Food Losses and Waste in China and Their ... - ACS Publications

Aug 13, 2013 - 3.1Food Loss Rate of Grains in Each Step of FSC in China ..... or total production and can relieve pressure on water, land, and the env...
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Download PDF
Policy Analysis pubs.acs.org/est

Food Losses and Waste in China and Their Implication for Water and Land Junguo Liu,†,* Jan Lundqvist,‡ Josh Weinberg,‡ and Josephine Gustafsson‡ †

School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Qinghua East Road 35, Beijing, 100083, China Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, SE-111 51, Sweden

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Conventional approaches to food security are questionable due to their emphasis on food production and corresponding neglect of the huge amount of food losses and waste. We provide a comprehensive review on available information concerning China’s food losses and waste. The results show that the food loss rate (FLR) of grains in the entire supply chain is 19.0% ± 5.8% in China, with the consumer segment having the single largest portion of food waste of 7.3% ± 4.8%. The total water footprint (WF) related to food losses and waste in China in 2010 was estimated to be 135 ± 60 billion m3, equivalent to the WF of Canada. Such losses also imply that 26 ± 11 million hectares of land were used in vain, equivalent to the total arable land of Mexico. There is an urgent need for dialogue between actors in the supply chain, from farmer to the consumer, on strategies to reduce the high rates of food losses and waste and thereby make a more worthwhile use of scarce natural resources.

1. INTRODUCTION Demand for food will increase dramatically this century as a result of a burgeoning and, generally, more wealthy population.1−3 With increasing competition for limited water, land, and other natural resources, a fundamental task ahead is to make the best possible use of these resources on three fronts. First, a higher efficiency in production can be achieved. Second, distribution must be improved to ensure that the food produced is accessible to the hungry. Finally, losses and wastage have to be curbed in the supply chain. A continuation of conventional propositions that focus almost exclusively on increasing production to meet demand is not an adequate and smart approach to feed a growing world population. Between one-third and one-half of the produced food is being lost early on in the supply chain or wasted at the consumer-end, amounting to about 1.3 billion tons per year globally4 5.6 There are considerable variations between countries and over time in the composition of losses, waste, and conversions. In communities where poverty and resource constraints dominate, people are naturally keen to make best possible use of whatever they are able to produce. But due to outdated harvested technologies and poor on-farm storage they face a high risk to lose some of the harvest. During good years when they manage to have a bumper harvest, poor farmers tend to lose the surplus for lack of transport and poor access to markets outside the local ones. In rich countries quite a different situation is noted. In the US, it is, for instance, calculated that the level of absolute losses and waste increases in pace with increased food supply,7 which in essence means © 2013 American Chemical Society

that the more we produce, over a certain level, the higher is the risk that more will be wasted. Hence, it is important to identify the segment(s) of the supply chain where food is not beneficially used. The tendency to overlook the relationships between production and beneficial and nonbeneficial use of the produce is striking although it is not a new phenomenon. As aptly formulated in a Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) report (1981),8 “It is distressing to note that so much time is being devoted to the culture of the plant, so much money spent on irrigation, fertilization and crop protection measures, only to be wasted about a week after harvest”. In the 30 years that have passed since this conclusion was drawn, the resource situation has become more precarious. Although the future is loaded with uncertainties, competition for resources will undoubtedly increase and water availability will become more variable as a result of global warming. The fact remains that all food produced, regardless if it is eaten, lost, wasted, and converted, has consumed water, energy, occupied land, and contributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These circumstances make it increasingly important to ensure that the fractions of losses and waste are as low as feasible. Policies that aim for a high efficiency in the use of resources in production need to be combined with polices that ensure a high Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 10137

April 2, 2013 August 9, 2013 August 13, 2013 August 13, 2013 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 1. Food losses and waste in food supply chain.

FLR between China and other countries, and discuss potential ways to reduce food losses and waste.

