Food Waste in Norway 2014

Transcription

1 Author(s): Aina Stensgård and Ole Jørgen Hanssen Report No.: OR ISBN: ISBN: Food Waste in Norway 2014

2

3 Report No.: OR ISBN No.: Report Type: ISBN No.: Commissioned report ISSN No.: Title of Report: Food Waste in Norway 2014 Status and Trends Authors: Aina Stensgård and Ole Jørgen Hanssen Project No.: 1670 Project Title: ForMat Project Awarding Authorities: Matvett AS/ForMat Project Contact Person: Anne-Grete Haugen Thematic Words: Accessibility: No. of Pages incl. Appendix: Food waste Food value chains Extent and reasons Status and trends Approved by: Date: Open 62 pages Project Manager Research Manager Østfoldforskning

4

5 Contents Summary Introduction Aims of the Survey Sub-Project Methodology and Data Basis The Production Stage Amounts Analysed by Product Group The Wholesale Stage The Retail Stage Networks between Food Producers and Retailers Industrial Sector Survey of Food Waste Reduction Efforts by Food Producers The Consumers Extent and Reasons of Discarding Food Results Producers Food Waste Trends for Producers Wholesalers Food Waste Trends for Wholesalers Retailers Food Waste in 2013 from Retailers Food Waste Trends for Retailers Measures to Prevent Food Waste by Producers and Retailers Industrial Sector Survey of Food Waste Reduction Efforts by Food Producers Food Discard and Associated Behaviour by Consumers Frequency of Discarding Food in Different Product Categories Reasons for Discarding Food in Different Product Categories Behaviour related to Factors which could Influence Food Discard Variations in Food Discard and Associated Behaviour between Different Population Groups 48 7 Results from Studies of Food Waste in Norway and Abroad The Oslo Food Bank Nordic Projects The FUSIONS Project Discussion References Appendix Østfoldforskning

6

7 Summary This is the fourth report on developments in food waste in Norway from the ForMat project; it covers a five-year period from 2009 to Figures from producers and wholesalers cover the period , while those for retailers cover and the consumer questionnaires cover the years This year's report has a number of improvements and new analyses compared with previous reports: I. Data on food waste has been received from a total of 89 shops covering the three largest grocery chains in Norway, resulting in the development of new analyses for II. The data basis for producers has been significantly improved. More producers have provided data for the analysis, which has enhanced the figures for certain product categories (e.g. fish and fresh ready-made meals). The category fresh fruit and vegetables has also been better organised and new and better data have become available. III. Matvett AS has conducted an extensive survey of the status of work on food waste in the Norwegian food industry with support from the ForMat project in the preparation of questionnaires and analysis. The findings are presented in this report. IV. There has been further extensive analysis of the questionnaire data on trends in behaviour and attitudes regarding food waste in various consumer groups. The main results are also described in this report. Producers The results for food producers show a slight decrease in the total amount of food waste for the period, from 5% in 2009 to 4.3% in 2013 (roughly a 14% reduction). Food waste increased slightly from 2012 to 2013, from 3.7% to 4.3%. Overall, two product groups showed a reduction in food waste from 2009 to 2013 (dairy products and fresh meat, at -28% and -31% respectively). Five groups show an increase in waste; here changes in fresh fish are due to changes in the data basis (methodology and companies sharing data), while for the other groups there is a real increase in waste. The increase of 5% for fresh baked goods has a much greater effect than the increase of 51% for ready-made meals, because of the high production volume of baked goods. This is despite the fact that fresh baked goods share of total production dropped significantly during the period (from 31% to 17%). Fruit and vegetables and eggs have recorded 0% waste in the production stage, because the part of the production of fruit/vegetables that is not primary production is included in fresh ready-made meals, since production of fresh vegetables in Norway is mainly related to cutting salads, blending, etc. With regard to eggs, it is stated that any waste goes into the production of other foods, and should therefore not be recorded as food waste. Wholesalers At the wholesale stage, the level of food waste is still very low at 0.24% of sales in a total decrease of 45% since Many groups also show a considerable reduction in food waste during the period ( ) of up to 80% (dry goods, fresh meat, fresh and frozen ready-made food). The only group showing an increase in the amount of waste at the wholesale stage was dairy products. New data have been included for fresh fruit and vegetables, which were previously marginally represented in the sample, to provide a more accurate picture of waste in this group.

8 Retailers The retail stage, like the producer stage, shows relatively high waste in some key groups. Wastage is greatest for fresh baked goods, and is also relatively high for fresh fruit and vegetables, potatoes, fresh ready-made food and fresh fish, but relatively low for frozen ready-made food, eggs, cheese, dairy products and dry goods. The percentage of waste for all groups combined is 2.7%. This figure represents only those groups included in the ForMat project, which show a higher amount of waste than the overall waste of goods by retailers in Norway. The wastage figures for retailers are more representative in 2013 than in previous years, since the retail chains now supply data from 89 shops divided into type, size and geographical location. There is a significant reduction from 2010 to 2013 in the largest groups, baked goods and fruit and vegetables, which indicates that the total food waste from retailers is declining. This should not necessarily imply that waste is decreasing as much in terms of weight, as the products with waste that make up the different groups may vary over time. Sliced meat and pâtés, sausages and minced meat have seen the greatest percentage increase in waste for the entire period as a whole ( ), while dry goods have declined the most. The only categories with decreased waste are fresh vegetables, fresh potatoes, fresh baked goods, fresh eggs and dry goods. For all groups as a whole, the amount of waste has remained relatively stable throughout the period. Industrial Sector Survey For the first time, a comprehensive sector survey was conducted among companies in the food industry to reveal how they work on the problem of food waste. It was an online survey and a total of 130 companies provided responses to the questions. The main finding was that an overwhelming majority of companies, regardless of food industry sector and size, consider that work on food waste reduction will have great future importance for their company. A reduction of food waste in the company will have an impact on both profitability and the company s reputation. Food waste reduction is today already integrated into the overall strategies of the companies and to some extent also into their HSE strategy, as environmental and quality-enhancing measures and in lean programmes. In these latter two cases, this is more prevalent in large companies than in smaller ones, and there is also some difference according to food industry sector. A large proportion of the companies have started to survey their own food waste and have allocated dedicated personnel for this task. Cooperation within the value chain is relatively weak except for certain sectors (baked goods and chocolate/confectionery). Only 10% of companies report donating food for redistribution. Over 60% of the companies report having a 0-10% potential for food waste reduction, while large companies often mention a potential of 10-25%. Preventative Measures in the Industry Several of the companies involved in the ForMat project have carried out their own measures to reduce food waste both from their own activities and generally in society. Several producers have taken the initiative to change the shelf life stamp from a use by" to a "best before" date. Some have introduced new and more flexible packaging solutions that take into account the increasing number of smaller households and provide better protection of the product after opening. In the fruit and vegetable sector, new products have been developed based on food scraps (e.g. root vegetable blends). Retailers now much more frequently reduce the prices of products approaching their expiry date, and food redistribution schemes via the Food Bank or directly to catering establishments have been introduced. Østfoldforskning 4

