Reducing food waste in gastronomy sector, retail and at household level

Reducing food waste at the gastronomy, retail and household level requires a mix of policy measures to improve practices and change behaviours in how food is handled, prepared and consumed. Programs should be designed to ensure that all populations, particularly those most at risk of food insecurity and malnutrition such as children, have equitable access to adequate, culturally appropriate, sufficient, affordable, safe and nutritious food for healthy diets. Planning and policy development should consider power imbalances and inequalities between different actors within agriculture and food systems. Measures include the following:

• Implement regulatory requirements: 
  • Mandate food waste and surplus reporting and reduction targets for retailers, especially large corporations.
  • Set organic waste bans that prohibit food waste from being sent to landfills, encouraging retailers and other downstream supply chain actors to reduce their food waste. Legislation could require the distribution of unsold edible food to charities or food banks. A more moderate policy option would be to disincentivize waste by instituting landfill tipping fees.
  • Date labelling regulation for retailers and food processors (see Regulating food quality and safety). 
  • Set expiration dates more closely related to the real shelf life of products. However, this may require further research. For instance, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has acknowledged that food date labels are generally not based on exact science, so the development of more accurate expiration dates will likely require gathering of new information from laboratory-based experiments, predictive modelling and risk assessments, among other things.
  • Reject regulations that prohibit the removal of discarded food (i.e., “dumpster diving”) while keeping in accordance with health and safety standards.
• Implement incentive and disincentive programs:
  • Payments or rewards given to households to encourage them to waste less food represent an alternative to Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) schemes. These payments or rewards typically consist of vouchers paid to individuals or waste management fee refunds paid back to individuals. Unlike PAYT schemes that impact households with different levels of problem awareness, reward schemes tend to reach mostly those households that have a high level of problem awareness and act responsively.  
  • Incentivize retailers to sell locally produced food: Selling food produced closer and more directly to consumers – for example, at farmers’ markets or farm shops – reduces the amount of good-quality food that is rejected because it does not meet the strict product standards of supermarkets in terms of weight, size and appearance. Local supply chains can improve access to nutritious foods for all consumers at affordable prices, if accompanied by additional public support to build the necessary equity-sensitive infrastructure for food storage and transport. 
  • Provide fiscal incentives (tax credits or reduction in waste collection tax) for businesses that reduce food waste or donate surplus food.
  • Where retailers use price discounts or dynamic pricing to sell food near “best before” or “use by” dates, add guidance on using these foods quickly (e.g., “what’s for dinner tonight recipes”) and awareness-raising, to ensure retailers are not shifting the burden of food waste to consumers.
  • Incentivize retailers to reduce food waste by supporting food waste reduction and recovery programs in the retail markets, for example, via funding for food storage facilities, educational programming and waste audits.
  • PAYT schemes apply the “polluter pays” principle and charge households based on the amount of residual, organic and bulky waste they send to third-party waste management. To be effective, PAYT schemes should define proper waste separating practices and include well-developed infrastructure to collect different waste fractions (e.g. residual waste, paper and cardboard, plastics, bio waste, green cuttings and many recyclables) and a good level of citizen awareness as well as the appropriate pricing scheme (e.g. weight-based pricing with varying rates depending on the type of waste to provide the right incentives). PAYT schemes can be applied specifically to food waste and can be made more effective by providing individuals/households with feedback, such as detailed information about their waste generation, as well as designing a transparent, fair and realistic pricing policy. It is important to incorporate context specific behavioural insights into the development of PAYT schemes.
