Patricia
Guarnieri
UnB -
Universidade de Brasília FACE - Faculdade de Economia, Administração e
Contabilidade, Brazil
E-mail: patguarnieri@gmail.com
Raiane
Costa Coimbra Aguiar
Universidade
de Brasília - UnB, Brazil
E-mail: raianeaguiar1@gmail.com
Karim
Marini Thome
Universidade
de Brasília - UnB, Brazil
E-mail: thome.karim@gmail.com
Submission: 4/1/2020
Revision: 5/13/2020
Accept: 6/3/2020
ABSTRACT
Population growth, coupled with a growing demand for
food, and its consequent waste and economic, social, environmental, and
nutritional impacts, has drawn attention to global discussions related to such
issues. In this context, the objective of this research was to provide an
overview of studies addressing food waste, in particular, fruits and
vegetables. To achieve this purpose, a systematic literature review was carried
out, covering papers published in international journals from 2007 to 2017,
available in the Science Direct database. The results point out the best
practices to avoid food waste, as mentioned in the literature considered. In addition, this study gathered information
regarding the main characteristics of publications, such as the evolution of
the number of publications per year; main methods and techniques used in research,
and which journals excel at covering the theme. This paper may be useful to
researchers and practitioners interested in this topic since it systematizes
the knowledge related to food waste in fruit and vegetable supply chains.
Keywords: agrifood supply chain; best practices; food waste; fruit; vegetable; reduction of food waste
1.
INTRODUCTION
As the population grows
and urbanizes, the demand for food supplies in large cities also grows.
Although the future projection of agribusiness is quite positive regarding
production improvements, the problem of agricultural product supply for the
next decades is quite serious. Whether, for example, in Africa or India, every
year, millions of people suffer from malnutrition and under-nourishment or die
of starvation. In many parts of the globe, food production is damaged beyond
recuperation (Smill, 2001).
Moreover, population
growth continues at greater rates than ever before. Factors, such as the recent
rise in agricultural prices on world markets; the slow growth in production
when compared to the rapid growth in demand; the emergence of biofuels as an
important source of energy; scenarios of global climate change, and the growing
scarcity of primary factors for agricultural expansion, (Trostle,
2010; Ajanovic, 2011; Hertel,
2011) contribute to this bleak scenario. With specific regard to grains, in the
cases of rice and wheat, export restrictions, demand surges, and, in some
situations, droughts, explain dramatic price increases. Concerning maize and
soybeans, trade shocks explain the prices rises (Headey, 2011).
According to the FAO –
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018), in 2017,
almost 124 million people across 51countries and territories faced crisis
levels of food insecurity and requested humanitarian aid. The report also
indicated that conflict and climate disasters have often occurred
simultaneously. This fact has also caused significant population displacement.
In addition, a solution to the maintenance of food supply would be more related
to an increase in agricultural productivity than to an expansion of land use
for cultivation and pasture, thus relieving the intense pressure to use
resources and preserving the environment (Strassburg
et al., 2014).
However, to meet this
growing demand, it is not enough to increase land productivity. Food loss and
waste must be reduced throughout the food supply chain. In developed countries,
the majority of food waste occurs at the consumer/retail end of the supply
chain, while in developing countries, such waste occurs at the production,
storage and transport stages (Bloem & de Pee,
2017; Ulm et al., 2018). This concern is
not new, but it has become increasingly challenging for the world, since it
directly affects all the pillars of planetary sustainability: social, economic,
and environmental. Besides this, it is estimated that, globally, 30 - 40% of
food is wasted, usually fruits, vegetables, and meat, which are very
nutritious, but also perishable (Bloem & de Pee,
2017).
In this scenario, the
vast majority of countries are more aware of the issue of food waste, thus,
there has been growth in the last few years of international interest in
measuring the amount of food wasted worldwide (Katajajuuri
et al., 2014). The European Commission is developing several initiatives aimed
at meeting the Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, the target being to halve per
capita food waste at the retail and consumer level by 2030, reducing food loss
and waste in supply chains (E.U. Commission, 2019). In this context, several
studies have been published in the last few years regarding this matter.
Some of these studies
may be highlighted: Buzby, Hyman (2012), Katajajuuri et al. (2014), Byker
et al. (2014), and Garrone et al. (2014) approached
the measurement of food waste from the point of view of wasted quantities and
corresponding monetary value. Visschers et al. (2016),
Stancu et al. (2016); Secondi et al. (2015),
Graham-Rowe et al. (2014), Quested et al. (2013) studied consumer behavior
related to food waste. Williams et al. (2012) dealt with issues related to food
waste, packaging types and processes. Scholz et al. (2015) and Parizeau et al. (2015) studied the
environmental impact related to food waste. Aschemann-Witzel
et al. (2017), Papargyropoulou et al. (2014), Stefan
et al. (2013) identified and proposed initiatives to reduce food loss and
waste.
