Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Sustainability in food-waste reduction biotechnology:
a critical review
Aidan R Mouat
Reduction of the $2.625 trillion USD global food-waste problem is
a critical goal in combatting climate change and world hunger.
However, the outcome analysis of theoretically ‘sustainable’
individual biotechnological approaches to food-waste reduction is
neglected. This critical review applies the principles of the circular
economy to the broader context of biotechnology innovations for
food-waste reduction. The evaluation of sustainability and
relationship to the food-waste management hierarchy are
discussed with relevance to recent innovations in
biotransformation of food waste and food-waste prevention.
Comparison of these innovation categories reveals the challenges
of impact at scale for food-waste reduction biotechnology,
particularly in food-waste prevention technologies having low
technology-readiness levels, and points to illustrative examples of
efforts to meet and overcome these challenges.
Address
Hazel Technologies, Inc., 320 N Sangamon Dr., Chicago, IL 60646,
United States
Corresponding author: Aidan R Mouat (aidan@hazeltechnologies.com)
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2022, 77:102781
This review comes from a themed issue on Food Biotechnology
Edited by Max I. Teplitski and Jorge Fonseca
For complete overview of the section, please refer to the article
collection, “Food Biotechnology (2023)”
Available online 24th August 2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2022.102781
0958-1669/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction: the global impact of food waste
Food waste is a frontier problem for a world grappling with
the outcomes of climate change. Global systemic issues
resultant from food waste have garnered increasing inter­
national attention since the publication of landmark reports
from 2011 onward from organizations such as the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations (UN FAO)
[1], the United States National Resources Defense Council
(US NDRC) [2], the Committee on World Food Security
[3], and more. Globally, nearly a third of all food produced
ends up as waste [4]. The FAO estimates food waste to
account for 8% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas
www.sciencedirect.com
]]
]]]]]]
]]
emissions, with an annual global economic cost of $2.625
trillion USD [4]. Environmental impacts include loss of
biodiversity, increased particulate pollution, and increased
eutrophication [5]. Food waste encompasses tangible re­
source losses of land, fertilizer, chemicals, energy, fuel, and
water [5]. Food waste increases social iniquity: nearly 1
billion people suffer from chronic undernourishment
globally [6], while global food demand is projected to in­
crease between 70% and 110% by 2050 [7]. The
United Nations has proposed a 50% reduction in food
waste by 2030 in its Sustainable Development Goal
(12.3) [8].
Throughout this work, the combined term ‘food loss/
waste’ (‘FLW’) will be used instead of differentiating
between ‘food waste’ and ‘food loss’ [9]. The term
‘FLW’ simplifies the intent of this review by avoiding
the overall lack of consensus in categorization in favor of
focusing on the ultimate disposition of material flow
across the food system [10].
Biological FLW-reduction technologies (‘biotechnolo­
gies’) are often reported as intrinsically ‘sustainable.’
However, sustainability is an outcome that cannot be
claimed on the basis of technical performance alone.
Recent reviews in the FLW management [11] and policy
literature [12•] support the need for more robust out­
come analysis in FLW-reduction strategies, but reports
of new FLW-reduction biotechnologies tend to­
ward lower technology-readiness levels (TRLs) and
provide little insight into environmental impact [13]. In
this critical review, biotechnologies applicable to FLW
transformation and FLW prevention are evaluated.
FLW transformation biotechnologies are generally re­
ported at higher TRLs with more sophisticated mod­
eling for sustainability analysis. In contrast, while FLW
prevention is considered the most environmentally po­
sitive FLW-reduction strategy, there are few data to
confirm this theory for biotechnologies. Realization of
the potential impact of FLW-prevention biotechnology
requires future reports to prioritize environmental and
economic analysis alongside technical performance.
Sustainability evaluation and the food-waste
management hierarchy
Efforts have been made to identify sections of the
supply chain most impacted by FLW (e.g. Read et al.
[8]). Many conclusions therefrom require closer evalua­
tion. A majority of source publications rely on the data
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
2 Food Biotechnology
tabulated and analyzed by Gustavsson et al. [1] The data
in this report are from 2009 and earlier. Recent meta-
analysis of datasets on FLW [14] reveals systematic in­
sufficiency or bias due to limited source data. For ex­
ample, it is more common for studies to make
recommendations regarding retail or consumer waste
(e.g. Buzby et al. [15]) because public data are more
easily aggregated, but recent work shows that losses at
other supply-chain stages may be less empirically treated
[16]. While existing demographic data on FLW suggest
global trends, knowledge of global FLW is incomplete.
