Food Waste along the Food Chain in Romania: An Impact Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. The Structure of the Target Groups
3.2. Attitude towards FW
3.2.1. Level of Concern
3.2.2. Sources of Information
3.3. Perception on Level of FW
3.4. Time Evolution of FW
3.5. Perception on Level of FW for Different Types of Products
3.5.1. Primary Production
3.5.2. Processing
3.5.3. Distribution/Retail
3.5.4. HoReCa
3.5.5. Approach to the FW Level on Food Chain Scale
- Maximized variant: the reductive hypothesis was used, according to which the weighting coefficients of all the links in the food chain are equal to 1, respectively, that the impact of each sectoral level of waste is fully reflected in the consolidated value per chain. In this variant, the HoReCa sector was integrated as an intermediary between the distribution/retail link and household consumers.
- Reduced variant: we started from the hypothesis that the impact of the HoReCa sector in the total volume of food is insignificant, representing less than 3% of the volume of food purchased by household consumers [39], so that the impact of waste on this sector was eliminated from the calculation of the consolidated value of food waste on the whole food chain.
3.6. Actions to Reduce FW
3.6.1. Most Efficient Measures Considered Useful by Entrepreneurs to Reduce FW
3.6.2. Implemented or In-Implementation FW Control Measures along the Food Chain
3.6.3. Knowledge of Existing Measures for Reducing FW on National Scale
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Usmani, Z.; Sharma, M.; Awasthi, A.K.; Sharma, G.D.; Cysneiros, D.; Nayak, S.C.; Thakur, V.K.; Naidu, R.; Pandey, A.; Gupta, V.K. Minimizing hazardous impact of food waste in a circular economy–Advances in resource recovery through green strategies. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, N.; Srivastava, M.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Singh, R.; Hashem, A.; Gupta, V.K. Biohydrogen production using kitchen waste as the potential substrate: A sustainable approach. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Food System; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mena, C.; Adenso-Diaz, B.; Oznur, Y. The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 648–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, A.; Johnston, N. Food surplus; reduction, recovery and recycle. In Total Foods; Waldron, K., Faulds, C., Smith, A., Eds.; IFR: Norwich, England, 2004; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
- Nellman, C.; MacDevette, M.; Manders, T.; Eickhout, B.; Svihus, B.; Prins, A.G.; Kaltenborn, B.P. The Environmental Food Crisis–the Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Arendal, Norway, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Forkes, J. Nitrogen balance for the urban food metabolism of Toronto. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 52, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundqvist, J.; de Fraiture, C.; Molden, D. Saving water: From field to fork–curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. Stockh. Int. Water Inst. Stockholm 2008, 273, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Griffin, M.; Sobal, J.; Lyson, T.A. An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agric. Hum. Values 2009, 26, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogg, D.; Barth, J.; Scheliss, K.; Favoino, E. Dealing with Food Waste in the UK London; Eunomia Research and Consulting: Bristol, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Henderson, G. ‘Free’ food, the local production of worth, and the circuit of decommodification: A value theory of the surplus. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2004, 22, 485–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventour, L. The Food We Waste: Food Waste Report v2; United Kingdom’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gaiani, S.; Caldeira, S.; Adorno, V.; Segrè, A.; Vittuari, M. Food wasters: Profiling consumers’ attitude to waste food in Italy. Waste Manag. 2018, 72, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bravia, L.; Francioni, B.; Murmuraa, F.; Savellia, E. Factors affecting household food waste among young consumers and actions to prevent it. A comparison among UK, Spain and Italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirabella, N.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dreyer, H.C.; Dukovska-Popovska, I.; Yu, Q.; Hedenstierna, C.P. A ranking method for prioritising retail store food waste based on monetary and environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parizeau, K.; von Massow, M.; Martin, R. Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muriana, C. A focus on the state of the art of food waste/losses issue and suggestions for future researches. Waste Manag. 2017, 68, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Convenience or price orientation? Consumer characteristics influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an emerging country and the impact on future sustainability of the global food sector. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romani, S.; Grappi, S.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Barone, A.M. Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite 2018, 121, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels. 2016. Available online: http://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Stenmarck, Â.