Gollnhofer`s
research (2017) also has implications for issues related to ecological concerns
and food waste. The author stated, from the marketing perspective, that
fostering normalisation processes could contribute to
a more efficient use of resources and help to overcome mental and social
barriers that hinder individuals from engaging in responsible behaviour. Bourlakis et al.
(2014) developed a framework with sustainability performance indicators in the agri-food supply chains of dairy products, highlighting the
problems related to poor product conservation, low-quality product packaging,
and limited use of traceability. The study by Parfitt, Barthel
and Macnaughton (2010) presented results from a
review of food waste issues, combining information on food waste from the
international literature and interviews with supply chain experts.
However, it is
necessary to pay more attention to the identification of the factors that lead
to food loss and waste, and, consequently, lead to an indication of the best
practices in food supply chain management. Aiming to identify the factors that
generate food loss and waste, it is necessary for research to have a greater
focus on all members in the food supply chain (Halloran et al., 2014).
Therefore, there is a lack of studies about the food supply chain, especially
those of fruits and vegetables, since there is a lack of knowledge about the
best practices that contribute to the avoidance of food loss and waste.
Considering the
above-mentioned factors, the objective of this study provides an overview of
studies addressing food waste, related, in particular, to fruits and
vegetables. In order to fulfil this aim, a systematic literature review was
carried out, following the protocol of Pagani, Kovaleski and Resende (2015),
covering papers published in international journals from 2007 to 2017, with the
Journal Citation Reports – JCR© impact factor.
Thus, it was possible
to identify the main causes of food waste, and the best practices to avoid food
waste pointed out in the selected literature. In addition, this study gathers
information regarding the main characteristics of publications, such as:
evolution of the number publications per year; main methods and techniques used
in research, and which journals excel in their coverage of this theme. This
paper may prove to be very useful to researchers and practitioners interested
in this topic since it systematizes the knowledge related to food waste in
fruit and vegetable supply chains.
The article is
organized into the following sections: This first contextualizes the theme and
shows its relevance. Section 2 outlines the main concepts related to food
supply chain management, and those related to understanding food loss and food
waste. Section 3 presents the methodological procedures, describing the steps
in the systematic literature review. Section 4 covers the results and
discussions, and, finally, Section 5 presents the concluding remarks,
limitations of this study, plus potential contributions, and suggestions for
future research.
2.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1.
Agrifood supply chains
An agri-food
supply chain refers to a set of relations among different segments that
establish successive changes in the transformation of food inputs into value
for the final consumer.
Everything begins with suppliers of
raw materials that will be used in the production process of fruits and
vegetables (seeds, seedlings, fertilizers, correctives, pesticides, irrigation,
greenhouses, tractors, implements, fuel, personal protective equipment, tools
and utensils, and electricity). The farmers undertake the fruit and vegetable
production process. After the harvest, value is added to some fruits and
vegetables on the farms or in large or artisanal agro-industries: weighing,
pre-washing, selection, cooling, and packaging. Next, some fruits and
vegetables are sold “in natura” to industries and
other distribution channels until they reach the final consumer, whether
through wholesale, retail, or imports/exports.
However, there is a series of wastage
throughout all the stages in the agrifood supply
chain, from the countryside to the home of the final consumer (Betz et al.,
2015; Stancu, Haugaard &
Lähteenmäki, 2016). In the context of the relations
among the members of the agrifood supply chain, the
influence of some on others in decision-making processes causes food loss or
waste in a constant cycle (Halloran et al., 2014).
In the agrifood
supply chain, an enormous amount of food is lost, even in the field in the
primary production sector, in which food producers, ranging from family farms
to large producers, lose a measurable amount of food fit for consumption, often
due to the preferences of the other members of the chain (Halloran et al.,
2014).
Then, the production and
transformation stages present the possibility of minimizing waste by processing
the fruits and vegetables that can be treated in this way. At the supply chain
links responsible for food marketing, about 45,676 tons of food are wasted each
year (Scholz, Eriksson & Strid,
2015). Globally, it is estimated that 30 - 40% of the food produced is wasted, mainly
perishable fruits and vegetables and meat (Bloem
& de Pee, 2017). However, according to Parfitt, Barthel
and Macnaughton (2010), there are information gaps
and uncertainties, and no consensus on the proportion of global food production
that is currently lost. Since 2010, the estimate has ranged from 10 to 40% of
world output.
In the case of developing countries,
structural, planning, and logistical bottlenecks limit improvements in the
stages of the fruit and vegetable supply chains. Better coordination and
information-sharing from the production units to the point of sale, as well as
improvements in production technologies and logistical processes, would
contribute to waste reduction (Halloran et al., 2014). Therefore, it is
possible to realize that integration of the agricultural supply chain is
indicated as a solution for the best use of food, and, consequently, for a
reduction in food loss and waste (Halloran et al., 2014).
