36
L. S. Franca et al.
2 Carbon Emissions from Food Waste Management
Because of human lifestyle in urban areas and considering the continuous growth
of world urban population, these regions are increasingly becoming points of intensive consumption of goods and services. The scenario for food is not different, with
increased consumption and wastage. According to [19], approximately one third of
all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted along the food chain,
considering the food production by agriculture, storage, trade, transport, distribution and consumption processes. As defined by FAO [20], the term “food wastage”
encompasses the food loss during agricultural production until distribution in the
wholesale market stages, and the food waste which is generated from retail market
until its final consumption.
Along with the food wastage comes the environmental impacts of its management until its final destination in landfills. FAO [20] estimates that upstream steps,
including agriculture production, post-harvest handling and storage comprise 54%
of the total food wasted food, followed by the downstream processes with 46%,
which include processing, distribution and consumption. As a result, the United
Nations aims to halve the food waste produced at the retail and consumer levels by
establishing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 [40].
Regarding the impacts of GHG emissions, a large part of the processes responsible
for these emissions comes from the agricultural production level, although expressive
amounts come from later levels in the value chain. Therefore, it is estimated a total
of 3.5 Gt CO 2 e of GHG emissions from food waste and a cost of USD 394 billion in
damages per year, based on the social cost of carbon [19]. Moreover, the commodities
that most contribute to the carbon footprint by world region are cereals, meats and
vegetables, counting for more than 60% of carbon footprint [19]. Specifically, in the
context of Latin America, milk, meat, vegetables and grains count for the agricultural
commodities with the highest GHG emissions costs for the society.
Although waste prevention is the highest priority in waste management hierarchies, some food wastes are inevitably generated due to the lack of efficiency at
consumption level [39]. For this case, a sustainable alternative treatment is being
increasingly required to change the traditional processes applied worldwide to a
circular economy management approach.
Following this idea, Slorach et al. [39] have assessed the environmental and
economic sustainability of five 2030 scenarios for the management of household food
waste in United Kingdom in comparison with the current situation. The scenarios
considered a different share of four widely used treatment methods: anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting, incineration and landfilling. They found that there are
significant carbon emissions reduction associated with the treatment of food waste
via AD technology compared to landfilling and affirmed that separated collection of
food waste should be encouraged. However, waste prevention is still the best way
to achieve significant environmental and economic savings, allowing to save 3.2 Mt
CO 2 e per year.
L. S. Franca et al.
2 Carbon Emissions from Food Waste Management
Because of human lifestyle in urban areas and considering the continuous growth
of world urban population, these regions are increasingly becoming points of intensive consumption of goods and services. The scenario for food is not different, with
increased consumption and wastage. According to [19], approximately one third of
all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted along the food chain,
considering the food production by agriculture, storage, trade, transport, distribution and consumption processes. As defined by FAO [20], the term “food wastage”
encompasses the food loss during agricultural production until distribution in the
wholesale market stages, and the food waste which is generated from retail market
until its final consumption.
Along with the food wastage comes the environmental impacts of its management until its final destination in landfills. FAO [20] estimates that upstream steps,
including agriculture production, post-harvest handling and storage comprise 54%
of the total food wasted food, followed by the downstream processes with 46%,
which include processing, distribution and consumption. As a result, the United
Nations aims to halve the food waste produced at the retail and consumer levels by
establishing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 [40].
Regarding the impacts of GHG emissions, a large part of the processes responsible
for these emissions comes from the agricultural production level, although expressive
amounts come from later levels in the value chain. Therefore, it is estimated a total
of 3.5 Gt CO 2 e of GHG emissions from food waste and a cost of USD 394 billion in
damages per year, based on the social cost of carbon [19]. Moreover, the commodities
that most contribute to the carbon footprint by world region are cereals, meats and
vegetables, counting for more than 60% of carbon footprint [19]. Specifically, in the
context of Latin America, milk, meat, vegetables and grains count for the agricultural
commodities with the highest GHG emissions costs for the society.
Although waste prevention is the highest priority in waste management hierarchies, some food wastes are inevitably generated due to the lack of efficiency at
consumption level [39]. For this case, a sustainable alternative treatment is being
increasingly required to change the traditional processes applied worldwide to a
circular economy management approach.
Following this idea, Slorach et al. [39] have assessed the environmental and
economic sustainability of five 2030 scenarios for the management of household food
waste in United Kingdom in comparison with the current situation. The scenarios
considered a different share of four widely used treatment methods: anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting, incineration and landfilling. They found that there are
significant carbon emissions reduction associated with the treatment of food waste
via AD technology compared to landfilling and affirmed that separated collection of
food waste should be encouraged. However, waste prevention is still the best way
to achieve significant environmental and economic savings, allowing to save 3.2 Mt
CO 2 e per year.