  • Avoid any potential negative externalities in the design of economic incentive schemes, i.e. increased purchases of (ultra-)processed foods rather than healthy, perishable foods.
• Integrate requirements for food waste prevention in public procurement: Public sector buyers can make procurement contracts – for example, for public schools or hospitals – conditional upon the adoption of food waste prevention targets and measures by companies. In addition, public procurement contracts could also require companies to advance broader goals for healthier diets, more sustainable production, and more equitable, inclusive sourcing that benefits local communities, smallholders, peasants, family farms, women, Indigenous Peoples, and youth. See Integrate healthy and sustainable diets in public procurement.
• Develop a market to redistribute unsold products, discarded by retailers but still safe for consumption, to charities or food banks. It is important that food redistribution programs focus on providing fresh, nutritious, and decent foods and are formulated in a way that is not demeaning to recipients.  
  • To encourage retailers to donate unmarketable food, retailers need to be unburdened from uncertainties regarding legal liability through the right policy framework. For example, the US has a relevant law in place – the so-called Good Samaritan Act – to limit donors’ liability. 
  • Food banks absorb surplus food and channel it to those in need. To strengthen food banks, more funding support and help in building a network with relevant organizations, public institutions, firms and stakeholders are necessary. 
  • Surplus food management systems channel surplus food from manufacturers or retailers to charities. These systems can be tied to economic incentives. 
    • Offer tax benefits to companies that have set up a surplus food management system. 
    • Provide financial support to charities that prefer suppliers with surplus food management systems.   
  • Support the creation of social supermarkets (SSMs). SSMs are a retail formula where retailers receive surplus food and other consumer goods from partners (e.g. manufacturers and retailers) for free and sell them at discounted prices to people living in (or at risk of) poverty.
• Promote re-distribution of unsold or uneaten foods for animal feed (e.g. for livestock or pets). Policy programs can facilitate connections between donors and recipients (i.e. logistical support) and provide tax incentives to donors. This could be paired with regulations and educational programs to ensure donated foods are safe for animal consumption.
• Promote public institution (e.g. school-level) reforms, including:
  • Support food waste reduction and recovery programs in schools, for example, via funding for food storage facilities, educational programming, and waste audits. In designing reforms, incorporate behavioural insights into programming.
  • Implement “Offer Versus Serve” (OVS) meal reimbursement model which allows students to decline some of the food offered in a reimbursable lunch or breakfast. 
• Fund targeted awareness and education campaigns that provide consumers/households with clear, consistent and easy-to-follow information. They can prevent over-purchasing and overconsumption by inducing behavioural changes, increase the acceptance of “imperfect produce” (fruits and vegetables), and clarify confusions – for instance, about date labelling. 
• Work with retailers to create retail environments that enable consumers to reduce household food waste, where most food wastage occurs. Promoting use of a greater variety of package sizes made with recyclable material can accommodate diverse consumer needs and contribute to reduced food waste and plastic waste at the household level. A Swedish study found that around one quarter of food waste could be related to package size. An FAO study in the Philippines found that consumers’ ability to purchase small quantities can reduce their food waste. Conversely, bulk quantities often lead to high levels of retailer/consumer food waste. Retailers have a significant opportunity to raise awareness among their customers by amplifying messages on making the most of food and providing a retail environment that helps them buy the right amount.
• Promote development and use of advanced software and infrastructure for tracking, quantification and analytics of food waste. 

