How the World Can Cut Food Loss and Waste in Half

September 26, 2017

September 26, 2017


Today’s Guest Blog is by Brian Lipinski. It was originally posted on the World Resources Institute blog on September 20, 2017.


By now, you’ve probably heard about the world’s problem with food loss and waste. An estimated 1.3 billion metric tons of food go to waste each year, affecting our economy, our well-being and our environment. What you’ve probably heard less about is the progress being made in reducing food loss and waste, and what needs to happen in the future to address this problem.


That’s where the new SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2017 Progress Report, released by the Champions 12.3 coalition, comes in. It tracks the movement toward meeting SDG Target 12.3 and lays out a roadmap for what both companies and governments need to do to achieve that goal. Developed by a team of experts from WRI and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), it’s the first comprehensive, time-bound roadmap we’re aware of that specifically addresses one of the 169 SDG Targets.


What is SDG Target 12.3?


Target 12.3 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals calls on the world to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” by 2030.


Our report tracks three steps:

  • Target: Targets set ambition, and ambition motivates action. That’s why we see target-setting as an important first step toward achieving big reductions in food loss and waste.
  • Measure: What gets measured gets managed. Once governments and companies know how much food is being lost or wasted and where it’s happening, they can formulate strategies for how to address it and monitor progress over time.
  • Act: Ultimately, action is what matters. The necessary strides will vary around the world and by sector, but everyone has a part to play.


Our roadmap shows the timeline for cutting food loss and waste in stages, with the first milestone, for a 5 percent reduction, in 2018. So how are governments and companies doing in each of these areas?

Target


Several large countries and regions have set targets in line with SDG Target 12.3. But those countries only represent 28 percent of the world’s population, and the 2018 milestone calls for countries representing 40 percent of the world’s population to have set targets. Other highly-populated countries, such as China and India, will need to set targets if the 2018 milestone is to be met.


Companies are more advanced on target-setting than governments, earning them a “green” assessment for this category. The new major corporate target set this year came from the Global Agri-business Alliance, which announced a Food and Agricultural Product Loss Resolution this week. With the adoption of this resolution, 60 percent of the world’s largest food companies now have a food loss and waste reduction target, meeting the 2018 milestone a year early.


Measure


When it comes to measurement, governments aren’t measuring up. The countries that measure and report on food loss and waste within their borders only represent about 7 percent of the world’s population. Regional blocs such as the EU, African Union and APEC have large roles to play in motivating their members to measure. Measurements should be conducted in conformance with the Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (FLW Standard). 


Companies are doing better than governments on measurement, but not by much. Only a handful of the world’s largest food companies are currently measuring and publicly reporting on their food loss and waste. And as with governments, they should use the FLW Standard as they conduct those measurements and report their results.


Act


When it comes to action, there’s plenty by governments, especially in the EU, the U.S. and Japan. Globally, a number of public-private partnerships and consumer campaigns also address food loss and waste. But these efforts are far from comprehensive, and fall short of the 2018 milestone of 5 percent loss reduction. In the coming year, scaling up the financing of food loss and waste reduction efforts will be especially important.


Companies are again somewhat ahead of the curve when it comes to action: Campbell Soup Company, Kellogg Company, Nestlé, Sodexo, Tesco, Unilever and Walmart all have active food loss and waste reduction programs. On top of that, many are working with their upstream suppliers on food loss and waste reduction efforts. Many more companies will need to follow their lead to stay on track for 2030.


Overall Progress


Overall, the 2018 milestone is a 5 percent reduction in global food loss and waste. Although lots of great work is happening in the Target and Act categories, without good measurement we can’t know how much of that reduction (if any) is being achieved. As more countries start to conduct national food loss and waste inventories, a global picture should begin to emerge.


2030 feels like a long time from now. But if we really want to cut food loss and waste in half in just 13 years, all governments, companies, farmers and individuals must begin to address the issue head on.


This roadmap should help us all do just that―and will keep us honest about our progress along the way.