The ‘prevention paradox’ discussed by Messner and
coworkers [17•] summarizes the conundrum: the mea­
surement of how much of a quantity can be ‘prevented’
is itself counterintuitive. Some FLW-reduction strate­
gies may instead encourage adverse outcomes (e.g. sur­
plus production), necessitating robust analysis of
outcome.
Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is an accepted approach to
analyzing the sustainability of an FLW-reduction
strategy [18]. Importantly, models are driven by
boundary conditions and can fail to identify all con­
tributing factors resultant from the deployment of a
given technology [11]. For example, in the report of
Brunklaus et al. [19], the production of succinic acid
from Swedish food waste presents a lower carbon foot­
print than from first-generation biomass. However, Ög­
mundarson et al. [20] showed that for lactic acid, the
energy demands at the biorefinery itself drive the en­
vironmental cost of second- and third-generation bio­
mass, resulting in comparatively higher carbon footprint.
Similarly, the recent report from Lark et al. [21] calcu­
lates higher carbon intensity (ca. 24%) from corn-derived
bioethanol in the United States as compared with ga­
soline due to land diversion, increased use of fertilizer,
and increased water pollution. This finding directly
contradicts earlier results estimating a 39% lower carbon
intensity of corn-derived bioethanol in a model with
more limited boundaries [22]. Thus, the relationship
between technical feasibility and environmental feasi­
bility requires update with the scale of deployment [23].
Analysis of adoption drivers must also speak to opera­
tional requirements such as labor, transportation cost,
capital equipment purchases, and so on [24]. Operational
requirements link the technical performance of a bio­
technology to return on investment (ROI) for a supply-
chain actor [23]. Incentivization of individual supply-
chain actors remains a key factor in the proliferation of
FLW-reduction technology [25] as does the ease of
systematic integration within the knowledge and prac­
tices of an organization [26].
The landscape of FLW will not remain static as FLW-
reduction technologies scale. Major advances in FLW
reduction are expected to generate externalities of their
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
own [12•]. Consequentially, an FLW-reduction process
is not automatically sustainable by virtue of using FLW
as a feedstock, as externalities at scale drive the en­
vironmental outcome. Mourad [27] describes this com­
petition between the food-waste management strategies
of prevention, reuse, and recovery. Resolving the conflict
requires organizing a ‘food waste management hier­
archy,’ which defines the optimal order of priorities for
sustainable FLW reduction as FLW prevention; redis­
tribution of surplus foods; FLW transformation; and
landfill disposal (Figure 1) [28]. Novel biotechnologies
are targeted at two strata of the food-waste management
hierarchy, transformation and prevention. In the fol­
lowing sections, representative biological approaches are
presented in FLW transformation and prevention ex­
amples.
Biotechnology in food loss/waste reduction
ood loss/waste transformation: Insights from merging
models
Many processes for the transformation of FLW into
fuels, fertilizers, and upgraded biochemicals have been
reported, ranging from direct pyrolysis to sophisticated
bioreactor processes [29]. TRL is a significant challenge
to the comprehensive sustainability analysis of FLW
transformation [30]. Potential valorization pathways are
reported across a wide range of TRLs, with some such as
biofuel production showing markedly higher average
TRL than others, such as specialty chemical production
[31]. These differences drive differences in certainty of
environmental-impact analysis [20]. Table 1 presents the
original TRL definitions alongside recent framework
updates relevant to FLW-reduction biotechnologies.
Okolie et al. estimate the maturity level of biological
FLW transformation processes at 4–5, whereas thermo­
chemical processes approach a TRL of 9. Empirical
evaluation of FLW reduction through biotechnology is
challenged by a lack of meaningful commercial-scale
examples, though examples abound at TRLs of 1–3
[32•]. Furthermore, some examples of FLW valorization
reveal net-positive global warming potential (GWP)
[35,36], suggesting that even beyond TRL-9 scale, ex­
ternalities may overtake early analyses. The framework
for evaluating sustainability in FLW-reduction bio­
technology therefore requires the update of models as
new technical, economic, and environmental parameters
become relevant [23].
Economic inputs contribute much to the design of FLW
valorization processes. The cost of goods sold and op­
erating expenditures such as labor, utilities, and plant
development are obvious features, but profitability is
often driven by total processing throughput and asso­
ciated costs of facility construction, for example, capital
expenditure, cost of capital, construction time, startup
time, and so on [37]. FLW feedstocks are uniquely
www.sciencedirect.com

Figure 1
The food waste management hierarchy. (a) Visual representation of the food-waste management hierarchy. (b) Inset showing the key subcategories of
FLW prevention.
challenged by the scale and cost of biomass transporta­
tion, as demonstrated by Cristobal et al. [31] This report
analyzes biorefinery profit potential for four different
homogeneous FLW feedstock valorization processes.
