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

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.