Summary
1. Introduction. 2. Food Loss and Waste and Technological Innovation: Framing the Problem. 2.1 Food Loss and Waste as a Complex Global Issue. 2.2 Implementing Technological Innovation as a Solution to Food Loss and Waste: Opportunities and Limitations. 3. Technological Innovation for Food Loss and Waste Reduction: International Legally-Binding Instruments. 4. Soft-law Rules on Technological Innovation and Food Loss and Waste. 5. Conclusions.
1 Introduction
Every year since 2020, Member States and specialised agencies of the United Nations (UN) system, together with other international actors, have marked September 29th as ‘International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste’. The decision to observe an international day on this matter was made by the UN General Assembly on 19 December 2019, through the adoption of Resolution 74/209.1 The preamble of this resolution contains an explanation of the reasons for this decision, related to the magnitude of global food loss and waste (FLW) and the ‘urgent need to address th[is] issue … worldwide and the risks that this implies for climate change, agriculture sustainability, human livelihoods and food supplies’.2 As clear as this statement may be in emphasising the seriousness of the problem, it was not the first time that the importance of FLW was mentioned at the international level. Previous high-level political declarations had already underlined the matter,3 and the objective of reducing FLW was also included in the widely known 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015.4
In recent years, the attention given to FLW—including through initiatives such as the International Day of Awareness—has contributed to a general strengthening of efforts to limit its impact. This can be achieved either by preventing the occurrence of FLW or by reducing its consequences, eg by recovering some of the components of wasted food and redirecting them to other purposes. Technological innovation plays a relevant role in the implementation of these efforts.
The analysis of how and to what extent technological innovations can contribute to addressing FLW has been explored extensively within the ON Foods Project, from which this volume also originates.5 More specifically, the relationship between innovation and FLW has also been analysed from a legal perspective in other chapters in this volume, focusing on national legal systems.6 However, given the nature of FLW as a global issue, affecting each State in a variable manner, yet involving concerns common to the entire international community, it seems appropriate to also analyse it from the perspective of international law, which is the one adopted in this chapter.
The main purpose of this chapter is to understand whether, and to what extent, current international instruments promote the use of technological innovation in preventing and reducing FLW. To this end, the analysis is structured as follows. First, it is intended to frame the problem of FLW and, consequently, technological innovation as a possible solution to this issue. As will be discussed, beyond certain undeniably positive aspects, implementation of technological solutions also entails inherent challenges, which must be adequately considered. Second, this chapter will focus on the most relevant international, legally-binding instruments that regulate State conduct with the objective of promoting technology innovation to prevent and reduce FLW. Finally, attention will be placed on State practice in the adoption of instruments of a non-binding legal nature in this area.
Before moving on to the next sections, it is necessary to stress, at the methodological level, the boundaries within which this study was developed. First, attention is centred on States as primary subjects of international law, although different actors can have an impact on food production and consumption patterns, including private food operators—such as national and multinational companies—and civil society organisations. Second, the focus will be placed on legal instruments with universal scope adopted in the areas of sustainable development and human rights protection, leaving regional instruments outside the scope of analysis.7 Third, although technological innovation to address FLW is an area of concern also in developed countries, the problem of access to such technology will be considered primarily from the perspective of developing countries. Fourth, this inquiry will mainly cover issues related to ‘technological innovation’, broadly understood as the development and implementation of new or improved technologies, tools, systems, and processes. While innovation can also occur in political or social spheres—both of which play an essential role in managing the FLW problem8—attention will be limited to technical and technological advancements. Finally, issues related to intellectual property rights as barriers to technology use and dissemination will not be addressed, as they are already discussed in another chapter in this volume.9
2 Food Loss and Waste and Technological Innovation: Framing the Problem
FLW represents a multifaceted global challenge, often labelled as a ‘wicked problem’, due to the complexities that arise in the attempt to define, measure, and effectively address it, either by preventing it before it happens or minimising it in the least detrimental way. To establish a coherent understanding of this issue, it is necessary to answer three main questions: what constitutes FLW; why is it significant; and how can it be effectively mitigated. In this context, the role of technological innovation emerges as a critical avenue for addressing this global issue, which, while offering potential solutions, also presents its own set of challenges.
2.1 Food Loss and Waste as a Complex Global Issue
The obstacles encountered in tackling FLW worldwide are rooted in the uncertainties that surround this problem, starting with its definition. Indeed, from a scientific point of view, there is no unequivocal, universally accepted definition of ‘food waste’ and ‘food loss’; rather, the two terms are differently understood, depending on the context in which they are used.10
Because of this indeterminacy—not only at the scientific level, but even at the intergovernmental level11—despite growing international recognition of FLW, no universally agreed-upon definition exists.12
A key reference in this regard is the above-mentioned UN General Assembly’s Resolution 74/209, establishing the International Day of Awareness of FLW, that adopted definitions initially proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).13 These definitions distinguish between ‘food loss’, considered to be ‘the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding retail, food service providers and consumers’, and ‘food waste’, which is ‘the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by retailers, food services and consumers’.14
While these distinctions have gained broad acceptance, many ambiguities remain. These include, for instance, whether only edible parts should be classified as lost or wasted and how the notion of ‘edible food’ should be defined across different cultural contexts.15 Additionally, the classification of food redirected for non-human uses (eg as biomass or animal feed) and qualitative losses in nutritional value remain unresolved, impeding the establishment of a common understanding of the issue.