On the other hand, it is in
households in developed countries that the greatest amount of food suitable for
consumption is wasted (Quested et al., 2013; Visschers
et al., 2016). According to Williams et al. (2012), it is the waste generated
by the final consumers that has a more significant impact than the waste
created in the distribution chain. Indeed, the post-harvest stage presents the
greatest challenge to reducing food waste, that is, making it possible in the
future to ensure a consistent, sustainable supply of food for the world’s
entire population (Buzby & Hyman, 2012).
2.2.
FOOD LOSS VERSUS FOOD WASTE
There is no worldwide consensus on
the definitions of food loss and food waste (Buzby
& Hyman, 2012). Food loss or waste
are related to all foods that are effectively lost and wasted, regardless of
the stage in the supply chain, for economic reasons, by the date of expiration,
but which might still be fit for human consumption (Halloran et al., 2014).
Papargyropoulou
et al. (2014) adopted the definition that food waste is associated with any
food that has been diverted from the function of human food. Visschers et al. (2016) referred to food waste ranging from
household waste to those used in composting or animal feed. Buzby
& Hyman (2012) stated that food loss can be related to physical and
nutritional attributes and may be present in the first production stages on the
farms. On the other hand, waste food could be related to the foods that can be
consumed, but are, in fact, thrown away.
Halloran et al. (2014), Quested et
al. (2013) and Stancu et al. (2016) agreed that, in
developed countries, the largest share of consumable food is wasted. Thus, the
European Union members have set targets in order to minimize food waste (Scholz, Eriksson & Strid,
2015).
There is great difficulty in
accurately measuring the amount of food that is wasted. This is due to lack of standardization
of the methods and techniques used for quantification (Stancu,
Haugaard & Lähteenmäki,
2016). In addition, the regulations that standardize and regulate the commercialization
of foods establish standards of size, color, form, among others, which can in
many cases exclude food in good condition for consumption, but does not meet
the standardization requirements, and so ends up being wasted (Halloran et al.,
2014).
In developed countries, most of the
losses occur at the two ends of the supply chain, whereas, in developing
nations, losses are most acute in agriculture and food distribution (Fao, 2011). There are large losses of fruits and vegetables
at all stages of their production processes, especially in bulk transport (Fao, 2011). In addition, Parfitt, Barthel
and Macnaughton (2010) highlighted that there is a
demand for quantitative evidence of food waste covering agri-food
supply chains in developing countries and the rapidly evolving BRICs.
It should be noted that a
considerable part of the waste is associated with a lack of adequate structure
in the logistics processes involved, since the way the supply chain components
are structured directly influences product quality (Halloran et al., 2014).
Amidst the visible power of chain
management by some key members, the Fao (2013b)
reports examples of cases of waste due to overproduction. What happens is the
lack of commitment and the communication failures between the distribution
links and production links, through the non-fulfilment of orders from
retailers. According to this report, in addition to not complying with the
purchase of all previously ordered foods, supermarkets often prohibit their
unsold products from being donated, because they associate their brand with a
lack of credibility (Fao, 2013b). In summary, the main indicator of high
wastage in high-income countries is consumer behavior. However, Furthermore, as
well as losses in developing countries are caused by a lack of coordination
among different actors in the supply chain from the time before production to
final distribution (Fao, 2011).
The perishability of several
products takes a variety of forms, leading to greater waste in establishments
that do not carry out broad control considering the specificity of each item in
their stocks. Food waste in developed countries is proportional to the
large-scale product supply (Belik et al., 2012).
3.
METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
This research is characterized from
the point of view of its objectives as descriptive; from the viewpoint of the
approach to the problem, it is qualitative, and, as for the technical
procedure, it is a systematic literature review. There are two types of
literature review: the narrative (traditional) literature review that does not
make explicit the search and selection criteria of the papers; and the
systematic review, which follows a protocol with well-defined stages, making
explicit the search criteria, selection and elimination of articles, in order
to guarantee replicability (Cronin, Ryan & Coughlan, 2008).
The systematic literature review
process guarantees greater rigor, robustness and replicability for the research
(Denyer & Tranfield,
2009). In addition, Webster and Watson
(2002) stated that literature reviews present two perspectives: (i) revision of topics that have accumulated knowledge and
require analysis and synthesis; and (ii) revision of emerging issues, whose
contribution is the exposure of potential theoretical foundations, which is
usually not as extensive as the former. The perspective adopted in this article
fits the second notion of literature review.
With the intention of demonstrating
the state of the art on the subject of food loss and waste, the literature
review was carried out with a systematic perspective, whose approach is
structured in a protocol of selection and analysis of the references, involving
the steps proposed by Pagani, Kovaleski
and Resende (2015).