efficiency in the supply chain. Currently, there is not sufficient analysis on potential implications for water and land of improvements in the supply chain efficiency. When food losses and waste are reduced, a lower demand on food production is conceivable, and consequently a lower pressure on natural resources such as water and land. It is plausible to assume that the “saved” water can be allocated to other high-efficient beneficial uses,9 while following the Jevons’ paradox (or a rebound effect), higher efficiency of water uses may increase aggregate demand for water.10,11 Reducing agricultural water use, combined with efforts to ensure that a higher fraction of the production reaches intended uses, will lead to a higher overall resource use efficiency. This is an effective way to reduce competition for water among sectors and between humans and nature.12−14 Expanded research in this area would be valuable to guide cost-effective interventions for more effective natural resources management, for example, water and land. Reliable statistical information on food losses and waste is limited for virtually all countries.5 Investigations about these issues are relevant and urgent for China due to the large population, its rapid socioeconomic change and the limited natural resources. With only 6% of the world’s total water resources and 9% of the world’s arable land, China feeds 21% of the world’s population. Economic development, population growth and diet shifts toward more animal protein-based food have, however, intensified pressure on scarce water and land resources and brought serious environmental costs along with it, for example, over use of water,15 water and air pollution,16,17 and degradation of natural grassland.18 River basins in northand northwestern China will constitute hotspots of extreme water scarcity within the coming years.19 Unfortunately, few studies have looked into the level of food losses and waste in China as a remedy for these predicaments. This article provides a comprehensive review on available information and articles concerning China’s food losses and waste, and demonstrates the implication of such losses on water and land resources. It aims to shed light on how those losses and waste occur at each segment of the supply chain. It provides a new perspective on how food security can be accomplished for a growing and wealthier population without a corresponding increase in resource demand and use. As such, it provides policy makers with “food for thought” to consider how to improve the beneficial and effective use of natural resources. In the next sections, we first introduce the methods used to estimate food loss rate (FLR) for different food products at each segment of the food supply chain, and assess the impacts of food loss and waste on water and land. Then, we show the results of FLR estimated based on the best available data, and the water and land resources that are used to produce the lost and wasted food. In the Discussion section, we compare the

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Food Losses and Waste in Food Supply Chain (FSC). Food supply chains (FSC) refer to a series of procedures from food production to food intake (or ‘from field to fork’). There are several ways in which the quantity of edible food mass decreases throughout the FSC and each has their own specific cause. It is therefore important to use a terminology that makes it possible to distinguish between the main types of losses and waste in order to analyze their relative significance and options to reduce them.6 Food losses take place at harvest, postharvest and processing stages in the FSC.5 Decreases occurring at the end of the food chain, at the level of consumers, are referred to as “food waste”.5 In general, it means the throwing away of food that could have been eaten. Here the FSC is divided into five stages: harvest, storage, transportation, processing and intake (Figure 1). Below, typical sources of food losses and waste in each segment of the supply chain for vegetal produce are outlined. This is largely based on the work by Gustavsson et al.6 and Parfitt et al.,5 but includes some revisions. Food waste in each stage of FSC is described in the Supporting Information (SI). 2.2. Food Loss Rate (FLR). Food loss rate (FLR) is used to indicate the magnitude of food losses, and it is defined as the ratio of lost or wasted food to the total amount of food production. There are few reports on overall FLR in China. The studies that have been done focus on different food items, are conducted in different regions, and vary in the number and selection of segments within the food supply chain they analyze. For grains, at each specific segment of the supply chain, we use the FLR from literature (SI Table S1 and S2) and quantify the uncertainty by calculating mean and standard deviation based on the 81 samples collected (Table S1) (see detailed methods in the SI). FLR for the entire FSC of grains is calculated by considering the sequence of the chain and the FLR at each individual segment. We assume that prior to harvest, food production is 100%. The remaining amount of food can accordingly be estimated by considering the FLR at each stage and its previous stages. Suppose there are N (N ≥ 2) segments in the entire supply chain, and the FLR at each step can be denoted as Li, the FLR in the entire supply chain, L, is calculated as below: N

L = L1 +

i−1

∑ (Li ∏ (1 − Lj)) i=2

j=1

(1)

Πj i==1 1(1−Lj)

where represents the percent of original food production remaining at the beginning of the ith segment. 10138

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

3. RESULTS 3.1. Food Loss Rate of Grains in Each Step of FSC in China. We assessed the average FLR in each step of FSC for grains. Figure 2 provides information regarding the general FLR

Due to the small sample number (12 samples) of FLR for vegetables and fruits, we use the minimum and maximum values from the available samples to indicate the FLR uncertainty (SI). 2.3. Effects of Food Losses and Waste on Water and Land. To quantify the effects of food losses and waste on water and land, we first calculate the water footprint of production (WF) and land footprint (LF) of food production. Here the WF is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is consumptively used to produce the various food items,20 while the LF is defined as the total area of land that is used to produce the food products. WF (LF) is used to indicate the consumptive water use (and land area) that is needed to produce the food items considered. WF of a food item is quantified by multiplying virtual water content (VWC) by the total production of this food item. VWC indicates the amount of water that is consumed to produce a unit quantity of food.21 LF of a food item is quantified by dividing the total production P by yield Y. WF = VWC × P

LF =

P Y

(2) Figure 2. The food loss rate in the supply chain. N represents the number of samples, SD standard deviation, 50th, 25th and 75th the median and the 25th and the 75th percentiles, min (max) the minimum (maximum) of the sample.

