Innovative Preservation Technologies and Supply Chain Optimization for Reducing Meat Loss and Waste: Current Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Abstract

Food loss and waste (FLW) is a chronic problem across food systems worldwide, with meat being one of the most resource-intensive and perishable categories. The perishable character of meat, combined with complex cold chain requirements and consumer behavior, makes the sector particularly sensitive to inefficiencies and loss across all stages from production to consumption. This review synthesizes the latest advancements in new preservation technologies and supply chain efficiency strategies to minimize meat wastage and also outlines current challenges and future directions. New preservation technologies, such as high-pressure processing, cold plasma, pulsed electric fields, and modified atmosphere packaging, have substantial potential to extend shelf life while preserving nutritional and sensory quality. Active and intelligent packaging, bio-preservatives, and nanomaterials act as complementary solutions to enhance safety and quality control. At the same time, blockchain, IoT sensors, AI, and predictive analytics-driven digitalization of the supply chain are opening new opportunities in traceability, demand forecasting, and cold chain management. Nevertheless, regulatory uncertainty, high capital investment requirements, heterogeneity among meat types, and consumer hesitancy towards novel technologies remain significant barriers. Furthermore, the scalability of advanced solutions is limited in emerging nations due to digital inequalities. Convergent approaches that combine technical innovation with policy harmonization, stakeholder capacity building, and consumer education are essential to address these challenges. System-level strategies based on circular economy principles can further reduce meat loss and waste, while enabling by-product valorization and improving climate resilience. By integrating preservation innovations and digital tools within the framework of UN Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, the meat sector can make meaningful progress towards sustainable food systems, improved food safety, and enhanced environmental outcomes.

1. Introduction

The Global Challenge of Food Loss and Waste (FLW) is a pressing issue that undermines sustainability, economic efficiency, and food safety. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that nearly one-third of all food produced worldwide—approximately 1.3 billion tons—is lost each year [1]. The massive quantity calls for immediate solutions. FLW also translates into the loss of valuable resources, such as energy, water, and land, and accounts for about 8–10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the decomposition of organic waste in landfills [2].

1.1. The Vulnerability of the Meat Industry

FLW directly challenges the achievement of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, which seeks to halve per capita food loss and waste by 2030 as a pathway to reducing GHG emissions [3]. The meat industry is particularly vulnerable to FLW due to its highly perishable nature and complex supply chains [3]. Beef production, in particular, is resource-intensive—requiring substantial inputs of water, feed, and energy—making the economic and environmental consequences of losses especially severe [4]. Estimates suggest that up to 20% of global beef production is lost or wasted, based on FAO mass-flow models that integrate national statistics, food balance sheets, and literature data on losses across supply-chain stages [5]. While this provides a useful global benchmark, actual losses can vary considerably depending on production system, region, and supply chain structure. Unlike other food products, meat is subject to stringent safety standards and cold chain requirements, which, when disrupted, result in product rejection or spoilage [3]. Losses occur at multiple points along the supply chain, including slaughter, processing, transportation, retail, and consumption [6,7].

1.2. Drivers of Meat Loss and Waste Across Economies

In high-income economies, over-purchasing, improper storage, and misinterpretation of expiration dates are the primary consumer-related drivers of waste [8,9]. In contrast, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), infrastructural limitations—such as inadequate refrigeration and logistics inefficiencies—are the dominant contributors [10].

Within high-income economies, elements touching food waste in households are more focused by consumption patterns that have a link to modern lifestyles and a familiarity gap. Outdated purchasing, storage, and knowledge about expiration dates have been recognized as factors with biggest impact [11,12].

For food waste, the over-purchasing can be mentioned as a main determinant factor [13]. The constant obtainability of abundant food, joint with retail strategies like bulk purchasing, buy-one-get-one-free marketing, and wide product diversity, could motivate consumers to purchase far more than they really require [14,15]. It has been reported that people have been determined to make more excessive purchases due to these trade practices, and as a result, more food ends up being discarded before it can be consumed [16]. It becomes further aggravated because people do not establish correctly about food and have a “good provider” trap, because of which people end up with more food stored in their kitchen [17].

In addition, the improper storage could greatly participate to food spoilage and a sequential disposal [18]. A fact is that most households are not furnished with either conveniences or necessary information for efficiently conserving spoiled food matrix [19,20]. These comprise inappropriate low temperatures, failure to store goods in rotation according to expiration dates, improper packaging of fruits and vegetables, and mishandling of leftovers [21]. Furthermore, as households acquire more refrigeration units and rely increasingly on processed or packaged foods, effective food handling and storage are becoming progressively more challenging. Furthermore, a limited understanding of expiration date labels also signifies a main contributor to unnecessary food waste [21,22].

Food waste in LMICs can be largely attributed to inadequate storage capabilities and poorly organized storage infrastructure, which can provoke perishable commodities, viz. fruits and vegetables, fish, and dairy products, to spoil rapidly [23,24]. According to a report on food loss and waste, more than 2/3 of food loss in sub-Saharan Africa ensues at an early stage in the food chain caused by unsuitable storage and processing infrastructure [25]. Various research papers on food waste and loss have suggested that a lack of cold chain infrastructure and efficient logistics have been major reasons for food waste at various levels, including households and retail, in LMICs [23,26,27].

Also, there are disorganizations within the logistics systems that contribute to food loss within LMICs. In this line, small scale farmers and supply chain members do not have admission to refrigerated trucks, optimal handling techniques, causing large percentages of food loss due to spoilage [28,29].

1.3. Understanding FLW Through the Food Waste Hierarchy

To address the multidimensional nature of FLW, the Food Waste Hierarchy has been proposed as a conceptual framework prioritizing prevention strategy over recovery and disposal [30,31].

Effective implementation requires a clear understanding of drivers at three interconnected levels:

Micro level—Individual behaviors and attitudes, such as poor meal planning, low awareness, and aesthetic-driven purchasing, contribute significantly to waste [3].

Meso level—Supply chain inefficiencies, including inadequate inventory management and cold chain failures, are key factors [32].

Macro level—Broader systemic issues such as market dynamics, subsidies, and trade policies strongly shape FLW patterns [33].

1.4. Integrating Preservation Technologies to Reduce Meat Losses and Waste

Meat preservation technologies play a crucial role in extending shelf life ensuring safety and reducing spoilage rates. Methods such as high-pressure processing (HPP), cold plasma, modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), and bio-preservatives provide alternatives or complements to conventional preservation methods [34,35].

