Assessing the Monetary Value and Environmental Impact of Household Food Waste in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript assesses the monetary value and environmental impact of household food waste in Italy, analyzing data on household food waste from 2019. It provides valuable insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and consumers to reduce food waste and its associated impacts. However, the article has some shortcomings, as outlined below:

Abstract: The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the study's objectives, methods, and main findings; however, it lacks details on key methodological aspects. Briefly mentioning how food prices, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and land use data were collected or estimated would enhance the transparency of the research methods. Furthermore, the implications of the results need further contextualization. What do these findings mean in terms of reducing food waste or informing policy impacts? The abstract also lacks a practical interpretation of the study’s results, which could include potential policies or suggestions for improving household food waste reduction.

Keywords: The keywords provided are generally appropriate, but consider removing "food waste" or "household food waste" and adding “environmental impact” to encompass the broader aspects of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and land use.

Discussion: The discussion should emphasize the unique contributions of this study, such as the comprehensive assessment of the economic and environmental impacts of household food waste in Italy. Currently, while the data in the manuscript indicate significant economic losses and environmental burdens related to food waste in Italian households, the discussion lacks depth in interpreting these results. Consider adding insights into the significance of these findings for Italian households and discussing how these findings could be applied in practice. Additionally, while the discussion mentions the relationship between food waste and consumer awareness, there is a lack of specific suggestions on how to raise public awareness about the economic and environmental costs of food waste.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the manuscript’s findings on the economic and environmental impacts of household food waste, but the study’s innovation could be highlighted more clearly. For example, emphasize that this is the first dual assessment of household food waste in Italy, covering both economic and environmental impacts. Additionally, the conclusion should include specific recommendations for reducing household food waste to promote more sustainable consumption patterns. Consider also clarifying the study’s value and impact on food waste issues in both Italy and globally. For instance, highlight the potential role of this study in raising public awareness of food waste issues and promoting policy development.

The English language is accurate and readable.

Author Response

1. Abstract: The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the study's objectives, methods, and main findings; however, it lacks details on key methodological aspects. Briefly mentioning how food prices, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and land use data were collected or estimated would enhance the transparency of the research methods. Furthermore, the implications of the results need further contextualization. What do these findings mean in terms of reducing food waste or informing policy impacts? The abstract also lacks a practical interpretation of the study’s results, which could include potential policies or suggestions for improving household food waste reduction.

1. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have briefly addressed the methodological aspects concerning both the monetary and environmental impacts of household food waste. Furthermore, we have clarified that the findings of this study can be incorporated into National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), which support EU member states in achieving decarbonization and energy efficiency goals. These results provide a basis for developing specific policy recommendations that integrate food waste reduction into strategies for energy savings and greenhouse gas mitigation, offering a clear pathway to address existing gaps [Line 31-33]. This point has been elaborated further in the Discussion section [Line 347-367].

 

2. Keywords: The keywords provided are generally appropriate, but consider removing "food waste" or "household food waste" and adding “environmental impact” to encompass the broader aspects of greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and land use.

2. Response: Thank you for your comment. The keyword “environmental impact” has been added and “food waste” removed.

 

3. Discussion: The discussion should emphasize the unique contributions of this study, such as the comprehensive assessment of the economic and environmental impacts of household food waste in Italy. Currently, while the data in the manuscript indicate significant economic losses and environmental burdens related to food waste in Italian households, the discussion lacks depth in interpreting these results. Consider adding insights into the significance of these findings for Italian households and discussing how these findings could be applied in practice. Additionally, while the discussion mentions the relationship between food waste and consumer awareness, there is a lack of specific suggestions on how to raise public awareness about the economic and environmental costs of food waste.

3. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Discussion to better highlight the unique contributions of the study and expanded the Conclusion to provide more in-depth interpretation of the results and their policy implications. We also appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on the interpretation of results and have clarified in the manuscript that our findings emphasize the importance of generating reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts of food waste. Such data can support targeted reduction strategies, enhance national quantification studies, and align with the EU's delegated decision requiring updates every four years. Additionally, linking food waste-related emissions to National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) can aid EU Member States in addressing decarbonization and energy efficiency challenges. Despite progress in reducing emissions, achieving the 2030 targets set in the Climate Law remains challenging. As noted, net greenhouse gas emissions are projected to fall 51% below 1990 levels by 2030, missing the 55% reduction target. Our study underscores the need for integrating food waste prevention and reduction into NECP frameworks, focusing on actionable pathways that support emissions reductions in key sectors like agriculture and waste. Future research should expand on this to develop specific policy recommendations [Line 347-367]. Finally, the potential for these findings to inform awareness raising and educational efforts has been emphasized [Line 328-342].

