Surplus Food – Keeping an eye on our waste-lines

To what extent do professionals in the food manufacturing distribution and retail sectors actively embrace the principles of the waste hierarchy? And to what extent can food waste be recycled?

The issue of food waste is a hot topic for both the industry and general media. However, despite the continuous debate, there seems to be a marked difference between the action that must be taken by manufacturers, distributors, retailers and households, and what is actually being done.

This is not to suggest that all food-related organisations are dismissive of the role they play. Indeed many companies, large and small, are working hard to watch their waste-lines and retain as many of their valuable food resources as possible. And when certain levels of waste cannot be avoided, such businesses are thinking carefully about the principles of the waste hierarchy, to determine the next most resourceful option for the surplus food.

However, industry efforts are fragmented, although it must be noted that this is not always the fault of the surplus food producer, as will soon become clear. Factors such as consumer behaviour and seemingly contradictory government initiatives, also have roles to play. Yet for as long as there are such disparate approaches and attitudes to food waste, it will be some time before real progress is acknowledged. Why? Because the food waste problem in Europe is so significant

The scale of the problem

In April, the House of Lords EU Committee called for urgent action, having found that at least 90 million tonnes of food is wasted across the EU, every year.

To put this into perspective, 15 million tonnes of UK food waste per annum is said to equate to a financial loss to business of at least £5 billion every year. And, when announcing the findings of the ‘Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention’ report, Parliament also highlighted that the carbon impact of food waste worldwide is equivalent to twice the global greenhouse gas emissions of all road transportation in the USA.

Thankfully, the report did not just unveil shocking statistics, as is often the case with industry research. Some valid ‘next step’ suggestions were also made. Admittedly none were particularly new; in fact some professionals involved in the better management of surplus food have been ‘banging these drums’ for quite some time. However, the widespread communication of these suggestions, and the extent to which the government has been urged to better support industry efforts, may just introduce a new level of impetus.
We cannot forget, after all, the ever-pressing target to halve edible food waste by 2020, and the UK’s ultimate goal of zero food waste to landfill. If such ambitious aspirations are to be fulfilled, urgent action is certainly still required.

So, when food ‘waste’ is put under the spotlight, what do we find? We know from analytical research that surplus food is being produced, but where and why, and what steps are being taken to tackle it?

Tackling food waste

Under the principles of the waste hierarchy – a prioritised programme that encourages the most appropriate use of resources – the greatest level of effort should be made when trying to reduce the level of surplus food created in the first place. Prevention of food ‘waste’ at source means valuable materials are retained and costly waste management exercises avoided.

In the case of food manufacturing, steps should be taken to assess the root cause of ‘waste’, whether due to human error or a technological fault. Technology now exists, for example, to monitor the point, or points, in a production process, where surplus food is created.

Effectively a management information system, such technology weighs food deposited into various receptacles along a production line, in almost real time. If operatives are able to key in additional elements of detail about the source of the waste, computer analysis will then help the manufacturer process this data, and create reports according to specific machines, production lines and time periods.

Of course there may still be inevitable by-products and a proportion of material that cannot be placed on the market for human consumption, perhaps as a result of trial runs. However, the investigative monitoring described above enables food manufacturers to clearly determine where ‘waste’ is produced, rather than relying on assumptions or failing to uncover the problem in the first place. Management time, effort and money can then be carefully invested to drive process improvements and hopefully avoid production errors, overcooking, and incorrect weights and sizes etc. that would otherwise lead to ‘waste’. This approach is all about trying to get it right first time – a key philosophy for any manufacturing environment.

The role of recycling

When managing the small amount of waste which, at present, still remains unavoidable, manufacturers are faced with a number of options. This is where it is important to return our attention to the ‘waste hierarchy’ once more. Where the creation of surplus food cannot be prevented or reduced, and the material is unsuitable for reuse, recycling should be prioritised as the next route. Methodologies still exist to safely harness the value of residual food so it does not become a waste.

Starch-rich foodstuffs including biscuits, bread, cakes, crisps, confectionery and breakfast cereals, for example, can be recovered, reprocessed and converted into high quality ingredients for use in animal feed. This process is subject to strict legislation and quality control mechanisms, but essentially it enables valuable nutrients to be retained within the feed/food network, not lost. Blended to suit farmers’ specific requirements, such feeds improve the quality of livestock products that people subsequently eat, hence closing the food chain loop.

