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: Climate; Energy; Food; Forests; Water; 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 Sophie Leone • November 4, 2026
What We Learned in Princeton
By Keith Loria | Resource Recycling • October 30, 2026
Recycled commodity values at Northeast MRFs increased for the second consecutive quarter as Q2 2026 figures show gains across most materials outweighed a 61% drop in PET, according to the Northeast Recycling Council. In the latest report, average blended values reached $93.03/ton without residuals, up 11.1% from Q1. Including residuals, the value climbed 15.24% to $76.37/ton, NERC said. The gains extended a recovery from Q4 2025, when average values fell to five-year lows of $68.41/ton without residuals and $52.49/ton with them. Values rebounded 22.37% and 26.26%, respectively, in Q1 2026 , though the latest increases came at a slower pace. That late-2025 trough followed declines in OCC, mixed paper, aluminum cans and several plastics grades. Natural and color HDPE were among the exceptions, posting gains during Q4. The new results therefore show a broader recovery in commodity pricing, though PET has continued moving lower through the first half of 2026. PET averaged $40.48/ton in Q2, with reported prices ranging from $8.47 to $70. The resin also declined in Q1, when most other commodities began recovering. Other plastics posted substantial increases. Color HDPE rose 122% to $293.63/ton, while natural HDPE increased 10% to $1,471.31/ton. Polypropylene climbed 72% to $345.37/ton, and mixed plastics Nos. 3-7 advanced 39% to $186.52/ton. OCC increased 17% to $99.21/ton, while mixed paper fell 5% to $45.57/ton. Aluminum cans gained 5% to $2,171.29/ton, and steel cans rose 4% to $221.29/ton. Glass remained mixed. Clear and green container prices declined, brown glass held steady, and three-mix glass carried a negative average value of $37.71/ton, meaning MRFs paid to move the material. The quarterly survey collected commodity pricing from 19 MRFs across 12 states. Two facilities were excluded from the blended average because they marketed insufficient material during Q2 to provide a representative comparison. That calculation included 13 single-stream and four dual-stream or source-separated facilities. Single-stream values rose 12.3% to $91.28/ton without residuals and 11.37% to $74.74/ton with residuals. Dual-stream and source-separated values increased 8.04% to $98.65/ton without residuals and 28.33% to $81.62/ton with residuals, remaining above single-stream values on both measures. Residuals are incoming materials that cannot be marketed and require disposal. The measure without residuals reflects a ton of marketed recyclables; the measure including residuals accounts for managing unmarketable material in each ton processed. Disposal costs increased during Q2, although facilities may calculate those costs differently, NERC noted. The report covers Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Collection systems and state policies affect which materials reach participating facilities. Beverage container deposit programs, for example, divert some glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans away from MRFs, reducing potential revenue from those materials. Single-stream collection remains the most common approach represented in the survey. NERC cautioned that differences in collection programs, market access and operating conditions limit how the regional averages can be applied locally. “This data is not intended to serve as a price guide for MRF contracts,” the organization said. Read on Resource Recycling.
By Megan Fontes • October 29, 2026
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for April – June 2026 reflects the continuing rise of commodity values across the Northeast after several quarters of decline. Dual stream/source-separated MRFs continued to report higher average commodity values than single stream MRFs. The average blended commodity value increased by 11.1% to $93.03 per ton without residuals and by 15.24% to $76.37 per ton with residuals in Q2 2026 compared to Q1 2026. Single stream values increased by 12.3% to $91.28 per ton without residuals and by 11.37% to $74.74 per ton with residuals. Dual stream values increased by 8.04% to $98.65 per ton without residuals and by 28.33% to $81.62 per ton with residuals.