(3)

We then quantify the WF associated with food losses and waste (WFL) and LF associated with food losses and waste (LFL). In this paper, only vegetal foods (grains, vegetable and fruits) are considered because reliable data on food losses for meat and diary products are not sufficient for a valid estimation.

in the FSC in China. Statistics for FLR often show only the food losses and waste at each stage, and not the share of the total food production. FLR varies largely depending on the specifics of different FSC. The consumer and storage segments show the highest FLR in the supply chain. The single largest portion of food waste often occurs among consumers with a mean FLR of 7.3% (±4.8%). Following rapid economic development new policies and reforms to open China to the global market, living standards have improved in recent years. A large number of people can now afford to buy more and better food, which, of course, is positive and desirable. At the same time, the traditional virtue of “cherishing food” is fading. In recent years, the food waste occurring at the consumer-end has increased significantly. Interestingly, in the consumer segment, the FLR of grain is the lowest at canteen but highest in restaurants (SI Table S1). FLR is only about 5% when people eat at the canteen. In contrast, FLR is about 7% when people eat at home. The FLR is highest at restaurants, reaching as high as 19%. Social customs can explain some of this phenomenon. When eating in a canteen, consumers pay for what they buy and the prices are normally higher than the food they purchase to cook at home, and this added cost makes people less likely to waste the food. However, when eating in a restaurant, consumers often invite their friends, family or other guests and order more than enough to “save face”, leading to a high level of food waste. Storage has the second largest FLR in supply chain, with estimated losses of 5.5%(±3.4%). The main reasons for food spoilage in the grain storage units include a lack of (1) highquality equipment and facilities for grain storage; (2) pesticides with high efficiency and low toxicity to control pests, mold and rodents; and (3) basic knowledge and the necessary technology for scientific grain storage. The central storage systems of the government (off-farm storage systems) are more efficient in reducing food waste than farmers’ on-farm storage systems.

T

WFL =

∑ WFt × FLR t t=1

(4)

T

LFL =

∑ LFt × FLR t t=1

(5)

Where FLRt is the food loss rate of vegetal food type t. Since only three vegetal foods are considered, T = 3. We also consider uncertainties in estimating WF and LF associated with food losses and waste (WFL, LFL). The uncertainty range is expressed with mean and standard deviation, which are calculated based on three sets of 100 000 random samples of FLR of the entire supply chain grains, vegetables and fruits, respectively. Detailed methods in calculating FLR and quantifying uncertainties are described in the SI. 2.4. Data. Data on FLR are based on a literature review of peer-reviewed articles. FLR of grains are based on 81 samples from 17 articles (SI Table S1). FLR of vegetables and fruits are based on 12 samples from 7 articles (SI Table S2). For meat and eggs, there are only 4 samples (SI Table S2). Data on production and yield are from FAOSTAT22 for the year of 2010. VWC of grains is often assumed to be 1 m3/kg,23 and this value is also consistent with Liu et al.21 VWC of fruits and vegetables is from Liu et al.21 The assumptions of VWC are taken from highly cited articles, but they can lead to uncertainties. A more accurate estimate can be achieved by using spatially explicit data on food production and VWC (e.g., from Liu et al.24), but this is out of the scope of this paper, and can be a next step of another study. 10139

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

waste for meats and other high-priced, resource intensive food products. The reported FLR for meat used here is taken from Duan,27 who estimates that the FLR is 3% in the transportation stage, but this is obviously well below the aggregate figure for all the segments of the FSC. According to Gustavsson et al.,6 for Japan and South Korea, the FLR in the entire FSC reaches 22.5%. It is unlikely that China has such a high FLR, but unfortunately, there are no reports on the figures for the FLR of meat in China throughout the entire supply chain to make an accurate estimate on what the actual level of waste may be. For our estimate of the FLR of animal products, we take the mean from 3 to 15%, which is based on the available data for meat and eggs. A comprehensive study to investigate this should be conducted as this information would be very valuable.

