While food loss can happen at different stages of the food value chain, around 24% occurs during post-harvest handling and storage. This is a result of several factors such as changes in weather, pests, fungus, handling, disease, human error, and so on.

The losses of such large quantities of fresh produce also result in other large resource losses including;

  • Water

  • Land

  • Fuel

  • Labour

  • Time

  • Money

These wasted resources are affected throughout processing, packaging, transporting and marketing. The production of these lost and wasted food products account for 250 km3 of water consumption per year, with approximately 24% of total freshwater resources being used in food crop production, and one-fifth of the fertilisers used for food crop production. The amount of cropland used to grow this lost and wasted food is 198 million hectares per year, which represents one-fifth of the cropland used globally for food crop production, or an area about the size of Mexico. A reduction of FLW will contribute to a decrease in land, water and nutrients use and in environmental externalities.

Not to mention the time, money, fuel and labour that was invested into such large quantities of unused produce.

Combating post-harvest food loss is challenging, but the benefits are plenty. Reducing food loss is also one step closer toward a sustainable future. Here’s how:

Food security

World Resources Institute’s analysis suggests that reducing food loss and waste could be a global strategy for attaining a sustainable food future. Based on data, they suggest that reducing the global rate of food loss from 24% to 12% can close around 22% of the 6,000 trillion kcal per year gap between food available today and that needed in 2050.

Currently, the majority of primary fresh produce commodities suffer losses during post-harvest handling and storage. With improved efforts to reduce such losses, these primary commodities could feed more people instead of going to waste; there will be more food on the plates of 790 million people who are still suffering from hunger.

Better lives for farmers

Another benefit of reducing post-harvest food loss is better lives for those who produce food, particularly smallholder farmers.

The farming life cycle is a long and tedious one. It involves a lot of work, from preparation until the season reaches post-harvest. When crops are damaged during post-harvest, not only does that mean that the income of farmers goes into waste, but this also includes all their hard work. Reduced post-harvest loss means better morale for farmers, as they are assured that all their effort pays off.

When it comes to the financial impact, meanwhile, post-harvest losses have a value of up to $4 billion per year in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. Currently one of the world’s poorest and food-insecure regions, farmers here typically earn only $2 per day.

But there is hope for Sub-Saharan Africa since the World Bank estimates that even a 1% reduction of post-harvest losses within the region could lead to a $40 million economic gain annually. The said economic gain is expected to benefit smallholder farmers.

Healthier ecosystem

Aside from economic benefits, the reduction of post-harvest losses can also lead to a healthier ecosystem. If food produced is utilised and waste is minimised, there would be a lesser need for production materials, processing and transporting of these commodities. Reduction of such would mean lesser greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that food loss and waste results in about 4.4 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (4.4 Gt CO2e) annually.

Reduction of post-harvest loss is a holistic strategy. It helps farmers who produce food, feeds people suffering from hunger, and ultimately, protects the ecosystem from further damage caused by greenhouse emissions.

FLW also contributes to climate change, being responsible for an estimated 8% of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In 2009 global FLW was responsible for roughly 3,300–5,600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). GHG emissions resulting from global FLW are higher than any singular country in the world, except for China and the United States.

Natural landscapes and the ecosystem services they provide are also adversely affected by the resources that go into producing this lost and wasted food. FAO has assessed biodiversity impacts of FLW through the production phase for each commodity and region, highlighting their impacts due to related deforestation and to simplification and degradation of habitats.

Socioeconomic Impacts of FLW

According to the Food and Agriculture organisation, around 800 million people do not have enough to eat. Decreasing FLW will contribute to reducing world hunger and improving food security. It would also contribute to ensuring food safety and nutrition, especially in developing countries where the highest number of people suffer from hunger and malnourishment. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the direct economic cost of 1.3 billion tons of FLW is around USD 1 trillion/year; which does not account for externalities, estimated at around USD 900 billion, and environmental costs and damages, estimated at around USD 700 billion.

FLW is also a significant economic loss when we account for the time invested in the production and supply chain, as well as in preparing the land, the use of fertilisers, and other costs caused by agricultural production.

FLW can also exacerbate poverty in developing countries. A decrease in the quality of the product will lead to a decrease in the quantity available to sell and consequently a decrease in economic gain. Thus, FLW can decrease the income of small farmers and also increase food prices (due to low supply), which in turn will limit access to affordable food, particularly for lower-income individuals. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, just a 1% reduction in post-harvest losses could save $40 million each year.

However, other research suggests there is not currently enough information to understand in detail the socioeconomic impacts of FLW. Reliable and consistent data on food waste is difficult to find and comparison between regions and countries is a challenge. There is also debate as to the extent that investments to reduce FLW would outweigh the costs, which raises the question of how much “loss” could be accepted.

Assessment of Potential Solutions and Practices for Prevention and Management of FLW at International Level

On a global scale, scientists and policy-makers continue to work toward FLW reduction strategies that address food waste at each stage of the Food Supply Chain (FSC), adopting a sustainable production and consumption approach and most recently a circular economy approach. The implementation of these strategies must be adapted to the region, with particular consideration toward local infrastructure, energy, markets, and education.

Technological Solutions:

Food safety is the top priority in mitigating FLW; most technological solutions support the prevention of food contamination and quality degradation. Intervention at upstream stages benefits end-users. Technological solutions include monitoring technology for storage facilities much like PostHarvest’s own Environmental Sensor, temperature-controlled storage such as evaporative coolers and/or improved, energy-efficient refrigeration coupled with adequate storage, including metal silos and hermetic polythene bags, as well as improved storage during transport, and finally smart packaging. Improved infrastructure, specifically roads, is another technological priority as are market structures and functions. Wholesale markets and/or marketing cooperatives can establish quality control and logistics mechanisms and communication (specifically, enhanced technology for communication) along the FSC can inform decision-making and planning.

Cultural and Behavioural Solutions:

Reducing FLW at the individual consumer level in developed countries would create the biggest impact along the supply chain; one major point of education is improving understanding of “best before,” “expires by,” and “use by” dates on packaging, coupled with retailers changing food date labeling practices. Other in-home practices, such as planned purchases, better storage practices, appropriate portion sizes, improved food preparation, and use of leftover food in meal preparation all reduce FLW. Retailers, restaurants and caterers can mitigate FLW by facilitating donations of unsold goods, implementing appropriate food portions, shifting in-store promotions to reduce potential unnecessary FLW (for example, “buy one, get one free later”), and through safe food storage practices. Ultimately, education of individuals and groups at all levels of the FSC will lead to enhanced understanding of the complex factors contributing to FLW and increased likelihood of implementation of interventions at both upstream and downstream stages.

Policy Solutions and recommendations

Although this is an extremely important issue for decision-makers, there are very few potential policy solutions and/or recommendations in the FLW literature:

  • The use of taxes and subsidies to decrease wasteful behaviour among consumers

  • Financial support, especially in developing countries, to improve roads and energy infrastructure as well as the machinery used

  • Institutional arrangements and reforms to facilitate access of the private sector investment to agricultural production

  • Holistic approach/circular economy approach: focus on the causes of FLW as well as the consequences, regional and country differences; and the stakeholders and actors involved

  • Communication and education campaigns targeted to reduce food waste

  • Some of the main challenges to policy development and implementation found were:

  • Inconsistencies in terminologies and definitions used

  • Lack of reliable and consistent data

  • Lack of applied research

  • Lack of information on socioeconomic impacts

  • The need for monitoring and evaluation of existing policies

  • The need for a holistic approach to address FLW