Profitability in three of four models is found to be hin­
dered by exponential increase in payback period (PBP)
with increasing number of processing facilities. Cristobal
et al. suggest that considering market price volatility for
process outputs, capital investment would likely be
driven toward lower risk processes with ROIs of 2–10%
and PBP of 2–3 years, effectively capping scale at a low
number of processing facilities. Of further note is the
model assignment of zero-purchase cost to FLW feed­
stock, but nonzero feedstock cost due to the need for
processing steps, chemical inputs for processing, and
transportation costs. The assumption that FLW feed­
stocks are cost-free is definitively challenged.
Li and coworkers [38] analyzed reported data to calcu­
late net carbon emissions and net energy cost for
Table 1
The TRLs both in their original formulation and with more recent formulations mapped more closely to characteristics of FLW-reduction
biotechnologies.
TRL Original formulation [30]
1 Basic principles observed and reported
2 Technology concept and/or application formulated
3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or
characteristic proof of concept
4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory
environment
5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant
environment
6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a
relevant environment
7 System-prototype demonstration in an operational
environment
8 Actual system completed and ‘flight qualified’ through test
and demonstration
9 Actual system flight proven through successful mission
operations
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainability in FLW Reduction Biotechnology Mouat 3
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
negative emission technologies (NETs) for FLW trans­
formation. Modeled emissions varied from 100 to
−400 kg of CO2E/GJ across a cost range of $20–$70/GJ.
The calculation of net-positive emissions from reported
NETs is not absolute due to the authors’ use of mean
literature values for the reported models. Nevertheless,
the report demonstrates a potentially adverse relation­
ship between TRL, cost, and net environmental out­
come. The most negative GWP reported is for the
combustion of biomass to power process (−400 kg
of CO2E/GJ), but at the highest cost ($70/GJ). Analysis
of the fermentation to ethanol process, including carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS), yields net-positive
GWP (100 kg of CO2E/GJ) at the lowest price ($20/GJ).
Importantly, the three technologies reported to have the
highest TRLs are the processes of fermentation to
ethanol, combustion to power, and anaerobic digestion.
Only the anaerobic digestion to power process exhibits
both negative GWP (−40 kg of CO2E/GJ) and a mod­
erate cost ($34/GJ), but the cost analysis exhibits a high
FLW-reduction biotechnology mapping [32•,33] Stage [33,34]
Initial concept Research
Basic technology research Proof of concept
Technical feasibility analysis and initial Bench scale
technoeconomic model
Validation of technical performance in laboratory Development
Prepilot technical evaluation versus commercially Proof of principle
relevant variables
Full pilot or prototype developed with updated Pilot scale
technoeconomic model
Minimum viable product (MVP) Demonstration
Commercial-scale technical evaluation of MVP Proof of performance
Technoeconomic performance of MVP measured at Commercial scale
commercial scale
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
4 Food Biotechnology
degree of uncertainty due to the limited dataset. For
other processes, evaluated TRLs are too early for proof
of performance. The authors further suggest that use of
CCS technology to drive negative GWP (e.g. the
ethanol-fermentation process) sets back TRLs by 1–5
levels due to the lack of studies using CCS technology in
conjunction with the reported valorization processes.
Bioethanol production is a particularly important example.
Bioethanol production dominates the biofuel industry [39]
due to the blending of ethanol with petrofuels. ‘First
generation’ feedstocks for bioethanol production are edible
crops such as corn, wheat, and other regional staple crops
[40]. The overlap of food and fuel demand has drawn at­
tention to alternative production as a primary driver of
interest for FLW conversion, particularly of inedible lig­
nocellulosic waste, to generate ethanol [41]. Fiorentino
et al. [23] suggest that the use of agri-food waste is more
favorable economically than the use of dedicated crops, but
only under certain processing conditions, and earlier results
[42] point to the need for large production scales (> 200 000
tons/yr) for ethanol from FLW to achieve profitability. As
noted previously, this scaling is uniquely difficult to
achieve when using FLW as a feedstock [31].
The integration of technoeconomic and LCA models re­
mains a pressing need as FLW transformation technolo­
gies reach proof of performance. The lack of data for novel
materials, energetics, and relevant biotechnology inputs
such as enzymes, restricts model development [43]. For
example, enzymatic treatments are an increasingly
common process step in FLW transformation [44], but the
use of commercially prepared enzymes contributes be­
tween 11% and 62% of the total global warming impact of
biorefinery processes [45]. Hu and coworkers [46•] re­
cently addressed the dataset discrepancy with an industrial
process plan derived from pilot data on sophorolipid (SL)
production from FLW and supported by dynamic life-
cycle analysis (dLCA). The technique combines iterative
LCA models with low TRL experimental data to decrease
uncertainty in environmental-impact analysis. Hu et al.
collaborated with the experimental lab of Wang et al. [47]
and concluded that downstream purification demands
drive higher GWP for SL crystal production versus syrup
production (7.9 kg of CO2E/kg crystal SL versus 5.9 kg
of CO2E/kg syrup SL), despite the cost parity of the two
processes. The integration of technoeconomic modeling
and LCA yields actionable information about the sus­
tainability of total process flow.