9 Consumer Food Waste and Behaviour Questionnaire surveys of the extent to which consumers discard food from different categories present a less clear picture in 2014 than in 2013, since the frequency of food discard increased in several categories from 2013 to Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, sliced meat, snacks, eggs, milk/cream, yoghurt/sour cream and ketchup all saw an increase in frequency from 2013 to 2014, while fresh baked goods and pan leftovers all decreased in frequency. However, fresh baked goods, fresh ready-made food, fresh meat, milk/cream and pan leftovers show a clear overall reduction in discard frequency during the period In general, the reason most commonly given for discarding baked goods, sliced meat and yoghurt/sour cream was that it was "past its expiry date". The percentage stating that "past its expiry date" was a very important/important reason has generally decreased for all groups from 2013 to This represents a marked reduction in the period of 10.7 percentage points in the proportion of consumers who report always throwing away food that is past its expiry date. The strong focus on the date stamp in the ForMat project may be an important reason for this change. There are also positive trends in the proportion who report often being tempted to buy too large items/too much food and the proportion who think there is too much of the product in the container. The results for changes in behaviour and attitudes with regard to cooking/meals and discarding food are also very positive, as the proportion of consumers who report often making too much food and throwing away pan leftovers declined by 6.8 percentage points from 2010 to There is also a distinct reduction in the proportion taking too large servings on their plates and throwing away the remains, at 3.9 percentage points. Other Activities The ForMat project also has important links to other activities and projects to reduce food waste. The Oslo Food Bank redistributed about 600 tons of food to charities in its first full year of operation, making it already the biggest food bank in the Nordic countries. At least as much is probably redistributed locally, meaning that such work is now very extensive tons of food represents about 2.5 million meals per year, or nearly 7000 meals a day. Several ongoing research projects in Norway and the other Nordic countries have received input for relevant topics from ForMat. This applies to e.g. three Nordic Council of Ministers sub-projects on primary production, date stamps and redistribution and the BioNær programme from the Research Council of Norway on packaging and food waste prevention, run by BAMA and Nofima. Østfoldforskning 5

10 1 Introduction ForMat is a collaborative project covering the entire value chain for the food and beverage sector in Norway, currently limited to foods that are marketed for and used in private households. The ForMat project is run by the company Matvett AS, and is led by a steering committee with representatives from the Food and Drink and Food and Agriculture sections of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), the Norwegian Grocery Sector s Environmental Forum (DMF), the Grocery Producers of Norway (DLF) and the Norwegian Packaging Association, while the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of the Environment participate as observers. These two ministries provide funding for the project together with the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion and the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. In addition, Nofima and Ostfold Research provide the committee with expert advice on food safety, the environment and communications. The aim of the ForMat project is to help to reduce food waste in Norway by 25% by the end of 2015, compared with The project includes three sub-projects: I. An annual study of food waste II. Communication and dissemination III. Networks on preventative strategies and measures The ForMat project is also a member of the partnership of users in the EU-funded FUSIONS project, where Ostfold Research is the research partner, playing a key role in the development of methodology for the mapping and documentation of food waste in Europe (see The ForMat project is also the user representative for two of the Nordic Council of Ministers projects on food waste, durability date marking and food redistribution. This is the fourth report from the ForMat project and its topic is the results of surveys of food waste in Norway from producers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. The present report is based on the same methodology used in previous reports (Hanssen & Schakenda 2010, 2011; Hanssen & Møller 2013), with a data basis for producers, wholesalers and retailers from The data for consumers was collected from web-based surveys in The report also shows data and analysis of trends over a five-year period from , in order to examine any changes in food waste in the various links in the value chain. Østfoldforskning 6

11 2 Aims of the Survey Sub-Project The aim of Sub-Project I in ForMat is to survey and gain knowledge of the amounts/values and composition of food waste in Norway, focusing on the entire value chain, from production via distribution and sales to the consumer. Study will also be made of changes over time in consumer behaviour and attitudes to food waste, and whether this can help to reduce food waste in Norway. Further goals are to facilitate the monitoring of developments in food wastage over time and to enhance knowledge of the causes of food becoming waste at the various stages. In achieving these goals, Sub-Project I will help to realise the main goal of ForMat, namely the reduction of food waste by 25% by the end of Østfoldforskning 7

12 3 Methodology and Data Basis In order to determine status and trends in food waste in Norway since the year 2010, 9 product groups with 21 categories (subgroups) were selected as the basis for the study throughout the value chain; these are presented in Table 3-1. The rationale for the selection of product groups and categories is described by Hanssen (2010), who also describes the methodology used in more detail. All the reports may be downloaded from Table 3-1 Product group Frozen food Fresh fruit and vegetables Product groups included in the ForMat project divided into product categories Fresh baked goods Fresh ready-made food and delicatessen items Fresh fish and shellfish Fresh meat Eggs Dairy products Dry goods Product category 1.1 Frozen ready-made food 2.1 Fresh fruit 2.2 Fresh vegetables 2.3 Fresh potatoes 3.1 Fresh bread 4.1 Fresh ready-made food 4.2 Sausages 4.3 Sliced meat and pâtés 5.1 Fresh fish 6.1 Fresh meat 6.2 Minced meat 7.1 Fresh eggs 8.1 Milk products 8.2 Cheese 9.1 Durable baked goods 9.2 Baked goods 9.3 Dressings, spiced sauces, oils 9.4 Biscuits 9.5 Sweet sandwich spreads in jars and cans 9.6 Sauces and clear soups 9.7 Snacks The main approach chosen in the project was to quantify the composition and amount of food waste from the production, wholesale and retail stages. For the consumer stage, the chosen approach was questionnaires asking respondents whether they have thrown away food from the 21 categories during the past week. The reason for this was that a quantified analysis would be too time-consuming and expensive in terms of the project framework, requiring waste sample analyses to study developments over time. Østfoldforskning 8

13 3.1 The Production Stage Amounts of food waste generated at the production stage for the 21 product categories were identified in cooperation with participating companies in the ForMat project. This year a total of 12 companies contributed data for the reporting year 2013, covering eight of the nine main groups included in the survey (frozen ready-made food, baked goods, fresh ready-made food, fresh fish, fresh meat, eggs, dairy products and dry food). During the entire period from 2009 to 2013, a total of 13 companies contributed data. The data provided by each company was used directly in the analysis, by calculating the percentage of waste in relation to the production volume. Weight was used as the basis, since most companies were unwilling to reveal the value of their production; this has no significance as long as the production is relatively homogeneous in terms of product value. In order to obtain a general idea of the annual amount of food waste from companies, two main methods of calculating waste were used, depending on the quality of company records of how much food waste occurs in the production process: I. If the company has complete knowledge of the amount of usable food discarded in the various stages of production (or combined), based on registration by scanning of packaged products discarded, weighing and recording of product weight, invoicing from companies receiving this type of waste for treatment, etc., this can be used as a basis for reporting. II. If the company only has or can obtain an overview of the total amount of waste generated, it can make/has made a qualified estimate, in collaboration with Ostfold Research, of how much of this is food waste, which can form a basis for reporting. This year all companies used the first method, which means that the data for 2013 are relatively good compared with previous years. Companies also have access to methodology developed in a ForMat network (2011) to ensure that they all use the same template for data collection and that the processes and types of food waste involved are clearly presented; the method also includes suggestions for key figures that can be used in both reporting and improvement work. The report Kartlegging av matsvinn i produksjonsbedrifter - Oppsummering fra nettverksprosjekt [A Survey of Food Waste in Food Producing Companies - A Summary from a Network Project] is available from the ForMat website (matsvinn.no). Changes have been made in the figures back to the year 2010 because of a new determination of fresh fruits and vegetables in food production. Most packing of fruits and vegetables is related to primary production, and here no data has so far been collected from the ForMat project. Data from the primary stage has also generally been difficult to access, but through the Nordic food waste project, estimates will be made of total food waste in 2014 (Erik Svanes, pers. comm.). This has provided improved figures for this product group and will also be available for future years. Østfoldforskning 9

