Highlights A systematized food waste accounting at macro scale level was developed for Europe. The accounting follows Mass Flow Analysis concepts, ensuring closed mass balance. Disaggregated values per food supply chain stages and per food groups are presented. Hotspots and food groups with higher share of food waste were identified. The stage contributing the most to food waste varies depending on the food group.

Highlights Current studies are based on different methodological approaches and data sources. A robust food waste accounting methodology is needed for food waste reduction. Food waste ranges: 194 and 389 kg/p/y globally and 158 and 290 kg/p/y in EU. Waste management and food security objectives lead to different accounting needs. Distinction in edible and inedible is crucial for food waste prevention and food security.

About one third of the food produced globally is wasted along the food chain, representing a burden for the environment and an inefficiency of the food system. Tackling food waste is a priority on the global political agenda to guarantee food security. Defining a methodology for food waste quantification is key to monitoring progress towards the achievement of reduction targets. This paper summarises the outcomes of a workshop on food waste accounting co-organised by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and Directorate-General on Health and Food Safety with the aim of stimulating harmonisation of methodologies, identifying challenges, opportunities, and further advancement for food waste accounting. The paper presents methodological aspects, e.g. system boundaries, reliability of data, accounting of water flows, to ensure better support to food waste policy design and interventions. It addresses all the actors of the food supply chain, governments, and research institutions.

According to national studies conducted in EU countries, fresh fruit and vegetables contribute to almost 50% of the food waste generated by households. This study presents an estimation of this waste flow, differentiating between unavoidable and avoidable waste. The calculation of these two flows serves different purposes. The first (21.1 kg per person per year) provides a measure of the amount of household waste intrinsically linked to the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, and which would still be generated even in a zero-avoidable waste future scenario. The second (14.2 kg per person per year) is a quantity that could be reduced/minimised by applying targeted prevention strategies. The unavoidable waste was assessed at product level, by considering the inedible fraction and the purchased amounts of the fifty-one most consumed fruits and vegetables in Europe. The avoidable waste was estimated at commodity group level, based on the results of national studies conducted in six EU member states. Significant differences in the amounts of avoidable and unavoidable waste generated were found across countries, due to different levels of wasteful behaviours (linked to cultural and economic factors) and different consumption patterns (influencing the amount of unavoidable waste generated). The results of this study have implications for policies both on the prevention and the management of household food waste.

a b s t r a c tFood loss is a major concern from both environmental and social point of view. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impact of food and to identify pros and cons of different options for optimisation of food systems management, including the recovery of potential waste occurring along the supply chain. However, within LCA case studies, there is still a general lack of proper accounting of food losses. A discrepancy both in food loss definition and in the approaches adopted to model the environmental burden of food loss has been observed. These aspects can lead to misleading and, sometimes, contrasting results, limiting the reliability of LCA as a decision support tool for assessing food production systems. This article aims, firstly, at providing a preliminary analysis on how the modelling of food loss has been conducted so far in LCA studies. Secondly, it suggests a definition for food loss to be adopted. Finally, the article investigates the consequence of using such definition and it proposes potential paths for the development of a common methodological framework to increase the robustness and comparability of the LCA studies. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches adopted to account for food loss along the food supply chain: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution, consumption and end of life. It is also proposed to account separately between avoidable, possibly avoidable and unavoidable food loss by means of specific indicators. Finally, some recommendations for LCA practitioners are provided on how to deal with food loss in LCA studies focused on food products. The most relevant recommendations concern: i) the systematic accounting of food loss generated along the food supply chain; ii) the modelling of waste treatments according to the specific characteristics of food; iii) the sensitivity analysis on the modelling approaches adopted to model multi-functionality; and iv) the need of transparency in describing the modelling of food loss generation and management.