Meanwhile, smart packaging and antimicrobial films are emerging solutions offering real-time monitoring of freshness and improved safety [35]. HPP, for example, effectively inactivates spoilage microorganisms with minimal impact on the sensory quality [36] Cold plasma and pulsed electric fields (PEFs) are non-thermal technologies that preserve nutritional integrity while extending shelf life [36]. Meanwhile mart packaging and antimicrobial films are emerging solutions offering real-time monitoring of freshness and improved safety [35].

In parallel, digital innovations are increasingly applied to supply chain optimization. Blockchain enhances traceability and transparency, reducing counterfeiting and improving recall efficiency [37]. Internet of Things (IoT) devices monitor environmental conditions along the cold chain to prevent spoilage [38]. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are now used to predict demand and optimize inventory, reducing both surplus and stock-outs [39]. Together, these tools enhance coordination across supply chain actors, minimizing delays, and improving routing efficiency [40].

Despite their promise, several challenges hinder large-scale adoption. High capital investment requirements, particularly for technologies such as HPP and PEFs, remain a significant barrier for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [41]. Regulatory uncertainty also complicates the introduction of bio-preservatives and nanomaterials [3]. Consumer skepticism toward novel technologies perceived as “unnatural” adds another layer of resistance [42]. Additionally, the heterogeneity of meat categories (beef, poultry, and pork) and local consumption patterns limits the feasibility of one-size-fits-all solutions [43]. Variability in spoilage behavior and storage needs requires product-specific approaches. Furthermore, digital divides within supply chains, especially in developing economies, restrict the scalability of IoT- or AI-driven solutions [44].

Nonetheless, evidence suggests that combining preservation technologies with digital innovations can yield synergistic benefits [45,46]. These integrated strategies not only enhance shelf-life extension but also improve logistics and inventory accuracy, leading to greater economic and environmental gains over the long term.

Overall, reducing FLW in the meat sector requires systemic, cross-cutting solutions. By coupling novel preservation methods with supply chain digitalization, significant progress can be made toward building a more resilient and sustainable global meat system. Future interventions must prioritize affordability, regulatory harmonization, stakeholder capacity, building, and consumer education to achieve effective, large-scale impact [47]. Advancing this agenda will contribute directly to global food security, climate resilience, and sustainable development. Thus, this review aims to integrate recent research and innovation in preventing meat FLW through two major avenues: novel preservation-technologies and supply-chain-optimization.

2. Research Methodology

To conduct this study, a systematic and comprehensive literature review methodology was undertaken, aiming to analyze existing knowledge on innovative production, processing and preservation technologies, as well as supply chain optimization strategies designed to reduce meat loss and waste at different stages of the food system. The defined methodological framework ensured accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility by following established protocols for conducting systematic narrative reviews in food science [48,49].

• Research Design and Scope: Two core thematic areas guided the design and scope of this review. The first focused on advanced production, processing, and storage technologies applied to meat and meat products, including primary production, thermal, non-thermal and packaging innovations. The second addressed interventions related to supply chain and logistics optimization strategies aimed at reducing meat losses from farm to fork. To capture the most recent research progress and development trends, this review included journal articles, book chapters, institutional reports, and grey literature published between 2015 and 2025. To ensure global relevance, this review covered studies from high-, middle-, and low-income countries [30].
• Data Sources and Search Strategy: Major scientific databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were searched systematically. A combination of keywords and Boolean operators was applied to identify relevant studies, such as “primary meat production challenges”, “meat waste prevention”, “meat waste valorization”, “meat preservation technologies”, “food supply chain optimization”, “smart packaging”, “non-thermal storage”, and “food loss reduction logistics” [50].
• Screening and Inclusion Criteria: Titles and abstracts were first screened for relevance using a reference management program. Articles were included if they (a) presented primary or secondary research on meat production, preservation, valorization, or supply chain optimization, (b) reported results on meat loss or reduction waste, (c) provided multidisciplinary insights on technological feasibility, economic sustainability or environmental impacts, and (d) were published in English. Exclusion criteria applied to studies focused on plant-based foods or those lacking empirical or theoretical foundations. After reviewing the full text, articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed in depth [51]. The PRISMA flow diagram presents a clear, stepwise account of this review’s study-selection process, moving from identification to inclusion. It visually maps records identified through database and other searches, records after duplicate removal, the number screened and excluded at title/abstract stage (with reasons), full-text articles assessed for eligibility, full-text exclusions (with reasons), and the final number of studies included in qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis. The diagram enhances transparency and reproducibility by summarizing how search yields were narrowed to the studies used in this review and by documenting exclusion rationales and attrition at each stage (Figure 1).
• Data Extraction and Thematic Analysis: A standardized approach was applied to extract data from each article, including publication year, research focus, type of meat product, technology or methodology, supply chain stage, and main findings. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2019) guidelines [52] allowing for comparative insights across technologies, regions, and stages of the value chain.
• Quality Assessment: The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist [53] focusing on their relevance to meat loss, waste reduction, and valorization. Studies were categorized as high, moderate, or low quality, and those with insufficient methodological rigor were excluded from the synthesis. Synthesis and Reporting: Findings were synthesized narratively, with emphasis on evidence-based results, replicable methodologies, technological challenges, research gaps, and interdisciplinary approaches to meat production, preservation, and supply chain management. This integrative approach enabled the identification of best practices and future perspectives to support comprehensive and sustainable solutions [50]. The methodology of this review is grounded in a systematic and comprehensive approach aligned with established protocols for narrative systematic reviews, with full transparency and reproducibility ensured. The revised methodology explicitly reports the complete Boolean search strings applied across all databases, the number of records retrieved from each source, and a PRISMA 2020–compliant flow diagram that clearly documents the identification, screening, eligibility, and final inclusion of studies, thereby demonstrating search completeness and saturation. The temporal scope is now clearly defined and justified: The primary analytical focus covers the period 2015–2025 to capture recent advances in preservation technologies and supply chain digitalization, while seminal pre-2015 studies are purposefully included to provide essential conceptual and technological context for established meat processing and preservation practices.

3. Extent and Relevance of Meat Losses and Waste

3.1. Global Significance of Meat Losses and Waste

Meat loss and waste are increasingly recognized as critical bottlenecks within global food systems. Although it is estimated that around one-third of all food produced worldwide is lost or wasted annually [1], the specific contribution of meat often receives less attention, despite its disproportionate environmental and economic impact. Animal-based foods are highly resource-intensive and perishable, making their wastage especially costly.