In addition to these ambiguities, other aspects of food production and consumption may fall outside the definition of FLW as adopted by FAO and the UN General Assembly. For instance, one could mention food that deteriorates before it is harvested,16 or the excess consumed due to overnutrition in certain segments of the global population. Such food, if redirected, could contribute to meeting the needs of individuals facing food insecurity and may arguably be considered a form of wasted food.17 How these uncertainties are addressed largely depends on the context in which FLW is analysed and monitored.
In addition to definitional problems, there is widespread difficulty in measuring FLW, due as much to a lack of adequate instruments for its measurement as the intrinsic complexity of the problem. As for the latter, it is important to note that the drivers of FLW vary significantly across regions and at different stages of the food supply chain. In other words, FLW does not have uniform causes in different parts of the world, with contributing factors ranging from inadequate production and storage infrastructure—usually associated with the first stages of developing country supply chains—to market inefficiencies and consumer misbehaviour, more frequently connected to ‘food waste’ in developed countries.18 As regards the former, accurately measuring FLW remains a significant obstacle, with data widely varying across countries. Many developing States also lack comprehensive mechanisms for tracking loss, further complicating global efforts to quantify the problem effectively. Therefore, when it comes to evaluating the extent of FLW at the international level,19 a critical lack of available data, as highlighted by existing studies, has resulted in aggregate indices that are mainly based on vague and incomplete information.20
Despite the above-mentioned difficulties in understanding and measuring FLW, some estimates of its global scope and impact have been made. These statistics, although characterised by technical limitations, contribute significantly to establishing the seriousness of this problem. FLW undermines efforts to develop sustainable food systems, which aim to provide food security and nutrition without compromising future resources.21 According to FAO, approximately 14% of global food production is lost post-harvest,22 and, according to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), 17% is wasted at the retail and consumer levels,23 suggesting that nearly one-third of all food produced is lost or wasted annually. The environmental and economic costs of FLW are substantial, wasting water, land, and energy resources. FAO estimates, for instance, that 28% of global arable land is used to produce food that is never consumed.24 Moreover, FLW is responsible for 8–10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,25 while contributing to widespread food insecurity26 in a world where over 700 million people suffer from hunger and more than 2 billion lack regular access to adequate food.27
In the face of such serious consequences, numerous solutions have been identified to prevent and reduce the occurrence of FLW, one of which is the essential role played by technological innovation.28
2.2 Implementing Technological Innovation as a Solution to Food Loss and Waste: Opportunities and Limitations
First, it must be stressed that technological innovation is only one of the possible solutions to address FLW. Other solutions, for instance those related to consumer awareness and education towards waste reduction, or regulatory interventions to redirect food surpluses into food solidarity initiatives, may also contribute to this end. While this chapter focuses on technological innovation, it is assumed that this should be accompanied by other interventions in the food supply chain to prevent and reduce FLW.29
Several advanced technologies have been identified as effective tools to support FLW prevention and reduction efforts.30 A number of these have also been studied by research partners under the auspices of the ON Foods project31 and present significant examples of technological implementation on this topic. Some of these studies cover the development of technological solutions to prevent FLW along certain supply chains, such as new storage facilities to reduce FLW in the coffee chain32 or new digital systems for the management of food and packaging waste in catering services.33 Other studies focus on technologies to reduce FLW once it has already occurred, eg a method to extract valuable bioactive compounds (such as proteins, amino acids, and antimicrobial agents) from agrifood waste through fermentation.34 Finally, a few studies look at technologies for both FLW prevention and reduction, for instance a method to analyse, categorise,35 and extract useful bio-compounds from food waste that can be reutilised to help create ‘active packaging’,36 ie packaging that extends food shelf-life and, thus, contributes to food waste prevention.37 All of these inventions, which represent only a small sample of the many technological solutions that are being developed and can be applied to the problem of FLW, are evidence of the considerable potential of technological innovation in this area.38 Despite their level of sophistication, many of the technologies mentioned above are already in use in some form. However, to fully understand their potential benefits, and, more importantly, conceptualise their implementation at scale, these types of solutions require an in-depth investigation. As is often the case, the main barrier to achieving this is cost, which highlights the need for investment in this area.
The degree of complexity of FLW technologies varies depending on the context in which it is to be implemented. For instance, simpler technological innovations can be useful in the prevention of food loss that occurs in the early stages of the food chain, ie during the harvesting, storage, and transport phases. This is a problem that, as mentioned, particularly affects small-scale food producers in developing countries and often does not require technologically complex inventions in order to be addressed, but rather practical and economically accessible solutions (eg the use of low-temperature storage systems in fishing practices39 or the installation of metal containers for harvested grain storage40). The identification of such solutions can lead to significant achievements in FLW prevention, significantly contributing to reducing its negative nutritional and environmental effects.41
Although these new technologies offer important benefits, their implementation is not without challenges. In contexts where they are most needed, such as in the case of small food producers, their use may be hindered by a lack of adequate funding and/or appropriate technical expertise.42 Moreover, in some cases, promising solutions are not adequately embraced because of the farmers’ cultural traditions. This highlights not only the need for funding to ensure economic access to such technologies,43 but also for such funding to be appropriate in the regional and cultural context in which it is implemented and come with adequate technical support. In this regard, States have a central role in promoting FLW reduction through innovation, while concurrently ensuring that diverse interests and potential externalities are taken into consideration.
