Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Submission by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Norway to the open e-consultation on the zero Draft on Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems

We appreciate the opportunity to provide inputs to the zero draft. In general, the draft is a solid and valuable document in the important work of reducing food losses and waste.

We would like to raise the attention of the Norwegian, Scandinavian and other European work on food waste, which might include some new and useful information for the further elaboration of the report, sometimes also information that differ from what is already in the draft.

We would especially like to inform the HLPE about some information from the Norwegian “ForMat” project. The project is an industry initiated collaboration between producers, retailers, research institutions, environmental organisations and the government. The last report from the project was recently released in an English translation, we have therefore chosen to enclose it here.

We would also like to raise the attention to the ongoing work on food waste by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Most of these reports are written in English (Marthinsen et al 2012, Stenmarck et al 2011, Sundt et al 2011).

Comments to the draft:

P. 10, l. 20-23: “Developing global protocols for the measurement of FLW is highly complex, having to account for a large number of variables, often different from country to country. (…) there is no recorded data on food waste at the consumer end in the developed countries.” Although the two sentences here probably are inter-linked, the last sentence may seem slightly misleading, as there are recorded data on food waste at the consumer end in quite a few developed countries as the Scandinavian countries, UK etc. as mentioned at p. 82, l. 1-4 and in our comment on this page below.

P. 13, l. 32-35: “There is not much evidence on the reduction of FLW at national level, partly because of lack of consistent methodologies and data to assess, partly because most of national policies are recent. Some countries (UK, South Korea, Japan) have made the reduction of FLW a high priority topic in early 21th century and some first evidence of their impacts is available”. The Scandinavian countries have also made the reduction of FLW a high priority topic in early 21th century. In Norway the first evidence of their impacts is available (see Hanssen and Møller 2013: pp 1-4).

P. 17, l. 4-8: “Some detailed studies give more precise and accurate perspectives on specific parts of food supply chains. (…) A detailed and comprehensive overview of different sectors (excluding primary production) has been gathered for UK”. The Scandinavian countries at least (and, we believe, also other countries?) have also gathered detailed and comprehensive overviews of different sectors (mostly excluding primary production although an interesting study is also made here, see Franke et. al. 2013), see for instance Hanssen and Møller 2013.

P. 20, l. 20-22: “All the world effort for slowing the pace of climate change is based on international commitments regarding the reduction in the emission of gases and desintensification of the use of natural resources. The reduction of losses and waste could be a shortcut to achieve these goals.” An important point that could be stressed more throughout the document.

P. 29, l. 23-35: The reference solely to the United States and Stuart 2009, can be broadened with reference to the Norway and Sweden in Franke et. al. 2013: pp 22-29, which shows losses of 10-30% of main vegetables, potatoes and berries in Norway and Sweden of the same reasons, although the wastage mostly appears at the storage stage (for example are only 1,6% of the Norwegian carrots left on the field, while 25% of the wastage appears at the storage stage).

P. 35, l. 33-44: (On Food safety aspects). Although the subject is returned to later in the draft, the importance of this subject could be stressed more also here. The references and examples can be broadened with Hanssen and Møller 2013 and Norway.

P. 37, l. 8-9: “In the US alone, it was estimated that the in-store food losses was 10% of the total food supply.” In Norway it was estimated that 18% of the total wasted food was from the retailers (Hanssen 2011).

P. 39, l. 21-23: “According to a survey conducted in 2009 by WRAP (2009) for households in UK 41% of the waste occurs because the meals were cooked or served too much and 54% of waste is because the food was not used in time.” As earlier mentioned, the Norwegian ForMat project analyse trends in the development of food waste over time. Since 2009/2010 ForMat has analysed food waste from producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. The reason most commonly given by consumers for throwing away food was that it was “past its expiry date”, which shows that many consumers do not relate rationally to the date stamp. Firstly, the expiry date is by far the most important reason for disposing of yoghurt and sour cream, which are products marked with “best before” and which last well beyond the date stamped on them. Secondly, the expiry date is given as an important reason for both fresh bakery products and fresh fruit and vegetables, which are products without a date stamp in most cases. The results reveal not only the effects of poor planning and shopping routines but also a narrow focusing on the date stamp in determining whether a product can be eaten or not (Hanssen and Møller 2013: p 16).

P. 39, l. 26 (On methodological problems in measuring waste of fruits, vegetables and cereals from consumers). An important methodological problem in measuring waste in general from consumers, is that consumers are underestimating their own waste in consumer surveys which normally are answers to questionnaires. Sample analyses is a more reliable method, although a much more costly one. A combination of the two methods is probably more realistic. See for instance ForMat 2012: p 12.

P. 40, l. 5-9: “Households with fewer residents waste more because the parts purchased and prepared are typically larger than the consumption capacity (...). It turns out also that there is larger waste in households with greater presence of adolescents and young people”. The ForMat project slows slightly different results in Norway. Young adults (19-26) and young families (26-39) waste most (ForMat 2012: p 13).

P. 40, l. 18-28. (On three different expiration dates in the United States). A similar disposal is taking place in Norway even if we don’t have three different expiration dates. See our previous comment on p. 39, l. 21-23. (Norway apply the EU-rules on date labeling: The 'Use by'-date is used on products which used after this date could put your health at risk. The 'Best before' date is more about quality than safety, so when that date runs out it doesn't mean that the food will be harmful, but it might begin to lose its flavour and texture).