14 Production of fresh vegetables in Norway is thus mainly related to the cutting of salads, ready-made blends, etc., and this category is part of product group 4 (Fresh ready-made food and delicatessen items). New and improved data for food waste from this activity in have also been received from producers, and these data have been added to group 4 along with other items. The figures for fresh fruit and vegetables and for fresh ready-made food and delicatessen items have therefore been changed from previous reports for the whole period, and currently give a much more accurate result for these groups Amounts Analysed by Product Group Central to the interpretation of the results for producers is the amount (tons) of food production and food waste analysed by product group and year. The quantities included in the analysis affect the representativity of the sample of each group. Table 3-2 Percentage distribution of amount produced, by product group included in the analysis Percentage of total amount produced in the analysis (in tons) Product group Frozen ready-made food 2 % 12 % 1 % 1 % 7 % 2. Fruit and vegetables 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3. Fresh baked goods 31 % 26 % 21 % 21 % 17 % 4. Fresh ready-made food and deli 31 % 39 % 31 % 32 % 30 % 5. Fresh fish and shellfish 6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 6. Fresh meat 22 % 21 % 20 % 22 % 16 % 7. Eggs 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 8. Dairy products 0 % 1 % 4 % 4 % 3 % 9. Dry goods and durable products 8 % 1 % 22 % 19 % 25 % The table shows that certain groups dominate, namely fresh baked goods, fresh ready-made food and fresh meat, and together these three groups comprise more than 80% of the amount of goods produced. By comparison, there are several groups that make up <5% of the sample. This uneven distribution between product groups will affect the overall results for food waste in the food industry. The major groups will affect total food waste more than the minor ones, and variation in composition through the period will also affect trends in overall waste over time. Østfoldforskning 10

15 3.2 The Wholesale Stage Estimates of food waste at the wholesale stage have been made on the basis of records of all waste at a large number of wholesale warehouses in Norway. The data mainly apply to product groups distributed through wholesale companies in Norway, and only to a minor extent those distributed directly from producer to retailer, which include: - Fresh baked goods - Fresh unpackaged fish sold at a fish counter - Liquid dairy products (milk and cream) - Beer and soft drinks For the first three groups included in the ForMat registration, the figures are therefore not complete throughout the value chain. Registration was made for a total of 67 product categories in food and beverages, where there is no direct overlap between the classifications used in retail and in wholesale. It has therefore not been possible to identify all product categories at the wholesale stage using the same structure as in the retail stage. All food waste recorded is based on the net value of the product and is calculated as a percentage of the sales of the particular product category. The reason for discarding the product was also recorded, with an emphasis on two main categories: - Not a saleable item because of too short a time to the expiry date - Breakage due to the packaging or the product being damaged during handling or transport The figures back to 2010 have been adjusted because better and more extensive data have been received for the distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables in Norway. This has now provided correct figures for this product group and will also be available for future years. Østfoldforskning 11

16 3.3 The Retail Stage The survey of food waste from retailers is based on information on unsold amounts of food recorded from 30 shops in 2010, 29 shops in 2011, 58 shops in 2012 and 89 shops in The shops are a representative cross-section of retail grocery outlets in Norway, with regard to geographical region, urban or rural location, and shops with and without fresh food sections. Table 3-3 shows the distribution of the 89 retail outlets from 2013 by type of shop and region, where Eastern Norway consists of the counties of Telemark, Vestfold, Buskerud, Oppland, Hedmark, Oslo, Akershus and Østfold, Southern Norway consists of Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder, Western Norway consists of Rogaland, Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal, Central Norway consists of Nord-Trøndelag and Sør-Trøndelag and Northern Norway consists of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark. Southern and Northern Norway do not include shops with a fresh food section, but this is hardly of importance for the representativity of the total sample. Table 3-3 Geographical distribution of the retail outlets reporting in 2013 Fresh food No fresh food Region section section Eastern Norway Southern Norway 0 8 Western Norway 4 15 Central Norway 2 7 Northern Norway 0 9 The net value of registered products ending up as food waste was recorded, and the sum of the net value of the waste was calculated for the major categories in each of the 21 product groups. It is assumed that all food refuse from retailers can be termed as food waste when the figures are stated as a percentage of sales. Sales figures for each shop were also obtained, both total sales and sales of the 21 groups analysed. The product categories included in the food waste study represent about 56% of total sales in the 89 shops, which means that the products involved cover the main areas of food waste. The amount of food waste is calculated as a percentage for the 21 product categories analysed. The 21 selected categories are not representative of the entire range of products in retail outlets with regard to food waste, since several large groups with high sales and a low level of waste are not included, e.g. soft drinks, beer, and non-food products such as tobacco and detergents. Østfoldforskning 12

17 3.4 Networks between Food Producers and Retailers In 2014, ForMat has focused on completing and implementing a toolkit and website for the industry. Matsvinn.no contains information on food waste, simple tools that companies and shops can use to gain a better overview of their own food waste and advice on how they can initiate waste reduction measures in their own business and in networks with others. In order to receive input from the food industry on the challenges and opportunities involved in food waste reduction, Matvett/ForMat held a workshop for the industry. According to the industry, one of the most important measures to increase support for such work is to demonstrate the effects of better use of resources, reduced costs and enhanced reputation for the individual company and the food industry in general. Internally within companies, anti-food waste measures need to be supported by the management and to form part of the company's continuous improvement efforts. To help more companies work systematically at food waste prevention, Matvett, in cooperation with Ostfold Research, has developed a scheme for "the ideal Matvett company (matvett = good food sense). The target group is small and medium sized businesses. The scheme will be tested in Collaboration between retailers and producers in the form of networks is essential to find good solutions to avoid food waste in the value chain. Matvett/ForMat has therefore invited producers and retailers to a new round of networking in The number of networks will depend on the results of the mobilisation efforts that began in November Two applications were also submitted to the BioNær programme under the Research Council of Norway on the basis of networking between food producers, packaging manufacturers and retail chains. One project involves the development of new/improved packaging solutions to reduce food waste in value chains, focusing on meat, fish and fruit/vegetables and packaging production. BAMA is the project owner and Nofima, Ostfold Research and Matvett are all partners in the project. This project was awarded funding by the BioNær programme in December The second project proposal focused on the integration of food waste prevention into lean processes in companies; Matvett was the project owner, with Ostfold Research, Nofima, Prediktor, BAMA, Nortura, NorgesGruppen and others as partners. The project was unfortunately not selected for funding in 2014 and the application may be re-submitted in Østfoldforskning 13