Recent studies indicate that nearly 20% of global beef production and 10–12% of pork and poultry are lost at various stages of the supply chain [54]. With global demand for animal protein projected to rise by 14% by 2030 [55], reducing these losses becomes increasingly urgent to safeguard both planetary boundaries and food security.

Compared with plant-based commodities, meat waste carries a disproportionately large environmental footprint. Whereas discarded cereals or fruits primarily represent the loss of agricultural inputs and land, wasted meat implies that feed, water, energy, veterinary services, and ultimately the life of the animal itself were expended without benefit. This not only aggravates the sustainability concerns but also raises ethical questions regarding animal welfare and society’s responsibility to minimize avoidable waste.

3.2. Extent of Losses Across the Supply Chain

Losses occur at every stage of the meat supply chain, although their magnitude and causes differ significantly between regions.

• Production and slaughterhouses: Carcass rejection due to sanitary issues, anatomical defects, or processing inefficiencies can result in losses of 2–5% at the slaughter stage [56]. In developing countries, limited access to adequate slaughter facilities exacerbates these problems.
• Processing and logistics: Maintaining the cold chain is a major determinant of meat quality [57]. Interruptions during storage or transport create opportunities for microbial growth and spoilage, leading to economic downgrading or outright rejection of products.
• Retail stage: Overstocking, inaccurate demand forecasting, and rigid product presentation standards are common drivers of loss. For example, meat approaching its expiration date is frequently discarded despite being safe for consumption [58].
• Consumers: In high-income countries, households are the single largest contributors to meat waste, primarily due to over-purchasing, inadequate storage, and misunderstanding of “best before” versus “use by” labels [59]. In contrast, in low- and middle-income countries, infrastructural deficits such as unreliable refrigeration, weak transport logistics, and limited cold storage capacity dominate upstream losses [60]. Regional comparisons illustrate these differences clearly. In sub-Saharan Africa, up to 15% of meat losses occur before products reach markets, whereas in Europe and North America, over 50% of total meat waste occurs at the retail and household levels [55]. This distinction highlights the need for tailored solutions sensitive to local conditions.

3.3. Mass Balance Perspective

The carbon footprint values reported in this study (approximately 27 kg CO₂-eq per kg of beef, 7–12 kg CO₂-eq per kg of pork, and 5–6 kg CO₂-eq per kg of poultry) are consistent with recent life cycle assessment (LCA) literature evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat production. LCAs typically adopt cradle-to-gate system boundaries, which encompass upstream emissions from feed production, enteric fermentation, manure management, and land use or land-use change (LUC), and in many cases, also include processing and transport stages to improve comparability across products. One comprehensive comparative LCA analysis using ISO-certified methods demonstrated that animal-based meats have substantially higher impacts than plant-based alternatives, with beef showing the largest global warming potential, followed by pork and poultry, when assessed on this cradle-to-gate basis [61].

Moreover, recent national and regional LCA work confirms the dominant role of enteric fermentation and feed production in livestock GHG profiles: For example, a cradle-to-gate assessment of Finnish pork production found that feed crop production contributes a large share of the climate change impact, with LUC also explicitly accounted for [62].

Similarly, comprehensive European assessments using CAPRI model frameworks include emissions of CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O from livestock sectors, highlighting that beef remains a key driver of livestock-associated emissions due to methane and land use impacts.

These methodological clarifications have now been added to the manuscript to specify that the quoted carbon footprint values refer to cradle-to-gate LCAs, including the major emission sources (feed production, enteric fermentation, manure management, and land use/LUC impacts). Downstream stages such as processing and waste handling are typically of lesser magnitude relative to production emissions but may be included in broader cradle-to-grave studies, depending on the LCA scope [63].

Adopting a mass balance approach enables quantification of inefficiencies across the meat supply chain. By mapping inputs and outputs at each stage, it is possible to identify underutilized streams and recovery opportunities.

• Beef: On average, only 60–70% of a carcass is converted into prime meat cuts [64]. The remainder includes hides, bones, fat, blood, and offal. While some these by-products are processed into secondary products, others remain underused or discarded.
• Pork: Utilization rates are typically higher (75–80%), due to broader acceptance of processed cuts and by-products in many culinary traditions [65].
• Poultry: Carcass yields hover around 70%, with feathers, viscera, and bones. Often a practical example is the breakdown of a 600 kg beef carcass: Roughly 370 kg is transformed into edible cuts, while about 230 kg consists of materials that, if not valorized, represent both economic loss and environmental burden [66]. From this perspective, meat loss is not only visible spoilage but also insufficient valorization of non-prime fractions.

3.4. Sustainability Implications and LCA Evidence

• The environmental consequences of meat loss and waste are among the most severe in the food sector. Life cycle assessment (LCA) consistently demonstrates that meat—particularly beef—has one of the highest carbon footprints per kilogram of edible product [67].
• Carbon footprint: Wasted beef generates approximately 27 kg CO₂-eq per kilogram of discarded product, compared with 7–12 kg for pork and 5–6 kg for poultry [68].
• Water footprint: Producing 1 kg of beef may require up to 15,000 L of water (including virtual water for feed crops). The loss of such products therefore represents a substantial inefficiency in freshwater use [69].
• Energy footprint: Case studies from Germany report that discarding one ton of pork sausages at the retail stage results in more than 6 MWh of embodied energy loss, excluding additional emissions associated to packaging and refrigeration [70].

Beyond economic concerns, these figures carry an ethical dimension: Millions of animals are raised and slaughtered each year without fulfilling their nutritional purpose, an issue that increasingly resonates with consumer awareness.

3.5. Critical Action Points and Optimization Potential

Despite the scale of the problem, several critical intervention points remain underexploited. Recent empirical and review studies highlight the potential impacts and limitations of emerging technologies and optimization strategies across the meat supply chain. For example, innovations in the valorization of animal by-products (e.g., muscle, bones, fat, blood, and viscera) have been implemented in industrial symbiosis approaches that convert residues into biodiesel, pharmaceuticals, biofertilizers, and biogas [71,72,73], reducing waste and creating economic value in commercial settings such as Asia and Northern Europe. Quantitatively, retail meat waste has been estimated at around 1.7 Mt annually in the European sector, corresponding to roughly 20% of meat available for consumption, underscoring the scope for technological valorization and recovery [74].

Intelligent packaging technologies have been shown, through systematic review, to extend shelf life and improve quality control in meat products by integrating antimicrobial, antioxidant, and real-time freshness functions, thereby reducing spoilage and waste in processing and retail [75]. Intelligent packaging solutions—including time–temperature indicators, oxygen scavengers, and antimicrobial coatings—can markedly reduce spoilage. Modified atmosphere packaging, already established in commercial practice, has extended the shelf life of chilled meat by several days [76]. Digital supply chain management: Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly employed to predict demand, optimize stock rotation, and support dynamic pricing based on real-time freshness indicators. Retail have demonstrated reductions of up to 30% in meat waste when AI-driven pricing systems.

