UC Davis researchers’ findings emphasize the demand for more robust policies to curb food waste
By EKATERINA MEDVEDEVA— science@theaggie.org
On Sept. 16, 2015, the United States set out to achieve one of its most important domestic environmental goals: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a mission to cut national food waste in half by 2030.
This aim came in line with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 adopted earlier by the United Nations to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels [by 2030].” With the U.S. being the third-largest producer of food waste in the world, its commitment to address this problem is essential for worldwide progress.
In 2016, the baseline year based on which the progress is measured, the food waste in the U.S. amounted to 328 pounds per person, according to EPA. This accounts for a staggering 30 to 40% of food produced in the U.S. being sent to landfills, controlled combustion, sewer and land application. By 2030, that number was targeted to be reduced to 164 pounds via the enactment of state-level policies that focus on four sustainable reduction strategies: prevention, rescue, repurposing and recycling.
However, a recent UC Davis study published in Nature Food, found that given the present policies, none of the 50 states can reach the 164 pounds per capita goal in time. The ineffectiveness of the current legislature is explained by numerous factors, which include a lack of rigidity, exemptions, unrealistic constraints on timelines and underfunding.
The study references estimates provided by ReFED (a leading U.S. non-profit organization researching data-driven solutions to reduce food waste), which outline the possible amount of food waste that could be prevented with specific diversion solutions, such as introducing improved date labels, foodbanks, recycling and feeding food waste to animals. However, it is important to note that recycling has not been considered a food waste reduction strategy by EPA since 2021, although it remains a valuable management strategy.
Sarah Kakadellis, a postdoctoral researcher with the UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology who led the study, further examined this diversion potential with her team. Considering the quantified strength of the current policies in each state, they evaluated how much waste is likely to be averted. Even if recycling would still be considered an applicable strategy, only three states – California, Vermont and Arizona – could attain the 164 pounds per capita goal, according to their analysis.
The key issue in the current approach to food waste reduction is that most state policies, including California’s, are still centered around recycling.
“Even if we’re recycling food waste, it’s still important because we’re not sending it to a landfill, but it’s not actually delivering towards that goal,” Kakadellis said. “The problem [with recycling] is that we are not addressing upstream solutions — how to prevent that food waste in the first place and remove it altogether from the equation.”
In order to work with the root of the issue and progress toward the current food waste reduction goal, states should emphasize rescue (e.g. food donation), repurposing (e.g. animal feed) and prevention policies (e.g. standardized date labels).
“For instance, when you have standardized date labels that everyone understands, you’re helping consumers like you and me understand how to better use food and how to avoid potentially wasting it,” Kakadellis said. “Sometimes [the ‘best by’ labels and such] are not at all about how safe that food is, but more about the texture and taste. However, very few states have policies that [regulate] the use of confusing terms that [can] lead consumers to waste their food.”
Furthermore, Kakadellis and other experts highlighted the need for an education campaign on how people can reduce their amount of food waste or dispose of it sustainably, given that some amount of food waste will always be produced as a byproduct (for example, a banana peel).
“It’s important to have funding for education so that when people are exposed to these new terms [regarding curbing food waste], they are really supported in that process,” Kakadellis said. “It can be quite confusing.”
With rising prices for food, finding ways to waste less becomes increasingly important for consumers’ wallets.
“The average American spends $40-65 per month on food that goes uneaten,” ReFED’s estimates read.
Preventing food waste goes far beyond moral and monetary concerns. Its production is disastrous for the environment, accounting for 8 to 10% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as well as countless amounts of squandered resources.
“What we’re doing is raising the alarm bell,” Kakadellis said. “Take the example of California, a major agricultural producer in the world. We are in a drought state, and we are going to face increasingly more severe droughts. We need to think very carefully about how to use water. If you’re using it to grow food that then goes to waste, it is a huge inefficiency issue, and it’s going to be increasingly important as we go into the 21st century.”
Written by: Ekaterina Medvedeva— science@theaggie.org
