The zero draft provides a good overall perspective on FLW. I would just like to draw attention on a few points, mainly related to the link between FLW and sustainable food systems:
FLW are a very visible sign of inefficiency (in terms of use of resources). As such it should also raise awareness on the need to improve resource efficiency in general (and not hide other inefficiencies).
The draft makes a good synthetic description of causes of food losses (some precisions on animal products, including fish, would be welcome).
More is needed on waste and consumer behavior. Interesting elements for Italy in Segre (2013), for Portugal in Baptista et al 2012. Some questions, (some of which may need more research) on consumer behavior:
- What incidence/link between distribution systems, shopping frequency and waste?
- Is there an incidence of the value given to food (cultural, social…) on waste? For instance what for organic products?
- The impact of the economic crisis reducing waste at consumer level, see Baptista et al 2012, chapter 3; could help analyze the relation between value and waste.
There is also a need to better strengthen the hierarchy of causes, linking it to more systemic approach, which would facilitate the design of recommendations.
In the analysis of causes, and also in relation to sustainable food systems, more could be said about social issues, including working conditions and types of relations. Resistance to the system of Plastic Food container (V0 p 43) is a very good example of how as a contributor said “FLW are build in the system”. Chapter 2 very well explains how a bruise of a fruit at harvesting can, later in the chain cause the loss of the fruit, or even of more fruits. The report could consider how working conditions, types of contracts all along the chain can increase or reduce risks of losses. Yvan Sagnet (2012) describing tomato harvesting, well shows how informal work, paid per box, with workers depending from an external chief, with no interest nor responsibility in the quality of the harvested product, leads to losses. And the link it has with low food prices.
About the definition. Is fish discarded at sea considered and counted as post harvest losses or does the counting begin after landing?
Also about the definition, but in fact broader is the question of edible/inedible mentioned by some contributors. I can understand that, for statistical purposes, it could be necessary to use the definition of a country or group of countries. But it raises some major questions. As some products which are considered inedible are in fact exported to countries where they are considered edible and eaten it could to an actual increase. It is especially the case for meat; most of the parts considered non edible in one country, or simply not preferred, are exported (Hsin Huang 2012). A second point is that it seems that the definition of non edible seems to expand, at least in some countries. Most of the pieces of meat were eaten, including offal. In some countries even bread crust could now be considered as inedible. From a sustainable food systems perspective there should be a distinction between edible/non edible and preferred/not preferred. Even if not accounted as waste in a statistical definition, not to eat something edible because it is not preferred is a waste of resources.
References :
- Andrea Segrè Vivere a spreco zero. Marsilio editore 2013.
- Baptista, Pedro, Campos, Inês, Pires, Iva, Vaz, Sofia G. (2012) Do Campo ao Garfo.
Desperdício alimentar em Portugal.
- Yvan Sagnet. 2012. Ama il tuo sogno, vita e rivolta nella terra dell’oro rosso. Fandango libri.
Alexandre Meybeck
FAO/UNEP sustainable food systems programme
Alexandre Meybeck