3 Technological Innovation for Food Loss and Waste Reduction: International Legally-Binding Instruments
The international legal framework lacks legally-binding instruments specifically targeting FLW. Nonetheless, there are legal instruments that provide a foundation for promoting technological innovations aimed at its prevention. Multilateral environmental agreements (MEA s) and human rights treaties, in particular, may indirectly support technological advancements that reduce FLW by addressing topics like climate change, biodiversity loss, and the right to food.44
As a particularly relevant example, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; New York, 9 May 1992),45 while not explicitly mentioning FLW, promotes international cooperation in developing technologies that reduce GHG emissions, including those from agriculture. Article 4, para 1, lett c) of the UNFCCC encourages the development and diffusion of technologies in sectors like agriculture and waste management that can be linked to FLW reduction. It can be argued, in this regard, that reducing FLW contributes to mitigating GHG emissions, aligning with the UNFCCC’s broader purpose. States Parties to this Convention are, therefore, encouraged, albeit not expressly requested, to integrate technological solutions for FLW into their national commitments on climate change. Remarkably, in 2023, at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, the relevance of this topic was underscored through the adoption of the COP28 Leaders Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action.46 In this Declaration, 159 States and the European Union expressed their commitment to transitioning from GHG-emitting practices to more sustainable food production and consumption models, explicitly referring to the reduction of FLW as a key element to doing so. To this end, they pledged to strengthen their individual and shared efforts by 2025 to ‘accelerate and scale science and evidence-based innovations’ to increase sustainable productivity and production in agriculture and related domains.47
Another relevant MEA is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; Rio De Janeiro, 5 June 1992),48 which, again, while not explicitly addressing FLW, highlights the role of technological development and diffusion in the sustainable use of components of biological diversity. In particular, Article 16 of the CBD emphasises that access to and transfer of technologies are ‘essential elements’ for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. This could be interpreted as indirectly supporting FLW reduction through sustainable agricultural practices. Also in this regard, decisions adopted by the COP to the CBD contain more explicit references to the FLW issue. In particular, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by COP 15 in 2022 as a strategic plan for the implementation of the Convention by 2050,49 highlights both FLW reduction and technological innovation as part of its 23 targets for achieving the CBD’s objectives. In doing so, first, it calls for urgent action by 2030 to ‘reduce the global footprint of consumption in an equitable manner, including through halving global food waste’.50 Second, it stresses the need to ‘strengthen capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology’, particularly in developing countries, through the promotion of joint technological development and collaborative scientific research programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.51
With regard to international human rights law, FLW reduction is interconnected with the right to food, as enshrined in several international instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; New York, 16 December 1966).52 Article 1, para 2, of the ICESCR, specifically, contains a list of detailed measures that States Parties to the Covenant shall take ‘individually and through international co-operation’ in recognition of the ‘fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger’. These include measures needed ‘to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food … in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources’. An interconnection between this provision and the need to reduce FLW, including through the promotion of technological innovation, can be inferred even if it is not explicitly stated.53
Although the above-mentioned provisions can be linked to the need to promote technological innovation for FLW reduction, they lack specific commitments in this regard. Their formulation, while fostering dialogue, does not seem to fully provide for the appropriate instruments to achieve meaningful technological progress, particularly in terms of ensuring technology transfer to disadvantaged States.
In the context of MEA s, for example, the lack of a specific focus on FLW is part of a broader issue, related to the difficulties that developing States face in obtaining the technological and financial support needed to effectively implement these agreements. A notable example is the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), a multilateral environmental fund established in the aftermath of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio De Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992) to finance projects addressing major environmental challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Although the GEF is an essential mechanism for the implementation of MEA s, it suffers from inadequate funding and administrative barriers, which may hamper effective access for many developing countries to these resources.54 Furthermore, the allocation of available funds concerns multiple areas—such as energy transition and decarbonisation—that may take precedence on the international environmental agenda over technological innovation aimed at FLW reduction.
4 Soft-Law Rules on Technological Innovation and Food Loss and Waste
While explicit references to technological innovation for FLW are largely absent from international legally-binding instruments, there are several non-legally-binding instruments that could prove particularly relevant in this regard. A number of UN documents, in particular, emphasise the importance of general technological progress for the achievement of sustainable development. Recent examples include the UN’s internal strategies for new technologies55 and the 2024 Global Digital Compact.56 Although not centred on FLW, these documents provide useful guidance on how States should approach technological innovation in this area.
Additionally, a number of States have focused their attention directly on the adverse effects of FLW and the actions needed to mitigate it. As a consequence, various soft-law instruments exist—such as resolutions, declarations, guidelines, and recommendations—that, despite their non-binding nature, play a significant role towards understanding States’ views on FLW and the role of technological innovation in its reduction. A notable example is the call to promote ‘investment and innovations based on traditional and scientific knowledge to reduce FLW’ contained in the 2014 Policy Recommendations on Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems, adopted by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), a UN intergovernmental body mandated to promote policy convergence on long-term food security and sustainability.57 Another relevant example is UN General Assembly resolution 78/144 of 2023, focused on agricultural technology for sustainable development, which specifically stresses the need to reduce FLW through a series of measures, including ‘improved production planning, the promotion of resource-efficient production and processing practices, improved processing, preservation and packing technologies, [and] improved transportation and logistics management …’.58
Against this background, one particularly relevant document is the Voluntary Code of Conduct for Reducing Food Waste and Losses (Code of Conduct), developed by FAO in June 2021.59 This Code consists of a set of internationally and regionally recognised standards and principles that outline responsible practices for reducing FLW and promoting inclusive and sustainable food systems. It contains several references to technological innovation as a vital tool to address the direct and, especially, systemic causes of FLW, while also providing guidance on how such innovation should be pursued.