18 3.5 Industrial Sector Survey of Food Waste Reduction Efforts by Food Producers In 2014, the first ever major survey of sectors within the food industry was conducted, with the aim of providing an overview of companies priorities in their food waste reduction efforts and the form these efforts took internally and externally. An online questionnaire was sent via Matvett to all 550 member companies in the organisations NHO Food and Drink and NHO Food and Agriculture. Responses from 165 companies were received, 158 of which stated the sector they belonged to and the number of employees (Table 3-4). As the table shows, there was a good distribution of sectors and numbers of employees, since both large and small companies were covered in most sectors. The bakery, meat and dairy industries had best coverage with respectively 53, 38 and 23 production units (in all cases within a larger group of companies), while fruit and vegetables were only represented by five companies and chocolate and confectionery by four companies. The responses must be said to provide a reasonably representative picture of work on food waste reduction in the Norwegian food industry for most of the sectors of importance for food waste (with the exception of fruit and vegetables). Table 3-4 Composition of the sample of companies that responded to the survey on the status of their food waste reduction efforts in 2014 Sector and number of employees >500 Total Meat Fruit and vegetables Dairy Cereals Animal feed Baked goods Chocolate and confectionery Other foodstuffs Beverages Other Total Østfoldforskning 14

19 3.6 The Consumers Extent and Reasons of Discarding Food The consumer survey consisted of questionnaires twice a year, conducted by Norstat in the form of web panels with 1000 respondents, as part of their weekly data collection. This is a far more efficient way to obtain data than traditional phone interviews, but may lead to some bias in the sample, where those without access to computers and the Internet (especially the older age groups) are excluded. The sample has been tested with regard to the consumer characteristics data for each respondent, but significant deviations from the expected distribution in the sample were not found. Each questionnaire asked 1000 consumers whether they have thrown away food and/or leftovers during the past week from the 21 product categories included in the sample. If they stated that they had discarded a product in one of seven categories, they were automatically routed to follow-up questions about the main reason why they threw away food from this group. There was also a separate questionnaire containing a number of more general questions about food waste, unconnected to the analysis of specific product categories. These were about consumer attitudes, behaviour and knowledge of food waste in Norway. The questions were based on shopping, cooking and eating habits, using standard response alternatives related to various statements the respondents had to consider. The times when the various surveys were conducted are shown in Table 3-5. The weeks were selected to ensure that they would not include or be close to holidays, but be normal weeks as far as possible. Table 3-5 Overview of times of surveys in Type of question Waste of specific product categories and reasons Consumer behaviour and attitudes to food waste in general Week 18 Week 34 Week 24 Week 18 Week 34 Week 24 Week 35 Week 36 Week 15 Week 16 Week 19 Week 20 Total number of respondents A copy of the questionnaire used in the consumer studies is available as an appendix to the 2010 report (Hanssen & Schakenda 2010). The questions were designed by Ostfold Research in cooperation with the steering committee and Annechen Bugge of SIFO. Østfoldforskning 15

20 4 Results 4.1 Producers The results for producers show a slight reduction in the total amount of food waste in the period 2009 to Waste varies between product groups: fresh baked goods and frozen foods are the groups with the most waste, while eggs, fresh ready-made food, meat and dairy products have the least waste. Five of nine groups show an increase in the amount of food waste, while two groups show a reduction Food Waste Trends for Producers The data basis for food producers shows a certain amount of variation in food waste, partly because the companies reporting in the study vary from year to year and partly because there are a small number of cases where companies have changed their methods of assessing food waste. This year the time series for fresh fruit and vegetables has been removed and the time series for fresh ready-made food and delicatessen items has been adjusted, because of significant improvements in the data base. The results for producers in this year's report are thus more accurate than in previous reports. For dairy products, the time series is broken in some years because of missing data. Eggs have no waste at the production stage, as unused remains are reported to go directly into other food production, and this is not considered as food waste. Figure 4-1 shows food waste as a percentage of annual production in tons from 2009 to The percentages marked represent the waste for the various product groups in 2013 and the broken line shows the weighted average for waste in Østfoldforskning 16

21 Food waste as a precentage of production Food Waste in Norway % 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 6,5 % 13,6 % 1,2 % 4,3 % 1,0 % 1,3 % 3,4 % 4,3 % Average 2013 Figure 4-1 Food waste as a percentage of production for 9 product groups from 2009 to 2013 Figure 4-1 indicates a slight overall reduction in food waste from production from 5% to 4.3% in the selected product groups in the period 2009 to 2013; this corresponds to a decline of about 14%. The proportion of food waste decreased from about 5% in 2009 to 3.7% in 2011 and 2012, but then increased to 4.3% in Product groups showing a decrease in the amount of food waste for the period are: Dairy products (-28%) Fresh meat (-31%) These groups show a considerable reduction in food waste in the period, but both groups have a basically low waste percentage. Product groups showing an increase in the amount of food waste for the period are: Frozen ready-made food (+34%) Fresh baked goods (+5%) Fresh ready-made food and delicatessen items (+51%) Fresh fish (+421%) Dry goods (+3.5%) Østfoldforskning 17

22 Over the period as a whole, food waste increased in five of the nine groups. The reason why waste has decreased slightly overall is that fresh meat makes up one-fifth of total production, so that a reduction in the wastage of meat leads to a total decline in food waste (see Section for a detailed description of the sample). Fresh baked goods also have a marked effect on total waste since it accounted for almost 30% of production. This is clearly seen if we compare the bars for fresh baked goods and total ; however, the proportion of fresh baked goods has shown a steady decline throughout the period and has thus in recent years had less effect on the total waste. Waste from baked goods showed a relatively large increase from 2012 to 2013 and was therefore higher in 2013 than in the first year Figure 4-1 also shows that the group fresh fish and shellfish varies during the period. This is probably due to a change in the data collection method which was an important cause of the large increase in the percentage of waste from 2010 to Østfoldforskning 18

23 Food waste as a precentage of sales Food Waste in Norway Wholesalers Results for wholesalers show a decrease of 45% in food waste from Compared with 2009, the waste in 2013 is unchanged, but as the product group with the greatest waste (fruit and vegetables) was not surveyed until 2010, it is more appropriate to consider the waste from 2010 onwards. Developments vary between product groups and for the period as a whole, wastage has been reduced in seven of the nine groups. Only in dairy products has it increased Food Waste Trends for Wholesalers Data from the wholesale stage were obtained from regional and national wholesalers in Norway. Only waste that consists of food thrown away is included in the analysis. Figure 4-2 shows food waste as a percentage of sales for wholesalers from 2009 to As in the producer stage, there is no waste from eggs at the wholesale stage and the time series for fruit and vegetables starts in 2010, as this was the first year with available data for that group. 1,2 % 1,0 % 0,95% 0,8 % 0,6 % 0,4 % 0,2 % 0,0 % 0,06% 0,12% 0,06% 0,17% 0,05% 0,20% 0,05% 0,24% Weighted average 2013 Figure 4-2 Food waste as a percentage of sales for 9 product groups from 2009 to 2013 Østfoldforskning 19