Advanced packaging solutions, such as active scavengers and IoT-enabled freshness sensors, have demonstrated measurable improvements in product shelf life, with some industrial case studies reporting up to a 50% extension in shelf life and nearly 40% reductions in food waste when applied in commercial settings [77].

Digital supply chain management using AI and machine learning has also been linked to reductions in meat loss: Predictive analytics can optimize demand forecasting and inventory levels, reducing overstocking and associated waste; IoT sensor networks improve cold chain monitoring and early detection of spoilage; and data-driven logistics can streamline operations. Empirical studies report substantial decreases in waste categories when digital systems are implemented, including overstocking reductions of up to ~43% and transport inefficiencies cut by ~60% through optimized routing and real-time tracking [78].

However, while these technologies show promising impacts, their effectiveness is mediated by significant trade-offs and barriers. Intelligent packaging and active monitoring systems can increase material and implementation costs, and in the case of high-tech solutions such as IoT and AI, energy demand and data processing requirements contribute to additional environmental burdens that must be assessed alongside waste reduction benefits. Emerging research also highlights important digital barriers: Interoperability issues between legacy systems and new technologies, cybersecurity risks related to sensitive supply chain data, and unclear data ownership frameworks can limit adoption and dilute potential value. These constraints are frequently cited in systematic reviews of Web 3.0 technologies applied to food supply chains, which note that implementation costs, privacy concerns, and data governance challenges may slow or impede uptake [79].

Redistribution networks and food rescue initiatives (e.g., structured donation systems linking surplus food from stores and processors to charities) are increasingly recognized strategies for preventing edible food from entering waste streams and addressing food insecurity; globally, food rescue practices have formed policy frameworks in multiple regions, and they are supported by documentation showing measurable redirection of surplus food before spoilage.

Legal and logistical frameworks enabling the redistribution of surplus meat to food banks, charities, or community kitchens remain underutilized in many regions. Countries such as France and Denmark are frequently cited as best-practice examples, where legislation actively promotes redistribution [80].

Finally, consumer education interventions targeting misinterpretation of date labels and better domestic food management have demonstrated pilot-level effectiveness in reducing household meat waste, particularly when combined with smart packaging and decision support tools. Collectively, these examples show that while technologies and systems offer quantifiable waste reduction benefits, their environmental and economic trade-offs, scalability challenges, and digital adoption barriers must be carefully evaluated for meaningful and sustainable implementation across supply chains. Misinterpretation of date labeling is one of the most avoidable drivers of household-level waste. Public campaigns clarifying the distinction between “use by” and “best before” dates, combined with practical guidance on meal planning and domestic refrigeration, have shown effectiveness in pilot programs.

3.6. Visualization and Communication Strategies

Effectively communicating the magnitude of meat losses in an accessible and engaging manner is crucial for mobilizing stakeholders across the food system. Tools such as Sankey diagrams and mass flow charts provide intuitive representations of where losses occur along the supply chain and their relative significance. For policymakers and consumers, visualizations that link meat waste to its associated carbon and water footprint have been particularly impactful in shaping awareness and influencing behavior. Emerging digital dashboards, often integrated with Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, enable real-time monitoring of cold chain conditions and product quality. These systems not only reduce spoilage by enabling rapid interventions but also generate valuable datasets that inform evidence-based policymaking. Reducing meat loss and waste requires systemic integration of technological, managerial, and social innovations. Transitioning towards a circular economy framework in which every output is valorized represents a critical pathway forward. Advances in biotechnology, such as the extraction of bioactive peptides from by-products or the development of sustainable packaging derived from animal residues, highlight promising solutions that combine environmental and economic value. At the same time, digitalization of supply chains is poised to redefine optimization strategies in the coming decade. Predictive analytics, blockchain-enabled traceability, and digital twin-simulations of logistics scenarios offer new avenues to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability. However, the successful adoption of these tools depends on regulatory and policy frameworks that incentivize innovation and align industry practices with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, which calls for halving global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030. Finally, consumer engagement remains a cornerstone. Without behavioral change at the household level, upstream technological and managerial gains risk being offset by downstream inefficiencies. Education campaigns, greater transparency, and participatory approaches that reconnect citizens with the value of animal products are therefore essential for achieving meaningful reductions in meat loss and waste [44].