China’s on-farm grain storage has a high FLR of about 8%, in contrast to that of about 1.4% for the central storage system of the government (SI Table S1). However, in 2006, about 60% of the grains in China were stored in poor and outdated housewares of farmers, leading to a large amount of losses during storage.25 Starting from 2007, the Chinese government started to provide financial subsidies for 5 million farm households in 24 provinces to improve their storage facilities (http://www.grainstorage.net/default.asp). Harvest and processing have similar magnitudes of FLR (3.5% ± 2.8% for harvest and 3.1% ± 1.1% for processing), but harvest practices involve a high uncertainty (Figure 2). Due to, for example, a lack of proper harvest technology, inappropriate drying equipment, tight harvest schedules or sometimes a lack of labor not all grains are harvested nor put into warehouses. Mechanized harvest technology is more efficient than hand harvest technology in reducing food losses. FLR of wheat and rice is generally about 10% with hand harvest, while it can be reduced to about 3% when mechanized harvest is applied (see SI Table S1). However, China still heavily relies upon handharvest technology. When cold, rainy weather occurs, harvested food may become rotten or budding. Food losses may also increase due to the increasing demand for refined flour, milled rice and essential oils resulting from a general enhancement of people’s living standard. Taking China’s state-owned grain and oil processing plants as an example, high-quality refinement decreases the ratio of final products to raw materials (or refinement ratio), leading to extensive waste at the processing stage. In China’s rural areas, many farmers still use small, outdated equipment, and the refinement ratio is about 2−3% lower compared with the state-owned food processing. FLR during transportation is relatively small (1.2% ± 1.2%). With economic development and technology improvements, transportation technology has improved considerably. Rail is a dominant method for grain transport largely due to its ability to transport large volumes and relatively low costs. It accounts for about 80% of the domestic grain transport in China.25 Packetbased transport and bulk transport are two commonly used methods for China’s grain transport. For packet-based transport, grains are often stored in linen bags. Such a method is expensive with relatively high losses, but it is a traditional and dominant grain transport method in China. The bulk transport does not rely on packets; instead, grains are put into the transporting containers directly. The bulk-grain transport accounts for only about 15% of the food circulation, much lower than the 90% level in many developed countries.26 3.2. Aggregate Loss Rate of Grains in the Entire FSC. After accounting for food losses and waste in the five stages, FLR in the entire supply chain is 19.0% (±5.8%) for grains. This means that about one-fifth of the grain produced is either lost or wasted in the processes from field to fork. Such a large amount of waste should be paid attention to, and effective ways have to be found to reduce losses and waste at each segment of the supply chain. China’s total cereal production was 432 million tonnes in 2010.22 To put the FLR of 19% in perspective, the total amount of cereal losses and waste accounted for 82 million tonnes, equivalent to 56% of the total cereal production in the entire continent of Africa in the same year. 3.3. Loss Rate of Other Food Commodities in FSC. The FLR of vegetables, fruits, meat and eggs is summarized in SI Table S2. FLR is about 20−30% for vegetables and fruits, and 5−15% for eggs. There is little current accessible data on food

4. DISCUSSION 4.1. Comparison of FLR with Other Countries. China’s FLR of 19% is low compared to many other countries. Segré and Gaiani28 estimated that 50% of the food produced worldwide is lost and wasted. Hall et al.7 report an increasing trend of FLR in the U.S., estimated at 40% in the early 2000s, which is more than double that of China. Gustavsson et al.6 provide a comprehensive review of FLR in different countries, and the results show that Europe, North America, Oceania, and industrialized Asia all have a FLR of about 35% in the entire FSC. Even for many developing countries in North Africa, West & Central Asia, and Latin America, the FLR is also as high as 25−30%. Using FLR of 19% for vegetal products, FLR of 9% for animal products (3−15% for meat and eggs, see SI Table S1), and food balance from FAO,22 an average Chinese family wasted 507 kcal/capita/day in 2009, much lower than the average American family, which wasted 1400 kcal/capita/day in 2003.7 The low FLR is partly a result of a traditional virtue of “cherishing food” in China. Another important reason is the social effects of the “three bad years” of 1959−1961, which contained a series of calamities that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions directly caused by starvation. This tragedy has had a far-reaching effect on generations thereafter, leading to good habits to not waste food. With increasing disposable income, people now buy more food and tend to throw away the leftovers after eating. In China, people have a tradition to order more than enough food when they host guests in order to show their hospitality and that they are well off. This stems from the perception of “losing face” when not enough food is provided to the guest. For example, when dining out, urban people wasted 19% of the food in restaurant in comparison to 7% at home.29 Hence, behavior change is a key in this specific setting to save food by finding incentives to compel people to order an “appropriate amount” of food. When the food cannot be eaten, the remaining food of good quality should be taken away for later intake. It is important to note that the findings in this article do not present the current level of FLR. Among the 79 samples in the SI Table S1, there are 36 samples that have explicitly mentioned the representative periods. Of these, 35 represent the FLR in the late 1980s and early 1990s. There is only 1 sample on the FLR after 1995. The lack of monitoring systems on food waste implies insufficient emphasis on the issue. It is necessary to establish statistical and monitoring programmes to help provide an in-depth analysis of the magnitude of food waste in recent years. 10140

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Table 1. Water Footprints Illustrating Water Lost Due to Food Losses for Grains, Vegetables and Fruits in China in 2010a item production (million ton) yield (ton/ha) VWC (m3/kg) blue water proportion FLR WF of production (billion m3) WF of food waste (billion m3) BWF of food waste (billion m3) LF (million ha) LF of food waste (million ha)

grains

vegetable

fruit

sum

497.7 5.5 1

539.6 23.4 0.19

122.3 10.8 0.5

0.19 ± 0.12 497.7 94.6 ± 59.7

0.25 ± 0.05 102.5 25.65 ± 5.15

0.25 ± 0.05 61.2 15.25 ± 3.05

90.1 17.1 ± 10.8

23.1 5.75 ± 1.15

11.3 2.85 ± 0.55

1159.6

0.32 661.4 135.0 ± 59.7 43.2 ± 19.1 124.5 25.7 ± 10.9

a

Note: VWC represents virtual water content, FLR food loss rate, WF water footprint, BWF blue water footprint, LF land footprint. FLR of cereal is assumed to be a normal distribution, and the mean and standard deviation are shown. FLR of vegetable and fruit is assumed to be a union distribution, and the minimum and maximum values are shown. The calculation and presentation of the uncertainty ranges are described in detail in Supporting Information.

