Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

@ Felicitas Schneider

Thank you for providing you interesting inputs! FLW prevention at source will be highlighted as the most preferable option, although as you mention it will not be possible to reduce FLW to zero. Thanks for raising the point to not rank composting and anaerobic digestion against each other – as you write, the most appropriate process for a specific situation/region depends e.g. on the characteristics of the FLW stream and the available infrastructure. Data availability and reliability remain central to reduce FLW.

@ A C Baker

Thank you for mentioning important topics such as farming animals, food security and sovereignty and the power to make better food choices, with less waste in the household. We agree that empowering small food producers might be one fo the key aspects in reducing food losses.

@ Patrick Mink

We are grateful to receive a very detailed contribution by theS wiss Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) to the CoC. We agree that the CoC should be designed as a tool to support countries and other stakeholders to achieve SDG 12.3 and that the guiding principles should be based on and in line with previous work undertaken by FAO, UNEP and other relevant actors, including the guidance on Prevention and reduction of food and drink waste in businesses and) and the HLPE report Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. It will also align with the 2030 Agenda; the United Nation’s 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP); the UNEA-4 resolution “Promoting sustainable practices and innovative solutions for curbing food loss and waste”; and the CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition that are currently being developed. The CoC should represent a practical and comprehensive guidance to prevent, reduce and manage FLW across the food supply chain.

Dear FAO’s Food Systems Programme,

thank you for sharing the Draft Outline for the CoC on Food Loss and Waste Prevention and giving us the opportunity to contribute to this on-going work.

We would like to share three main points:

1) First of all, we believe that it is essential to structure the document with a clear distrinction between food loss and food waste.

2) Then it is crucial to consider that et European level there are many initiatives on Food Loss and Waste Prevention that should be taken into consideration in order to avoid any duplication and building on exisiting experience and expertise (e.g. EU Platform on Food Losses and Waste, EU guidelines on food donation, European and national legislation, etc.). Moreover the EU Platform on Food Losses and Waste coordinated by the DG Health and Food Safety, European Commission is drafting key reccommendation for future actions preventing food losses and waste.

3) Finally, we agree with the approach to follow the food and drink waste hierarchy, however it is important to consider that this is a document providing general principles and practices. If the document goes into too much detail it may lose its added value and overall view. Moreover, food redistribution should be considered as an activity which takes place whithin the food supply chain (agricultural, processing, distribution, and food service sectors) and not as a separate initiative.

We are at your disposal for any furthe rinformation.

Best regards,

Angela Frigo

Dear SP4 team,

Thank you for sharing the Draft Outline for the CoC on Food Loss and Waste Prevention. Please find attached the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's contribution to the  document. 

Best regards,

English translation below

1) Par rapport au projet et à la structure proposés pour le CdC:

• a) Le projet de CdC proposé traite-t-il les questions de manière exhaustive et globale?

Non.

Le projet de CdC doit non seulement se préoccuper de la prévention mais aussi tenir compte de la gestion des pertes et gaspillage alimentaires.

Propose le titre suivant :

Élaboration d’un Code conduite sur la prévention et la gestion des pertes et du gaspillage alimentaires

• b) Y a-t-il des questions et des aspects particuliers importants qui, selon vous, ne sont pas abordés dans la structure proposée?

OUI

A l’échelle d’un pays où se situe le point d’entrée ?. Qui est le Chef de file ?

• c) La structure actuelle présente-t-elle des inconvénients ou des lacunes?

OUI

D’abord faire la part entre pertes et gaspillage alimentaire.

La perte peut souvent être admise pour des raisons culturelles et traditionnelles

Les principes directeurs généraux qui sont importants pour la section 2.1 sont les suivants :

Principe d’harmonisation : rapprochement des législations des Etats en matière de prévention et de gestion des pertes et gaspillage alimentaires ;

Principe de libre adhésion :

Principe de reconnaissance mutuelle et d’équivalence :

Principe de reconnaissance des normes internationales

Les principes directeurs et les pratiques spécifiques qui sont importants pour les sections .2.1 (a, b et c), 2.2.2 et 2.2.3 sont les suivants :

1. évaluation des pertes et gaspillages alimentaires par chaque pays (situation de référence mondiale, régionale et nationale) ;
2. élaboration de politiques et stratégies ;
3. proposition et mise en œuvre des technologies éprouvées pour la réduction des pertes et gaspillages alimentaires ;
4. mise à échelle des technologies éprouvées ;
5. intégration dans les curricula de formation.

1) In relation to the proposed project and structure for the CdC:

(a) Does the proposed draft CdC address the issues in a comprehensive and holistic manner?

The answer is NO.

The CoC project must not only focus on prevention but it must also take into account the management of food loss and waste.

Development of a Code of Conduct on the Prevention and Management of Food Loss and Waste

(b) Are there any important specific issues and aspects that you feel are not addressed in the proposed structure?

The answer is YES

On a national scale where is the entry point located? Who is the leading player?

(c) Does the current structure have any disadvantages or gaps?

The answer is YES

First of all, we must distinguish between losses and food waste.