4. Technologies with Transformation Potential

4.1. Measures to Prevent Food Losses and Waste During the Production Stage

Losses of food during production stages in meat supply chains have a considerable danger to food safety, environmental care, and financial performance. Such losses result from animal mortality, disease, inefficiencies in feeding, and incompetent farm practice. These concerns need a multi-disciplinary solution through animal health management, nutritional optimization, precision farming, and slaughterhouse improvement practice. Loss reduction at this stage not only preserves natural resources but also improves profitability and availability of food [81,82]. Control of animal health is the most important to avoid losses in poultry and livestock farming. Pandemics of African Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, and Avian Influenza caused massive culling activities, and millions of lost foods were accounted for. Enhancing biosecurity, organizing vaccination drives, and developing disease monitoring systems at an early age are able to reduce death rates by large percentages [83,84]. Advances in genomic selection have also enhanced the resistance of livestock against diseases, leading to improved herds and loss minimization [85]. In aquaculture, control of disease outbreaks with probiotics and enhanced water quality management has proved effective in reducing losses [86,87]. Proper planning of feeding and nutrition management are key to reducing food loss. Malnutrition and unbalanced feeding lead to sub-potential growth performance, increased mortality, and reduced feed conversion efficiency. Precise feeding methods, designed to meet the specific nutritional needs of animals, are found to activate growth rates and reduce waste [88,89]. In addition, the use of agro-industrial by-products, such as distillers’ grains and citrus pulp, as substitute feed materials promotes resource efficiency with reduced food loss [90,91]. Supplementation with enzymes in poultry production has improved nutrient digestibility, leading to enhanced feed utilization with reduced mortality [92,93]. Precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies have proved to be an effective way of reducing food loss at the production level. PLF utilizes data-driven decision-making, real-time monitoring, and automation to optimize animal welfare, health, and productivity. Wearable sensors and machine learning algorithms can detect initial signs of illness, allowing timely interventions that prevent losses associated with disease [94,95]. Automatic feeding systems enhance feed efficiency by delivering nutrients accurately, minimizing overfeeding and underfeeding [96,97]. Drone usage in extensive livestock systems has also improved herd management, a reduction in loss due to predation and environmental aspects [98,99]. Reproductive efficiency is also a critical factor in food loss in meat production. Reproductive inefficiency is characterized by non-conception cows or the conception of weak calves and prolonged calving periods that all translate into inefficiencies of meat production. Advanced reproductive techniques (ARTs), including artificial insemination, embryo transfer, and genomic selection, have evolved remarkably in raising success rates in reproductive efforts [100,101]. Heat stress forms one of the central reasons underlying reproductive deficiencies within livestock, primarily in the tropical and subtropical regions. Interventions such as genetic selection of heat-tolerant breeds, improved housing design, and feeding interventions have mitigated the impact of heat stress on reproductive efficiency [102,103]. Sound farm management practices also have a vital role to play in minimizing food loss at production stage. Properly trained farm personnel, housing conditions, and ventilation guarantee animal welfare and productivity. Excessive stocking of poultry and pigs results in stress, trauma, and elevated mortality. Maximum stocking density and environmental enrichment can lower survival rates and meat production significantly [104]. Improved pond management like aeration and water quality monitoring has enhanced fish survival and growth rate in aquaculture [81,82]. Handling and transportation are the most important areas in which stress-related loss, death, and injury take place. Long-distance transport without ample resting stations, insufficient ventilation, and overloading makes an animal vulnerable to further deaths. Starvation prior to transportation, custom-fitted transports, and specialized workers operating the cattle will reduce loss during transit [105,106]. In poultry, reducing transport time and top stocking densities for transport crates reduce transport-related stress death [107,108]. In aquaculture, live fish transport with ideal temperatures and oxygen improve survival rates [109,110]. The level to which the abattoir also recovers food waste throughout production time. Stress management, stunning accidents, and carcass contamination lead to downgrading or condemnation of meat. Conformity of the stunning process, enhanced sanitizing processes, and automation processing technology use enhance the quality of meat and reduce loss [111,112]. Cold chain management from the slaughtering point prevents spoilage and bacterial contamination. Technology has improved meat preservation and safety by better rapid chilling equipment and intelligent monitoring system [113,114]. Extreme weather, heatwaves, and droughts can be able to cause increased food loss during meat production because of environmental conditions. Drought-resistant feeds, shaded shelter, and heat-resistant animal species play a critical role in an attempt to halt climate-related losses [115,116]. Scarcity of water is also a big concern, particularly in arid regions where livestock production is dependent on water. Strategies for effective use of water, such as recycling wastewater for irrigation and minimizing drinking water supply systems, are being considered in sustainable meat production [117]. Application of circular economy principles to meat production also helps in lessening food loss. Application of slaughterhouse by-products such as blood, bones, and offal to be used as animal feed, biofuel, and pharmaceutical feedstock maximizes resource use [118]. Insect-based protein generation through food waste as a raw material is emerging technology that seeks to reduce food wastage and establish new alternatives in animal feeding material [119,120]. Anaerobic organic waste and manure digestion for the production of biogas not only eliminates wastes but also provides clean renewable energy for agriculture [121,122].

Insights into sustainable food-waste valorization and highlights how advanced anaerobic processes contribute to circular-economy goals and SDG-aligned environmental assessments have been shown by Achouri et al. (2025) [123]. In this context, new solutions developed in the field of environmental engineering offer integrated and low-impact routes for the conversion of organic waste, improving the overall sustainability of the processes.

An overview of emerging and sustainable food-processing technologies that directly support the Farm-to-Fork objectives of waste reduction, resource efficiency, and environmentally friendly production has been provided by Bounaas et al. (2025) [124]. this strengthens the link between policy frameworks and concrete technological advancements confirming the key role of innovation in improving efficiency, quality and sustainability of meat supply chains, with process engineering approaches capable of reducing waste and increasing product stability by optimization of the chemical treatment of two biomass materials, spent coffee grounds (SCGs) and date pits (DPs), for their use as adsorbents in the removal of methylene blue.

Table 1. Prevention of Meat Losses and Waste during the Production Stage (Estimated Loss Reduction %).

Preventive Actions	Application	Impact	Estimated Losses Prevented (%)	Recent Sources
Animal Health Management	Use of veterinary services, vaccinations, early disease detection, and improved hygiene.	Reduces mortality and condemned carcasses.	3–7% (on-farm mortality reduction)	[125]
Improved Animal Handling & Transport	Trained staff, reduced transport time, gentle handling.	Reduces bruising, DFD/PSE meat, transport deaths.	1–3% of total carcass value preserved	[126,127]
Precision Livestock Farming (PLF)	Smart sensors, real-time health/feed monitoring.	Prevents early losses, improves efficiency.	2–5% mortality and inefficiency reduction	[128,129]
Genetic Improvement and Breeding	Selecting traits, feed conversion, disease resistance.	Better survivability and consistency in meat production.	1–3% long-term yield increase	[99,130]
Feed Quality and Management	Balanced rations, proper storage, clean water access.	Reduces digestive issues, improves weight gain.	2–4% mortality reduction & improved conversion	[131,132]
Slaughterhouse Scheduling and Coordination	Aligning transport and slaughter capacity.	Minimizes animal stress and holding-time losses.	Up to 2% reduction in pre-slaughter losses	[10]
On-farm Mortality Surveillance and Reduction Programs	Continuous tracking and timely interventions.	Reduces unexplained livestock deaths.	1–2.5% fewer unproductive deaths	[133,134]
Training and Capacity Building for Producers	Educating on welfare, nutrition, handling.	Improves productivity and reduces error-related losses.	Variable, but up to 5% efficiency improvement	[135,136]
Environmental Control in Animal Housing	Ventilation, cooling, proper bedding and lighting.	Prevents heat/cold stress and death.	1–4% loss reduction in hot/cold climates	[137,138]
Use of Mobile/Decentralized Slaughter Units	Slaughter units near farms to reduce transport.	Lowers stress, mortality, and meat defects.	Up to 2% pre-slaughter loss reduction	[135,139]

shows that a combination of health management, technological interventions and welfare practices have a direct impact on preventing meat losses during the production phase.