Food loss/waste prevention: can we measure what gets
managed?
Biotechnologies for FLW prevention inhibit one or more
mechanisms of spoilage, leading to the loss of edible
food. General modes include mechanical damage or
physical instability; microbial activity; chemical reac­
tions, such as oxidation; and biochemical processes, such
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
as senescence [48]. Some broad examples of approaches
include plant growth regulator-induced control of post­
harvest food crop physiology [49]; pressure, thermal, or
irradiation treatment of processed foods [50]; edible
coatings to improve food resilience [51]; genetic mod­
ification of preharvest crop to improve postharvest re­
siliency [52]; or active packaging incorporating shelf-life-
extending materials [53].
Although there is broad consensus in the literature that
FLW prevention is more desirable environmentally than
FLW transformation [54], few empirical studies have
been reported to confirm this assumption for bio­
technology processes. Life cycles of FLW-prevention
biotechnologies are understudied [55•]. Indeed, the
term ‘prevention’ is rarely discussed in biotechnology
literature, with most reports instead using ‘shelf life
extension’ as the operative framing. Novel shelf-life
extension technologies are often reported at low TRLs,
impacting opportunities for sustainability assessment
[56]. Current logic focuses on the trade-off in emissions
between wasted and consumed food [57•]. FLW con­
tributions to global carbon footprint vary by commodity,
but average to ca. 3.4 metric tons of CO2E emissions per
metric ton of food waste [4]. Theoretically, the LCA of a
shelf-life extension biotechnology can balance carbon
inputs against efficacy in the reduction of food waste to
determine overall outcome. Reports that focus on tech­
nical performance provide little insight into environ­
mental and economic dimensions, however.
For example, edible, plant-derived preservative coatings
have been known since the 12th century [58], with the
first modern report considered to be that of Harvey and
Landon in 1935 [59]. Despite this, no sustainability as­
sessments appear to have been published for even the
most commercially well-known examples (e.g. carnauba
wax [60]) [61]. Novel coatings are frequently reported as
lab-scale spray or dip methods at TRLs of 2–3 [62], but
far less is known about sustainability in commercial ap­
plications [63]. A recent high-profile report by Chang
et al. [64] serves to highlight the discrepancy between
efficacy at low TRL versus commercial scale. The report
claims a “scalable, sustainable, and cost-effective” high-
throughput avocado-coating methodology using anti­
microbial pullulan fibers spun through a focused rotary
jet spinning apparatus. The reported process requires
2–4 min to coat an avocado. In three 8-hours shifts on a
processing line operating continuously, the maximum
avocado throughput of the technique per line would thus
be 720 individual avocados. Considering peak operations
in existing packing sheds can process 500 000 pounds of
avocado per day,1 this definition of ‘high throughput’
1
As per the Colorado Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence
Food Source Information, https://fsi.colostate.edu/avocados/.
www.sciencedirect.com

satisfies neither the requirements of scale nor the claim
of ‘sustainability.’
A recent publication by Dai and coworkers [65•] high­
lights the importance of operational considerations be­
yond coating composition. The work reports a coating of
cross-linked cassava starch reinforced with starch nano­
crystals for the preservation of pears. Tellingly, in­
vestigation of the role of different process workflows
concluded that automated grading of pears before
coating offers superior statistical shelf-life enhancement
to coating after grading due to protection against me­
chanical damage incurred during the grading process
itself. The dependency of film efficacy on workflow
order provides a clear example of the role of process
controls in the scale deployment of FLW-reduction
technology.
The development of active packaging provides insight
into the relationship between biotechnology advance­
ments and LCA. A motivation for current research into
edible coatings and other shelf-life extension technologies
is the desire to eliminate ‘unsustainable’ packaging, par­
ticularly single-use plastics such as low-density poly­
ethylene (LDPE) and its derivatives [66]. Recent work
from Zhang et al. [67] provides an important corollary to
this understanding. A cradle-to-grave analysis of pre­
servative additives to plastic packaging was performed
alongside shelf-life extension evaluation and a consumer-
behavior survey. Packaging accounted for 2.3–14.1% of
total GWP across four modeled food-processing systems,
with preservative additives accounting for up to 39% of
the packaging footprint. Activated packaging (AP) ad­
ditives offering satisfactory shelf-life extension decreased
net GWP (NGWP), regardless of the ‘unsustainable’
nature of the packaging, with two of four processes ex­
hibiting neutral or negative NGWP. In the models of
Zhang et al., overcoming additive GWP requires a 6%
reduction in food-waste mass for fresh fruit, a ca. 1% re­
duction for processed fruits and vegetables, and a ca. 0.1%
reduction for processed meat. These findings reinforce
previous results [68]. In a similar report, Settier-Ramirez
et al. [57•] describe the relevance:
Development of AP implies an additional en­
vironmental impact due to the use of resources for
the production and stabilization of the coating.
