78. 25 Annex 3. Source: Wirsenius (2000) Allocation factors for losses during agricultural production and postharvest handling and storage: Europe = 0. industrial peeling = 0. Source: Potatoes South Africa (2010).40. Allocation factor determines the part of the agricultural produce that is allocated for human consumption. millet. other cereals = 0. Source: Cheng (2008) Conversion factors: peeling by hand = 0. Asia = 0. =0. In LA = 50%. In S&SE Asia = 90%.60. Ind. NA. oats.20. Assumed average proportion of potato utilized fresh in Europe and NA&Oce = 27%. In NA.5.77.24.74. Ind. Source: USDA (2010b). Source: Guajardo (2008). Asia = 0. Europe = 0. rice = 1. Asia = 96%. Source: UNICEF (1990). Source: Brabet (1998).17. Source: Mungai (2000).50. NA.WA&CA = 50%.69 (MHIC).35.63. SSA = 0. Source: Keijbets (2008) and FAOSTAT (2010a).63.75. In LA = 20%. barley. MHIC: medium/high income countries. NA&Oce = 0. LA = 0. LA = 0. Source: Westby (2002). In NA. Source: USDA (2010c).67.

4% 0.5%.5% 1.2% 0.5% 7% Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North America and Oceania.5%. Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step) Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Europe incl.5% 1.7% 5% 4% 11% Fish and seafood 9. 10% 2% 20% Roots and tubers 20% 7% 15% 9% 10% Oilseeds and pulses 6% 3% 5% 1% 4% Fruits and vegetables 10% 8% 2% 8% 15% Meat 2.26 Annex 4.9% 0. Russia.5% 6% 9% 11% Milk 3.5% 1% 1. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution: Consumption production handling and packaging Supermarket storage Retail Cereals 2% 4% 0.5% 0.1% 0. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution: Consumption production handling and packaging Supermarket storage Retail Cereals 2% 2% 0. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution Consumption production handling and packaging storage Cereals 2% 10% 0.0% 5% 4% 11% Fish and seafood 12% 0.5% 6% 9% 33% Milk 3.5% 0. 10% 2% 27% Roots and tubers 20% 10% 15% 7% 30% Oilseeds and pulses 12% 0% 5% 1% 4% Fruits and vegetables 20% 4% 2% 12% 28% Meat 3. 10% 2% 25% Roots and tubers 20% 9% 15% 7% 17% Oilseeds and pulses 10% 1% 5% 1% 4% Fruits and vegetables 20% 5% 2% 10% 19% Meat 3.5% 1.2% 0.6% 5% 6% 8% Fish and seafood 15% 2% 6% 11% 8% Milk 3.2% 0.5%.5% 5% .5% 15% Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Industrialized Asia.

1% 0.1% 5% 5% 6% Fish and seafood 5.6% 0. 7% 4% 12% Roots and tubers 6% 10% 12% 4% 6% Oilseeds and pulses 15% 6% 8% 2% 2% Fruits and vegetables 17% 10% 20% 15% 12% Meat 6. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution Consumption at production handling and packaging household level storage Cereals 6% 4% 2%.6% 5% 9% 10% 4% Milk 3.3% 1. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution Consumption production handling and packaging storage Cereals 6% 8% 2%. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution Consumption Production handling and packaging storage Cereals 6% 8% 3.1% Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North Africa.5% 6% 2% 10% 1% Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Latin America. West and Central Asia.5% 6% 2% 8% 4% .2% 5% 5% 8% Fish and seafood 6.7% 5% 9% 10% 4% Milk 3.5% 2% 3% Roots and tubers 6% 19% 10% 11% 3% Oilseeds and pulses 7% 12% 8% 2% 1% Fruits and vegetables 15% 9% 25% 10% 7% Meat 5.Annex 4 − Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step) 27 Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for sub-Saharan Africa.7% 6% 9% 15% 2% Milk 6% 11% 0.1% 10% 0. 7% 4% 10% Roots and tubers 14% 14% 12% 3% 4% Oilseeds and pulses 6% 3% 8% 2% 2% Fruits and vegetables 20% 10% 20% 12% 10% Meat 5. Agricultural Postharvest Processing and Distribution Consumption production handling and packaging storage Cereals 6% 7% 3.3% 5% 7% 4% Fish and seafood 8.5% 6% 2% 8% 2% Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for South and Southeast Asia.7% 5% 7% 2% Fish and seafood 5.5% 2% 1% Roots and tubers 14% 18% 15% 5% 2% Oilseeds an pulses 12% 8% 8% 2% 1% Fruits and vegetables 10% 9% 25% 17% 5% Meat 15% 0.2% 6% 9% 15% 2% Milk 3.

as presented in the 2007 FBSs for SSA. The figure below shows the mass flow of total F&V (1000 tons). Mass flow of total F&V (1000 tons) as presented in the 2007 FBSs for SSA Fresh f&v (K) 63 991 ∑ Supply elements = Domestic supply − ∑ Utilization elements = Food quantity (J) (E) 64 637 Processed f&v Production Feed (L) 81 517 (A) (F) 646 83 325 2 373 Import Seed quantity (G) (B) 0 2 583 Processing Stock (H) variation 6 431 (C) 179 Waste (I) 8 076 Export quantity (D) 4 570 A+B+C-D=E-(F+G+H+I) = J=K+L Waste percentage in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production = 10% Postharvest handling and storage = 9% Processing and packaging = 25% Distribution (fresh F&V) = 17% Distribution (processed F&V) = 10% Consumption (fresh F&V) = 5% Consumption (processed F&V) = 1% . Example of calculations of food losses and waste Example: Calculations on losses and waste of fruit and vegetables (F&V) in SSA.28 Annex 5. Figure 10.

09*83 325 = 7 817 = 7.3 mn tonnes Postharvest handling and storage: 0.1/(1-0.05 mn tonnes Conversion factors: peeling by hand = 0.75 = 1 327 = 1.77 = 7 129 = 7.8.1*(646+6 431-1 769) = 531 = 0.7 mn tonnes Consumption (processed F&V): 0.5 mn tonnes Consumption (fresh F&V): 0.8)+(531*0.77 Calculations on edible F&V losses and waste in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production: 9 258*0.8)+(48*0.01*(646+6 431-1 769-531) = 48 = 0.75) = 9 101 = 9.75.3 mn tonnes Distribution: (10 878*0.8 mn tonnes Processing and packaging = 0.1))*83 325 = 9 258 = 9.17*63 991 = 10 878 = 11 mn tonnes Distribution (processed F&V): 0.05*(63 991-10 878) = 2 656 = 2.75) = 2 161 = 2.0 mn tonnes Processing and packaging: 1 769*0.25*(646+6 431) = 1 769 = 1.1 mn tonnes Consumption: (2 656*0.1 mn tonnes Postharvest handling and storage: 7 817*0.8 mn tonnes Distribution (fresh F&V): 0. industrial peeling = 0.1 mn tonnes .Annex 4 − Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step) 29 Calculations on primary equivalent F&V losses and waste in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production: (0. mean = 0.77 = 6 019 = 6.

org SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction ISBN 978-92-5-107205-9 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla.16 .fao.save-food.org 9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 7 2 0 5 9 +39 06 5705 3674 I2697E/5/03.org/save-food Save-Food@fao.SAVE FOOD An initiative of Messe Düsseldorf in collaboration with FAO www. Italy www. 00153 Rome.