In the first place, the main strategies include veterinary care, disease management and vaccination, which can reduce the mortality of farm animals by 3–7%. Also, proper handling and transport management reduces stress, bruising and carcass damage, preserving 1–3% of the carcass value. Nowadays, the use of precision livestock breeding tools, such as real-time monitoring and sensors, helps in the early detection of health or nutritional problems, reducing inefficiency by 2–5%. The productive potential of animals in the production process, accompanied by optimal feeding practices, reduces mortality, preventing up to 4% of losses. Significant impact on reducing stress and pre-slaughter mortality by up to 2%, play animal management in slaughterhouses and mobile slaughterhouse units. Animal welfare and training of producers-especially in climate changes (hot or cold temperatures), reduce additional losses by up to 1–5%. All these actions and concrete integrated strategies, address critical points of loss in the production chain, studied with evidence from FAO, (2023) [140], Taglioni et al. (2023) [141], Dongo et al. (2022) [126] and other recent studies that highlight their effectiveness in reducing avoidable meat waste. The quantitative ranges presented in Table 1 represent context-dependent effect intervals synthesized from the cited literature, rather than single-point estimates. These percentages were derived by extracting reported reductions from individual empirical studies, FAO technical reports, and systematic reviews addressing animal health, handling, nutrition, and precision-farming interventions. Because the studies differed in production systems, species, and measurement methods, the values were harmonized as ranges reflecting the minimum–maximum outcomes observed across comparable contexts. They therefore do not represent meta-analytic averages, but rather evidence-informed intervals that illustrate the magnitude of potential loss reduction under typical conditions. The table shows the explicit note that these figures are synthesized ranges based on published sources rather than generalized universal effects.

4.2. Measures to Prevent Food Losses and Waste During the Food Processing

Overview of Traditional and Emerging Processing and Preservation Methods

The Farm-to-Fork Strategy Framework constitutes a key element of the European Green Deal [70]. There are many directions where the Farm-to-Fork strategy is targeted to such as in supporting the agroecological transition of farming systems, enhancing the reduction of waste and losses in the food systems and promoting the development of healthy, fair and environmentally friendly food systems. The recent FAO Strategic Framework 2022–2023 [142] accelerates sustainable development goals through (better nutrition, production, environment, and life) [55], and through interconnection of economic, social and environmental dimensions, facilitates the redesign of the agri-food systems.

Moreover, according to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on circular economy and bioeconomy, emphasis is given on the reuse and recirculation of raw materials through eco-design [143].

Figure 2 shows the “One Quality” concept integrating the intrinsic and extrinsic qualities of pork, beef, and poultry within sustainability pillars of production and consumption [144].

The “One Quality” concept, as proposed by Gagaoua et al. (2025) [144], provides a comprehensive framework that integrates intrinsic quality attributes (e.g., chemical composition, pH, tenderness, and color) and extrinsic quality attributes (e.g., animal welfare, labeling, origin, and certification) across the pork value chain. Operationally, this approach employs validated assessment tools such as sensory panels, physicochemical analyses, and standardized quality scoring systems, which are applied at multiple stages from farm to processing and retail, ensuring consistent evaluation and comparability. Stakeholder validation has been achieved through multi-actor workshops, where producers, processors, retailers, and regulators jointly define the key quality indicators and weighting criteria. This could incorporate other chains such as beef and poultry.

The EFPRA circular bioeconomy model for animal by-products and edible co-products [145] complements the One Quality framework by explicitly incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions into the pork value chain. While One Quality focuses primarily on product-centric multidimensional attributes, the EFPRA model operationalizes these through quantifiable sustainability metrics, such as carbon footprint reduction, renewable energy use, safe ingredient utilization, and socio-economic impact of by-product valorization. The alignment lies in the shared objective of enhancing overall value: One Quality ensures product excellence from a consumer and quality perspective, whereas EFPRA ensures environmental and social sustainability outcomes, creating a holistic integration of quality, safety, and circularity across the supply chain. Generation of waste is transferred to “rendering” units.

To simplify the diverse developed strategies to decrease food loss and waste (FLW) and to promote circularity in the meat and pig production sector, the subsequent examples are thematically assembled. These approaches cooperatively support the transition toward a circular economy and sustainable livestock systems.

• Rendering and waste transformation

Rendering means transformation of waste into a usable form covering thermal processes along with other ones such as grinding, pressing, and separation [146,147].

• Circular economy and bioconversion

Appropriate pre-treatment and bioconversion methods refer to a circular bioeconomy model as addressed as by Sagar et al. (2024) [148]. In addition, Ragasri and Sabumon (2023) [149] underlined the association of slaughterhouse waste management with circular economy.

• Sustainable pig farming practices

Sustainable pig farming and sustainable pork production and consumption [150] will also reduce food waste.

Significant sustainability aspects include more sustainable feed sources, recycling nutrients to reduce or minimize waste, improvement of waste management practices, and optimization of production systems for local breeds.

• Livestock diversity, feed optimization and manure management

Simultaneous livestock diversity and circularity in intensive pig farming [151] is another factor addressing biomass circularity and resource efficiency.

Optimization of feed ingredient resource use, upcycling agri-industrial by-products and appropriate sources of food loss and waste, improvement of manure management, and maintenance of pig health along with reduction in nitrogen losses and emissions to the environment from pig production have been reported as effective mitigation strategies [152].

• Awareness and behavioral change

Environmental communication displays a key part in FLW decreasing. Emphasizing the adverse impacts of climate change and food waste can encourage individuals to adopt more sustainable practices [152]. Moreover, environmental messages can create awareness. A highly effective strategy engaging the population to actively participate in environmentally friendly actions is to pay attention to the adverse ramifications of climate change. In addition, focusing on the detrimental outcomes (e.g., food loss and waste) associated with climate change, individuals could adopt sustainable practices and try to mitigate these effects [153].

• Environmental impact of meat waste and waste reduction frameworks

Excessive disposal of meat contributes nearly 20% of the global carbon footprint associated with food loss and waste [152]. On the other hand, food loss and waste can be reduced through the application of the “4Rs”: reduce, reuse, recycle, and resource recovery from waste [149].

Excessive disposal of meat contributes to nearly 20 per cent of the carbon footprint caused by FWL on a global scale as reported by Islam and Zheng (2025) [154].

• Green technologies for waste valorization

Waste can be converted into valuable components by green technologies, such as enzymatic hydrolysis, ultrasound-assisted extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, instant catapult steam explosion, and ohmic heating [112,155,156,157,158].

• Life cycle assessment and policy alignment

Upcycling of food waste (FW) could employ LCA for the evaluation of environmental, social, and economic impacts, in alignment with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Farm-to-Fork and life cycle approaches

The “farm to fork” approach of the meat chain has been explored [159]. The whole life cycle of meat production was investigated by Kowalski et al. [160] in the Śmiłowo Eco-Industrial Park. The production of meat and bone meal as well as the use of pig and poultry waste for fertilization have been employed to address the efficient valorization of meat waste.