The loss can often be admitted for cultural and traditional reasons

The general guidelines relevant to section 2.1 are as follows:

Principle of harmonization: alignment of national legislation on the prevention and management of food losses and waste;

Principle of free adherence:

Principle of mutual recognition and equivalence:

Principle of acknowledgement of international standards

The specific guidelines and practices relevant to sections .2.1 (a, b and c), 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 are as follows:

1. assessment of food losses and waste by each country (global, regional and national baseline situation);
2. policy and strategy development;
3.  proposition and implementation of proven technologies to reduce food losses and waste;
4. scaling up of proven technologies;
5. mainstreaming in training curricula.

Good evening,



I am delighted to contribute our feedback, on behalf of The Vegan Society. 



Development of a Code of Conduct on Food Loss and Food Waste Prevention

 

The world is ALREADY producing enough food for 10 billion people.  Some people are going hungry because other people are actively preventing the food from reaching everyone who needs it.  Some of the hungriest people are small food producers, who are forced  to 'bake the loaf of bread to get the money to buy one slice."

 

 1) With respect to the proposed outline and structure of the CoC:

 

 a) Does the proposed outline of the CoC address the issues in an exhaustive and comprehensive way?

 

 Largely, yes, with the caveats set out below.

 

 b) Are there any particular issues and aspects of importance that you think are not be addressed in the proposed structure?

 

Yes: food waste in farming animals.  The Code of Conduct must make explicit that artificially breeding animals to farm, who then need land dedicated to grow their food, is currently one of the biggest forms of global food waste.  

 

In 2009, Christian Nelleman et al. demonstrated this for the UN Environmental Food Programme, just considering the cereals grown to feed to farmed animals. "[T]he loss of calories by feeding the cereals to animals instead of using the cereals directly as human  food represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people."  

 

(p27 box, 'How many people can be fed with the cereals allocated to animal feed?'  Nellemann, C. et al. 2009. The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no ISBN: 978-82-7701-054-0  http://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/production/documents/:… accessed ACB 2019/08/14)

 

The harmful impacts of the global animal farming system, causing greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, erosion, water pollution - and hunger - must finally be ended.  All farmers and land managers who want to transition away from artificially breeding animal  to farm, toward more sustainable plant-based land management, need to be given all the support they want and need to do so. 

 

Secondly, food security and sovereignty is part of every single person's basic human rights.  A basic living income, and fair access to good farm land, are vital to empower every person and every community to claim their food sovereignty.  This will include  the power to make better food choices, with less waste in the household.  This will also involve the power to grow, harvest, store, and eat their own plant protein crops, staples, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, herbs, spices and other elements of a nutritious,  appropriate plant-based diet. 

 

 c) Are there any disadvantages or gaps you see in the current structure

 

The structure does not identify the most important people in bringing food sovereignty:  the people who are currently impoverished and denied access to a basic living income, and good farm land;  the people who are currently locking in the system of artificially  breeding animals to farm, thus depriving impoverished people of food;  the people who are hoarding the land, money and other resources which communities need to secure their own nutritious, appropriate food supply.

 

 2) With respect to the content of the different sections of the CoC:

 

 a) What are the general guiding principles that you think are important for section 2.1?

 

We must expect to make major changes to our land management methods.  In particular, farmers who want to move away from artificially breeding animals to farm, toward sustainable plant-based land management, must urgently be given all the support they need. 

 

There is already enough food for 10 billion people.  The people who are hoarding land, money and other resources, and managing land to increase their wealth and power, are blocking our global justice and sustainability goals.   Every one has the right to a  sustainable, nutritious, appropriate plant-based diet.  

 

 b) What are the specific guiding principles and practices do you think are important for sections 2.2.1(a, b& c), 2.2.2 and 2.2.3?

 

2.2.1(c)  Food is first and foremost, for everyone to eat as part of a decent basic quality of life.  Food 're-distribution' as a charitable endeavour completely misses the key principle: the right to sustainable, nutritious, appropriate plant-based food must supersede any perception that non-humans or humans can be exploited for profit.  

 

2.2.2.  The 're-purposing' of food should have lower priority.  Every effort should be made to ensure that crops are grown, harvested, stored and used appropriately by local communities.  Food has huge embodied energy and value, and should always be intended for people to eat if at all possible.  Free-living animals also have the right to appropriate nutrition, within appropriate habitats. Composting is extremely valuable for protecting soils and thus future harvests.  All these needs should supersede any other use of food. 

 

 c) Taking into account the need to foster FLW policy coherence, which cross-cutting issues are relevant to the FLW topic, as addressed in section 2.2.4?

 

Ending exploitation in the food sector is paramount.  Empowering people to make better food choices within their local communities, will in turn empower people to move away from exploiting non-human beings.

 

 3) Can you provide specific examples of policies, interventions, initiatives, alliances and institutional arrangements which should be considered as best practices in FLW prevention, reduction, food recovery, repurposing and recycling?