Effective enabling governance measures can be key to the reduction of food waste in the gastronomy sector, and at the retail and household level. Such measures can include:

• Adopting a national strategy for reducing food waste: This national plan of action for preventing and reducing food waste within national borders should include programs, policies, practices, incentives and/or related measures to influence the actions of farmers, companies, consumers and political bodies. One recommended approach for designing national strategies is the so-called Target-Measure-Act approach. Targets establish the overall goals to be achieved. Measures define the scope, methods, base year, end year, milestones, frequency, entities and reporting mechanisms related to measuring progress. Acts include actor-specific interventions, public policies, public-private partnerships and investment. To be effective, a national strategy requires political support, financial resources, monitoring and an accountability mechanism. 
• Coordination at different levels of government on the design and implementation of food waste programs, food waste policy frameworks and so on. 
• Integrated appraisal of policy options. For example, WRAP have produced a Wales Food Waste Routemap outlining the policies required to deliver food waste reduction targets.
• Better infrastructure for redistribution and repurposing of unused food. 

Some comprehensive tools and guides to support the implementation of this policy option can include:

Tools

Guides

Reducing food waste in the gastronomy sector, retail and at the household level can also help advance the targets of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as well as those of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Climate change mitigation benefits

Food waste reduction interventions at the retailer and consumer stage have the greatest impact on lowering emissions in terms of return per unit of avoided food loss/waste. In particular, a study of PAYT schemes at the municipal level in Germany estimates that implementation of PAYT schemes, including but not exclusive to food waste, can reduce GHG emissions by 91 kg CO2e per capita per year. 

The main GHG reduction benefits of reducing food waste at the gastronomy, retail and household sectors stem from:

• Avoidance of waste disposal emissions such as fuel use in transport, and methane emitted from landfills.
• Expected lower pressure on food production, thus indirectly decreasing associated emissions from production, transport and packaging, including fossil fuel and chemical use. Examples include avoiding conversion of carbon sinks to agricultural production and reduced fertilizer application, with its associated emissions such as through freshwater eutrophication and soil acidification.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Reducing food waste in the gastronomy sector, retail and at the household level can directly contribute to the following targets under the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience:

• Targets 9a and d (Water & Sanitation, and Ecosystems): Food waste reduction builds resilience in these targets, for instance reducing climate-induced water scarcity, promoting access to safe potable water, and increasing the health and therefore the climate resilience of ecosystems. This is through:
  • Reduced resource use and GHG emissions, particularly methane from landfills.
  • Improved soil, air and water quality through reduced use of inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, which also prevents processes like eutrophication and acidification. Lower use of fossil fuels leads to reductions in environmental pollution throughout their life cycle.
• Target 9b (Food and Agriculture): Food redistribution initiatives can improve food security in the short term and thus improve food system resilience to climate shocks. Reducing food waste also contributes to the long-term climate resilience of food systems by reducing climate change and variability and increasing the provisioning of ecosystem services, helping combat crop failures, drought, and other impacts. This can be both by protecting existing ecosystems and sparing land for practices contributing to healthy soils, pollinators and other resources.
• Target 9c (Health): Healthier and more resilient ecosystems and climate due to reduction in fossil fuel and chemical use and in GHG emissions, such as from landfills, can reduce disease burdens in the short and long term. This also increases resilience to climate-related health impacts.

Biodiversity benefits

Action under this policy option can also help to deliver on KM-GBF targets, in particular:

• Target 7 (Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to Biodiversity): Reducing pollution in the ways described above can directly contribute to protecting biodiversity. For example, reducing nutrient runoff (e.g. high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus) can help decrease algal blooms in water bodies, thus benefiting aquatic ecosystems.
• Target 10 (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry): Long-term land sparing through consistent food waste prevention can create opportunities for farmers to create hedgerows, stony habitats, and pollinator habitats, contributing to healthy soils, pollinators and other benefits for biodiversity.
• Target 15 (Businesses Assess, Disclose and Reduce Biodiversity-Related Risks and Negative Impacts): Regulations that encourage businesses to adopt waste reduction practices, such as measuring and reporting food waste, optimizing production processes, and improving inventory management can reduce the ecological impact of food systems while safeguarding biodiversity.
• Target 16 (Enable Sustainable Consumption Choices to Reduce Waste and Overconsumption): Promoting sustainable consumption patterns can significantly reduce food waste and vice versa. Implementing education and communication strategies that encourage awareness and behavioural change, for instance around food aesthetics, can lead to better practices for utilizing food resources, ultimately decreasing overall food waste and negative impacts on biodiversity.