The FAO Code of Conduct highlights the responsibility of governments, private operators, international organisations, and civil society, including academia, to invest in research and development and promote innovation aimed at reducing FLW.60 It also underscores the importance of ensuring that technological innovations take into consideration the needs of vulnerable groups and small-scale supply chain actors, such as indigenous peoples, through participatory processes.61 This is particularly relevant, as it reflects a recognition by FAO Member States of the need to balance the goal of reducing FLW—crucial for the sustainable transformation of food systems—with the imperative to protect disadvantaged individuals and communities. This balance aligns with the broader protection recognised in international law for the rights of peasants and indigenous peoples, particularly the right to preserve their traditional knowledge,62 which is often threatened by modern agricultural and food production approaches and technologies. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples63 and the 2018 UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas64 provide specific examples of these safeguards.65
The FAO Code of Conduct further outlines the key measures States should adopt to foster innovation in FLW prevention, tailored to local needs and contexts. These include establishing adequate institutional and regulatory frameworks to facilitate knowledge exchange; creating platforms to bring together relevant stakeholders; and fostering public-private partnerships as a means of driving innovation.66 Moreover, the Code identifies specific challenges related to FLW that require targeted innovation efforts, including the effects of climate change, conflicts, human migration, pandemics, and the needs of small-scale producers and other vulnerable groups.67
The importance of promoting technological innovation for reducing FLW is further emphasised by the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), the plenary body of UNEP, in resolutions adopted in 201668 and 2019.69
UNEA Resolution 4/2 of 2019, titled ‘Promoting Sustainable Practices and Innovative Solutions for Curbing Food Loss and Waste’, merits particular attention. This resolution highlights the significant environmental impact of FLW and the critical role that national governments, international organisations, technology providers, and end-users can play in introducing innovations that promote sustainable practices and reduce FLW. The resolution calls on UNEP Member States to take a range of actions to this end, including establishing mechanisms to monitor FLW, supporting the development and dissemination of best practices in cold food storage chains, promoting applied research on the impact of climate change on FLW generation, and redirecting excess food. However, while the UNEA resolution demonstrates a strong belief in the potential of technological innovation to reduce FLW, it gives less attention to the potential risks associated with such innovations.
Of particular interest in Resolution 4/2 is the encouragement it provides to UNEP Member States to foster dialogue between public and private stakeholders across the food chain and to enhance regional and global cooperation on strategies to reduce FLW.70 States have already undertaken various initiatives in this regard, not only at a regional level,71 but also at the universal one. For example, partnerships and coalitions have been specifically established to address FLW, such as the ‘Food is Never Waste’ initiative, formed during the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, and the ‘Champions 12.3’ coalition, dedicated to achieving Target 12.3 of the 2030 Agenda. In other cases, FLW reduction has been incorporated into broader initiatives, such as the Sustainable Food Systems Programme under the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, and the Lowering Organic Waste Methane Initiative, part of the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. These initiatives demonstrate commendable efforts by some States to adopt a coordinated strategy for reducing FLW, fostering dialogue with various stakeholders, and promoting the development and exchange of technological innovations. However, participation in these actions remains voluntary, and the number of States involved is still relatively low, which limits their overall impact.
The proliferation of such partnerships and coalitions, alongside the adoption of numerous non-binding FLW instruments, highlights both the potential and limitations of the soft-law approach taken by States.72 On the one hand, soft-law instruments avoid the delays and challenges associated with negotiating legally-binding agreements. On the other hand, the absence of binding provisions gives States a wide margin of discretion in fulfilling their commitments, limiting the effectiveness of these instruments. This is particularly detrimental to developing States, which often can neither muster the technical and economic resources needed to develop and implement new technologies nor rely on sufficient guarantees of support from more developed countries.
Nonetheless, the adoption of soft-law declarations and resolutions does not necessarily indicate a lack of political will among States to eventually converge towards binding commitments. Especially when these instruments are adopted with broad participation and support, as in the case of UNEA resolutions or the FAO Code of Conduct, which could be viewed as important preliminary steps towards the future negotiation of international treaties. They might also reflect a growing opinio juris among States in the development of customary international rules on the subject.
It cannot be overlooked, however, that the current State practice in promoting, developing, and disseminating technological innovations to reduce FLW remains limited and inconsistent. As highlighted in the UNEP Executive Director’s report on the implementation of Resolution 4/2,73 critical gaps remain, including a significant number of States that still lack data on FLW and adequate measurement tools. Moreover, the low number of States—only 21 as of 2022—that have incorporated FLW reduction measures into their Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement as part of their commitment to address climate change,74 further underscores the inadequacy of the current international response to the growing problem of FLW.
5 Conclusions
Addressing FLW through technological innovation is a complex challenge requiring a comprehensive and coordinated approach under international law. While FLW reduction and prevention has gained increasing attention among States in recent years, there is still a lack of specific legally-binding commitments to drive substantive action towards it, including through the promotion and diffusion of technological innovations. The adoption of numerous soft-law instruments, such as voluntary guidelines and recommendations, demonstrates the existence of political will to tackle this pressing issue at the international level; it also highlights, however, the inherent limitations of non-binding measures in producing a meaningful and long-lasting change in States behaviour.
