The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) wanted to find out per capita food waste generated after the food reached retail stores, restaurants and canteens and homes. They scoured research studies and data to estimate the amount wasted.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
Only 52 countries had data on the volume of food waste generated per capita, UNEP reported in the Food Waste Index, 2021.
In India, the researchers could find only three studies to rely on. All of them dealt with food waste generated at only the household level.
Using this limited data, they calculated the waste generated across the globe. According to the extrapolated data:
Every individual wastes some 121 kilograms of food each year. Out of this, 74 kg is at the household level while 32 kg and 15 kg are at food service and retail level respectively. Overall, 17 per cent of food is lost between retail and home.
Contrary to popular belief, the findings showed that low-income countries wasted more food than the rich ones. While high-income countries wasted 79 kg per capita per year of food at the household level, upper-middle income and lower-middle income countries wasted 76 and 91 kg per capita per year of food respectively.
But there is a catch. The reason for this conflicting finding is the way food waste has been defined in the study: It included inedible parts such as bones, shells and vegetable peels along with the edible portions.
This definition overlooks the fact that in developed countries, processed food reaches homes while in lower-income countries, raw food is brought in and meals are prepared from scratch. This means that in poor countries, inedible parts are discarded at household levels.
In developed countries, similar waste would have been generated at the processing unit, but it is not in the purview of UNEP’s index.
The data on the breakdown between food and inedible parts wasted is available only in a few high-income countries. It showed that around 50 per cent of food wasted at home is inedible. The report acknowledged that the proportion of inedible parts may be higher in lower-income countries, but because the data unavailable, it could not factor the same in their results.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization created the Food Loss Index in 2018, which measures losses across the supply chain, up to but not including retail. This index, however, does not provide data comparable with the Food Waste Index and looks only at limited commodities.
Nearly 14 per cent of food across the globe is wasted during agriculture and processing level, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s State of Food and Agriculture report published in 2019.
Central and southern Asia accounted for most food loss (20 per cent) between post harvest and distribution periods. But inedible food does not get recorded here either.
UNEP suggests that countries disaggregate the data on food waste. Other than separating the edible from the inedible, information on the destination of waste — sewers, home composting and animal feed — would help in policies and interventions to reduce waste.
Developing as well as poor countries need to quickly get their acts together and collate data on food waste in local conditions. For India, which fails even to segregate wet and dry waste, this may remain a pipe dream for a long time.
Segregation would also help use traditional methods of dealing with waste. In rural areas, a large part of the vegetable waste is used to feed livestock.
Reducing food waste is crucial for many reasons. One, the food wasted could have been fed to someone. About 25 per cent of available calories and protein are lost globally. This includes 10-15 per cent fats and 18-41 per cent vitamins and minerals, including 23-33 per cent of vitamin A, folate, calcium, iron and zinc.
At the same time, resources such as water, land, energy, fertilisers used to grow food are also wasted.
Food systems have been identified as one of the major contributors to climate change. The United Nations-mandated Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 underlines that countries halve their per capita food waste.
A 50 per cent reduction in food waste alone could meet the 2 degrees Celsius limit set under the Paris Agreement.
India produces 50 kg / capita / year of food waste at the household level, according to the baseline created by UNEP. If half of this is inedible waste, the remaining 25 kg / capita / year can be easily managed.
Food Waste and Climate Change
A landmark United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 on global warming made clear the disastrous effects of allowing the global average temperature to increase by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) (measured between 1750 and 2100).The report indicated a pathway to avoid catastrophe
The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sector accounted for around 13 per cent of CO2, 44 per cent of methane and 81 per cent of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from human activities between 2007 and 2016.
That is around 13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent or 23 per cent of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). For a two-in-three chance of staying within 1.5°C of warming, methane emissions from agriculture need to reduce by 24 to 47 per cent by 2050 (relative to a 2010 baseline)
N2O emissions from the same sector need to reduce as much as 26 per cent. The report also highlighted the need for carbon sequestration — trapping carbon through technological or natural solutions — including enhancing soil carbon through sustainable land management.
The ‘food’ sector is broader than agriculture. It includes harvesting, transportation, storage and retail of food crops and products. Taken as its own sector, it accounts for between 21 and 37 per cent of the total human-caused GHG emissions.
Around 30 per cent of food produced is wasted, accounting for around 4.5 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent or 8 to 10 per cent of global GHG emissions.
Food waste, which represents irresponsible consumption, should be an immediate target of emission reduction efforts in this sector. As with most efforts to address the climate crisis, the focus needs to be on the developed world. The median amount of food waste per capita in large developed economies is significantly higher than in large developing economies, according to data available on the Food and Agricultural Organization.
The developing country median is significantly propped up by Brazil, which has the highest figure for per capita food waste (477 kg per 1,000 people) for any country, by quite a margin.
That is largely explained by Brazil’s domestic bio-fuels sector that generates a huge amount of sugarcane demand (and waste).
Without Brazil and its massive biofuel footprint, the median per capita food waste for large developing economies is around 57 kg, significantly lower than the developed countries’ median.
The IPCC recognises the value of replacing fuels like oil and natural gas with biofuels, but also cautions that they place huge demands on land, leading to desertification, land degradation and food insecurity. Precisely estimating the climate impact of this waste is a challenge. The emissions intensity of food production and distribution systems varies across economies.
Per capita food wastage footprint on climate in high-income countries is more than double that of low-income countries due to wasteful food distribution and consumption patterns in high-income countries, according to a 2011 FAO estimate.
The data clearly explains why food waste has to be contained in order to fight climate change. And in doing so, it also highlights the need for food waste management and reduction.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.