Other sustainable development benefits

Reducing food waste can also help contribute to the progress of the following SDGs:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): SDG 12.3 specifically addresses food waste reduction, aiming to “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.”
• The above sections on climate and biodiversity benefits also demonstrate clear synergies with the following SDGs:
  • SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)
  • SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)
  • SDG 13 (Climate Action)
  • SDG 14 (Life Below Water)
  • SDG 15 (Life on Land) 
• In addition, there could also be knock-on effects on:
  • SDG 1 (No Poverty): through cost savings and food security
  • SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): through improved access to food for vulnerable groups.

The success of food waste reduction in the gastronomy sector, retail and at the household level depends on well-designed and effectively implemented interventions. However, these efforts often face technical and non-technical challenges, alongside potential negative externalities and trade-offs that can undermine their outcomes, such as:

• Establishing and operating PAYT systems can require significant resource inputs from municipalities. Costs are not always easy to predict since the price of collection, transport and treatment of waste can vary for various reasons (e.g. gas prices).   These schemes are also affected by geography. For instance, in a country with a hot climate, biowaste must be collected more frequently due to hygiene reasons, potentially leading to higher collection costs. Other challenges include clear communication of pricing; perceived fairness of pricing; geographical differences in waste management systems; monitoring of functionality of waste management system and PAYT scheme; and implementation of technologies that identify and weigh waste. 
• Increase in availability of food through reduced food waste could have a negative impact on incomes of farmers and other supply chain actors as it could lead to them selling less and/or receiving less for their products due to reduced retailer/consumer demand. This could offset the initial gains in food loss reductions.
  • In international food supply chains, reduced waste by consumers and/or retailers in high-income countries could lower prices and incomes of farmer and supply chain actors in lower-income countries from where the products were sourced.
• In high-income countries, access to food itself is much less of an issue than access to healthy, nutritious food. Therefore, reduced food waste in these countries is not necessarily going to benefit food-insecure groups as much as improving access to nutritious food. 
• PAYT and other economic incentive schemes may incentivize people to “cheat” the system by moving waste to neighbouring communities or engaging in illegal dumping.

Integrating the following measures into a comprehensive and cohesive framework can help address implementation challenges and minimize potential trade-offs:

• Undertake more studies to address uncertainties regarding costs/pricing of PAYT schemes in different contexts and to inform the design of more dynamic and accurate pricing schemes. Incorporate behavioural insights into policies and programs.
• Increased consumer awareness of food waste, particularly in developed countries where the problem is more severe.
• In high-income countries, food waste interventions should involve a targeted approach involving food redistribution and a focus on healthy foods. Eliminating food insecurity in these countries will also necessitate a broader set of social policies beyond the food system to account for inequities, poverty and marginalization of some groups.
• Use of “safety nets” (e.g. cash transfers) to protect farmers and other groups impacted by revenue losses that could result from the implementation of food waste interventions. 

Effective tracking of food waste reduction efforts relies on strong monitoring tools, clear indicators, and structured frameworks that capture both implementation progress and related biodiversity and climate outcomes.

Indicators to monitor biodiversity outcomes

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a comprehensive set of headline, component, and complementary indicators for tracking progress toward the targets of the KM-GBF. Some of these indicators could also be functional for monitoring the implementation of this policy option. These indicators are:

Tools to monitor biodiversity outcomes

Not identified

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

Estimated costs associated with reduction of food waste in the gastronomy sector, retail and at the household level include:

• For PAYT schemes, “unrecovered costs” represent the difference between total costs of implementing the scheme and the total revenues generated from it. Given proper governance and operating measures, it is possible to keep unrecovered costs low while maintaining high rates of food waste collection.
• In a study of over 6,000 Italian municipalities, overall waste management costs fell by roughly 10% per capita after adopting PAYT schemes. This represented a cost reduction of 20-40%. 
• The Italian city of Treviso adopted PAYT and other food waste-related measures). In 2015, the average waste fee per household in Treviso was 186 euros, while the average for the rest of Italy was 305 euros. 
• The city of Seoul has installed radio frequency identification (RFID) bins for their municipal PAYT scheme. As of 2016, each bin costs 1.7 million won to install (approximately USD 1300) and can service 60 households. As of 2016, each of the 10-liter bags commonly used for the PAYT bins cost between 170-800 won (USD 0.13-0.6 per bag), with wealthier districts paying more.
  • As of 2023, in Seoul, there is a fee of 2,800 won (slightly over USD 2) for every 20 litres of food waste. 
• The national South Korean food waste programme (which includes PAYT schemes) costs about USD 600 million/year to operate.