24 Product groups showing a decrease in the amount of food waste for the period are: Fruit and vegetables (-3%) Frozen ready-made food (-75%) Fresh baked goods (-29%) Fresh ready-made food (-76%) Fresh fish (-57%) Fresh meat (-79%) Dry goods (-80%) The product group showing an increase in the amount of food waste for the period is: Dairy products (+44%) At the wholesale stage, several groups have under 0.10% waste, and overall waste in 2013 was only 0.24%. For the value chain as a whole, food waste by wholesalers is low compared with producers (Figure 4-1) and retailers (Figure 4-3) (see the y-axis values). Wholesalers thus contribute very little to total food waste in Norway. The group fruit and vegetables is central to the interpretation of developments in food waste over time at the wholesale stage. We see that total waste is unchanged from 2009 to 2013, but because fruit and vegetables is the group with the most waste, it is inappropriate to compare 2009 with 2013 as food waste from fruit and vegetables was first reported to the project in It is therefore more relevant to compare waste in 2010 (0.44%) with waste in 2013 (0.24%). In the period 2010 to 2013 waste has been reduced by 45%. Results for wholesalers show a clear positive trend for the period up to and including The reason(s) for this are currently unknown, but an attempt will be made to document this better in next year s report. The wholesale sector is changing rapidly, both in terms of technology (automated warehouses) and in flows of goods, which may lead to changes in future data on food waste from the wholesale stage. Østfoldforskning 20

25 4.3 Retailers The results for retailers show that food waste has remained stable at 3.4% during the period. Waste varies between product categories: fresh baked goods have the most waste, followed by fresh fish, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh ready-made food and potatoes. Frozen readymade food has the least waste, followed by dry goods, eggs and dairy products. The trend shows that food waste is increasing for relatively expensive foods and decreasing for relatively cheap foods. Food waste data from retailers has been collected from shops for five years, and the sample has increased from 29 shops in 2009 (one retail chain) to 58 shops in 2012 (two retail chains), and 89 shops in 2013 (three retail chains). The data for 2009 are judged to be inadequate compared with the following years and have therefore been excluded from the analysis for the retail stage. As the number of shops in the analysis has varied during the study, there is a certain risk that changes in the underlying data could affect the results and trends. The results for 2013 are therefore not comparable to the previous years, and we have chosen to display them in three diagrams: Data for 2013, which will form the basis for a comparison with future years, showing the overall amount of food waste from all 89 shops as a percentage of sales (Figure 4-3). The development over time for different types of shops shows the percentage of food waste for the 29 shops that have contributed data during the entire period (Figure 4-4). The development over time for each product category has been chosen to show relative trends, based on data from 2010, which was the first year with good, quality assured data from retailers. This is also represented by the 29 shops that have contributed data for the entire period (Figure 4-5). Østfoldforskning 21

26 Food waste as a precentage of sales value 2013 Food Waste in Norway Food Waste in 2013 from Retailers Figure 4-3 shows how food waste measured as a percentage of sales value is distributed among the selected product categories in % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0,2 % 4,5 % 4,3 % 3,8 % 8,6 % 4,0 % 2,6 %1,8 % 4,6 % 3,5 % 2,1 % 0,6 % 0,8 %0,9 % 0,5 % 2,7 % Figure 4-3 Food waste by product category as a percentage of sales value in 89 retail outlets in 2013 This figure shows that food waste is greatest in fresh baked goods and also relatively high in fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh potatoes, fresh ready-made food and fresh fish, while waste is relatively low for frozen ready-made food, eggs, cheese, milk products and dry goods. The overall percentage of waste for all categories is 2.7%. This figure represents only the product categories in the ForMat project, which have higher figures for waste than the general amount of waste from retailers in Norway. Østfoldforskning 22

27 food waste Food Waste in Norway Food Waste Trends for Retailers Figure 4-4 shows how food waste for the 21 product categories has evolved from 2010 to 2013, with 2010 as the base year, for shops with and without fresh food sections and in total. The figure shows the results from the 29 shops that have contributed data for the entire period. 120% 100% 100% 101% 99% 99% 100% 94% 101% 108% 100% 97% 99% 102% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 4-4 0% Shops with fresh food sections Shops without fresh food sections Total Food waste from 29 shops by type of shop, with 2010 as base year Here we see that the proportion of food waste as a percentage of sales remained relatively stable throughout the period. The figure also shows some difference in the trend between shops with and without a fresh food section, where the former have a stable percentage while the latter show more variation. Figure 4-5 shows the percentage change in food waste from 2010 to 2013 for the 29 shops by product category, where 2010 is the base year (representing 100%). The percentages marked show the changes from 2010 to Østfoldforskning 23

28 % food waste with 2010 as a base year Food Waste in Norway % 175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 108,5 % 120,6 % 105,6 % 80,3 % 82,2 % 67,6 % 147,5 % 141,6 % 128,5 % 105,3 % 182,6 % 69,9 % 117,5 119,4 % % 101,7 % 38,8 % Weighted average 2013 Figure 4-5 Percentage change in food waste from 2010 to 2013 with 2010 as base year (29 shops) There is a considerable reduction in food waste in fresh baked goods and fruit/vegetables during the period, indicating that waste by retailers is declining in general. This does not necessarily imply that food waste measured by weight is decreasing as much, since shifts in waste within the various categories may vary considerably over time. The fact that fresh baked goods, fresh vegetables and potatoes are declining is important, since these categories normally have a high percentage of waste in the entire value chain. Sliced meat and pâtés, sausages and minced meat have had the greatest percentage increase in waste for the period as a whole, while dry goods have had the greatest decline. Apart from dry goods, the only categories showing a decline are fresh vegetables, fresh potatoes, fresh baked goods and fresh eggs. For all categories as a whole, the amount of food waste has remained relatively stable throughout the period. Product categories showing a decrease in the amount of food waste for the period as a percentage of sales are: Fresh vegetables (-20%) Potatoes (-18%) Fresh baked goods (-42%) Eggs (-30%) Dry goods (-61%) Østfoldforskning 24

29 Product groups showing an increase in the amount of food waste for the period are: Frozen ready-made food (+6%) Fresh fruit (+8%) Fresh ready-made food (+21%) Sausages (+42%) Sliced meat and pâtés (+48%) Fresh fish (+28%) Fresh meat (+5%) Minced meat (83%) Milk products (+17%) Cheese (+19%) Food waste has thus increased for products with a relatively high unit cost such as meat, fish and ready-made foods and decreased slightly for products with a lower unit price. Interestingly, virtually all categories containing meat have increased their waste percentage from 2012 to The reasons for food waste trends in individual product categories are not known, and may often be composed of several factors. Since there has not been any systematic survey of the reasons behind food waste at the retail stage, it is difficult to determine the possible causes of both decreases and increases. This should be clarified through the networking projects between producers and retailers initiated by Matvett (see Section 3.4). Østfoldforskning 25