The environmental and humanitarian costs associated with FLW are substantial, with millions suffering from hunger and the ecological repercussions of inefficient food systems becoming increasingly apparent. The need for a more coordinated international response, therefore, is crucial. This response should not only foster technological innovation but also ensure equitable access to these new technologies, particularly for developing States that often lack the technical and financial resources to implement advanced solutions. Establishing robust mechanisms for technology transfer, investing in capacity-building initiatives, and promoting partnerships among diverse stakeholders are critical steps towards overcoming the barriers faced by less developed countries in addressing FLW.
Furthermore, the promotion of technological innovation must be supported by comprehensive policies that address the underlying causes of FLW, including infrastructural deficiencies, market inefficiencies, and socio-economic disparities. As international law continues to evolve, it is essential for States to recognise the need to make stronger commitments to achieve effective solutions to the FLW problem. By adopting a proactive stance that emphasises collaboration, inclusivity, and innovation, the international community can move towards a more sustainable and equitable food system that minimises waste and maximises the potential of food resources.
Bibliography
Akkerman R and Cruijssen F, ‘Food Loss, Food Waste, and Sustainability in Food Supply Chains’ in Bouchery Y, Corbett CJ, Fransoo JC and Tan T (eds), Sustainable Supply Chains: A Research-Based Textbook on Operations and Strategy (Springer 2024) 219.
Benyam AA, Soma T and Frase E, ‘Digital Agricultural Technologies for Food Loss and Waste Prevention and Reduction: Global Trends, Adoption Opportunities and Barriers’ (2021) 323 Journal of Cleaner Production 1.
Ciccullo F, Cagliano R, Bartezzaghi G and Perego A, ‘Implementing the Circular Economy Paradigm in the Agri-Food Supply Chain: The Role of Food Waste Prevention Technologies’ (2021) 164 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 1.
Claeys P and Edelman M, ‘The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas’ (2020) 47 The Journal of Peasant Studies 1.
Conrad Z, Niles MT, Neher DA, Roy ED, Tichenor NE and Jahns L, ‘Relationship Between Food Waste, Diet Quality and Environmental Sustainability’ (2018) 13 (4) PLoS ONE 1.
Costantino L, La problematica degli sprechi nella filiera agroalimentare. Profili introduttivi (Cacucci editore 2018).
Delgado L, Schuster M and Torero M, ‘Quantity and Quality Food Losses across the Value Chain: A Comparative Analysis’ (2021) 98 Food Policy 1.
Delgado L, Schuster M and Torero M, ‘Food Losses in Agrifood Systems: What We Know’ (2023) 15 Annual Review of Resource Economics 41.
Delsignore M, Ramajoli M and Ricci C, ‘Defining the Meaning of Food Waste as a Matter of Urgency’ in Morone P, Papendiek F and Tartiu VE (eds), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation: Sustainability Assessment and Policy Analysis (Springer 2017) 215.
Durán-Sandoval D, Durán-Romero G and Uleri F, ‘How Much Food Loss and Waste Do Countries with Problems with Food Security Generate?’ (2023) 966 (13) Agriculture 1.
Franco S, Barbanera M, Moscetti R, Cicatiello C, Secondi L and Massantini R, ‘Overnutrition Is a Significant Component of Food Waste and Has a Large Environmental Impact’ (2022) 12 Scientific Reports 1.
Galanakis MC (ed), Saving Food: Production, Supply Chain, Food Waste and Food Consumption (Academic Press 2019).
Garske B, Heyl K, Ekardt F, Weber LM, Gradzka W, ‘Challenges of Food Waste Governance: An Assessment of European Legislation on Food Waste and Recommendations for Improvement by Economic Instruments’ (2020) 9 (7) Land 1.
González Vaqué L, ‘Food Loss and Waste in the European Union: A New Challenge for the Food Law?’ (2015) 10 European Food & Feed Law Review 20.
Guimarães Martins V, Romani VP, Chavez Martins P and da Silva Filipini G, ‘Innovative Packaging that Saves Food’ in Galanakis CM (ed), Saving Food: Production, Supply Chain, Food Waste and Food Consumption (Academic Press 2019) 171.
Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Emanuelsson A, The Methodology of the FAO Study: ‘Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention’ (SIK 2013).
Jeong S, Lee J, ‘Effects of Cultural Background on Consumer Perception and Acceptability of Foods and Drinks: A Review of Latest Cross-Cultural Studies’ (2021) 42 Current Opinion in Food Science 248.
Kalaidjian E and Robinson S, ‘Reviewing the Nature and Pitfalls of Multilateral Adaptation Finance for Small Island Developing States’ (2022) 36 Climate Risk Management 1.
Lenzerini F, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)’ in Binder C, Nowak M, Hofbauer JA and Janig P (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights (Edward Elgar Publishing 2022) vol 1, 452.
Lucifero N, ‘Food Loss and Waste in the EU Law between Sustainability of Well-Being and the Implications on Food System and on the Environment’ (2016) 8 Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 282.
Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Herrero M, Krishnapillai M, Liwenga E, Pradhan P, Rivera-Ferre MG, Sapkota T, Tubiello FN, Xu Y, ‘Food Security’ in Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M and Malley J (eds), Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC 2019) 437.