Some notable examples of food waste reduction initiatives include:

• UNEP’s West Asia office collaborated with Hilton hotels in Dubai to pilot “Green Breakfasts” and “Green Ramadan” campaigns, modelled after UNEP’s Recipe of Change. Changes to plate size, food presentation, and food service nudged guests to waste less. The highly successful pilots resulted in a more than 60% reduction of guest plate waste, as measured by Winnow’s AI food waste measuring platform.
• There are several national-level initiatives for reducing food waste. Examples include the UK’s Food Waste Reduction Roadmap (private initiative), the United against Food Waste initiative in the Netherlands, Germany’s National Strategy for Food Waste Reduction, and the Australian National Food Waste Strategy
• The UK supermarket Tesco uses packages that prolong the shelf life of fruit. The package comes with a strip coated with a natural product that absorbs ethylene, which is the hormone that ripens fruit. The package has been successfully tested on tomatoes and avocados and does not result in any extra costs for consumers.  
• WWF Philippines’ project “SoilMate” offers a smart management solution for diverting unavoidable organic waste from landfills to reduce GHG emissions and build healthy soil by connecting businesses and households in Metropolitan Manila to a composting subscription service through a mobile application.
• Research by WRAP on the separation of food waste collection suggests there is a correlation between separated food waste collection from households and lower levels of overall household food waste.
• WWF is currently working with businesses and governments in the Pacific Coast Food Waste Commitment—a regional public/private partnership focused on halving food waste on the west coast of North America by 2030.
• WWF has also developed Hotel Kitchen, its hub of operational guidance for hotel properties addressing food waste, providing tools and step-by-step guidance for executives, chefs, managers, and staff to measure and manage waste.