Therefore, to evaluate the sustainability of AP, we
need to assess whether the environmental burdens
resulting from the packaging production offset the
potential beneficial effects in terms of food-waste
reduction due to the product’s shelf-life extension.
Importantly, the threshold for negative NGWP in the
reported food-processing models is merely 1–3 days of
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainability in FLW Reduction Biotechnology Mouat 5
shelf-life extension. Extension opportunities beyond 14
days had minimal impact on net outcome due to adverse
consumer behavior. These results align with an earlier
conclusion by Bacenetti et al. [69] that inventory-man­
agement practices cause some supply-chain actors to
discard some perishables with superior shelf life versus
products perceived as ‘more perishable.’ Ultimately, the
efficacy of a shelf-life extension technology incurs di­
minishing returns in these models. Instead, the re­
lationship of the technology to the behavioral context of
the supply chain drives sustainability.
Conclusion and future outlooks
This critical review contrasts and compares two key
areas of research in FLW-reduction biotechnology: the
transformation of FLW into higher-value products and
the prevention of FLW through shelf-life extension.
The state of environmental-impact analysis is suffi­
ciently advanced among FLW transformation technolo­
gies to gain understanding of the net impact of
biotechnologies, driven by increasing TRL and improve
models integrating technical, economic, and environ­
mental parameters. However, careful attention to
boundary conditions is necessary to understand the full
environmental impact of industrial-scale FLW-reduction
processes.
There is a much wider knowledge gap in the sustain­
ability of FLW-prevention biotechnologies. The need
for outcome analysis beyond technical performance is
crucial. A shift in research focus toward environmental
and economic outcomes at low TRL would increase
available datasets and improve modeling across the field.
To make real progress in global FLW reduction, the
research community must challenge the automatic as­
signment of sustainability to FLW-reduction bio­
technology with a demand for robust outcome analysis.
The true impact of FLW-prevention biotechnologies
can then be realized, accessing the most environmentally
positive outcomes of the food-waste management hier­
archy.
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares a financial stake in the private for-
profit company Hazel Technologies, Inc. The field of
business of this company is materially relevant to the
subject matter discussed in this publication.
Data Availability
No data were used for the research described in the ar­
ticle.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
6 Food Biotechnology
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have
been highlighted as:
•• of special interest
1. Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Van Otterdijk R,
Meybeck A: Global food losses and food waste. FAO; 2011:1-23.
2. Gunders D: Wasted: how America is losing up to 40 percent of
its food from farm to fork to landfill. Nat Resour Def Counc 2012,
26:1-26.
3. CFS: Report of the 41st Session of the Committee on World
Food Security. In Committee on World Food Security. Edited by
Fulton D. FAO; 2014:1-45.
4. FAO F: Food Wastage Footprint Full-cost Accounting. FAO;
2014.
5. Muth MK, Birney C, Cuéllar A, Finn SM, Freeman M, Galloway JN,
Gee I, Gephart J, Jones K, Low L, et al.: A systems approach to
assessing environmental and economic effects of food loss
and waste interventions in the United States. Sci Total Environ
2019, 685:1240-1254.
6. Skaf L, Buonocore E, Dumontet S, Capone R, Franzese PP:
Applying network analysis to explore the global scientific
literature on food security. Ecol Inform 2020, 56:101062.
7. Lemaire A, Limbourg S: How can food loss and waste
management achieve sustainable development goals? J Clean
Prod 2019, 234:1221-1234.
8. Read QD, Brown S, Cuéllar AD, Finn SM, Gephart JA, Marston LT,
Meyer E, Weitz KA, Muth MK: Assessing the environmental
impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply
chain. Sci Total Environ 2020, 712:136255.
9. Lipinski B: Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting
Standard. Food Loss and Waste Protocol. World Resources
Institute; 2016.
10. Chaboud G, Daviron B: Food losses and waste: navigating the
inconsistencies. Glob Food Secur 2017, 12:1-7.