4.2. Implication of Food Waste of Vegetal Food for Water and Land. Food losses and waste have profound environmental consequences. Here, the amount of water that is consumed for food crop production has been calculated as a baseline. The amount of water that is required to produce the fraction of the crops that are lost in different stages of the supply chain have then been estimated. According to our calculation, the total WF of crop production is about 660 billion m3, while the total WF lost due to food losses was 135 (±60) billion m3 in 2010 (Table 1). That means that over 20% of the total WF of agricultural production was accounted for by food losses. China’s WF associated with food losses is equivalent to the WF (green and blue, see definitions below) of Canada or Australia, and it is 80% higher than the total WF of France.20 WF includes blue water (water from rivers, lakes, wetlands, ponds, and shallow aquifers) and green water (soil water). Blue water accounted for 32% of the total consumptive water use of agriculture production in China.30 Our calculation shows that 43 (±19) billion m3 of blue water was used to grow cereals that were lost or wasted. According to the official statistics of the Ministry of Water Resources, China’s consumptive blue water use was 318 billion m3 in all sectors, and it was 234 billion m3 for agriculture in 2010.31 Hence, our calculations indicate that over 14% of China’s total blue water consumption is accounted for by wasted food. This is a conservative estimate because our calculation only includes cereals, vegetables, and fruits and it does not consider conversion of cereals. Blue WF associated with food losses is about 3 times of the total blue WF of Australia, 7 times of the total blue WF of France, and 8 times of the total blue WF of Canada.20 In China, about 124 million ha of arable land was used to produce cereals, vegetables and fruits.22 By using the FLR of these three categories, we calculate that about 26 (±11) million hectares of land were used to produce food that was lost or went to waste (Table 1). This is equivalent to the total arable land of Mexico, and it is 44% larger than the arable land area of France. It needs to be pointed out that we only aim to show the magnitudes of the water/land associated with food losses in China when comparing them with water footprint/arable land area in other countries. This does not account for opportunity costs or local water needs in these countries. Animal products are resources intensive, and their waste has great implications to water resources. However, no robust studies have been done on the FLR of animal products in

China. According to the very scarce reports on meat and eggs, here we use a FLR of 3−15% for animal products. For total food supply, the WF of animal products reached 526 billion m3 in China in 2009, among which 15.87−78.90 billion m3 of water was used to produce the “wasted” livestock products. Such an estimate is calculated based on food supply from FAO,22 the average estimated virtual water content from Liu and Savenije,32 and an FLR level of 3−15% for animal products. Here WF of animal products includes water used for producing animal feeds; hence, it cannot be directed added to the WF of crop production due to double counting. Based on Mekonnen and Hoekstra,33 the WF of grazing and animal water supply is about 92 billion m3 in China, when animal feeds are not considered. With this estimate, an amount of 2.75−13.74 billion m3 of the WF of grazing and animal water supply was wasted. 4.3. Implication for China’s Use of Natural Resources. Political leadership in China has recognized that sustainable stewardship of natural resources is needed to ensure continuous socio-economic progress. The promotion of a “water saving society” is one of the pillars in official policy. On January 29, 2011, the Chinese government issued the Central Document No. 1 and promote the implementation of the most stringent water resources management.34 It is clear that the high rates of losses and waste of food make our resource efficiency very low, and this inefficiency comes at substantial economic and environmental costs. Reducing food losses and waste would provide similar benefits for food security as increasing grain yield or total production and can relieve pressure on water, land, and the environment. In China, the amount of food losses and waste is quite alarming and it is the result of inadequate techniques, weak management and a low level of awareness about this issue. Low-tech approaches, such as hand harvesting, and poor storage systems are still very common. In addition to this, there is a lack of integrated management among different government sectors for the entire food supply chain. The agricultural sector mainly focuses on preharvest and harvest, while the food sector is mainly responsible for the food procurement. Insufficient attention is paid to the gray belt between harvest and procurement, resulting in extensive food losses. 4.4. Food Waste Becomes a Political Issue and Actions Are Needed among Actors. Food waste has become an important social and political issue in China to both government officials and the public. In early, 2013, China’s 10141