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G.; Buksti, M.; Cseh, B.; Scherhaufer, S. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. EU Actions against Food Waste. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/index_en.htm/ (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Roodhuyzen, D.M.A.; Luning, P.A.; Fogliano, V.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A. Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Read, Q.; Brown, S.; Cuellar, A.; Finn, S.; Gephart, J.; Marston, L.; Meyer, E.; Weitz, K.; Muth, M. Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skaf, L.; Franzese, P.P.; Capone, R.; Buonocore, E. Unfolding hidden environmental impacts of food waste: An assessment for fifteen countries of the world. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Talia, E.; Simeone, M.; Scarpato, D. Consumer behaviour types in household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visschers, V.H.; Wickli, N.; Siegrist, M. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; G€ozet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attiq, S.; Habib, M.D.; Kaur, P.; Hasni, M.J.S.; Dhir, A. Drivers of food waste reduction behaviour in the household context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olavarria-Key, N.; Ding, A.; Legendre, T.S.; Min, J. Communication of food waste messages: The effects of communication modality, presentation order, and mindfulness on food waste reduction intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Read, Q.D.; Muth, M.K. Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: Is food waste reduction a “win–win?”. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chawla, G.; Lugosi, P.; Hawkins, R. Evaluating materiality in food waste reduction interventions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 1, 1000002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Guan, C. Determinants of household food waste reduction intention in China: The role of perceived government control. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 299, 113577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena, C.; Whitehead, P. Evidence on the Role of Supplier-Retailer Trading Relationships and Practices in Waste Generation in the Food Chain; Cranfield University: Cranfield, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Mena, C.; Terry, L.A.; Williams, A.; Ellram, L. Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK food sector. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeswani, H.K.; Figueroa-Torres, G.; Azapagic, A. The extent of food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 532–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumitru, O.M.; Iorga, S.C.; Sanmartin, Á.M. Food waste impact on Romanian households. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2021, 26, 2207–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Values 2018 | Number of Units | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Total | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All food chain values | |||||
Turnover (euro) | 852 | 708,141.83 | 149,947,886.97 | 6,467,072,647 | 7,590,460.94 |
Employees | 852 | 0 | 2867 | 69,260 | 81 |
Primary production values | |||||
Turnover (euro) | 273 | 1,387,232 | 149,947,887 | 1,898,675,235 | 6,954,854 |
Employees | 273 | 0 | 1034 | 17,782 | 65 |
Processing units’ values | |||||
Turnover (euro) | 270 | 877,327 | 142,796,366 | 2,267,552,109 | 8,398,341 |
Employees | 270 | 0 | 2867 | 34,701 | 129 |
Distribution/retail units’ values | |||||
Turnover (euro) | 171 | 2,558,132 | 83,210,710 | 2,013,824,892 | 11,776,754 |
Employees | 171 | 0 | 430 | 8955 | 52 |
HoReCa values | |||||
Turnover (euro) | 138 | 708,142 | 24,413,962 | 287,020,411 | 2,079,858 |
Employees | 138 | 0 | 607 | 7822 | 57 |
Primary Production | Processing Units | Distribution | HoReCa | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Questionnaires | 273 | 270 | 171 | 138 |
Type | Non-probabilistic, opportunistic selection among the top 800 companies in the country by turnover in 2018, for each category | |||
Representativity | Margin error ± 4.8%, 95% confidence level | Margin error ± 4.9%, 95% confidence level | Margin error ± 6.5%, 95% confidence level | Margin error ± 7.6%, 95% confidence level |
Hole chain representativity | Margin error ± 3.3%, 95% confidence level | |||
Method | CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) and CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing) | |||
Period | June–September 2020 |
How Concerned Are You about FW Impact on Your Business? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary production | Processing | Distribution | HoReCa | |
Highly concerned | 36% | 48% | 42% | 54% |
Concerned | 32% | 26% | 28% | 28% |
Relatively concerned | 8% | 9% | 5% | 7% |
Not too concerned/Not at all | 4% | 4% | 8% | 4% |
N/A | 19% | 13% | 18% | 7% |
Primary Production | Processing | Distribution | HoReCa | |
---|---|---|---|---|
I do not inform myself | 10% | 5% | 13% | 9% |
Official sources | 28% | 38% | 30% | 33% |
Mass media | 59% | 57% | 54% | 60% |
Profile magazines | 28% | 24% | 19% | 9% |
Others | 5% | 3% | 5% | 18% |
N/A | 16% | 10% | 13% | 4% |
No. of Respondents | Minimum Level (%) | Maximum Level (%) | Median Level (%) | Std. Deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary agricultural production | |||||
Share of FW in yearly volume of production | 243 | 0 | 60 | 4.20 | 10.112 |
Food processing | |||||