Composting and energy recovery receive a lot of attention in the media, so not all manufacturers realise an alternative option exists for their surplus food. What’s more, government incentives are being offered to support anaerobic digestion (AD) projects, for example, which often wrongly promote the pursuance of this option, rather than a more hierarchically compliant route.
AD – essentially the four-stage natural breakdown of organic matter – does have a role to play. It creates methane, which has the potential to be used as vehicle fuel; and/or biogas which can be burned to produce heat and electricity; digestate which can be used as a fertiliser; and water. But it should only be considered as an option when all earlier opportunities in the hierarchy have been exhausted. In reality it is marginally better than disposal, which, it goes without saying, is absolutely the last resort.

When laid out on paper, it all sounds so straightforward. Why wouldn’t a manufacturer want to invest in technologies that enable the identification and prevention of waste at source? After all, the environmental and commercial benefits are clear to see.
But there are many reasons why this seemingly simple process is not followed. Much of it comes down to education and awareness, which is why so many industry professionals, like myself, work hard to communicate the ways with which food organisations can better commit to the EU’s resource agenda.

However, there are other factors at play too. A little further along the supply chain, surplus food is also generated in the warehousing and distribution process. And the challenges continue when the food reaches the retail phase.

The ‘food use pyramid’

Just like manufacturers, logistics firms and retailers must therefore work equally as hard to commit to the waste hierarchy. Alternatively, they may wish to consider the ‘food use pyramid’, described by Doug Simpson in a fantastic article for the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, in June.

A principal policy officer at the Greater London Authority, Doug responded to the House of Lords EU Committee’s call for a ‘food use hierarchy’, by highlighting that one already exists. The pyramid strives to maximise the opportunities for food to be eaten, and prioritises actions in the order of ‘reduce’, ‘feed people in need’, ‘feed livestock’, ‘compost and create 100% renewable energy’, and finally, ‘dispose’. And, as Doug quite rightly pointed out, the food use pyramid, like the waste hierarchy, should lie at the core of every food-related operation, in business, in politics and in the home. Only then will we start to see the progress that so many of us are hoping for.

Without this shared focus, the fragmented landscape identified by the House of Lords EU Committee, will remain. Government subsidies for processes like AD, for example, push the waste hierarchy, and the food use pyramid, out of kilter. Such financial incentives mean energy recovery is often a cheaper alternative than feeding the hungry, which will inevitably deter some retailers from sending surplus food which, importantly, is still safe for human consumption, to those that need it most.

This imbalance restricts supply chain cooperation and provides a significant barrier to hierarchy compliance and progress. Thankfully this has been noted as a result of the ‘Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention’ report, and the government has been urged to take action. It would be fantastic to see tax breaks in place for supermarkets who donate edible unsold food to food banks and charities, instead of sending them to be composted or incinerated.

Big retailers

As is often the case, the industry will look to high profile food manufacturers and retailers to spur further progress. Many would argue that this is only fair, and that, due to the volume of waste they produce, large supermarkets for example, have a moral duty to make a significant contribution to the EU’s waste reduction efforts.

And they seem to be stepping up to the challenge. In January 2014, for instance, members of the British Retail Consortium signed up to a new range of sustainability targets and commitments under the initiative – A Better Retailing Climate: Driving Resource Efficiency. As part of their pledge, signatories were said to be tasked with achieving greater consumer dialogue, altering purchasing habits and encouraging more efficient food consumption in the home. This is crucial because, after all, households also have a huge part to play in transforming the food waste landscape.

Participating supermarkets also promised to publish data on the food waste they create, with Tesco being the first to do this back in late 2013. Tesco revealed further food waste statistics from its stores and distribution centres in May 2014, as part of its ‘Tesco and Society’ report. Its transparency on the issue, and its effort to uncover evidence as to why and where the waste was produced, means Tesco can now work with other members of the supply chain to tackle the problem.
When a huge brand like Tesco steps into the spotlight and talks about such an important issue, it hopefully creates an educational drive which encourages everyone to ‘do their bit’. This is so important, because the approach of every single individual will have an impact on wider progress.

Conclusions

Impending waste reduction targets and the continued economic challenges imposed on food manufacturers and retailers have pushed responsible surplus food management to the fore. Their focus has certainly been sharpened as food organisations strive to reduce the cost-prohibitive and environmentally damaging impact of what often proves to be an avoidable creation of ‘waste’.
We now need industry to acknowledge and replicate the stand-out efforts of some, if the sector is to gather the momentum it needs to combat the global food waste challenge.

Paul Featherstone is chairman of the European Former Footstuff Processors Association and group director at surplus food recycling firm, SugaRich

Published in Waste Management World – July/August 2014