1. Action on food waste. (n.d.). WRAP. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/food-drink/actions/action-on-food-waste
2. Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., & Kostoula, M. (2021). Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 208–220.
3. BBC News. (2010, January 21). Tesco launches Buy One Now, Get One Free… Later. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473122.stm.
4. Bajželj, B., Quested, T. E., Röös, E., & Swannell, R. P. J. (2020). The role of reducing food waste for resilient food systems. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101140.
5. Biggi, G., Principato, L., Castellacci, F., & Giuliani, E. (2023). Just Eat it: Food Waste Reduction, National Policies and Corporate Responsibility. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved January 8, 2025, from https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4504717
6. Canali, M., Amani, P., Aramyan, L., Gheoldus, M., Moates, G., Östergren, K., et al. (2017). Food Waste Drivers in Europe, from Identification to Possible Interventions. Sustainability, 9(1), 37.
7. Capodistrias, P., Szulecka, J., Corciolani, M., & Strøm-Andersen, N. (2022). European food banks and COVID-19: Resilience and innovation in times of crisis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 82, 101187.
8. CCAC Secretariat/UNEP (2021). Global Methane Assessment. Retrieved on July 28, 2024 from https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/global-methane-assessment. 
9. Choon, C. M. (2016, April 24). South Korea cuts food waste with “pay as you trash” | The Straits Times. The Straits Times. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/south-korea-cuts-food-waste-with-pay-as-you-trash
10. Chua, G. K., Tan, F. H. Y., Chew, F. N., & Mohd-Hairul, A. R. (2019). Nutrients content of food wastes from different sources and its pre-treatment. 020031. Retrieved January 7, 2025, from https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/667406
11. Climate Change & Food Waste – Solutions to Reduce Methane & Other GHGs. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://refed.org/food-waste/climate-and-resources/
12. DeClerck, F., Barrios, E., Benton, T. G., Estrada-Carmona, N., Garibaldi, L. A., Jones, S. K., et al. (2023). Biodiversity, agriculture and sustainable production: GBF Target 10. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, 2(3). Retrieved January 7, 2025, from https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/article?id=10.1371/journal.pstr.0000048
13. D, H., M, R., & V, B. (2017). Food waste reduction practices in German food retail. British Food Journal (Croydon, England), 119(12). Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29853717/.
14. Esguerra, E. B., Carmen, D. R. del, & Rolle, R. S. (2017). Purchasing Patterns and Consumer Level Waste of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and Peri-Urban Centers in the Philippines. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 8(10), 961–977.
15. EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste. (2019). Recommendations for Action in Food Waste Prevention. Retrieved from https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-05/fs_eu-actions_action_platform_key-rcmnd_en.pdf
16. European Environment Agency. (2023). Waste prevention country profile: Netherlands. Retrieved from 5. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/waste-prevention/countries/2023-waste-prevention-country-fact-sheets/netherlands_waste_prevention_2023
17. FAO. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste – Extent, Causes and Prevention. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/266053/
18. FAO. (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf.
19. FAO. (2021). Climate change mitigation options in agrifood systems: Summary of the Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc4943en.
20. FAO. (2022). Voluntary Code of Conduct for Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/cb9433en/cb9433en.pdf.
21. FAO. (n.d.). Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/resources/publications/en
22. FLW Value Calculator. (n.d.). Food Loss and Waste Protocol. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.flwprotocol.org/why-measure/food-loss-and-waste-value-calculator/
23. Food Loss & Waste Protocol. (2022, September 20). World Resources Institute. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.wri.org/initiatives/food-loss-waste-protocol.
24. Food Waste Reduction Roadmap. (n.d.). WRAP. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/food-drink/initiatives/food-waste-reduction-roadmap
25. Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., & Sert, S. (2016). Reducing food waste in food manufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1076–1085.
26. Handayati, Y., & Widyanata, C. (2024). Effective food waste management model for the sustainable agricultural food supply chain. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1–9.
27. Hanson, C., Flanagan, K., Robertson, K., Axmann, H., Bos-Brouwers, H., Broeze, J., et al. (2019). Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Ten Interventions to Scale Impact. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.wri.org/reducing-food-loss-and-waste-ten-interventions-scale-impact
28. HLPE (2023). Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. Rome, CFS HLPE-FSN. Available from https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/insights/news-insights/news-detail/reducing-inequalities-for-food-security-and-nutrition/en.