Share of FW in yearly volume of production | 243 | 0 | 60 | 3.79 | 7.993 |
Food distribution | |||||
Share of FW in yearly volume of production | 130 | 0 | 10 | 0.86 | 1.543 |
HoReCa | |||||
Share of FW in yearly volume of production | 126 | 0 | 50 | 8.63 | 9.285 |
Whole food chain | |||||
Share of technological loss in yearly volume of production | 681 | 1 | 9 | 2.64 | 2.493 |
Share of FW in yearly value of production | 852 | 1 | 9 | 2.87 | 2.752 |
Food Chain Sector | Perception | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|
Primary agricultural production | FW increased | 12 |
FW maintained | 49 | |
FW decreased | 20 | |
N/A | 19 | |
Food processing | FW increased | 17 |
FW maintained | 35 | |
FW decreased | 35 | |
N/A | 13 | |
Food distribution | FW increased | 19 |
FW maintained | 36 | |
FW decreased | 25 | |
N/A | 20 | |
HoReCa | FW increased | 36 |
FW maintained | 35 | |
FW decreased | 26 | |
N/A | 4 |
Product Mentioned | Percent (%) |
---|---|
Animal products (e.g., carcasses, heads, meat) | 22 |
Fruits and vegetables | 7 |
Dairy products | 2 |
Cereals | 34 |
Maize | 15 |
Bakery | 2 |
Eggs | 5 |
Sunflower | 9 |
Rape | 3 |
Others | 1 |
Product Mentioned | Percent (%) |
---|---|
Pastry | 3 |
Bakery products | 6 |
Confectionery | 5 |
Meat/Sausages | 7 |
Byproduct processing | 1 |
Leftover fruits/vegetables/greens | 3 |
Animal remains | 5 |
Dairy products/Cheeses/Eggs | 4 |
Wheat/Corn/Rice/Seeds/Sugar | 3 |
Others | 3 |
Product Mentioned | Percent (%) |
---|---|
Damaged products | 44 |
Expired products | 33 |
Others | 8 |
Not the case | 15 |
N/A | 25 |
Product Mentioned | Percent (%) |
---|---|
Food leftovers | 25 |
Expired raw materials | 25 |
Expired prepared food | 26 |
Portions not fully consumed by the customer | 59 |
Others | 6 |
N/A | 3 |
Food Chain Sector | Median Value |
---|---|
Primary agricultural production sector | 4.20% |
Food processing sector | 3.79% |
Food distribution sector | 0.86% |
HoReCa sector | 8.63% |
Consumers from urban area | 6.5% |
Food chain maximal level of FW—21.94% Of which:
| |
Food chain minimal level of FW—14.56% Of which:
|
Measure | Mentions Percent (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Agricultural Sector | Food Processing | Food Distribution | HoReCa | |
Use of fertilizer waste | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Donations | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
Valorization of byproducts internally or by marketing (e.g., incorporation into other products, animal feed) | 4 | 11 | 3 | 1 |
Marketing of products at a reduced price | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Selective collection | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
The waste to be taken over by a neutralization company | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Production optimization through new technologies or supply management | 0 | 1 | 2 | 17 |
Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
None/Not the case | 34 | 63 | 67 | 2 |
N/A | 49 | 19 | 20 | 67 |
Measure | Mentions Percent (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Agricultural Sector | Food Processing | Food Distribution | HoReCa | |
Use of fertilizer waste | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Donations | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
Valorization of byproducts internally or by marketing (e.g., incorporation into other products, animal feed) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Marketing of products at a reduced price | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Selective collection | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
The waste to be taken over by a neutralization company | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Production optimization through new technologies or supply management | 2 | 9 | 8 | 18 |
Other | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
None/Not the case | 64 | 70 | 64 | 67 |
N/A | 31 | 16 | 19 | 9 |
Measure | Mentions Percent (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Agricultural Sector | Food Processing | Food Distribution | HoReCa | |
Encouraging donations/ Creating food banks | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Awareness campaigns | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Implementing coherent supply system | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Monitoring FW collection/recycling | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Promoting advanced technologies | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Promoting production fit to demands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Sales campaigns | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Legislative measures | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
None | 71 | 69 | 76 | 80 |
N/A | 24 | 20 | 15 | 10 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dumitru, O.M.; Iorga, C.S.; Mustatea, G. Food Waste along the Food Chain in Romania: An Impact Analysis. Foods 2021, 10, 2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102280
Dumitru OM, Iorga CS, Mustatea G. Food Waste along the Food Chain in Romania: An Impact Analysis. Foods. 2021; 10(10):2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102280
Chicago/Turabian StyleDumitru, Oana M., Corneliu S. Iorga, and Gabriel Mustatea. 2021. "Food Waste along the Food Chain in Romania: An Impact Analysis" Foods 10, no. 10: 2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102280