In Figure 3, a pyramid is proposed similar to the hierarchy model based on prevention and reduction of surplus food, redistribution, recycling and recovery of by-products and waste disposal. Figure 3 shows a pyramid for prioritization of food surplus, by-products, and food waste (FW) prevention with different colours representing the tendency and the most significant steps i.e. surplus reduction and waste disposal.

4.3. Food Packaging

Packaging plays a critical role throughout the food supply chain, serving four main purposes: containment, protection, convenience, and information. The first two functions are essential for maintaining the quality and safety of food products by protecting them against chemical, biological, and physical factors such as gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor), light, mechanical stress, migration, and microbial contamination. The other functions ensure correct handling, storage, and use, while providing legally required and relevant information to consumers [162,163,164,165,166].

The variety of packaging solutions on the market reflects differences in materials (metal, glass, plastics, paper, and laminates), container types (bags, pouches, cans, and bottles), and packaging aids (closures and labels), resulting in a constantly evolving landscape of concepts and applications [162,163,164,167].

Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) is a well-established approach widely used in the meat industry. By modifying or replacing the natural atmosphere inside the packaging, MAP can extend shelf life, maintain product quality, and reduce spoilage. Low-oxygen MAP, typically using CO₂ and N₂ mixtures, is commonly applied to processed meats such as ham and sliced products to suppress microbial growth and oxidative deterioration. Some applications explore the use of noble gases, such as argon, to further enhance quality [163,168,169,170].

Active and intelligent packaging (AIP) differs from conventional packaging by introducing functional components that interact with the product or provide real-time information on its condition. Active packaging includes systems designed to release substances (e.g., antimicrobials, antioxidants, and CO₂) or absorb unwanted compounds (e.g., oxygen, moisture, and off-flavors). Intelligent packaging encompasses indicators and sensors that monitor temperature, time, or other quality parameters, and can be integrated with processing and communication technologies, including tamper-evident and anti-counterfeiting solutions [163,171,172,173].

Although still emerging, AIP technologies are progressing rapidly. Current applications have reached pilot and niche commercial scales, with Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) generally between 6 and 8 [174,175]. Systems such as oxygen scavengers, CO₂ emitters, and antimicrobial films demonstrate potential to reduce meat spoilage and losses, but broader adoption is limited by regulatory migration limits, sensor stability, consumer acceptance, and implementation costs. Despite these challenges, ongoing research and development indicate that AIP is approaching wider application, particularly for high-value meat products where extended shelf life and safety are critical.

Overall, active and intelligent packaging represent a promising set of tools to enhance meat quality, improve safety, and reduce food losses. By combining functional performance with careful consideration of regulatory and practical constraints, these technologies offer a balanced approach to addressing both product and supply chain challenges. On the one hand, active packaging such as oxygen scavengers reduces oxygen levels in packages, thereby inhibiting aerobic microbial growth and oxidative spoilage. Martín Mateos et al. (2023) [176] demonstrated the potential of oxygen scavengers to improve the shelf life of fresh beef by maintaining color stability and suppressing spoilage bacteria during cold storage.

To mitigate surface microbial contamination and extended shelf life, recent studies show need for embedding natural antimicrobials such as essential oils in biodegradable films and coatings having direct inhibitory effect [176,177]. For example, chitosan films enriched with oregano essential oil slowed the growth of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat products, significantly extending shelf life [178]. It should also be mentioned that modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) has found widespread use, combined with active ingredients, including CO₂ absorbers and emitters to control the concentration of gases in the package. The use of CO₂ absorbers [179] and CO₂ emitters [180] as active packaging techniques that releases CO₂ detergents or antimicrobial compounds has also been shown to increase shelf life and reduce the rate of returns of spoiled products, by regulating uniform MAP conditions in packaged and observed microbial growth and increased freshness [180].

Internal humidity control is considered the second most suitable method which, in addition to affecting the prevention and loss of drops, also affects microbial growth by controlling water activity with the help of moisture-absorbing pads. Castrica et al. (2020) [181] showed that such pads in beef packages can reduce surface moisture and thus inhibit bacterial spoilage during shelf life. Nanotechnology has also been found to improve packaging functionality by improving the barrier and providing antimicrobial action. Neves et al. (2023) [182] demonstrated that antibacterial films based on silver nanoparticles are effective against microorganisms that cause pork spoilage, which validates the use of nanomaterials in providing greater product protection. To better explain the complex challenges of meat preservation and extended shelf life, researchers also address the need for combining biodegradable packaging materials with active packaging technologies, especially those considering natural antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds [183,184].

On the other hand, the most evident result of intelligent packaging globally is Time–Temperature Indicators (TTIs), which provide visible visual signals of accumulated temperature abuse, providing useful freshness information to consumers and retailers. The study by Waldhans et al. (2024) [185] point out that TTIs effectively ensure cold chain integrity in cold meat supply chains by enabling timely identification of temperature abuse and preventing consumer misperception and spoilage.

An advancement in the identification and detection of biochemical reactions due to microbial action and meat spoilage for the detection of TTIs, colorimetric pH sensors are also used today. Anthocyanin pH sensors incorporated into packaging materials change color in response to meat spoilage, thus providing an immediate non-destructive freshness signal that, as Ma et al. (2024) [186] claim, has been proven effective. In parallel, the integration of electronic sensors—also called electronic noses—into packages allows for real-time detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with meat spoilage [187]. In an attempt to support timely decision-making and minimize losses, the study by Mehdizadeh et al. (2025) [188] presents the use of sensor-integrated packages that can identify amine compounds produced by emissions during spoilage. These data are communicated to consumers through smartphone-based applications. In summary, smart and active packaging technologies constitute a meat preservation system that includes real-time monitoring of freshness and intervention in environmental changes in the meat and meat products food chain, promote consumer confidence, and stimulate sustainability in the meat chain. A generalized chain comparison has been created in

Table 2. Generalized comparison of packaging strategies in pork, beef, and poultry chains.