Mitkidis K and Šefčíková A, ‘Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns (SDG 12)’ in Bantekas I and Seatzu F (eds), The UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2023) 859.
Oztuna Taner O, ‘Sustainable Food and Agriculture Production: Reducing Food Waste through Technological Advancements and Assessing Its Economic Impact’ (2024) 5 (3) Research on World Agricultural Economy 144.
Röttgen D and Allocco F, ‘Food Waste in EU Food Law’ in Caporale C, Pavone IR and Ragionieri MP (eds), International Food Law: How Food Law Can Balance Health, Environment and Animal Welfare (Wolters Kluwer 2021) 305.
Seatzu F and Vargiu P, ‘The Legal Dimension of the Kunming-Montreal Framework in International Law’ (2025) 41 Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional 531.
Telesetsky A, ‘Waste Not, Want Not: The Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals’ (2014) 42 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 479.
Vezzani S, ‘The Protection of Traditional Knowledge of Agricultural Interest in International Law’, in Di Blase A and Vadi V (eds), The Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples in International Law (Roma TrE-Press 2020) 279.
Vezzani S, ‘Il Progetto di Dichiarazione sui diritti degli agricoltori: nuovi diritti germogliano?’ (2013) 7 Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 211.
UN General Assembly, International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, UN Doc. A/RES/74/209 of 19 December 2019.
Ibid, Preamble, thirteenth recital.
See the ministerial declaration of the 2018 high-level political forum on sustainable development, UN General Assembly, Proposed programme budget for 2021, UN Doc. E/HLS/2018/1 of 1 August 2018, para 26, which called upon ‘all stakeholders to adopt a sustainable food systems approach and to develop effective strategies and innovations to reduce food losses and waste’.
UN General Assembly, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1 of 21 October 2015. Target 12.3, in particular, calls on States to halve global per capita food waste at the retail and consumer levels and to reduce food losses along production and supply chains as a means of ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns by 2030. See ibid, 22.
More information on this project can be found at <https://www.onfoods.it/about-onfoods> accessed 24 July 2025.
See infra, Chapters 11, 12 and 13.
To mention just a few studies on the topic of FLW within the European Union (EU) framework, see Luis González Vaqué, ‘Food Loss and Waste in the European Union: A New Challenge for the Food Law?’ (2015) 10 European Food & Feed Law Review 20; Nicola Lucifero, ‘Food Loss and Waste in the EU Law between Sustainability of Well-Being and the Implications on Food System and on the Environment’ (2016) 8 Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 282; Laura Costantino, La problematica degli sprechi nella filiera agroalimentare. Profili introduttivi (Cacucci editore 2018); Beatrice Garske and others, ‘Challenges of Food Waste Governance: An Assessment of European Legislation on Food Waste and Recommendations for Improvement by Economic Instruments’ (2020) 9 (7) Land 1; David Röttgen and Francesca Allocco, ‘Food Waste in EU Food Law’ in Cinzia Caporale, Ilja R Pavone and Maria P Ragionieri (eds), International Food Law: How Food Law Can Balance Health, Environment and Animal Welfare (Wolters Kluwer 2021), 305.
FAO-CIHEAM, Mediterra 2016. Zero Waste in the Mediterranean. Natural Resources, Food and Knowledge (Paris 2016), 281.
See supra, Chapter 3.
For example, some scholars, on the one hand, distinguish between food loss and food waste based on the stage of the food supply chain at which the loss or waste of food occurs. Others, however, distinguish based on whether it is ‘voluntary’ (waste), eg the result of an explicit choice, or not (loss). Still others may adopt yet different approaches. This inevitably limits the possibility of comparing the results of studies conducted on FLW and of reconstructing a sufficiently precise overall picture of its extent: High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security (Rome 2014), 21–22.
Efforts to reach a common definition of FLW have been made at the regional level, with varying approaches. For instance, within the EU system, references to FLW have been subsumed under the general term ‘food waste’, which reflects the broad category of all food that is wasted, regardless of the step in the supply chain where the waste occurs. In this regard, see Röttgen and Allocco (n 7), 306–307, 336.
For an overview of the historical evolution of FLW definitions at the international level, see Monica Delsignore, Margherita Ramajoli and Carola Ricci, ‘Defining the Meaning of Food Waste as a Matter of Urgency’ in Piergiuseppe Morone, Franka Papendiek and Valentina Elena Tartiu (eds), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation: Sustainability Assessment and Policy Analysis (Springer 2017), 219 ff.
FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (Rome 2019), 70.
UN General Assembly (n 1), Preamble, ninth recital.
See Sohyun Jeong and Jeehyun Lee, ‘Effects of Cultural Background on Consumer Perception and Acceptability of Foods and Drinks: A Review of Latest Cross-Cultural Studies’ (2021) 42 Current Opinion in Food Science 248.
See eg Luciana Delgado, Monica Schuster and Maximo Torero, ‘Quantity and Quality Food Losses across the Value Chain: A Comparative Analysis’ (2021) 98 Food Policy 4, which holds that a standard definition and terminology around FLW is not sufficient ‘to identify the underlying causes and potential solutions to food loss and waste or to monitor specific progress on reduction targets. To be most useful, the definition should … include pre-harvest losses’.
