Potential Energy and Environmental Footprint Savings from Reducing Food Loss and Waste in Europe: A Scenario-Based Multiregional Input–Output Analysis

Abstract

Food loss and waste (FLW) contribute significantly to the global food system’s economic and environmental burdens, including substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, resource depletion, and waste management challenges. In alignment with the European Commission’s sustainability objectives and U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, this study explores the potential energy and environmental footprint savings achievable by halving FLW in Europe by 2030. Using a multiregional input–output model, we estimated the total global energy and environmental footprint savings across all stages of the food supply chain, considering industry-specific FLW rates and proportion weights. The findings reveal substantial environmental savings across Europe, with aggregate savings potentially reaching 51 Mt CO2e (0.09 t CO2e/p), 4,620 Mm3 (8 m3/p) of blue water, 106,446 km2 (179 m2/p) of cropland, 55,523 km2 (93 m2/p) of grassland, and 0.47 EJ (0.54 TJ/p) of energy. The greatest potential for savings was found in Western Europe, specifically in France, Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands. However, countries with a lower per capita GDP, such as Greece, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Romania, also demonstrate significant per capita savings potential, indicating that wealth does not necessarily correlate with higher environmental savings. Agricultural production emerged as the stage with the highest footprint reduction potential for GHG and resource footprints across Europe, while the foodservice and institutional stages offer the greatest energy-saving potential. Geographical disparities underscore the need for region-specific policies. These results challenge the wealth-sustainability correlation and advocate for adaptable policies that transcend national wealth and accommodate regional disparities, underlining the pivotal roles of the agricultural production and consumption stages in footprint savings.

Wasted Food, Wasted Resources? A Critical Review of Environmental Impact Analysis of Food Loss and Waste Generation and Treatment

“…On the policy side, guidelines, programmes, or initiatives on technology promotion and FLW tracking or reduction were pointed out as important avenues to reduce FLW and related environmental impacts. ,,, Regulations (e.g., compulsorily reporting of food waste quantities) and bans (e.g., on the promotion of fresh fruits and vegetables, and the disposal of FLW to landfill) also have been introduced or implemented. What’s more, some financing measures, such as investments in better logistical or food waste collection infrastructures, charges (e.g., collection fee), or international cooperation, were pointed to be decisive in the potential mitigation strategies.…”

A multi-level network tool to trace wasted water from farm to fork and backwards

“…To add to the complexity, there may be different trading layers in the network, one for the primary product and one for each of the derived commodities, linked by processing. To overcome these challenges in the modelling of agri-food systems, Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output (EE-MRIO) models are often employed [41][42][43], providing a thorough description of material flows in global supply chains, but introducing additional uncertainties due to known limitations of completeness and aggregation [44]. Parallel to this approach, a less data-intensive methodology was proposed by Kastner et al [31] and has been widely adopted to trace cultivation-related environmental impacts along food value chains [42,[45][46][47][48][49].…”

Consumers’ willingness to buy meat and seafood products close to the expiry date: an exploratory study from Denmark

“…This shifted the world view on the loss and waste of meat and seafood products to recognise it as a complex and urgent concern that requires coordinated action from individual consumers to global policymakers. Researchers have argued that supplementing a reduction in emission-intensive animal-based food production and consumption by implementing effective strategies to prevent the loss and waste of meat products represents significant footprint savings (13)(14)(15)(16).…”

“…Food supply chain loss and waste associated with European consumption are as follows: for meat, around 6% is lost at the primary, postharvest handling and storage and processing and manufacturing stages, while 17% is wasted at the retail and distribution, food service and households’ stages. For fish, the loss and waste percentages are 21 and 24% for fresh fish and 44 and 12% for processed fish ( 17 ). The most common reason for FLW at retail stores is that their expiry date has passed ( 18 ).…”