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

infrastructure are important. Increasing producers’ access to food processing, packaging and new markets beyond their local ones is likewise critical. Agricultural commodity producers should be supported to diversify and scale up their production to be able to respond to growing demand from consumers. Urbanization boosts demand for a variety of food items and increases the need for efficient distribution systems. Both public and private actors have a role to play to ensure that this is achieved and it is essential that farmers of different categories can benefit from this process. Food losses and waste need to be reduced through a combination of policy interventions. In industrialized countries and economies in transition, awareness-raising activities should target consumers, retailers and the food industry.6 Improved automated forecasting by retailers has been shown to reduce overall costs and losses in supermarkets across Europe.35 Sainsbury’s in the UK, for example, predicts that it can possibly reduce the amount of food that went unsold due to periods of unexpected by 15% by aligning its replenishment automation system with local weather forecasts.36 New and better shipping containers, improved coordination with existing transportation infrastructure, and training in logistics planning can reduce losses in transport.36 A comprehensive assessment of the cultural perceptions of food and habits and their impact on natural resources is needed in countries like China and across the world. In rich and affluent societies, people are living in a “culture of abundance”37 and in “comfort zones”.38 With an abundance of food, consumers are accustomed to choose from shelves burgeoning with subsidized food items, accessible around the clock. This makes it easier and less costly to waste and overeat, and provides less incentive to cut down on waste and to enjoy a sustainable diet. Few realize that the price on the tag of the items in the shop is only part of the real price. Another part is paid by taxes (to cover subsidies), and the environmental costs are left invisible to the consumer. Current trends show serious imbalances in terms of relations between consumers, food systems, natural resources, and the environment. An estimated 0.9 billion people suffer from undernourishment while 1.5 billion people over the age of 20 are overweight.39 Together, an estimated 2.4 billion people have unsustainable diets, which cause serious public health concerns. At the same time, the impact on natural resources and the environment from food production is quite significant. These great imbalances have been in focus in discussions about sustainable production and sustainable consumption. FAO has, for instance, initiatives on “sustainable diets and biodiversity”.40 In other publications, the links between water, dietary trends and nutritional requirements have been analyzed.15,41 Moving beyond what is already known, there is a need to strengthen empirical knowledge on the magnitude and the trends of losses and waste of food. Unfortunately, official statistics leave much to be desired42.5 Many actors need to contribute to remedy the situation. Businesses, for instance, could provide data and information for part of the supply chain. They are in a strategic position between the producers and the consumers who demand a variety of food items. To the extent possible, information and figures on food losses, waste, and potential savings, respectively, need to be analyzed to also understand their full environmental and socio-economic impacts. Similarly, attempts need to be made to identify the opportunities within each segment of the food supply chain that can contribute to water- and energy savings. Dialogue to

Central Communist Party (CCCP) Chief Xi Jinping commented on an article titled “Netizen’s Call Upon Restaurants to Restrict [Food] Waste” posted by the staterun Xinhua News Agency, stating that he was shocked to know the huge amount of food that is wasted in China, and called for rigorous measures to stop the waste of resources. All mainstream media in China immediately followed and reported on the issue of food waste and the antiwaste campaigns have flourished online. Eight days after Xi’s call was broadcast on national television, more than 550 000 microblogs had been posted on the topic of antiwaste with a search on Sina Weibo (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/ xi-jinpings-sudden-concern-for-wasting-food/272853/). The effect of the government’s and the public campaign against food waste has been immediate and impressive, and now the topic has quickly become a priority for both government and civil society. In this situation, the question of which types of losses or waste are possibly avoidable, likely to occur, or to be enforced becomes necessary.5 For farmers and consumers alike, there are no real benefits associated with food losses and waste. Although there are costs associated with the reduction of losses (e.g., investments in improved storage and transport), there is a potential to make a better use of the food that is produced. Reducing losses in storage and during transport helps farmers sell a larger share of what they produce so that they and other producers may earn more.4 Food waste by consumers means that part of their spending can be reduced without negative implications. Strategies to reduce losses and waste can thus benefit producers, business, the environment and society at large. Implementing effective policies in these regards is, however, challenging since a large number of actors are involved. A combination of economic sanctions and incentives, technical improvements in storage and transport facilities, awareness raising campaigns and strategic demonstrations, for instance, in schools are examples of measures. The recent political concern, in China, EU, and other parts of the world, has simulated the debate on how different actors can contribute to achieve a more efficient and sustainable food supply chain, and the benefits that would be gained by their action. It is important to note that many businesses are taking an active role in developing strategies that aim to reduce losses and waste in the use of natural resources and also food while at the same time improve the nutritional situation. Initiatives include activities from big corporations, for example, Nestlé (http:// www.triplepundit.com/2013/04/nestle/) and Barilla http:// www.barillacfn.com/en/tag/barilla-center-for-food-and-nutrition/). Other actors show the importance of improved packaging to decrease the risk of food waste as an integral part of their corporate social responsibility.28 Of course, companies have commercial interests but they are also sensitive to the reputation of their brands. Consumer attitudes and behavior are therefore a crucial driver both with regard to corporate strategies and policy formulation and adherence. 4.5. Food Supply Chain Collaboration: A Way Forward? The underlying factors that cause food losses and waste are significantly different when comparing industrialized countries (where food waste and overeating is the bigger problem) and developing countries (where food losses and undernourishment are more extensive). There is consensus among scholars and decision-makers that these require different approaches. In developing countries and tropical regions, investments in improved storage, transport and cooling 10142