P. 50, l. 7 - p. 51, l. 7 (On action towards consumers). This paragraph can be extended with multiple actions both going on and being possible to start towards consumers, many of them are now only to be found in the appendix (p. 78 l. 24 - p. 79 l. 10) or in boxes scattered elsewhere (Box 9 p. 52 and box 13 p. 58 which also can be broadened with other (traditional) cultural practices (also in the West) of saving food). Alternatively the appendix can be referred to here, or a similar paragraph as the following paragraph on campaigns against food waste in Southeast Asia should be made for Europe. At least should Norway get its’ own box here, certainly with these two examples: 1) In Norway  two leading producers of meat and dairy products have changed their labelling of many of these products from “Use by” to “Best before” to reduce food waste. 2) A Norwegian company has made an indicator it claims will reduce food waste. The indicator takes into account the temperature all the way from producer to consumer, and therefore shows a more appropriate durability than the traditional date labelling. The indicator shows how many days the food product retains its quality depending on the storage temperature.

P. 54, l. 45 – p. 55, l. 22 (On food losses and waste reduction: winners and losers). This paragraph seems not to be consistent with the last concluding paragraph (p. 65, l. 14-22).

P. 55, l. 23 Box 11 Saving money through waste reduction: This box might be better placed under paragraph 3.9 Reducing FLW: towards more sustainable food systems (p. 62, l. 1-24. See also comment on that page.

P. 59, l. 12-13: “changes in legislation and business behaviour towards more sustainable food production and consumption will be necessary to reduce waste from its current high levels.” We don’t agree that changes in legislation will be necessary to reduce waste from its current high levels. It might be necessary, but for instance as shown in our comment on p. 39, l. 21-23, it is the customers’ interpretation of the date labelling which is producing waste, rather than the date labelling legislation in itself. As for p. 57 l. 7-10: “In order to give incentives and facilitate the donations President Clinton proclaimed the Bill of Good Samaritan in 1996, that exempts donor companies from taxes and penal responsibilities. This act was a watershed and boosted the movement of Food Banks. After that many other countries have followed suit”, the Norwegian government in cooperation with the food retailers and humanitarian organizations, decided it was no need for a Good Samaritan law in order to start a food bank in Norway. Now a food bank is started and operating without such a law.

P. 61, l. 5 Box 15 Campaigns against food waste in China, South-Korea and Japan: The delivery date extension experiment described in Japan might not necessarily reduce food waste, but move the food waste from the retailer to the consumer which is left with shorter expiration time.

P. 62, l. 1-24 in general, especially l. 6-7: “Some countries have started to define strategies and targets, most of these actions have not been assessed.” The Norwegian ForMat-project and its’ actions since 2009/10 are continually being assessed (Hanssen and Møller 2013: pp 1-4). As for the Courtauld Commitment in Box 16, the ForMat-project also reports on reduction of food waste and as for the box 11 Saving money through waste reduction (p. 55, l. 23 see own comment), the ForMat-project have also developed a simple calculation tool to assist companies in assessing what food wastage currently costs them in terms of lost revenue and waste management expenses. This paragraph in general can be broadened with more examples of this kind both from ForMat and other projects (like for instance Samma in Sweden). Some of it can preferably be included from the appendices.

P. 74, l. 1 – p. 82, l. 4. Appendices. In general, much of the information in the appendices can preferably be mentioned in the main text. See also our previous comments on p. 10, l. 20-23; p. 50, l. 7 - p. 51, l. 7 and p. 62, l. 1-24 and the comment below.

P. 82, l. 1-4. “In a growing number of developed countries data of post consumer level food waste are consistently measured to monitor trends, based on household waste analysis (e.g. Schneider, 2009; WRAP 2010, 2013; Van Westerhoven, 2010, 2013).” The ForMat-project can preferably be mentioned here (Hanssen and Møller 2013).

References

ForMat. 2012. Prevention of food waste - Presentation of the ForMat-project, (available at:http://www.nhomatogdrikke.no/getfile.php/ForMat/Engelsk%20presentasjon%20ForMat.pdf ).

Franke, U., Einarson, E., Andrésen, N., Svanes, E., Hartikainen, H. & Mogensen, L. 2013. Kartläggning av matsvinnet i primärproduktionen. TemaNord, Volume 581, 2013, Nordiska ministerrådet, (available at: http://www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2013-581 ).

Hanssen, O. & Schakenda, V. 2011. Nyttbart matavfall i Norge – status og utviklingstrekk 2010 - Rapport fra ForMat-prosjektet. OR, Volume 37.10, 2011, Østfoldforskning (available at: http://ostfoldforskning.no/uploads/dokumenter/publikasjoner/661.pdf ).

Hanssen, O. & Møller, H. 2013. Food Wastage in Norway 2013 – Status and Trends 2009-13. OR, Volume 32.13, 2013, Østfoldforskning (enclosed).

Marthinsen, J., Sundt, P., Kaysen, O. & Kirkevaag, K. 2012. Prevention of food waste in restaurants, hotels, canteens and catering. TemaNord, Volume 537, 2012, Nordic Council of Ministers, (available at: http://www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2012-537 ).

Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen, O., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J. & Werge, M. 2011. Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades. TemaNord, Volume 548, 2011, Nordic Council of Ministers, (available at: http://www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2011-548 ).

Sundt, P., Marthinsen, J., Syversen, F., Kaysen, O. & Kirkvaag, K. 2011. Nordic information campaign regarding food waste prevention - preliminary study. Nordic Council of Ministers/Mepex Consult AS. (Not publicised).