30 4.4 Measures to Prevent Food Waste by Producers and Retailers Since the ForMat project was started in 2010, producers and retailers have developed various measures to reduce food waste in the value chain. Food waste prevention and reduction is mainly important for the profitability of the industry, but also improves the reputation of the individual company. This section briefly presents some examples of measures recently implemented by Norwegian food producers and retailers to prevent and reduce food waste. Date marking and improved packaging Leading companies such as Tine, Q Dairies, Nortura and Mills have changed their date marking to "best before" on all products that can tolerate such a label, so long as this does not compromise food safety. Mills has adopted MAP (modified atmosphere packaging) for a number of products, which has helped to prolong the shelf life of several of their salad spreads, which may lead to reduced waste for this category. The year 2014 saw several launches of smaller consumer packs and packaging with better opening and closing mechanisms. Tine s sliced cheese, Grillstad s salamis with screw caps, sour cream cartons with screw caps from Q Dairies and rocket salad with an opening at the top of the plastic pack are good examples of how better packaging can help consumers to take better care of their food. Production/sales based on food scraps Food scraps can be processed and become full-value products; this is an important measure to prevent food being discarded. BAMA launched freshly processed products such as mashed turnips and pickled cabbage in Such products contribute strongly to food waste reduction, since as much as 77% of the raw material has been separated and would otherwise be used for the production of low-value products. Price reductions Price reductions are an important measure to reduce food waste in retail outlets, and provide consumers with perfectly good food at a cheaper price while helping to reduce the environmental impact involved in food waste. A survey conducted by Opinion on behalf of Matvett shows that 8 out of 10 Norwegians say they buy food on special offer because of the date stamp. This applies particularly to consumers under the age of 40. There are a number of examples of how price reductions have been advertised and how such schemes have been systematised. Menu, Spar, COOP and Rema all offer reductions on foods approaching their sell by date. To make it easier for consumers to find these items, some of the shops have placed them in separate refrigerated sections or distinct coloured refrigerators. To reach a wider customer group than those who are most price-conscious, both Rema and Menu have concentrated on the word "environmental" in their advertising of reduced foods. An example from Rema is Short shelf life, 50% off. Save the environment - Save money. In Menu the message is: Save money and the environment products marked reduced are on special offer due to their date stamp. Eat today, and we save the environment and you save money. In addition, Menu-Ultra has focused on systematic price reductions, where the sale of reduced items is recorded both at the shop level and Østfoldforskning 26

31 product level. Such items are recorded as sales, but it is clearly stated in the system that they are reduced, so that recording them as waste is avoided. Social media as an important channel to reach consumers Several retail chains have dedicated resources for their social media. REMA, Menu and Kiwi all have staff in charge of their Facebook pages. Here consumers can find recipes and useful tips about food. Messages such as look after your food and use up your food represent a focus that will lead to reduced food waste. The consumer campaign Throw away less food Social responsibility as a campaign theme is an example of how an industry can create greater awareness among consumers on important issues. Campaigns that encourage consumers not to buy more of a product than they need are a new angle from the retail sector. Kiwi has achieved good results with the campaign Buy 1, pay for 1 with the key message Throw away less food. Much positive feedback from consumers and good media coverage made this one of the best campaigns ever conducted by this particular chain. Redistribution via the Oslo Food Bank and direct redistribution The Nordic project on food redistribution has shown that for some time several food producers and retailers have regularly donated surplus food to charity. In many towns good networks have been established between local charities and businesses, especially grocery retailers. One of the biggest retail chains has entered into a key redistribution agreement with organisations like the Church City Mission and the Salvation Army, which will make it easier for others to follow suit in Although the volume today is still relatively small, there is a huge potential to increase this in the future, in terms of both food needs and availability from producers and retailers. This will be a focus area in Phase II of the Nordic project on food redistribution in Østfoldforskning 27

32 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway Industrial Sector Survey of Food Waste Reduction Efforts by Food Producers For the first time, a comprehensive sector survey was conducted among companies in the food industry to examine how they work at reducing food waste. A total of 130 companies provided responses to the questions in this online survey. The main findings are: - An overwhelming majority of companies consider that work on food waste reduction will have great future importance for their company, irrespective of sector and size. - A reduction of food waste in the company will have an impact on both profitability and the company s reputation. - Work on food waste is today already integrated into the overall strategies of the companies and to some extent also into their HSE strategy, as environmental and quality-enhancing measures and in lean programmes. In these latter two cases, this is more prevalent in large companies than in smaller ones, and there is also some difference according to sector. - A large proportion of the companies have started to survey their own food waste and have allocated dedicated personnel to deal with this. Cooperation within the value chain is relatively weak except for certain industries (baked goods and chocolate/confectionery). Only 10% of companies report donating food for redistribution. - Over 60% of the companies report having a 0-10% potential for reduction, while large companies often mention a potential of 10-25%. The results of a survey of how member companies of NHO Food and Beverages and NHO Food and Agriculture relate to food waste are shown in Figure 5-1 tofigure A large majority of companies report that food waste will be an important focus area in the future (86%), and there is relatively little variation between companies in terms of size and sector. While all companies with more than 101 employees stated that food waste is or will be an important focus area, there is a small proportion of firms with fewer than 100 employees who did not consider food waste important (Figure 5-1). Yes No Important in the future Do not know 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % >500 Number of employees Figure 5-1 Views on the importance of a focus on food waste in companies, by size of company Østfoldforskning 28

33 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 Splitting the responses into different sectors reveals that it is only in the production of animal feed and beverages that companies are somewhat uncertain or doubtful about the importance of food waste as a future area of focus. This is not surprising, since precisely these two sectors have little wastage in their products. In all other sectors, there is more or less a consensus on the importance of food waste (Figure 5-2). Yes No Important in future Don't know 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Figure 5-2 Views on the importance of a focus on food waste in companies by sector Almost 50% of the companies strongly agree that work on food waste will be of great importance for the reputation of the company going forward and here the support is strongest among medium-sized to large companies, with from 21 to 500 employees. All of the largest companies with over 500 employees strongly agree or agree with the statement (Figure 5-3). Østfoldforskning 29

34 Fraction of respondents in the sample Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway % 90 % Strongly agree Agree Neutral Diagree Strongly disagree 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % >500 Totalt Number of employees Figure 5-3 Views on the importance of a focus on food waste for the company s reputation, by size of company With regard to the importance for profitability of reducing food waste, all companies say that they strongly agree or agree, regardless of size. Here also the most positive attitude is found in companies with employees, with the highest proportion of strongly agree responses (Figure 5-4). Strongly agree Agree Neutral Diagree Strongly disagree 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % >500 Totalt Number of employees Figure 5-4 Views on the importance of a focus on food waste for the company s profitability by company size Østfoldforskning 30