	The Three Major Meat Production Chains
Parameters	Pork	Beef	Poultry
Main spoilage risks	Chemical oxidation, microbial growth	Chemical oxidation, microbial spoilage	Rapid microbial growth, high moisture
Packaging objectives	Extend shelf life, control oxidation, ensure safety	Preserve red color, inhibit spoilage, extend shelf life	Control moisture, suppress pathogens, maintain freshness
Common packaging materials	Synthetic plastics, biodegradable films	Synthetic plastics, biodegradable films	Synthetic plastics, biodegradable films
Vacuum packaging	Employed for fresh and processed pork	Common for primal cuts and aging	Less common due to drip loss
Active packaging applications	Antimicrobial and antioxidants films, nanomaterials	Antimicrobial and antioxidants films, nanomaterials	Antimicrobial and antioxidants films, nanomaterials
Use of natural antimicrobials	Plant-derived compounds, biopolymers, microbial-derived bacteriocins, animal-derived proteins, and organic acids	Plant-derived compounds, biopolymers, microbial-derived bacteriocins, animal-derived proteins, and organic acids	Plant-derived compounds, biopolymers, microbial-derived bacteriocins, animal-derived proteins, and organic acids
Nanotechnology application	Improve barrier properties (oxygen and moisture), mechanical strength, and antimicrobial activity. Enhance the stability and controlled release. Increase bioavailability of vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds. Detect pathogens, toxins, or spoilage indicators in real time. Track freshness, pH changes, or chemical composition in packaged foods.
Intelligent packaging	Monitors food quality and storage conditions. Provides real-time information on freshness and safety. Uses indicators and sensors (time–temperature, gas, and pH). Enhances traceability and shelf-life management. Supports quality control across the supply chain.
Role in FLW reduction	Shelf-life extension, oxidation control	Color stability, spoilage reduction	Moisture and microbial control
Contribution to sustainability	Supports waste reduction and circular packaging solutions	Reduces returns and consumer rejection	Minimizes rapid spoilage and product discard

.

Identification and Assessment of Sustainable Packaging

A current and comprehensive definition of sustainable food packaging comes from Dörnyei et al. (2023) [189] and reads as follows: “Sustainable food packaging is an optimized, measured (quantified) and validated solution, which takes into consideration the balance of social, economic, ecological and safe implementations of the circular value chain, based on the entire history (life cycle) of the food product-package unit.”

Life cycle assessment (LCA), which has been used since the 1970s (e.g., Coca Cola case study) and continuously further developed and standardized since then, is currently the most widely used method for determining the actual direct (e.g., influenced by material production and end-of-life) as well as indirect (e.g., influenced by food waste and logistic efficiency) environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) of a specific product or service and for identifying critical areas where improvements are needed (eco-design), as required in the above definition [190,191,192,193].

Although often not sufficiently considered in food LCAs [192], past experience has shown that food packaging generally accounts for a relatively small proportion, namely approximately five percent, of total greenhouse gas emissions associated with food [67,194]. However, it is not permissible to draw hasty conclusions, as on the one hand the values themselves vary greatly within a product group and between individual applications, and on the other hand, it has been shown that the more or less resource-intensive production of food has an influence on the ratio of food to packaging. For instance, it was shown that packaging for resource-intensively produced meat accounts for approximately two percent, while packaging for fruits, vegetables, and nuts account for approximately ten percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the food-packaging system analyzed [67,195,196,197,198,199]. This underscores the importance of effective packaging, particularly for high-impact foods such as meat and meat products [197,198,200,201,202]. Optimized and, where necessary, increased use of packaging can therefore help to reduce food waste along the food supply chain while also reducing the overall environmental impact [203,204], as, for example, shown by Casson et al. (2022) [205] on the example of different meat packaging (overwrap, high-oxygen MAP, and vacuum skin packaging).

A summary of key studies addressing sustainable meat packaging is presented in

Table 3. Studies of sustainable meat packaging.

Study Focus	Packaging Type	Key Findings	Reference
Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in food–packaging systems	General comparison across food categories	Packaging contributes about 5% of total GHG emissions in the food–packaging system; values vary depending on the product group	[67,194]
Environmental contribution of meat vs. plant-based food packaging	Overwrap and MAP packaging in meat products	Meat packaging accounts for ~2% of total GHG emissions, while fruits and vegetables packaging accounts for ~10%	[195,196,197,198,199]
Optimization of packaging for high-impact foods	Meat and meat products	Effective packaging plays a key role in reducing food waste and overall environmental impact	[198,199,201,202,203]
Role of packaging in reducing food waste	Various optimized packaging systems	Well-designed and, where needed, increased packaging use helps minimize total environmental impact	[203,204]
Comparative LCA of different meat packaging systems	Overwrap, high-oxygen MAP, and vacuum skin packaging	Vacuum skin packaging showed better environmental performance and extended shelf life compared to traditional methods	[205]

.

While meat packaging contributes only a small fraction (≈2–10%) of total GHG emissions, these studies demonstrate that innovative and efficient packaging systems—especially recyclable and active ones—can substantially reduce food waste and improve environmental performance across the meat supply chain.

5. Supply Chain Optimization

Meat industry is affected by issues of sustainability and challenges such as CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions restraints and reduction in manpower [206] or lack of trained personnel. Optimization of the use of materials (livestock, raw meat, etc.) should take place including not only purchases of input raw materials [207] and lot sizing [208] but also further processing of materials according to production demand [209]. Many papers focus on supply chains [210,211,212,213,214,215,216].

Different models have been applied in supply chain optimization, such as an integrated mathematical model considering carbon market sensitivity and low-carbon supply chain network optimization [217], a programming model for supply chain network optimization under carbon emissions trading [218], and a supply chain network optimization model using carbon emissions as a constraint [219], a digital twin technique, and associated models for visualization of quality losses in the cold chain process [220], genetic algorithms (GAs) to identify the optimal route for sheep transportation and measure carbon emissions associated with the transportation process [221]. Finally, assessment from the sheep fattening stage to the meat distribution stage has been reported by Zhang et al. (2024) [21].

6. Conclusions

Meat loss and wastage can be reduced by interdependent convergence of supply chain management, technological innovation, and systemic stakeholder involvement. The review highlights that new preservation technologies like high-pressure processing, cold plasma, pulsed electric fields, and smart packaging realize enormously important shelf-life extensions and assurances with regard to safety, where digital technologies like blockchain, IoT sensors, and artificial intelligence assist in enhancing traceability, transparency, and demand forecasting throughout the supply chain. Nevertheless, high investment cost, lack of sure regulations, consumer acceptability issues, and uneven uptake of technology—particularly in low- and middle-income economies—continue to slow down full utilization of these solutions. Scaling up circular economy approaches through by-product valorization, access, capability-building across technology silos, and support policies are needed for future success. Lastly, the incorporation of preservation technology with digital supply chain solutions offers a feasible route to sustainable meat systems that improve environmental sustainability, food security, and achievement of environmental goals. Supply chain optimization always helps towards sustainability.