Food waste quantification

Quantifying food loss and waste (FLW) is crucial for the development of well-structured and effective
policies and programs. This quantification helps distinguish changes in leftover flows after the
implementation of FLW prevention and recovery policies [23]. Understanding the impact of FLW
serves as motivation for individuals to adjust their attitudes and behaviors. However, the lack of a
precise quantification method presents a data challenge [24]. Various approaches have been
employed to quantify FLW (see Table 2), each with its own limitations.

For instance, some methods only consider the quantity of food wasted within municipal solid waste
(MSW), excluding waste from unrelated sectors [15] (Table 2). Other methods focus on the overall
volume of FLW generated from specific sectors, like households and restaurants, or aim to correlate
waste amounts with behavioral actions. However, measuring FLW using this method is intricate, as
consumers tend to underestimate their waste when surveyed. For example, in Spain, a survey
estimated food waste at 4% of food, whereas the actual amount was 18% [13]. Some FLW studies
concentrate on the excluded waste that disappears through the waste management system, including
food-fed animals, home composting, and waste disposed of in drains [15]. An Australian study found
that approximately 20% of FLW in Australia results from informal food disposal practices [25].

Table 3 presents global and country-specific estimates of food loss and waste (FLW) quantities,
highlighting the diversity in the scale, scope, and methods of quantification. As shown in Table 2,
there are significant differences in estimated FLW quantities by region. For example, the estimated
annual FLW per capita is 637 kg in Australia but only 177 kg in South Africa. Comparing FLW
quantities between studies or across countries is challenging because different criteria have been
employed for FLW quantification. Hence, there is a pressing need for a consistent quantification
method. Recent studies, such as those conducted by Hanson et al. [26], Östergren et al. [20], and
Thyberg et al. [23], have aimed to standardize and enhance quantification methods. However,
estimates remain diverse due to variations in methodology and definition.