11. Yang N, Li F, Liu Y, Dai T, Wang Q, Zhang J, Dai Z, Yu B:
Environmental and economic life-cycle assessments of household
food waste management systems: a comparative review of
methodology and research progress. Sustainability 2022, 14:7533.
12. Cattaneo A, Sánchez MV, Torero M, Vos R: Reducing food loss
• and waste: five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy
2021, 98:101974.
The relationship between global food-waste policy and outcome is
discussed. It is important to understand the backgroup of policy goals in
FLW reduction, and equally important to understand where policies in­
duce suboptimal outcomes in management imperatives.
13. Albizzati PF, Tonini D, Astrup TF: High-value products from food
waste: an environmental and socio-economic assessment. Sci
Total Environ 2021, 755:142466.
14. Xue L, Liu G, Parfitt J, Liu X, Van Herpen E, Stenmarck Å, O’Connor
C, Östergren K, Cheng S: Missing food, missing data? A critical
review of global food losses and food waste data. Environ Sci
Technol 2017, 51:6618-6633.
15. Buzby JC, Farah-Wells H, Hyman J: The Estimated Amount,
Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail
and Consumer Levels in the United States. USDA-ERS Economic
Information Bulletin; 2014.
16. Baker GA, Gray LC, Harwood MJ, Osland TJ, Tooley JBC: On-farm
food loss in northern and central California: results of field
survey measurements. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019,
149:541-549.
17. Messner R, Richards C, Johnson H: The “Prevention Paradox”:
• food waste prevention and the quandary of systemic surplus
production. Agric Hum Values 2020, 37:805-817.
The ‘prevention paradox’ provides an important theoretical framework
for understanding the lack of quantification in FLW prevention. This work
evaluates with necessary skepticism the underlying assumptions in the
food-waste management hierarchy.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781
18. De Laurentiis V, Caldeira C, Sala S: No time to waste: assessing
the performance of food waste prevention actions. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2020, 161:104946.
19. Brunklaus B, Rex E, Carlsson E, Berlin J: The future of Swedish
food waste: an environmental assessment of existing and
prospective valorization techniques. J Clean Prod 2018,
202:1-10.
20. Ögmundarson Ó, Sukumara S, Laurent A, Fantke P:
Environmental hotspots of lactic acid production systems. GCB
Bioenergy 2020, 12:19-38.
21. Lark TJ, Hendricks NP, Smith A, Pates N, Spawn-Lee SA, Bougie
M, Booth EG, Kucharik CJ, Gibbs HK: Environmental outcomes
of the US Renewable Fuel Standard. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2022,
119:e2101084119.
22. Lewandrowski J, Rosenfeld J, Pape D, Hendrickson T, Jaglo K,
Moffroid K: The greenhouse gas benefits of corn ethanol —
assessing recent evidence. Biofuels 2020, 11:361-375.
23. Fiorentino G, Ripa M, Ulgiati S: Chemicals from biomass:
technological versus environmental feasibility. A review.
Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 2017, 11:195-214.
24. Goossens Y, Wegner A, Schmidt T: Sustainability assessment of
food waste prevention measures: review of existing evaluation
practices. Front Sustain Food Syst 2019, 3:1-18.
25. Martin-Rios C, Demen-Meier C, Gössling S, Cornuz C: Food waste
management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste
Manag 2018, 79:196-206.
26. Hennchen B: Knowing the kitchen: applying practice theory to
issues of food waste in the food service sector. J Clean Prod
2019, 225:675-683.
27. Mourad M: Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”:
competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the
United States and France. J Clean Prod 2016, 126:461-477.
28. Ciccullo F, Cagliano R, Bartezzaghi G, Perego A: Implementing
the circular economy paradigm in the agri-food supply chain:
the role of food waste prevention technologies. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2021, 164:105114.
29. Ushani U, Sumayya AR, Archana G, Rajesh Banu J, Dai J: Chapter
10 — Enzymes/biocatalysts and bioreactors for valorization of
food wastes. In Food Waste to Valuable Resources. Edited by
Banu JR, Kumar G, Gunasekaran M, Kavitha S. Academic Press;
2020:211-233.
30. Tomaschek K, Olechowski A, Eppinger S, Joglekar N: A survey of
technology readiness level users. In Proceedings of the INCOSE
International Symposium; 2016, 26:2101–2117.
31. Cristóbal J, Caldeira C, Corrado S, Sala S: Techno-economic and
profitability analysis of food waste biorefineries at European
level. Bioresour Technol 2018, 259:244-252.
32. Okolie JA, Epelle EI, Tabat ME, Orivri U, Amenaghawon AN, Okoye
• PU, Gunes B: Waste biomass valorization for the production of
biofuels and value-added products: a comprehensive review of
thermochemical, biological and integrated processes. Process
Saf Environ Prot 2022, 159:323-344.