29. IKEA Food: “Food Is Precious” Food Waste Initiative. (2017). Food Loss and Waste Protocol. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://flwprotocol.org/case-studies/ikea-food-food-precious-food-waste-initiative/
30. Improving health and well-being through nature. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://www.who.int/europe/activities/improving-health-and-well-being-through-nature
31. Lehtomäki, H., Rao, S., & Hänninen, O. (2023). Phasing out fossil fuels would save millions of lives worldwide. The BMJ, 383, p2774.
32. Li, Y., Shang, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, W., Niu, L., Wang, L., & Zhang, H. (2021). The role of freshwater eutrophication in greenhouse gas emissions: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 768, 144582.
33. Messina, G. (2021). Wasted in waste?: the benefits of switching from taxes to Pay-as-you-throw fees : the Italian case. Economia pubblica: XLVIII, 2, 2021, 7–38.
34. Messina, G., Tomasi, A., Ivaldi, G., & Vidoli, F. (2023). ‘Pay as you own’ or ‘pay as you throw’? A counterfactual evaluation of alternative financing schemes for waste services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412, 137363.
35. Michelini, L., Principato, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2018). Understanding Food Sharing Models to Tackle Sustainability Challenges. Ecological Economics, 145, 205–217
36. Morlok, J., Schoenberger, H., Styles, D., Galvez-Martos, J.-L., & Zeschmar-Lahl, B. (2017). The Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw Schemes on Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Exemplar Case of the County of Aschaffenburg, Germany. Resources, 6(1), 8
37. National Food Waste Strategy. (n.d.). Australian Government – DCCEEW. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-food-waste-strategy
38. National Strategy for Food Waste Reduction. (n.d.). Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/food-and-nutrition/food-waste/national-strategy-for-food-waste-reduction.html
39. Nicastro, R., & Carillo, P. (2021). Food Loss and Waste Prevention Strategies from Farm to Fork. Sustainability, 13(10), 5443
40. O’Connor, J., Hoang, S. A., Bradney, L., Dutta, S., Xiong, X., Tsang, D. C. W., et al. (2021). A review on the valorisation of food waste as a nutrient source and soil amendment. Environmental Pollution, 272, 115985.
41. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081.
42. Patra, D., Feng, S., & Howard, J. W. (2022). Confusion of food-date label with food safety — implications for food waste. Current Opinion in Food Science, 48, 100917
43. Programme, U. N. E. (2021). Food Waste Index Report 2021. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/35280
44. Raza, S., Zamanian, K., Ullah, S., Kuzyakov, Y., Virto, I., & Zhou, J. (2021). Inorganic carbon losses by soil acidification jeopardize global efforts on carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315, 128036.
45. ReFED. (2016). A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent. Retrieved from https://refed.org/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf
46. Resilient Cities Network (2022). Urban Eats: How cities can leverage opportunities to build resilient food systems through circular pathways. Retrieved from https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/urban-eats-resilient-food-systems/.
47. Stakeholder Recommendations: Policymakers. (n.d.). ReFED. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://refed.org/stakeholders/policymakers/
48. Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 110–123.
49. Tracking global food waste. (n.d.). The Food Waste Atlas. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://thefoodwasteatlas.org/
50. Treviso (Italy). (n.d.). Green Best Practice Community. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://greenbestpractice.jrc.ec.europa.eu/node/158
51. Ukkonen, A., & Sahimaa, O. (2021). Weight-based pay-as-you-throw pricing model: Encouraging sorting in households through waste fees. Waste Management, 135, 372–380
52. Union, P. O. of the E. (2013, June 18). Use of economic instruments and waste management performances. [Website]. Publications Office of the EU. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/566f28fd-3a94-4fe0-b52d-6e40f8961c7e
53. von Braun, J., Sorondo, M. S., & Steiner, R. (2023). Reduction of Food Loss and Waste: The Challenges and Conclusions for Actions. In Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation (pp. 569–578). Retrieved February 7, 2024, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_31
54. Voss, M., Valle, C., Calcio Gaudino, E., Tabasso, S., Forte, C., & Cravotto, G. (2024). Unlocking the Potential of Agrifood Waste for Sustainable Innovation in Agriculture. Recycling, 9(2). Retrieved January 8, 2025, from https://www.mdpi.com/2313-4321/9/2/25
55. Webb, K. (2018, October 16). Kroger Debuts Imperfect Produce Program, Peculiar Picks. Retrieved February 8, 2023, from https://www.andnowuknow.com/buyside-news/kroger-debuts-imperfect-produce-program-peculiar-picks/kayla-webb/60319
56. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141–148
57. Xiao, M., Razzaq, A., Qing, P., Phromphithakkul, W., Thinakaran, R., & Alnafissa, M. (2024). Reducing food waste and promoting sustainable consumption: the role of message framing and controllability attributions in ugly produce marketing. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1416142.
58. WWF UK. (2021). Driven to waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms. Retrieved from https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/6yoepbekgh_wwfuk_driven_towaste__the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf?_ga=2.82962259.492775276.1694102630-1040752906.1694102630