First, the research problem was
defined: Waste in the food supply chain. Next, the keyword that would be used
in the search was defined: Food Waste. In the sequence, the definition of Science
Direct as the source of papers was made. Science Direct was chosen, as it has a
wide variety of articles with a high impact factor, spanning several knowledge
fields. The analysis period was from January 2007 to December 2017. It was
found that 437 papers were published in this period. The articles were analyzed
by reading the titles and abstracts. Thus, from the 437 articles, 79 articles
remained.
There are several systematic
literature review protocols (Cronin, Ryan & Coughlan, 2008; Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Liberati et al., 2009; Higgins 7 Green, 2011; Pagani, Kovaleski & Resende, 2015). It was opted to use the Methodi
Ordinatio protocol, which is based on a
multi-criteria decision aid approach, proposed by Pagani,
Kovaleski and Resende
(2015). To classify the quality of the articles, the calculation of the InOrdinatio index was obtained by the following formula:
(IF /
1000) + α * [10- (Year Search – Year Published)] + (ΣCi) (1)
This formula allows the best
articles to be selected by sorting the highest scores. The calculation
considers the year of publication, the impact factor of the journal in which it
was published, and the number of quotations. The authors, Pagani,
Kovaleski and Resende
(2015) advised the researcher to determine the cut line so that only articles
above the line would be read in their entirety. In this way, 17 articles were
selected on the basis that they presented an InOrdinatio
index over 123 (see Figure 1 below):
At step 1, “Starts”,
the author should choose the option “Articles”, as the journal section to
submit his paper. While in this step, the author should verify the submission
checklist and also agree with the copyright terms for submission.
Figure
1:
Steps of the Systematic Literature Review
After definition of the inclusion
and exclusion criteria, two filtering processes were carried out. The first by
reading the titles, keywords and abstracts, and the second by calculation of
the InOrdinatio index. Finally, the 17 remaining
papers were analyzed by the Content Analysis proposed by Bardin (1977), in
order to gather the main characteristics of papers, and to obtain the main
causes of food waste and the best practices to reduce or avoid such waste in agrifood supply chains. Following the steps proposed by Bardin
(1977), the data papers were analyzed based on the definition of categories,
which aimed to capture patterns repeated in most of the collected data. The
categories were created a posteriori, that is, they were created
according to the situations identified in the data collected and occurred
repeatedly.
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the midst of this scenario, the
vast majority of countries are more aware of the issue of food waste. In this
sense, there has been a growth in recent years of international research in
measuring the amount of food wasted worldwide. Table 1 shows the direction of
this international research:
Table 1: Research direction
Authors
(year) |
Research
direction |
(Buzby;
Hyman, 2012); (Katajajuuri et al., 2014); (Byker et al., 2014); (Garrone et
al., 2014) |
Measure waste from the point of view of wasted
quantities and or their monetary correspondence |
(Stancu et
al., 2016); (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014); (Quested et al., 2013); (Secondi et
al., 2015); (Visschers et al., 2016) |
Consumer Behaviour |
(Williams et
al., 2012) |
Packaging |
(Scholz et
al., 2015); (Parizeau, et al., 2015) |
Environmental Impact |
(Stefan et
al., 2013); (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017); (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) |
Proposed initiatives and outputs to reduce loss and waste |
According to Table 1 about the
direction of the international research, most of the papers found had studied
the behavior of the final consumer related to food waste, followed by studies
measuring the quantities wasted, and the environmental and monetary impacts
generated.
Regarding the evolution of the
international publications, Figure 2 shows the absence of studies in the years
2007 to 2010, due to the fact that they were eliminated by the Methodic Ordination
selection formula, which can be considered a limitation to this research.
Figure
2: Evolution of the number of publications per year
Regarding the year 2017, the lower
number of publications can be explained by the fact that some journals
published the December edition on the first day of the month. This research was
conducted during the first fifteen days of December 2017. Table 2 presents the
methodological design of the papers analyzed.
Table 2: Methodological Design
Author (Year) |
Research Technique |
Data Collection Instrument |
Methodological Approach |
Data Analysis Technique |
Stancu et al. (2016) |
Survey |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Scholz et al. (2015) |
Case Study |
Documents |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Stefan et al. (2013) |
Survey |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Quested et al. (2013) |
Case Study |
Documents |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) |
Case Study |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Visschers et al. (2016) |
Survey |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Garrone et al. (2014) |
Case Study |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Williams et al. (2012) |
Case Study |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Graham-Rowe et al. (2014) |
Case Study |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Parizeau et al. (2015) |
Case Study |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) |
Multiple Case Study |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Content Analysis |
Secondi et al. (2015) |
Survey |
Interview |
Qualitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Betz et al. (2015) |
Case Study |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Byker et al. (2014) |
Survey |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Sonnino; McWilliam (2011) |
Case Study |
Interview |
Quali/Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Katajajuuri et al. (2014) |
Survey |
Questionnaire |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
Buzby; Hyman (2012) |
Documental research |
Documens |
Quantitative |
Descriptive Statistics |
The context presented is based on
the Research Techniques, the Data Collection Instrument, the Methodological
Approach, and Data Analysis Techniques of the publications. Among the research
techniques, the studies analyzed present great variety. The case study was the
main design. Regarding the instrument, the interview was highlighted as the
instrument most used for data collection.