The review of Okolie et al. provides a good survey of multiple classes of
FLW valorization technology (biological, thermal, and chemical). The
accompanying discussion of TRL framework is invaluable for risk as­
sessment of emerging technology reports.
33. Puhar J, Vujanovic A, Krajnc D, Cucek L: Technology readiness
level assessment of formalin production pathways. Chem Eng
Trans 2021, 88:607-612.
34. Freeman B, Bhown A: Assessment of the technology readiness
of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies. Energy Procedia
2011, 4:1791-1796.
35. Meng F, McKechnie J: Challenges in quantifying greenhouse
gas impacts of waste-based biofuels in EU and US biofuel
policies: case study of butanol and ethanol production from
municipal solid waste. Environ Sci Technol 2019,
53:12141-12149.
www.sciencedirect.com

36. Mohd Yusof SJH, Roslan AM, Ibrahim KN, Syed Abdullah SS,
Zakaria MR, Hassan MA, Shirai Y: Life cycle assessment for
bioethanol production from oil palm frond juice in an oil palm
based biorefinery. Sustainability 2019, 11:6928.
37. Kwan TH, Hu Y, Lin CSK: Techno-economic analysis of a food
waste valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly
(lactic acid) production. J Clean Prod 2018, 181:72-87.
38. Li W, Wright MM: Negative emission energy production
technologies: a techno‐economic and life cycle analyses
review. Energy Technol 2020, 8:1900871.
39. Saini JK, Saini R, Tewari L: Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as
biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production:
concepts and recent developments. 3 Biotech 2015, 5:337-353.
40. Wei P, Cheng L-H, Zhang L, Xu X-H, Chen H-L, Gao C-J: A review
of membrane technology for bioethanol production. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014, 30:388-400.
41. Ma Y, Liu Y: Turning food waste to energy and resources
towards a great environmental and economic sustainability: an
innovative integrated biological approach. Biotechnol Adv 2019,
37:107414.
42. Vlysidis A, Koutinas A, Kookos I: Techno-Economic Evaluation of
Refining of Food Supply Chain Wastes for the Production of
Chemicals and Biopolymers. Springer Nature; 2017:147-164.
43. Hu X, Subramanian K, Wang H, Roelants SLKW, To MH, Soetaert W,
Kaur G, Lin CSK, Chopra SS: Guiding environmental sustainability
of emerging bioconversion technology for waste-derived
sophorolipid production by adopting a dynamic life cycle
assessment (dLCA) approach. Environ Pollut 2021, 269:116101.
44. Makris DP: Chapter 16 — Recovery and applications of
enzymes from food wastes. In Food Waste Recovery. Edited by
Galanakis CM. 2nd ed., Academic Press; 2021:313-325.
45. Papadaskalopoulou C, Sotiropoulos A, Novacovic J, Barabouti E,
Mai S, Malamis D, Kekos D, Loizidou M: Comparative life cycle
assessment of a waste to ethanol biorefinery system versus
conventional waste management methods. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2019, 149:130-139.
46. Hu X, Subramanian K, Wang H, Roelants SLKW, Soetaert W, Kaur
• G, Lin CSK, Chopra SS: Bioconversion of food waste to produce
industrial-scale sophorolipid syrup and crystals: dynamic Life
Cycle Assessment (dLCA) of emerging biotechnologies.
Bioresour Technol 2021, 337:125474.
The work of Hu et al. provides a meriotorious example of collaborative
efforts between experiment and model analysis in an effort to derisk a
low TRL process. Understanding of environmental impacts at broader
scales is determined through the combination of efforts.
47. Wang H, Kaur G, To MH, Roelants SLKW, Patria RD, Soetaert W,
Lin CSK: Efficient in-situ separation design for long-term
sophorolipids fermentation with high productivity. J Clean Prod
2020, 246:118995.
48. Hosseini H, Jafari SM: Introducing nano/microencapsulated
bioactive ingredients for extending the shelf-life of food
products. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2020, 282:102210.
49. Langer SE, Marina M, Francese P, Civello PM, Martínez GA,
Villarreal NM: New insights into the cell wall preservation by 1-
methylcyclopropene treatment in harvest-ripe strawberry fruit.
Sci Hortic 2022, 299:111032.
50. Dang TT, Rode TM, Skipnes D: Independent and combined
effects of high pressure, microwave, soluble gas stabilization,
modified atmosphere and vacuum packaging on
microbiological and physicochemical shelf life of precooked
chicken breast slices. J Food Eng 2021, 292:110352.