Brian Lipinski is an Associate in the WRI Food Program, working on both the World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future and the Food Loss and Waste Protocol. The World Resources Institute (WRI) organizes their work around six critical goals that the organization believes the world must achieve this decade in order to secure a sustainable future: ClimateEnergyFoodForestsWater; and, Sustainable Cities.


Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Antoinette Smith | Resource Recycling March 6, 2026
Fourth-quarter MRF commodity values in the Northeast reached five-year lows, as they continued to drop but at a decelerating pace, according to Northeast Recycling Council survey data released this week. The average value for all commodities fell to $68.41/ton without residuals, lower by 8.96% on the quarter. This level marks the lowest point since Q4 2020, when the grade hit $60.46. The report includes responses from 18 MRFs representing 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. With residuals, average values were at $52.49/ton with residuals, lower by 12.75% – the lowest point since Q3 2020, when the grade reached $40.19. The report also detailed the change in Q4 average values, with For PET, PP and mixed plastics (#3-7), as well as steel cans, the rate of decrease slowed in the quarter, while OCC, aluminum cans and mixed paper continued falling at the same pace as the previous quarter. Average pricing for both natural and color HDPE bales, brown glass containers and all other paper rose in Q4. However, clear glass, green glass and 3-mix glass containers, along with bulky rigids, fell during the period, after rising in Q3. The report points out that recovered glass often is marketed but at a negative value, meaning recipients are paid to take it away. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and by 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated materials fell by 10.57% without residuals, and by 18.98% with residuals. Although dual-stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as their single-stream counterparts, they did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. Residual material cannot be sold and is landfilled. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. Of the three approaches reflected in the report – single stream, dual stream and source separation – single stream is the most common. Read the article on Resource Recycling's website.
March 6, 2026
Northeast recycled commodity values hit 5-year lows Fourth-quarter MRF commodity values in the Northeast reached five-year lows, as they continued to drop but at a decelerating pace, according to Northeast Recycling Council survey data released this week. The average value for all commodities fell to $68.41/ton without residuals, lower by 8.96% on the quarter. This level marks the lowest point since Q4 2020, when the grade hit $60.46. The report includes responses from 18 MRFs representing 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. With residuals, average values were at $52.49/ton with residuals, lower by 12.75% – the lowest point since Q3 2020, when the grade reached $40.19. The report also detailed the change in Q4 average values, with For PET, PP and mixed plastics (#3-7), as well as steel cans, the rate of decrease slowed in the quarter, while OCC, aluminum cans and mixed paper continued falling at the same pace as the previous quarter. Average pricing for both natural and color HDPE bales, brown glass containers and all other paper rose in Q4. However, clear glass, green glass and 3-mix glass containers, along with bulky rigids, fell during the period, after rising in Q3. The report points out that recovered glass often is marketed but at a negative value, meaning recipients are paid to take it away. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and by 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated materials fell by 10.57% without residuals, and by 18.98% with residuals. Although dual-stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as their single-stream counterparts, they did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. Residual material cannot be sold and is landfilled. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. Of the three approaches reflected in the report – single stream, dual stream and source separation – single stream is the most common. Read report on CRA's website.
By Megan Fontes March 5, 2026
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period October - December 2025 showed a deceleration in the continued decline in the average commodity prices. The average value of all commodities decreased by 8.96% without residuals to $68.41 and by 12.75% with residuals to $52.49 as compared to last quarter. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream / source separated decreased by 10.57% without residuals and 18.98% with residuals compared to last quarter. Dual stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as single stream MRFs but did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. The decrease seen in Steel cans, PET, Polypropylene, and Mixed plastics (#3-7) slowed as compared to last quarter, while the decrease remained consistent in OCC, Aluminum cans, Mixed paper, and Residue. Notably, average values for Natural HDPE, Colored HDPE, All other paper, and Brown glass containers reversed direction from last quarter (where they dropped in value) and saw an increase in value this quarter as compared to last quarter. Clear glass, Green glass, and 3-Mix glass containers, as well as Bulky rigids, reversed direction from last quarter (where they increased in value) and saw a decrease in value this quarter as compared to last quarter.