Multi-level governance of food waste 257
13.3 Background
13.3.1 Definitions
The first challenge in any food waste- related research and action is defining
the problem, since no internationally agreed definition of food waste exists
(Hartikainen et al., 2018). Food waste can be edible and non- edible, avoidable,
possibly avoidable and unavoidable. It can appear at different stages of the value
chain (primary production, handling and storage, in processing and packaging, distribution or at the consumption stage). It can be distinguished from
food loss in primary production, e.g. during harvesting. It is also debatable
whether goods produced for human consumption but used for animal feed or
biogas production should also be considered food waste.
Another important factor is the cultural definition of edibility as only parts
defined as edible can become food waste or food loss (Klitkou & Iversen,
2016). This culturally constructed category (e.g. some parts of animals are
considered inedible and discarded in certain societies while they are eaten
elsewhere) may also change over time, influencing the measured scale of food
lost or wasted. Edibility is also an important category at the end of the chain,
as certain volumes of food will be deemed inedible for health and safety
reasons (e.g. due dates). Departing from this food input–food output perspective, a systemic approach to food chains allows us to introduce more
nuanced categories relating to food quality loss or possible degradation of
products (Klitkou & Iversen, 2016, pp. 9–10).
Food waste data may be collected in tons, calories, economic values, etc.
In Denmark and Sweden industrial food waste data is more confidential than
in Norway
1
and some European Union (EU) data is not available for
Norway. For instance, Eurobarometer surveys for food waste are not conducted in European Economic Area (EEA) states. All these questions translate
to direct difficulties for research, including methodological challenges when
comparing the three Scandinavian countries. In response to this problem, the
Nordic Council of Ministers initiated a process aiming to develop common
definitions of food waste for all Nordic countries (Swedish EPA, 2013).
To illustrate the different definition types and their implications, we can
refer to the Norwegian industry agreement on reduction of food waste,
signed on 23 June 2017, which stated that
food waste includes all edible parts of food produced for humans, but
which is either disposed of or removed from the food chain for purposes
other than human consumption, from the time when animals and plants
are slaughtered or harvested.
(Regjeringen, 2017)
This is considered a ‘strict’ definition of food waste because it also categorises
food produced for humans but used for animal feed or biogas as food waste.
13.3 Background
13.3.1 Definitions
The first challenge in any food waste- related research and action is defining
the problem, since no internationally agreed definition of food waste exists
(Hartikainen et al., 2018). Food waste can be edible and non- edible, avoidable,
possibly avoidable and unavoidable. It can appear at different stages of the value
chain (primary production, handling and storage, in processing and packaging, distribution or at the consumption stage). It can be distinguished from
food loss in primary production, e.g. during harvesting. It is also debatable
whether goods produced for human consumption but used for animal feed or
biogas production should also be considered food waste.
Another important factor is the cultural definition of edibility as only parts
defined as edible can become food waste or food loss (Klitkou & Iversen,
2016). This culturally constructed category (e.g. some parts of animals are
considered inedible and discarded in certain societies while they are eaten
elsewhere) may also change over time, influencing the measured scale of food
lost or wasted. Edibility is also an important category at the end of the chain,
as certain volumes of food will be deemed inedible for health and safety
reasons (e.g. due dates). Departing from this food input–food output perspective, a systemic approach to food chains allows us to introduce more
nuanced categories relating to food quality loss or possible degradation of
products (Klitkou & Iversen, 2016, pp. 9–10).
Food waste data may be collected in tons, calories, economic values, etc.
In Denmark and Sweden industrial food waste data is more confidential than
in Norway
1
and some European Union (EU) data is not available for
Norway. For instance, Eurobarometer surveys for food waste are not conducted in European Economic Area (EEA) states. All these questions translate
to direct difficulties for research, including methodological challenges when
comparing the three Scandinavian countries. In response to this problem, the
Nordic Council of Ministers initiated a process aiming to develop common
definitions of food waste for all Nordic countries (Swedish EPA, 2013).
To illustrate the different definition types and their implications, we can
refer to the Norwegian industry agreement on reduction of food waste,
signed on 23 June 2017, which stated that
food waste includes all edible parts of food produced for humans, but
which is either disposed of or removed from the food chain for purposes
other than human consumption, from the time when animals and plants
are slaughtered or harvested.
(Regjeringen, 2017)
This is considered a ‘strict’ definition of food waste because it also categorises
food produced for humans but used for animal feed or biogas as food waste.