51. Lisboa M, Chagas C, da Costa JCM, Rossoni D, Mikcha JMG, Silva
JVO, Batista A, Caetano W, Madrona GS, Tonon LAC, et al.:
Characterization and effect of edible alginate acidified
coatings associated with photodynamics on cheese
preservation. Appl Food Res 2022, 2:100113.
52. Xue C, Guan S-C, Chen J-Q, Wen C-J, Cai J-F, Chen X: Genome
wide identification and functional characterization of
strawberry pectin methylesterases related to fruit softening.
BMC Plant Biol 2020, 20:1-17.
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainability in FLW Reduction Biotechnology Mouat 7
53. Le TD, Phasupan P, Visaruthaphong K, Chouwatat P, Thi Thu V,
Nguyen LT: Development of an antimicrobial photodynamic
poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) packaging film
for food preservation. Food Packag Shelf Life 2021, 30:100749.
54. Teigiserova DA, Hamelin L, Thomsen M: Towards transparent
valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: clarifying
definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular
economy. Sci Total Environ 2020, 706:136033.
55. Omolayo Y, Feingold BJ, Neff RA, Romeiko XX: Life cycle
• assessment of food loss and waste in the food supply chain.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2021, 164:105119.
An examplary LCA meta-analysis of FLW-prevention reports that in­
dicates strong need for future studies and the critical evaluation of
operational factors in the performance of an FLW-reduction approach.
56. Ma L, Zhang M, Bhandari B, Gao Z: Recent developments in
novel shelf life extension technologies of fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables. Trends Food Sci Technol 2017, 64:23-38.
57. Settier-Ramirez L, López-Carballo G, Hernandez-Muñoz P,
• Tinitana-Bayas R, Gavara R, Sanjuán N: Assessing the
environmental consequences of shelf life extension:
conventional versus active packaging for pastry cream. J Clean
Prod 2022, 333:130159.
The work from Settier-Ramirez et al. carries forward the discussion of
the sustainability trade-offs in packaging versus shelf-life extension. An
understudied component of the drive for better sustainability in packa­
ging is the need for packaging technologies offering sufficient shelf life,
otherwise the externalities of packaging replacement overtake en­
vironmental gain.
58. Hardenburg RE: Wax and Related Coatings for Horticultural
Products; A Bibliography; 1967.
59. Harvey RH, Landon RB: Shriveling of Fruits and Vegetables
(waxing winter squash). Mark Grow J 1935, 56:158.
60. Mazliak P: Etude des hydroxyacides des cires de pomme et de
carnauba. Phytochemistry 1963, 2:253-261.
61. White A, Lockyer S: Removing plastic packaging from fresh
produce — what’s the impact? Nutr Bull 2020, 45:35-50.
62. Riva SC, Opara UO, Fawole OA: Recent developments on
postharvest application of edible coatings on stone fruit: a
review. Sci Hortic 2020, 262:109074.
63. Sun X, Wang J, Dong M, Zhang H, Li L, Wang L: Food spoilage,
bioactive food fresh-keeping films and functional edible
coatings: research status, existing problems and development
trend. Trends Food Sci Technol 2022, 119:122-132.
64. Chang H, Xu J, Macqueen LA, Aytac Z, Peters MM, Zimmerman JF, Xu
T, Demokritou P, Parker KK: High-throughput coating with
biodegradable antimicrobial pullulan fibres extends shelf life and
reduces weight loss in an avocado model. Nat Food 2022, 3:428-436.
65. Dai L, Zhang J, Cheng F: Cross-linked starch-based edible coating
• reinforced by starch nanocrystals and its preservation effect on
graded Huangguan pears. Food Chem 2020, 311:125891.
Few coating reports in the literature offer insights into process re­
quirements for the outcome of use. An investigation of process order
revealed that coating before grading of pears was superior to coating
after grading, highlighting the importance of process control in the
performance of the underlying technology.
66. Vzquez-Celestino D, Mercado-Silvaauthor EM: Effects of Waxing,
Microperforated Polyethylene Bag, 1-methylcyclopropene and
Nitric Oxide on Firmness and Shrivel and Weight Loss of Manila
Mango Fruit during Ripening; 2015.
67. Zhang BY, Tong Y, Singh S, Cai H, Huang J-Y: Assessment of
carbon footprint of nano-packaging considering potential food
waste reduction due to shelf life extension. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2019, 149:322-331.
68. Williams H, Wikström F: Environmental impact of packaging and
food losses in a life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis
of five food items. J Clean Prod 2011, 19:43-48.
69. Bacenetti J, Cavaliere A, Falcone G, Giovenzana V, Banterle A,
Guidetti R: Shelf life extension as solution for environmental
impact mitigation: a case study for bakery products. Sci Total
Environ 2018, 627:997-1007.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 77( 2022) 102781