 

The methods used on Tolhurst Organic farm in England (http://www.tolhurstorganic.co.uk/), including agroforestry, large scale composting, and local food distribution, demonstrate 20+ years of best practice.  The  specifics of Tolhurst's methods apply particularly to temperate lowland management.  But the principles translate well to many other climates and land types.  Co-Founder, Iain Tolhurst, is a leading expert in the UK Soil Association of organic farmers and  growers, and teaches land managers across temperate and lowland farming regions around the world. 

 

The Grow Green policy work (https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green) of The Vegan Society and collaborators looks at many ways to support land managers and farmers  seeking to move toward sustainable plant-based management techniques.  Developed in a wealthy temperate climate country, the principles - such as plant protein crops for direct human consumption, and agro-forestry - can be applied in many other situations. 

 

 4) How could this Code of Conduct on FLW prevention and reduction be most useful for different stakeholders, especially at national and regional levels?

 

Create a brief, practical summary.  Empower small food producers to demand that the principles and practices are respected.  Make explicit the need to move away from artificially breeding farmed animals, toward plant-based land management techniques. 



Thank you, and we look forward to the next stages in ending food loss and building food sovereignty for all,



A C Baker

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide feedback on the draft annotated outline for the Code of Conduct on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. 

Please find our input herewith attached.

The Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) looks forward to the upcoming opportunities to provide feedback on further versions of the CoC. Ass Co-Lead organization of the One Planet (10YFP) Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme, we will be happy to reach out to our broad network of partners to provide additional input in future consultation rounds.

Best regards,

Patrick Mink

Senior Policy Officer

Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research EAER

Federal Office for Agriculture FOAG

International Affairs and Food Security Unit

Dear SP4 team,

thanks for sharing the draft document of the CoC with us. I think it is a good idea to have a sum-mary of guiding principles although there is already a lot of information out there which could be implemented. Experiences show that global guidelines are often too general to be implemented on a local or regional basis, thus I keep my fingers crossed that you will find an appropriate way to address the different scales within one CoC. Related to your questions, please let me raise your awareness to some points:

1a and b.) I miss the urgency of data collection in order to fulfil the tasks which are mentioned within the outline. In order to highlight the economic advantages related to FLW prevention to stakeholders or to calculate the basics for public awareness raising campaigns – you always need a good data base which fits specifically into the region.

1c) There should be a section about the interrelation among stakeholders of different levels to raise awareness on that topic, too. Fostering cooperation between levels of the food supply chain is very important to reduce FLW in total and not shifting FLW only from one level to another. At the end of the report, I miss the conclusions or overall recommendations – like a starting signal for the reader to go into practice right now.

2a.) It is good to read that not only SDG 12.3 is mentioned here but also the interconnected goals as this leads to a more holistic approach than other approaches. As often only legal definitions are used to define food waste, the overall goal of conservation of resources and reduction of environmental damage is completely lost.

I see the responsibility of the public sector also in setting framework for effective FLW data col-lection, provide resources to collect data and analyse them and to facilitate further activities based on already available outcomes.

2b.) From my point of view, it is very important to recognize the difference between FLW prevention at source and other activities which just try to make the best of already surplus food. There should be more emphasis on prevention at source although it will not be possible to reduce FLW to zero. I recommend not to rank composting and anaerobic digestion against each other – the most appropriate process for a specific situation/region depends e.g. on the characteristics of the FLW stream and the available infrastructure but I do not think that there is a proven outcome available that AD is always more preferable than composting, is it?

In sections 2.2.1 – 2.2.2 the issue of data availability and reliability should be mentioned. In sec-tion 2.2.1a primary production, pre-harvest losses should be included as they are – among other influencing reasons – partly a product of the current food system (including UTP) and contribute to ineffective use of resources. In order to see the whole picture, human mankind has to include pre-harvest losses to be able to rethink the system and adapt it to current conditions and sustainable practices. Examples of measures should also be given for 2.2.1c.

2c.) Policy coherence is very important but not mentioned as such in section 2.2.4 as only specific examples are mentioned in the draft. Having the whole system in mind is important in order not to miss external effects of business operations and societal activities, too.

Best wishes and all the best for further work,

Felicitas

@ Nicola Pisano

Thank you for your contribution and for the CoC endorsement by the European Fresh Produce Association.

We agree that terminology is important in avoiding misinterpretation of the concepts of food loss and waste of the CoC, and that data collection and monitoring systems are vital to understand how data are collected and analyzed.

Thank you also for mentioning the  (2019) UNECE ‘Code of Good Practice for reducing losses in fruit and vegetable trade’, which recommends measures to be taken across the whole fruit and vegetable supply chain for the reduction of food loss and waste.

@ Jessica Sinclair Taylor

Thank you for your very detailed contribution.

What Feedback recommends will be definitely kept into consideration for the development of the CoC on FLW reduction and prevention.

Specifically, we will stress how the different sectors of the supply chain affect each other (and we will therefore highlight which prevention and reduction measures can be implemented by all actors of the supply chain).

We agree that nation states should set targets to reduce food waste by 50% from farm to fork by 2030 – following SDG 12.3-  and FAO and other UN agencies are working on sound measurement methodologies.

Thank you also for providing interesting examples of policies and best practices and for having included a relevant  bibliography.