It has also been found that most of
the works come from Denmark (3) and the United Kingdom (3), followed by the
United States (2), Italy (2), Sweden (2), Germany (1), Switzerland (1),
Malaysia (1), Finland (1), and Canada (1). Regarding publication, Figure 3
shows the distribution of the papers analyzed among the main journals: Malaysia
(1), Finland (1), and Canada (1). Figure 3 shows the distribution of the papers
analyzed among the main journals:
Figure
3: Main Journals for Publication
Studies on food loss and waste have
different approaches. While, on the one hand, they aim to identify the factors
that lead to domestic food waste; on the other, some studies aim to measure the
impacts of food waste. The following categories, based on the Bardin (1977)
content analysis technique, were created to classify the different approaches
found: Behavioral and Cultural Generation factors; Economic Impact;
Environmental Impact.
The great majority of studies aim to
understand the behavior of the final consumer, listing the factors that drive
food waste, considering that some studies point out that, at the consumption
stage, there is more generation of food waste, and a greater possibility of
prevention (Stancu, Haugaard
& Lähteenmäki, 2016). However, although consumers
appear to make the greatest contribution to the volume of wasted food, there is
almost no information on the drivers of such behavior in consumer households
(Stefan et al., 2013). In this sense, the minimization of food residues in
developed countries should be focused on the retail and consumption stages (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). The waste of
consumer-related food is a complex issue that requires collaboration among
various actors in the supply chain, along with actions to increase awareness (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017).
Based on the results, it is possible
to state that poor management of the routines related to the planning, purchase
and reuse of food leftovers are the main factors that lead to food waste
generation (Stancu, Haugaard
& Lähteenmäki, 2016). This idea is corroborated
by the Stefan et al. (2013) study, in which the authors identified the
management of consumer planning and purchasing routines as a way of predicting
food waste.
With respect to food waste in
households, consumers do not have much understanding of the amount of waste and
the economic value of what they are wasting (Quested et al., 2013). Similar
results were found in the Visschers, Wickli and Siegrist (2016) study,
in which it was verified that the issues of a monetary nature have little
impact on the amount of food thrown away. In this sense, raising consumer
awareness about the financial costs of food waste, especially fruits and
vegetables, may have the impact of generating less waste of this type of food of
lower added value (Visschers, Wickli
& Siegrist, 2016).
At the consumer level, people’s behaviour in relation to food waste was analysed
in Secondi, Principato and Laureti
(2015). As a result, the authors found some patterns: First, there are groups
of countries characterised by similar patterns of behaviour. Second, people living in large cities tend to
produce more waste. Third, public-private partnerships and community-based
interventions to deal with food waste are encouraged (Secondi, Principato & Laureti, 2015).
Summarizing, the results demonstrate
that wasted fruits and vegetables are more related to problems, such as
excessive and incorrect handling by consumers and retailers, lack of facilities
and structure for better storage, and, at the commercialization stage, poor
management of purchasing processes due to lack of management tools and control
of demand and inventory.
Among the articles analyzed, we
highlight the identification of initiatives in the food supply chain aimed at
reducing waste by the final consumer (Aschemann-Witzel
et al., 2017). According to these authors, there are three types of
initiatives: information and training; redistribution/retail; and supply chain
changes. The results show that collaboration among stakeholders, the timing and
sequence of initiatives, the competencies on which the initiatives are based,
and large-scale operations are key success factors.
In this context, some initiatives
conducted worldwide are highlighted in Table 3.
Table 3: Worldwide Initiatives to Reduce Food Waste
Initiative |
Scope |
Organisation |
Description |
Proper solutions for food
packaging in developing countries |
Developing countries |
FAO |
Identify solutions and technologies
of packaging in developing countries, contributing to the prevention and
reduction of global food waste in the stages of production, post-harvest,
distribution, processing and at the point of sale. |
Global food loss and waste |
Worldwide |
FAO |
Identify the causes of food loss and
waste, and provide guidelines of prevention and reduction of waste, besides
examples of best practices for different stakeholders. |
Wise-Up on Food Waste |
Worldwide |
Unilever Association of
Sustainable Food Solutions |
Creation of an auditing tool for
food waste and reduction of waste, with tips aimed at suppliers and chefs in
order to monitor food waste, and at consumers in order to reduce household
food waste. |
|
East African countries |
USA agency for international
development and multi-stakeholders |
Offer technical support and
capacitation projects to improve the performance of food companies when
accessing the international market, meeting quality and safety standards.