Zach Conrad and others, ‘Relationship Between Food Waste, Diet Quality and Environmental Sustainability’ (2018) 13 (4) PLoS ONE 1. Silvio Franco and others, ‘Overnutrition Is a Significant Component of Food Waste and Has a Large Environmental Impact’ (2022) 12 Scientific Reports 1.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns (Rome 2019), 25 ff.
Difficulties are also encountered at the regional level, although in these contexts it has been possible to obtain more precise results. Within the EU, for example, Member States are required to measure food waste production data in accordance with the European Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/1597 of 3 May 2019, supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste. Against this background, according to Eurostat, data concerning food waste estimates at the EU level ‘are considered stable and several countries have improved the measurement methodology’: Eurostat, ‘Food Waste and Food Waste Prevention—Estimates’ <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Food_waste_and_food_waste_prevention__estimates> accessed 24 July 2025.
See eg Jenny Gustavsson and others, The Methodology of the FAO Study: ‘Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention’ (SIK 2013), 3.
See, ex multis, Renzo Akkerman and Frans Cruijssen, ‘Food Loss, Food Waste, and Sustainability in Food Supply Chains’ in Yann Bouchery, Charles J Corbett, Jan C Fransoo and Tarkan Tan (eds), Sustainable Supply Chains: A Research-Based Textbook on Operations and Strategy (Springer 2024), 219. For a definition of sustainable food systems, see FAO, Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework (Rome 2018), 2: ‘food systems that deliver food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised’.
See the food loss index, elaborated and periodically updated by FAO <https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals-data-portal/data/indicators/1231-global-food-losses/en> accessed 24 July 2025.
See UNEP, Food Waste Index Report 2024 (Nairobi 2024), 3.
FAO, Food Wastage Footprint. Impacts on Natural Resources. Summary Report (Rome 2013), 41.
Cheick Mbow and others, ‘Food Security’ in Priyadarshi R Shulka and others (eds), Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC 2019), 440 <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
Daniel Durán-Sandoval, Gemma Durán-Romero and Francesca Uleri, ‘How Much Food Loss and Waste Do Countries with Problems with Food Security Generate?’ (2023) 13 (3) Agriculture 1.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024—Financing to End Hunger, Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in all its Forms (Rome 2024), 7.
Addisalem A Benyam, Tammara Soma and Evan Fraser, ‘Digital Agricultural Technologies for Food Loss and Waste Prevention and Reduction: Global Trends, Adoption Opportunities and Barriers’ (2021) 323 Journal of Cleaner Production 1; Federica Ciccullo and others, ‘Implementing the Circular Economy Paradigm in the Agri-Food Supply Chain: The Role of Food Waste Prevention Technologies’ (2021) 164 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 1.
UN General Assembly, (n 1) Preamble, fourteenth recital.
For a general overview, see Oznur Oztuna Taner, ‘Sustainable Food and Agriculture Production: Reducing Food Waste through Technological Advancements and Assessing Its Economic Impact’ (2024) 5 (3) Research on World Agricultural Economy 144.
See supra (n 5).
ON Foods, ‘New Technologies and Strategies to Preserve Roasted Coffee Beans and Reduce Food Waste’ <https://onfoods.it/research-projects/new-technologies-and-strategies-preserve-roasted-coffee-beans-and-reduce-food> accessed 24 July 2025.
ON Foods, ‘Digital and Cyber Physical Twins Framework for Food and Packaging Supply Chain Waste Control and Optimization’, <https://onfoods.it/research-projects/digital-and-cyber-physical-twins-framework-food-and-packaging-supply-chain-waste> accessed 24 July 2025.
ON Foods, ‘Fermentation of Agri-Food by Product/Waste to Obtain Bioactive Compounds Enriched Foods’, <https://onfoods.it/research-projects/fermentation-agri-food-productwaste-obtain-bioactive-compounds-enriched-foods> accessed 24 July 2025.
ON Foods, ‘Comprehensive Characterization of Bioactive Compounds and/or Macromolecules from Food By-products and Wastes’, <https://onfoods.it/research-projects/comprehensive-characterization-bioactive-compounds-andor-macromolecules-food> accessed 24 July 2025.
For more information, see Vilásia Guimarães Martins and others, ‘Innovative Packaging that Saves Food’ in Charis M Galanakis (ed), Saving Food: Production, Supply Chain, Food Waste and Food Consumption (Academic Press 2019), 171.
ON Foods, ‘Extraction of Bioactive Compounds and/or Macromolecules from Food By-products and Wastes’ and ON Foods, ‘New Solutions for Sustainable Bio-Based Food Packaging’, <https://onfoods.it/research-projects/extraction-bioactive-compounds-andor-macromolecules-food-products-and-wastes> accessed 24 July 2025.
For an overview of current trends and key advances in technologies regarding agrifood systems, including for FLW reduction, see the Report of the UN Secretary General, Agriculture Technology for Sustainable Development: Leaving No One Behind, UN Doc. A/78/228 of 28 August 2023.
See WWF-UK, Driven to Waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms. Woking (WWF-UK 2021), 7 <https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/6yoepbekgh_wwf_uk__driven_to_waste___the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
FAO, Household Metal Silos. Key Allies in FAO’s Fight against Hunger (Rome 2008), 1.
FAO, Achieving SDG 2 without breaching the 1.5 °C threshold: A global roadmap, Part 1—How agrifood systems transformation through accelerated climate actions will help achieving food security and nutrition, today and tomorrow (Rome 2023), 7.