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

■

stimulate strategic action and improved collaboration between actors to improve supply chain efficiency is needed, together with targeted action to improve consumer awareness on how to reduce their food waste. There are still a few obstacles for China’s policy to significantly address the issue of food losses. Many government organizations are closely connected to food losses or waste at different supply chains, for example, Ministry of Agriculture (for agriculture production), State Administration of Grain (for grain storage), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (for food processing), and Ministry of Transport (for food transport), and Ministry of Commerce (for food market and consumption). The coordination among these organizations is still weak. Moreover, none of these organizations has the explicit responsibility to monitor food losses in the supply chain. Improved coordination between sectors and in the government is needed to reduce food losses in China. Several possibilities could be enforced in China to reduce food losses and waste. First, raising public awareness could play an important role as a large portion of waste is done by consumers. Awareness raising campaigns on food waste has significantly increased recently in the mainstream media in China, which is a positive sign. Given that China also has a serious water scarcity problem, public information campaigns on the benefits of reducing food losses and waste to save water should be advocated. Second, the storage stage has the second largest FLR, which could be reduced by expanding central storage systems as they have proven to have a much lower FLR compared to on-farm storage systems of local farmers. Third, mechanization of grain harvest is also a way to reduce food losses in the harvesting segment. Finally, all these measures should be combined with monitoring programmes to track the amount of waste that occurs for each food product at every segment within the supply chain. Such programmes will not only fill in the data gap, but also help shed light on the effectiveness of different measures to reduce food losses and waste. The information provided by these programmes could potentially contribute to improved coordination and better decisions in the government sectors that are closely related to food waste at different segments of supply chain.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the International Science & Technology Cooperation Program from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2012DFA91530), National Natural Science Foundation of China (91025009), Projects of International Cooperation and Exchanges NSFC (41161140353), Special Fund for Forestry Scientific Research in the Public Interest (No. 201204204), the 1st Youth Excellent Talents Program of the Organization Department of the Central Committee, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (TD-JC-2013-2). We thank the Nestle Company for providing part of the research funding, Chun Zhu from Beijing Forestry University for collecting data, Hui Wang from the University of Texas at Austin for sharing ideas for uncertainty analysis, and Britt-Louise Andersson from SIWI to help design the TOC Art. We also thank the German Fellowship Programme for S&T for inviting Prof. Junguo Liu to visit the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact (PIK) for research exchange.

■

ABBREVIATIONS FLR food loss rate WF water footprint FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GHG greenhouse gas FSC food supply chains LF land footprint VWC virtual water content

■

REFERENCES

(1) Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B, Biol. Sci. 2010, 365 (1554), 2793−2807. (2) Cirera, X.; Masset, E. Income distribution trends and future food demand. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B, Biol. Sci. 2010, 365 (1554), 2821−2834. (3) Godfray, H. C. J.; Beddington, J. R.; Crute, I. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S. M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327 (5967), 812−818. (4) Lundqvist, J.; de Fraiture, C.; Molden, D. Saving water: From field to forkcurbing losses and wastage in the food chain. In SIWI Policy Brief; SIWI: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (5) Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B, Biol. Sci. 2010, 365 (1554), 3065−3081. (6) Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food WasteExtent, Causes and Prevention; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. (7) Hall, K. D.; Guo, J.; Dore, M.; Chow, C. C. The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS ONE 2009, 4 (11), e7940. (8) FAO. Food Loss Prevention in Perishable Crops; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1981. (9) White, D. H.; Beynon, N.; Kingma, O. Identifying opportunities for achieving water savings throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2006, 21 (7), 1013. (10) Ward, F. A.; Pulido-Velazquez, M. Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105 (47), 18215−18220. (11) Alcott, B. Jevons’ paradox. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54 (1), 9−21. (12) Jury, W. A.; Vaux Jr., H. J.; Donald, L. S. The emerging global water crisis: Managing scarcity and conflict between water users. Adv. Agron. 95, 1-76.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information S

Details on the description of food waste in each stage of food supply chain, and food loss rate of grains, vegetables, fruits, meat and egg are given in the Supporting Information (SI) section. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