 

4. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the manuscript’s findings on the economic and environmental impacts of household food waste, but the study’s innovation could be highlighted more clearly. For example, emphasize that this is the first dual assessment of household food waste in Italy, covering both economic and environmental impacts. Additionally, the conclusion should include specific recommendations for reducing household food waste to promote more sustainable consumption patterns. Consider also clarifying the study’s value and impact on food waste issues in both Italy and globally. For instance, highlight the potential role of this study in raising public awareness of food waste issues and promoting policy development.

The English language is accurate and readable.

4. Response: Thank you for your comment. We have emphasized that this study is the first in the literature to present a comprehensive environmental and economic analysis of the impact of food waste in Italy. This is highlighted in both the Discussion and Conclusion sections to underscore the study’s originality and contribution. To further enhance the Conclusion, we have added a dedicated paragraph outlining actionable recommendations for reducing household food waste and fostering sustainable consumption patterns. The paragraph highlights that focusing on avoidable food waste provides realistic estimates of potential savings that could be achieved. It also suggests practical measures for citizens as consumers, such as meal planning, proper food storage, and creative use of leftovers, which can reduce waste and free up resources for healthier, more sustainable food choices. For policymakers, the paragraph recommends setting food waste reduction targets, incentivizing food donations, and standardizing date labeling to influence consumer behavior. Educational efforts are also encouraged, including integrating food waste awareness into school curriculums and teaching practical food preservation skills. These insights aim to support a collaborative approach across sectors, emphasizing food waste reduction as a pivotal element in transitioning to sustainable consumption patterns [Line 426-339].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for allowing me to conduct this review, as I believe the proposed topic is interesting, timely, and highly relevant.

Otherwise, I would like to highlight that a paper that references data previously collected in another study must be able to stand alone. This paper lacks information about the sampling process and the sample itself. It only states that “it is representative of the Italian population”, but for which variables? How was the sampling conducted? These are details that cannot be understood just because they are in previous studies. The reader will be forced to go back and forth to find this information. I strongly recommend adding at least the most relevant information to enable the paper to be read independently.

Additionally, in my opinion, the discussion is superficial as it lacks the practical implications of your findings for policy or intervention strategies. The only observation made is that the food waste estimate is higher than in other studies that use a different methodology. However, this is not a novel point, as other methodological studies have already highlighted that the two methodologies have their respective strengths and weaknesses. It would be beneficial to elaborate on how the study’s findings could inform policy and what concrete steps could be taken to address food waste at the household level. In general, I don’t believe that the interesting results you obtained are adequately highlighted and compared with other information available in literature.

There is also a lack of attention to detail in the paper, with many formatting and punctuation errors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment:

I thank the Authors for allowing me to conduct this review, as I believe the proposed topic is interesting, timely, and highly relevant. 

Otherwise, I would like to highlight that a paper that references data previously collected in another study must be able to stand alone. This paper lacks information about the sampling process and the sample itself. It only states that “it is representative of the Italian population”, but for which variables? How was the sampling conducted? These are details that cannot be understood just because they are in previous studies. The reader will be forced to go back and forth to find this information. I strongly recommend adding at least the most relevant information to enable the paper to be read independently.

Additionally, in my opinion, the discussion is superficial as it lacks the practical implications of your findings for policy or intervention strategies. The only observation made is that the food waste estimate is higher than in other studies that use a different methodology. However, this is not a novel point, as other methodological studies have already highlighted that the two methodologies have their respective strengths and weaknesses. It would be beneficial to elaborate on how the study’s findings could inform policy and what concrete steps could be taken to address food waste at the household level. In general, I don’t believe that the interesting results you obtained are adequately highlighted and compared with other information available in literature.

There is also a lack of attention to detail in the paper, with many formatting and punctuation errors.

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. The following revisions have been made to address your feedback:

1. Introduction: We added details on the study design, including the number of households enrolled and key findings from Giordano et al. (2019). This section now includes:

“Giordano et al. (2019), the first study applying diary method in quantifying household food waste in Italy, estimated an average food waste per person per week at 529.9 g, equals to an annual average of 27.5 kg per person [13]. In particular, the study by Giordano et al. was based on a national survey conducted in Italy in May–June 2017 which analysed food waste in 388 families, collecting data on both edible and non-edible food waste over a week. Families were asked to fill out paper diaries for one week, detailing the food thrown away after each meal with a kitchen scale or common kitchen tools to quantify it as precisely as possible. The average food waste per person of 529.9 grams per week only refers to the edible fraction, both avoidable and possibly avoidable, with single households wasting more (713.7 g) compared to larger families (375 g for three-member families and 424.5 g for four or more members). Aside of household composition, also geography impacts on wasted food quantities: families in Northern Italy wasted significantly less—370 g per week—compared to 616 g in Central and Southern Italy. Regarding the composition of waste, the most wasted foods were vegetables (136 g), milk (92 g), fruits (86 g), and baked goods (61 g), with smaller amounts of pasta, rice, meat, and drinks also contributing to the waste.” [Line 101-115]