35 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 Companies were also asked to which strategic platform their food waste reduction work belonged (see Figure 5-5): 69% answered that it is part of overall company strategy 16% answered that it is part of the HSE strategy. 27% answered that it is an integrated part of environmental and quality improvement programmes 34% answered that it is integrated into the company s lean programme 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Overall strategy HSE strategy Environmental and quality improvement program Intregrated lean program >500 Totalt Number of employees Figure 5-5 Views on the integration of work on food waste into company strategies by size of company Integration into the company s overall strategy is generally very high, at between 60% and 80% of companies of all sizes. The most integration is found in companies with employees (82%) and in the largest companies with over 500 employees (80%). Integration into HSE strategy is much less frequent; only about 16% of companies report having such integration. The most integration is seen in companies with employees, where about 30% of companies include food waste reduction in their HSE strategy (Figure 5-5), while the smallest and largest companies show the lowest level of integration into HSE at 4.5% (0-10 employees) and 0% (over 500 employees). Work on food waste is more often part of environmental and quality improvement programmes in medium-sized companies ( employees: 47%), but is less prevalent in smaller and larger companies. Østfoldforskning 31

36 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 A similar pattern is seen for integration into lean programmes, where companies with employees (72%) and with employees (68%) show the most integration, while smaller and larger companies less often integrate food waste into their lean programme (Figure 5-5). The spread in responses related to integration into strategic platforms and improvement efforts is considerably greater between sectors than between companies of different sizes (Figure 5-6). 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Overall strategy HSE strategy Environmental and quality improvement program Intregrated lean program Figure 5-6 Views on the integration of work on food waste into company strategies by sector Producers of meat products, dairy products, baked goods and chocolate/confectionery are all above average (68%) in inclusion in overall company strategy, while producers of animal feed (0%) and cereals (33%) are notably below average. Companies in other foodstuffs (38%), the dairy sector (33%) and the fruit and vegetable sector (25%) report most integration with HSE strategies. Producers of dairy products, beverages, animal feed and fruit and vegetables show a high level of integration into environmental and quality improvement efforts and lean programmes, at 50% or more (apart from lean programmes for the fruit and vegetable sector). Integration into lean programmes is especially common in the dairy sector at 80% (Figure 5-6). Østfoldforskning 32

37 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 On the basis of survey responses regarding specific actions implemented by companies to study and prevent food waste, there appears to be a high level of activity in many companies: 32% have dedicated personnel for this work. 38% have integrated the work into the lean programme internally. About 60% report having surveyed food waste in their company. About 10% collaborate with their customers in retail chains on measures to reduce food waste. 12% deliver food to charities for redistribution (serving social clients and needy people: see Section 7.1). 63% of companies report delivering food for animal feed, which is presumed to be for both food and fur production (Figure 5-7). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dedicated personal Integrated lean program Internal surveys Collaboration retail chains Redistribution Animal feed >500 Totalt Number of employees Figure 5-7 Views on the integration of a focus on food waste into the company s improvement efforts by company size There is no great variation with regard to company size in terms of the use of dedicated personnel for food waste reduction efforts (this varies between 20-43% of the companies). Integration into a lean programme is primarily a measure employed by medium-sized and large companies with 51 or more employees. It is also interesting to note that more than 60% of the companies with 11 or more employees report conducting internal surveys of food waste, which is a very important measure to prevent and reduce food waste (Figure 5-7). Cooperation with customers in the retail trade on the reduction of food waste is primarily a feature of large companies with over 500 employees, where 30% of companies report being involved in such cooperation. This also applies to redistribution of food. Supplying waste for animal feed is also more widespread in large companies, although there is also a significant proportion of smaller firms involved (Figure 5-7). Østfoldforskning 33

38 Fraction of respondents in the sample Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 Support for concrete measures by sector is shown in 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dedicated personal Internal surveys Redistribution Integrated lean program Collaboration retail chains Animal feed Figure 5-8 for a selection of the most interesting sectors in the context of food waste. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dedicated personal Internal surveys Redistribution Integrated lean program Collaboration retail chains Animal feed Østfoldforskning 34

39 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 Figure 5-8 Views on the integration of a focus on food waste into improvement efforts in companies from selected sectors Most sectors report having chosen dedicated personnel to work on food waste, except for the fruit and vegetable sector, which is represented by few companies in the sample. These sectors vary between 18% and 44% in integration of work on food waste into a lean programme, with the exception of the dairy sector, which tops the statistics at 86% of companies. With regard to cooperation with retailers, the greatest proportion is found in the chocolate and confectionery (25%) and bakery sectors (20%). The sectors that predominate in internal surveys are dairy (81%), other foodstuffs (78%), fruit and vegetables (75%) and meat (67%), all of which are above average. Redistribution is found in all sectors except the fruit and vegetable sector, but to a very limited extent (11-25% of companies in each sector). The opposite is true of supplying food waste for animal feed ( 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dedicated personal Internal surveys Redistribution Integrated lean program Collaboration retail chains Animal feed Figure 5-8), where all sectors are very well represented, varying from 45% (meat) to 81% (dairy). Østfoldforskning 35

40 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 Companies were also asked to estimate their potential for food waste reduction (Figure 5-9). 90% Significant >25% Quite significant 11-25% 0-10% zero Don't know 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% >500 Totalt Number og employees Figure 5-9 Views on potential for food waste reduction in companies by company size About 10% envisaged a potential reduction of 25% or more. 16% envisaged a 10-25% reduction. 61% envisaged a 0-10% reduction. 8% stated that they had no potential for food waste reduction in their company. It was particularly the biggest companies in the groups with and over 500 employees that reported the highest potentials for reducing food waste, while most of those reporting zero potential were in the group with the fewest employees. Østfoldforskning 36

41 Fraction of respondents in the sample Food Waste in Norway 2014 The fruit and vegetable, dairy, chocolate and confectionery and bakery sectors had the greatest percentage of firms that reported the highest potentials for reduction, while animal feed producers had the most reporting zero potential (see Figure 5-10). 80% Significant >25% Quite significant 11-25% 0-10% zero Don't know 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 5-10 Views on potential for food waste reduction in companies from various sectors In all sectors a large proportion of companies reported a potential for a 0-10% reduction, ranging from meat (72%), other foodstuffs (70%), cereals (68%), baked goods and fruit and vegetables (both 60%) down to animal feed with the lowest proportion at 33% (Figure 5-10). Østfoldforskning 37

42 Change in percentage points Food Waste in Norway Food Discard and Associated Behaviour by Consumers 6.1 Frequency of Discarding Food in Different Product Categories Studies of the extent of discarding different food categories by consumers reveal a less clear picture in 2014 than in 2013, because the frequency of discard increased in several categories from 2013 to Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, sliced meat, snacks, eggs, milk/cream, yoghurt/sour cream and ketchup all increased in frequency from 2013 to 2014, while there was a decrease in fresh baked goods and pan leftovers. - Fresh baked goods, fresh ready-made food, fresh meat, milk/cream and pan leftovers all show a clear overall reduction in discard frequency by consumers over the entire period Changes in the proportion of consumers who state that they have thrown away various categories of food in the past week during are shown in Figure % 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 % 0 % -1 % -2 % -3 % -4 % -5 % Figure 6-1 Changes in the proportion of consumers who report having thrown away various categories of food in the past week during and changes from 2013 to The blue bars show changes throughout the period, indicating a trend towards less food waste reported in several categories, especially fresh baked goods, fresh ready-made food, fresh meat, Østfoldforskning 38

