Congratulations for this quite comprehensive report, a lot of useful comments have already been made.
I would like to highlight some additional points and add the following comments:
- P.9, point 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 The methodological part of FLW quantification is little developed. Since quantification methods producing reliable, comparable and little cost-intensive data are very important for future actions, a recommendation is to briefly describe the different quantification methods used in literature and to discuss the question of which indicator to use. It could be mentioned that one of FUSIONS goals is to elaborate a standard quantification approach for FLW for EU-27.
- P.11, point 1.2.1 I would add that in sustainable food systems, food needs to be culturally accepted by consumers. Consumer acceptance is a key issue when it comes to innovate in food processing to create food or food ingredients from components that are currently not/little eaten by consumers (offal, vegetable peels, etc.). To increase the share of edible, culturally accepted material from plant and animal production could be one contribution to nourishing future world population in a more sustainable way.
- P. 14, point 1.2.4 A distinction between “local” and “industrialized” food systems is probably not black and white. We should also consider that farms in “local” systems tend to have different farming practices (more simplified, more ecological with less pesticides etc.), which are key to be taken into account since the agricultural stage is often the main important stage in environmental impact assessment. Transport is definitely not the sole aspect to be considered here.
- P.18, point 1.3.2 We should consider that FLW might also generate “positive” impacts, at least for some actors along the supply chain. Food that is lost or wasted at some stage has made some stakeholders earn money with at a prior stage (value creation along the supply chain). Interestingly, Dutch scientists Waarts/Rutten showed by modelling that food waste reduction generates winners and losers. Some actors are better off, some are not when FLW is reduced. This also means that using the term of “inefficiency” in food systems (p.19, line 13 for example) might be simplified. These “inefficiencies” probably do benefit at least to some actors.
- P.27 point 2.1.1 The focus is on developing countries here. Do you consider losses at production stage not to be a problem in developing countries?
- P. 29 point 2.1.3 Do you consider losses to be negligible in modern storage facilities? Some references indicate non negligible losses of apples stores in cold chambers over a couple of months (for example Mila I Canals 2009)
Further comments have already been extensively made by other contributors.
Sincerely yours
Barbara Redlingshöfer
Barbara Redlingshöfer