Provide tips to help families reduce food waste. |
Stop food waste |
European Union |
European Commission |
Provide tips to help families reduce
food waste. |
Guidelines to devise
programs to prevent food waste |
European Union |
European Commission |
Provide guidelines for public
policy-makers to develop better food waste prevention programmes. Assist food
companies, environmental agencies and organisations. It has a sectoral
approach in order to reach the main food waste producers, aiming at improving
food waste prevention techniques. |
EU Platform on Food Loss and
Food Waste |
European Union |
European Commission |
Through the EU Platform on Food Loss
and Food Waste, the Commission is analysing in close co-operation with
industry, consumer and NGOs, research institutes and the EU countries’ policy
experts, how to reduce food waste without compromising food safety, while
also discussing options for possible EU actions |
Source: Devised by the authors,
adapted from the European Commission; Unilever, FAO & USA Agency (2019).
In Table 4 it is possible to
perceive the worldwide commitment to achieving the purpose of reducing food
waste at the production, distribution, retail and consumer levels.
The study by Visschers,
Wickli and Siegrist (2016),
studied which factors driving waste are related to the quantities of waste
generated by the families surveyed. It is perceived that purchases in
quantities beyond what is necessary, fear of taking advantage and lack of
knowledge about the storage of products, stand out as the main causes of the
increase in food waste generation.
A similar study was carried out by
Graham-Rowe et al. (2014), in which the authors identified 4 categories that
drive food waste: (1) Being a good provider in the home; (2) Prevent inconveniences
related to lack of food; (3) Do not consider waste reduction as a priority; and
(4) Disclaimer. Regarding the measurement of food waste and the driving
factors, it was verified that lack of awareness, lifestyle, buying practices
and beliefs, are related to food waste generation (Parizeau, von Massow & Martin, 2015).
There are also studies focusing on
the economic impact of food loss and waste, such as the study by Buzby and Hyman (2012), which aimed to estimate the
monetary value of food waste for retailers and final consumers. According to
the study, fruits (9%) and vegetables (17%) contributed to the total food loss
(US$ 165.579 million) in the United States in 2008.
Other studies, also measuring the
effects of waste, aim to analyses the environmental impact of food waste,
verifying the levels of carbon emissions from supermarket waste, and analyzing
all the steps. The fruit and vegetable sector reached a wasted mass of 85%, and
46% of the carbon levels (Scholz, Eriksson & Strid, 2015).
Also regarding the environmental
approach to the studies, Papargyropoulou et al.
(2014) proposed that production becomes more sustainable, aiming not only to
avoid excess supply, but also to contain the growing demand, a smaller quantity
of waste being more feasible to deal with. The second option would be to
redistribute excess food to people with little access. In this case, (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). The European Commission has
initiatives related to measures to clarify EU legislation related to waste,
food and feed, as well as facilitate food donation and use of food no longer
intended for human consumption as animal feed (EU Commission, 2019).
Other studies are related to the
creation of a model for the proposition of strategies to minimize this waste,
in which the authors devised a method that quantifies the surplus food so that
it is not wasted. Among the causes of production surpluses, food products that
fail to comply with market standards predominate (Garrone,
Melacini & Perego,
2014),
In addition, a study focusing on how
packaging influences the amount of waste generated was also found (Williams et
al., 2012). The author states that about 20% of household food waste may be
related to packaging. Participants reported the existence of very large food packages.
Regarding fruits and vegetables, the respondents did not relate the waste to a
lack of packaging. However, due to poor storage, about half a kg of food
(fruits, vegetables and dairy products) was wasted per household each week.
In sectors such as hospitals and
schools, sustainable measures need to be implemented in the food services
sector to reduce food waste and improve efficiency (Betz et al., 2015). The
study results corroborate the findings of Sonnino and
McWilliam (2011), in which there was a correlation
between the general quality of the hospital meal service and the large amount
of wasted food. Regarding schools, the largest amount of food waste involved
vegetables. Fruit had the lowest level of residues (33%). For vegetables, on a
daily basis, the level ranged between 26.1% and 80.1%. Vegetables represented
the largest quantity of waste (51.4%) (Byker et al.,
2014).
Finally, Katajajuuri
et al. (2014) determined the volume of avoidable food waste and its
distribution among the members/links (producers, distributors, retailers,
consumers) in the Finnish food supply chain. Although the research was directed
toward the final consumer, the food services sector, the industry, and the
retail sector were also verified. It is worth noting that the largest
concentration of food waste, such as fruits, vegetables and bread, is generated
in retail.