2. Methodology: We clarified the methodological approach:

“In their study, participants were selected using stratified random sampling, ensuring representation across macro-regions (North, Center, and South), city population size (below or above 100,000 residents), and whether households included children. The selection process was handled by SWG, a marketing survey firm with expertise in food waste research. ” [Line 138-142]

3. Discussion: Substantial revisions were made to better elaborate on the findings and their policy implications. Key additions include:

• “What is worth noting from this paper is the evidence that the household waste of certain food items, such as meat and dairy products, contributes significantly to monetary loss and is the most impactful in terms of water and land footprint (meat) and carbon and water footprint (dairy). However, interestingly, despite their environmental and economic impact, these items are not among the most wasted. Conversely, products like vegetables, fruits, and baked goods, which are the most perishable, are among the most wasted although they have a relatively low economic and environmental impact compared to other food categories. These findings reinforce the idea that the waste of some food items can be conceptualised as a luxury behaviour [49], which might be found especially in households that have a higher expenditure for food, or that show a higher opportunity cost for the time needed in every meal preparation, thus increasing household FW [50]. In any case, special attention should be given to the appropriate consumption of those food elements, like meat and dairy. which potentially could generate high monetary loss and environmental impact, focusing further efforts on reducing those waste. This information could be used to develop educational and awareness campaigns to address food behavior change at the household level.” [Line 328-342]
• “The environmental impacts accounted for in this study are also significant, with annual household food waste contributing 149 kgCO2eq to climate change, consuming 303,498 liters of water, and wasting 1,426 m² of land only in Italy. These findings highlight the importance of generating reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts of food waste to evaluate the potential environmental benefits of prevention and reduction measures. Associating food waste-related emissions with national quantification studies supports ongoing monitoring, aligned with the EU's delegated decision, which requires updates every four years from Member States. Furthermore, identifying the food products most linked to waste and their emissions can inform targeted reduction strategies. Such outputs could be successfully integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), which guide EU member states in addressing decarbonization and energy efficiency. In fact, the feedback of the EU Commission to the current NEPCs round is that, despite significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, achieving the 2030 targets set in the Climate Law remains a challenge. “Net GHG emissions are projected to be 51% lower than 1990 levels by 2030, falling short of the 55% reduction target by 4 percentage points. Additional enabling measures at the national level are required to bridge the remaining gap, particularly in sectors such as transport, buildings, agriculture, waste, and carbon removals. (...) Emissions from domestic transport (excluding aviation), buildings, agriculture, small industry and waste must be reduced by 40% by 2030 compared to 2005. The majority of the draft updated NECPs do not show sufficient ambition and action on land. Very few Member States show a concrete pathway to reach their national net removal targets, or sufficient actions to assist farmers, foresters and other stakeholders in building sustainable business models in line with these targets.” (COM (2023) 796 final, 2.1.1). Future research should build on these results to develop specific policy recommendations that integrate food waste reduction into energy savings and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, particularly within the NECP framework, by showing a clear pathway to reduction that is currently missing.” [Line 343-367]

4. Conclusion: A new paragraph was added to outline future research directions and policy recommendations:

"Finally, contextualizing household food waste in detail is crucial for effectively directing strategies to reduce it. The fact that this study focuses only on avoidable food waste allows for providing a real figure on the potential savings that can be achieved by reducing it. At the consumer level, increased awareness of potential savings can motivate individuals to reduce waste by adopting simple but effective habits like meal planning, storing food properly, and creatively using leftovers, which help minimize unnecessary purchases and waste [53, 62, 63]. Moreover, reducing food waste can free up money to spend on healthier and more sustainably produced foods, improving the quality of diets while lowering their environmental impact. For policymakers and educators, understanding which foods are most wasted and the reasons behind it can help to tailor more effective waste reduction strategies. Policymakers should implement food waste reduction targets, incentivize food donations, and standardize date labeling to guide consumer behavior [64], while educational efforts should focus on integrating food waste education in schools and promoting practical food preservation skills [65]. A collaborative approach across all sectors will help foster sustainable consumption patterns, with food waste reduction as a key element of this transition [66, 67]." [Line 426-439]

5. Formatting and Punctuation: Minor text edits were performed to improve clarity and consistency. [throughout the text]

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The changes and additions that have been made have significantly improved and added value to your work.