Policy Analysis

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +86-1062336761; fax: +86-1062336761; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]. Author Contributions

Junguo Liu designed the research, made the calculation and wrote the paper draft, all authors contributed to revision of the paper. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest. 10143

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

(13) Blanke, A.; Rozelle, S.; Lohmar, B.; Wang, J.; Huang, J. Water saving technology and saving water in China. Agron. Water Manage. 2007, 87 (2), 139−150. (14) Molden, D.; Bos, M. G. Improving basin water use in linked agricultural, ecological and urban systems: Seeking new flow paths and avoiding dead ends. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51 (8), 147−154. (15) Liu, J.; Yang, H.; Savenije, H. H. G. China’s move to highermeat diet hits water security. Nature 2008, 454 (7203), 397. (16) Smith, K. A.; Charles, D. R.; Moorhouse, D. Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters. Part 2: Pigs and poultry. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 71 (2), 183−194. (17) Webb, J. Estimating the potential for ammonia emissions from livestock excreta and manures. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 111 (3), 395− 406. (18) Arthur, A. D.; Pech, R. P.; Davey, C.; Jiebu; Zhang, Y. M.; Lin, H. Livestock grazing, plateau pikas and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Tibetan plateau. Biol. Cons. 2008, 141 (8), 1972− 1981. (19) Rosegrant, M.; Cai, X.; Cline, S. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with Scarcity; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington DC, 2002. (20) Hoekstra, A. Y.; Chapagain, A. K. Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour. Manage. 2007, 21 (1), 35−48. (21) Liu, J.; Zehnder, A. J. B.; Yang, H. Historical trends in China’s virtual water trade. Water Int. 2007, 32 (1), 78−90. (22) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. (23) Yang, H.; Zehnder, A. J. B. Water Endowments and Virtual Water Trade. Gaia 2002, 4, 267−270. (24) Liu, J.; Yang, H. Spatially explicit assessment of global consumptive water uses in cropland: Green and blue water. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384 (3−4), 187−197. (25) Xu, F.; Gong, Y. Problems and counter measures of grain supply in production and selling area of China. Finance Sci. 2009, 261, 117− 124. (26) Zeng, F. Grain logistics in China: Its problems, international reference and countermeasures. Reformation Strat. 2009, 25 (8), 184− 186. (27) Duan, J. Beijing will speed up logistics system development for cold chain. Popular Sci. News 2009.10.18, 2009, pp 1-1. (28) Segré, A.; Gaiani, S. Transforming Food Waste into a Resource; RSC Publishing: London, 2012. (29) Cao, L.; Li, S. Commissariat postpartum loss not allow to ignore. China Stat. 2009, 3, 34−35. (30) Liu, J.; Zehnder, A. J. B.; Yang, H. Global consumptive water use for crop production: The importance of green water and virtual water. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45 (5), W05428. (31) China Water Resources Bulletins. http://www.mwr.gov.cn/ zwzc/hygb/szygb/. (32) Liu, J.; Savenije, H. H. G. Food consumption patterns and their effect on water requirement in China. Hydrol. Earth Syst Sci. 2008, 12 (3), 887. (33) Mekonnen, M. M.; Hoekstra, A. Y. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 2012, 15 (3), 401−415. (34) The Decision on Accelerating the Reform and Development of Water Conservancy. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2011-01/29/content_ 1795245.htm (CPC Central Committee; State Council, Dec 31, 2010). (35) Weber, B.; Herrlein, S.; Hodge, G. The Challenge of Food Waste: Retailers Step Up to the Next Level of Inventory Management; Planet Retail Limited: London, 2011. (36) IME. Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not; Institution of Mechanical Engineers: London, 2013. (37) Stuart, T. WasteUncovering the Global Food Scandal; Penguin, 2009.

(38) Eliasson, J. Water as a catalyst for peace, security and prosperity. In On the Water Front: Selections from the 2009 World Water Week in Stockholm; Lundqvist, J., Ed.; SIWI: Stockholm, 2010. (39) Beddington, J.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Clark, M.; Fernandez, A.; Guillou, M.; Jahn, M.; Erda, L.; Mamo, T.; Van Bo, N.; Nobre, C. A.; Scholes, R.; Sharma, R.; Wakhungu, J. Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change: Final Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012. (40) Burlingame, B.; Dernini, S. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action; FAO: Rome, 2012; p 307. (41) Lundqvist, J. Producing more or Wasting Less. Bracing the food security challenge of unpredictable rainfall. In Re-thinking Water and Food Security: Fourth Marcelino Botiń Foundation Water Workshop, Martínez-Cortina, L.; Garrido, G.; López-Gunn, L., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2010. (42) Smil, V. Feeding the World − A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000.

10144

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401426b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137−10144