Table 4 gives an overview of the
practices pointed out in the international literature considered for this
systematic literature review, aiming to reduce waste.
Table 4: Best practices found in international
literature
Best practices found in literature |
Author (Year) |
Appropriate food handling |
Buzby &
Hyman (2012) |
Proper packaging |
Garrone,
Melacini & Perego (2014), Halloran et al. (2014) |
Improvement in marketing structure and facilities |
Quested
& Parry (2013), Scholz Eriksson & Strid (2015) |
Demand forecast (pull demand) and inventory control |
Buzby &
Hyman (2012), Papargyropoulou (2014), Stefan et al. (2013), Garrone, Melacini
& Perego (2014), Betz et al. (2015), Sonnino & McWilliam (2011) |
Supply chain management (supply, collaborative
relationships, partnerships, information sharing). |
Buzby &
Hyman (2012), Papargyropoulou (2014), Stefan et al. (2013), Garrone, Melacini
& Perego (2014), Betz et al. (2015), Sonnino & McWilliam (2011);
Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) |
Education and consumer awareness (campaigns about
handling) |
Aschemann-Witzel
et al. (2017), Byker et al. (2014), Graham-Rowe & Sparks (2014), Stefan
et al. (2013), Stancu, Haugaard & Lahteenmaki (2016), Secondi, Principato
& Laureti (2015), Parizeau, Massow
& Martin (2015), Visschers, Wickli & Siegrist (2016) |
Waste management (recycling, reuse) |
Quested et
al. (2013), Visschers, Wickli & Siegrist (2016), Papargyropoulou et al.
(2014) |
Table 4 presents the main steps to
be taken to reduce food waste. Special attention is due to the practices
related to education and awareness of the final consumer, combined with the
greater integration and collaboration of the members of the agrifood
supply chain, covering farmers/producers, distributors, and retailers.
5.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The objective of this paper was to
provide an overview of the international literature on food waste, specifically
related to fruits and vegetables, which are very perishable and represent the
greatest amount of loss in agrifood supply chains.
This aim was achieved through the identification of the main causes of food
waste. Furthermore, the best practices were presented to avoid it. In addition,
this study gathered information regarding the main characteristics of relevant
publications, such as: evolution of publications per year; main methods and
techniques used in research, and which journals excel at covering the theme.
The results demonstrate that the
food waste regarding fruits and vegetables is more related to problems, such as
excessive and incorrect handling by consumers and retailers, lack of facilities
and structure for better storage, and, at the commercialization stage, poor
management of purchasing processes due to lack of management tools and control
of demand and inventory.
As limitations of the study, one may
point out the protocol used for this systematic literature review (Methodic Ordination),
as well as the criteria chosen as parameters to include and exclude
publications. Other existing protocols and criteria can lead to different
results. Besides these, the first
filtering process, which covers reading the titles, keywords, and the abstracts
to verify conformity with the scope of the research, is related to the
subjectivity of the researcher.
As a suggestion for future research,
studies could approach the entire agrifood supply
chain in an integrated way, covering farmers/producers, distributors, retailers
and consumers, as well as public policymakers and other organizations.
Moreover, studies focusing on the drivers of food waste related to consumers in
developed countries, comparing them with those of consumers from developing
countries, constitute an interesting path to future research. Studies focusing
on the comparison of impact in quantities of food waste related to food with
and without packaged. Future research could focus on alternatives and
initiatives of food donation, as well as the reuse of food in circular systems.
Finally, studies aiming to measure the awareness of consumers related to food
waste in developing and developed countries could be conducted.
We can also highlight the studies analyzing
the final consumers' discarding behavior, especially related to the predictors
of consumption and consequent disposal, as well as the deepening of cultural
values and lifestyles, with the aim of creating solutions and campaigns that
directly impact the end of the agrifood supply chain,
which is the consumer. Studies measuring the percentages of waste generated, as
well as the respective monetary values and environmental impact, may be further
explored.
The contribution of this study lies
in the systematization of knowledge on food waste from 2007 to 2017, which has
reinforced the importance of studies about members of the post-harvest chain,
especially in relation to distributors, retail, wholesale, restaurants and
other food services, and especially the final consumer. With regard to the
latter, this study highlights the need to carry out campaigns and involve
public-private partnerships with the intention of educating and raising
awareness about the economic, environmental and social impacts related to such
waste, which can involve both public and private managers. Considering the novelty
of this topic, studies addressing this issue with a qualitative approach could
contribute to future research in this area.
6.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the Brazilian Council
for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) for its support for this research.