Luciana Delgado, Monica Schuster and Maximo Torero, ‘Food Losses in Agrifood Systems: What We Know’ (2023) 15 Annual Review of Resource Economics 41.
FAO, Transforming Food and Agriculture to achieve the SDG s: 20 Interconnected Actions to Guide Decision-Makers (Rome 2018), 35.
Kateřina Mitkidis and Adriana Šefčíková, ‘Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns (SDG 12)’ in Ilias Bantekas and Francesco Seatzu (eds), The UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2023), 888.
Entered into force on 21 March 1994, <https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
The text of the Declaration is available at <https://www.cop28.com/en/food-and-agriculture> accessed 24 July 2025.
Ibid para 4.
Entered into force on 29 December 1993, <https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
Decision 15/4, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, UN Doc. CBD/COP/ DEC/15/4 of 19 December 2022, Annex. As outlined in para 3 therein, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out ‘an ambitious plan to implement broad based action to bring about a transformation in our societies’ relationship with biodiversity by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … and ensure that, by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled’. On its relevance as a soft-law instrument adopted in the context of the CBD, see Francesco Seatzu and Paolo Vargiu, ‘The Legal Dimension of the Kunming-Montreal Framework in International Law’ (2025) 41 Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional 531.
Ibid target 16, 11.
Ibid target 20, 12.
Entered into force on 3 January 1976, <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cescr.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
On the connection between FLW and the right to food, Anastasia Telesetsky, ‘Waste Not, Want Not: The Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals’ (2014) 42 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 484; Laura Costantino (n 7), 39. See also FAO, Food Loss and Waste and the Right to Adequate Food: Making the Connection (Rome 2018), 17 ff.
See, for instance, Ellis Kalaidjian, Stacy-ann Robinson, ‘Reviewing the Nature and Pitfalls of Multilateral Adaptation Finance for Small Island Developing States’ (2022) 36 Climate Risk Management 1.
See the 2018 Strategy on New Technologies, developed by the UN Secretary General to shape the UN’s approach to the use of new technologies for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the subsequent 2020 Road Map for Digital Cooperation <https://www.un.org/en/newtechnologies/images/pdf/SGs-Strategy-on-New-Technologies.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
Unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly as an outcome document of the 2024 Summit of the Future, UN Doc. A/RES/79/1 of 22 September 2024, Annex I.
CFS, Report of the 41st Session of the Committee on World Food Security (Rome, 13–18 October 2014), 4 ff. <https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1314/CFS41/FinalReport/CFS41_Final_Report_EN.pdf> accessed 24 July 2025.
UN General Assembly, Agricultural technology for sustainable development, UN Doc. A/RES/78/144 of 19 December 2023, para 11. This is the latest in a series of resolutions cyclically adopted by the General Assembly on the topic of agricultural technology for development, dating back to 2007. Specific references to FLW have been included since 2011.
Following a request from the FAO Committee on Agriculture in 2018, the Code of Conduct was developed by FAO through an inclusive process and subsequently endorsed by the 42nd Session of the FAO Conference on 14–18 June 2021: FAO, Voluntary Code of Conduct for Food Loss and Waste Reduction (Rome 2022).
Ibid paras 4.9 ff.
Ibid para 4.9.1.
In this regard, see Simone Vezzani, ‘The Protection of Traditional Knowledge of Agricultural Interest in International Law’, in Antonietta Di Blase and Valentina Vadi (eds), The Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples in International Law (Roma TrE-Press 2020), 279.
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 of 13 September 2007.
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, UN Doc. A/RES/73/165 of 17 December 2018.
For a more in-depth examination of these declarations, which cannot be covered here, see Simone Vezzani, ‘Il Progetto di Dichiarazione sui diritti degli agricoltori: nuovi diritti germogliano?’ (2013) 7 Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 211; Priscilla Claeys and Marc Edelman, ‘The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas’ (2020) 47 The Journal of Peasant Studies 1; Federico Lenzerini, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)’ in Christina Binder and others (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights (Edward Elgar Publishing 2022) vol 1, 452.
FAO Code of Conduct paras 4.9.3.1–4.9.3.3.
Ibid para 4.9.4.4.
UNEA, Resolution 2/9, Prevention, Reduction and Reuse of Food Waste, UN Doc. UNEP/EA.2/Res.9 of 27 May 2016.
UNEA, Resolution 4/2, Promoting Sustainable Practices and Innovative Solutions for Curbing Food Loss and Waste, UN Doc. EA.4/Res.2 of 15 March 2019.
Ibid paras 5 and 7(b).
Mention can be made, for instance, of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, established by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety in 2016 (and renewed in 2021 for a second term) as an expert group on FLW. To achieve its objective—to widely support EU action in exchanging information and defining appropriate measures to prevent FLW—the Platform places great emphasis on promoting partnerships between EU institutions, international organisations, and private sector actors.
This approach is also widely adopted at the national level. See OECD, Beyond Food Loss and Waste Reduction Targets: Translating Reduction Ambitions into Policy Outcomes (Paris 2025), 32.
UNEP, Progress in the Implementation of Resolution 4/2 on Promoting Sustainable Practices and Innovative Solutions for curbing Food Loss and Waste, UN Doc. UNEP/EA.5/INF/23 of 29 November 2021, para 3.
UNEP, Food Waste Index Report 2024 (n 23), 70.