REFERENCES
Ajanovic, A. (2011). Biofuels versus food
production: does biofuels production increase food prices? Energy,
36(4), 2070-2076.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge,
I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle,
M. B., Grønhøj, A., & Oostindjer,
M. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives
tackling consumer-related food waste–A multiple case study. Journal Of
Cleaner Production, 155, 33-45.
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo
(Content analysis). Lisboa: Edições, 70.
Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C., &
Müller, C. (2015). Food waste in the Swiss food service industry–Magnitude and
potential for reduction. Waste Management, 35, 218-226.
Bloem, S., & De Pee, S. (2017).
Developing approaches to achieve adequate nutrition among urban populations
requires an understanding of urban development. Global Food Security,
12, 80–88. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.09.001
Bourlakis, M., Maglaras,
G., Gallear, D., & Fotopoulos, C. (2014).
Examining sustainability performance in the supply chain: The case of the Greek
dairy sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 56-66.
Buzby, J. C., & Hyman, J. (2012).
Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food Policy,
37(5), 561-570.
Byker, C. J., Farris, A. R., Marcenelle, M., Davis, G. C., & Serrano, E. L. (2014).
Food waste in a school nutrition program after implementation of new lunch
program guidelines. Journal of Nutrition Education And Behavior, 46(5),
406-411.
Cronin, P., Ryan, F.,
& Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step
approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield,
D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. The Sage handbook of
organizational research methods, 671-689.
EU - European Comission (2019). EU actions against food waste.
Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions_en>
[Accessed in March 2019].
FAO - Food and
Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2019). Global report on food
crises 2018. Available at: <
http://www.fao.org/resilience/resources/resources-detail/en/c/1107313> [Acessed on March 2nd 2019].
Headey, D. (2011).
Rethinking the global food crisis: The role of trade shocks. Food Policy,
36(2), 136-146.
Garrone, P., Melacini,
M., & Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of
food waste reduction. Food Policy, 46, 129-139.
Gollnhofer, J. F. (2017). Normalising
alternative practices: the recovery, distribution and consumption of food
waste. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(7-8), 624-643.
Graham-Rowe, E.,
Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to
minimising household food waste. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, 84, 15-23.
Halloran, A., Clement,
J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu,
C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste
reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294-301.
Hertel, T. W. (2011). The Global Supply
and Demand for Agricultural Land in 2050: A Perfect Storm in the Making? American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(2), 259–275. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq189
Higgins, J. P., &
Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions. London: Cochrane Collaboration Centre.
Katajajuuri, J. M., Silvennoinen,
K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä,
L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the
Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322-329.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche,
P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for
reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health
care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS
medicine, 6(7), e1000100.
Pagani, R. N., Kovaleski,
J. L., & Resende, L. M. (2015). Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed
methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the
impact factor, number of citations, and year of publication. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2109-2135.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.
K., Wright, N., & Bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food
waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106-115.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton,
S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential
for change to 2050. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B:
biological sciences, 365(1554), 3065-3081.
Parizeau, K., Von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level
dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35,
207-217.
Quested, T. E., Marsh,
E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti
soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources,
Conservation & Recycling, 79, 43-51.
Scholz,
K., Eriksson, M., & Strid, I. (2015). Carbon
footprint of supermarket food waste. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,
94, 56-65.
Secondi, L.,
Principato, L., & Laureti,
T. (2015). Household food waste behaviour in EU-27
countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 56, 25-40.
Smill, V.
(2001). Feeding the world: A challenge for the twenty-first century. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press (2000), xxviii, 360 pp.
Sonnino,
R., & Mcwilliam, S. (2011). Food waste, catering
practices and public procurement: A case study of hospital food systems in
Wales. Food Policy, 36(6), 823-829.
Stancu,
V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki,
L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour:
Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7-17.
Stefan, V., Van Herpen,
E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki,
L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of
planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 375-381.
Strassburg,
B. B., Latawiec, A. E., Barioni,
L. G., Nobre, C. A., Da Silva, V. P., Valentim, J. F., & Assad, E. D. (2014). When enough
should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet
production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 84-97.
Taylor, D.
H., & Fearne, A. (2006). Towards a framework for
improvement in the management of demand in agri-food
supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(5),
379-384.
Trostle, R. (2010). Global agricultural
supply and demand: factors contributing to the recent increase in food
commodity prices. Darby, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing.
Ulm, F., Avelar, D., Hobson, P., Penha-Lopes, G., Dias, T., Máguas, C., & Cruz, C. (2018). Sustainable Urban
Agriculture using Compost and an Open-pollinated Maize Variety. Journal of
Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.069
Visschers,
V. H., Wickli, N., & Siegrist,
M. (2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey
on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in
households. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 66-78.
Webster, J., &
Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii.
Williams,
H., Wikström, F., Otterbring,
T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson,
A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to
packaging. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 24, 141-148.