43 milk/cream and pan leftovers. Fridge leftovers and fresh fruit show the greatest increase in the proportion of consumers who have thrown them away over the period as a whole (Figure 6-1). The green bars show changes from 2013 to 2014, revealing a change in the opposite direction for several categories. Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, milk/cream, yoghurt/sour cream and cheese all show an increase of more than 3 percentage points between the two years. The past year has therefore seen a slight setback compared to the situation in 2013, when all categories except fresh fish products showed a reduction in the percentage who reported having discarded food in the past week (Hanssen & Møller 2013). Changes in the percentage who report having thrown away various categories of food are shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3. The figures show a relatively steady decline throughout the period for categories such as frozen ready-made food, fresh baked goods, fresh ready-made food, sliced meat, fresh meat, milk/cream, yoghurt/sour cream and pan leftovers. Fresh fruit and fresh vegetables both show a decline until 2013, but increase relatively sharply again from 2013 to 2014 (Figure 6-2). Fresh fish dishes increased slightly throughout the period, with a peak in % 30% % 20% 21,2 % 20,8 % 16,0 % 14,8 % 15% 10% 5% 11,5 % 11,5 % 6,3 % 9,3 % 0% Figure 6-2 Proportion of consumers who report having discarded food from various product categories (from frozen ready-made food to fresh meat) Østfoldforskning 39

44 35% 30% ,5 % 25% 23,4 % 21,2 % 20% 15% 15,5 % 12,7 % 10% 5% 6,3 % 8,4 % 8,0 % 4,4 % 0% Figure 6-3 Proportion of consumers who report having discarded food from various product categories (from eggs to fridge leftovers). Briefly summarised, these results show a clear overall trend towards fewer consumers who report having thrown away food in the past week in many categories from 2010 to 2014, but the figures for the past year have reversed this trend somewhat, because more consumers report having recently discarded food in several categories in 2014 than in An important question in this context is whether increased awareness of food discard as a problem in society increases awareness among new groups of consumers, making more people conscious of having thrown away food in 2014 than previously. Østfoldforskning 40

45 6.2 Reasons for Discarding Food in Different Product Categories Consumer views of the most important reason for discarding food vary according to category. - Responses for certain groups such as baked goods and fresh fruits and vegetables indicate that many consumers fail to distinguish between "past its expiry date" and reduced quality, since there is no date marking for most products in these groups. - In general, past its expiry date is stated to be the main reason for discarding baked goods, fresh sliced meat and yoghurt/sour cream. - The proportion stating that past its expiry date is a very important/important reason for discarding food has generally declined in all product categories from 2013 to The following charts show the results of analyses of the main reason for discarding food by product category Average % 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Fruits and vegetables Poor product quality Parts of product bad or damaged Too much product in packaging Product damaged due to packaging Poor storage at home or during transport Product expired 3,6 % 2,0 % 9,9 % 22,7 % 28,9 % 32,9 % Fresh bakery products Poor product quality 25,6 % Parts of product bad or damaged 16,9 % Too much product in packaging 11,9 % Product damaged due to packaging 2,5 % Poor storage at home or during transport Product expired 8,1 % 35,0 % Figure 6-4 Proportion of consumers reporting as very important/important various reasons for discarding fresh fruit and vegetables and fresh baked goods in the past week - average and data for 2014 For fresh baked goods, the situation in 2014 was that roughly 35% stated that the main reason why food was thrown away was that it was past its expiry date, while 25% considered poor product quality to be most important reason and 17% said it was that parts of the product were damaged. The results indicate some decline in the proportion who reported past its expiry date as the main reason, while Østfoldforskning 41

46 parts of the product damaged has increased steadily from year to year. Very few stated that poor packaging was an important reason for discarding food. For fresh fruit and vegetables, the main reason for discarding food was that parts of the product were bad or damaged (33% of consumers), while poor product quality was the second most important reason, at 28% of responses (Figure 6-4). The proportion who mentioned poor product quality has increased steadily over the period, while the opposite applies to parts of the product being damaged. Nearly 23% stated that past its expiry date was the main reason. Since there is generally no date marking on fruit and vegetables (chopped salads are an exception), the responses probably indicate that "past its expiry date" is confused with loss of quality. Poor storage at home or during transport home is only given as an important reason by 10% in 2014, which is the highest percentage in the period (Figure 6-4). This may indicate the root cause of fruit and vegetables losing their quality and being discarded, while the other causes mentioned most commonly are "symptomatic causes" as a result of poor storage conditions. Fresh sliced meat Poor product quality Parts of product bad or damaged Too much product in packaging Product damaged due to packaging Poor storage at home or during transport Product expired 2014 Average % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9,6 % 2,6 % 0,0 % 3,5 % 27,8 % 56,5 % Fresh fish-products Poor product quality Parts of product bad or damaged Too much product in packaging Product damaged due to packaging Poor storage at home or during transport Product expired 19,0 % 9,5 % 19,0 % 3,2 % 14,3 % 34,9 % Yoghurt and sour cream Poor product quality Parts of product bad or damaged Too much product in packaging Product damaged due to packaging Poor storage at home or during transport Product expired 16,1 % 8,4 % 3,9 % 2,6 % 3,9 % 65,2 % Figure 6-5 Proportion of consumers reporting as very important/important various reasons for discarding fresh sliced meat, fresh fish products and yoghurt/sour cream in the past week - average and data for 2014 By far the most important reason given for discarding fresh sliced meat is "past its expiry date", which was stated by 57% of consumers in 2014; however, this is about 5 percentage points lower than in Østfoldforskning 42

47 2013 (Figure 6-5). The second most important reason in 2014 was poor product quality at 28%, which was the highest figure in the period. Reasons related to packaging and transportation/storage were important for very few respondents, and show a decreasing trend throughout the period (Figure 6-5). The fact that producers have replaced "use by" with "best before" on the date stamp of several kinds of sliced meat during the period does not seem to have affected consumers, except possibly in 2014 which represents a break in the trend. For yoghurt/sour cream, past its expiry date is also given as the main reason for discarding the product in 2014 by a large proportion of consumers (65%) (Figure 6-5). This is a decrease compared to 2013 of approximately 9 percentage points, but is still surprisingly high considering that these are products with a "best before" date stamp, which do not represent any risk to eat even several weeks after the date specified. Poor product quality is the second most important reason, given by 16% of respondents in 2014, which is the highest percentage in the period. Østfoldforskning 43

48 6.3 Behaviour related to Factors which could Influence Food Discard Analyses of behaviour related to areas of importance for food waste by consumers show several positive trends during the period: - The proportion who report always throwing away food that is past its expiry date and for whom this is an important/very important reason for discarding food has decreased considerably during The proportion stating that food is often damaged during transport home is decreasing, while a greater proportion of consumers are concerned about proper storage of food on the way home from the shop. - The proportion reporting that they make too much food or take too large servings and throw away the remains immediately has declined during the period. - There is little change in behaviour related to the planning of shopping and choices made in shops. Just as in the patterns of discarding food, there is a large amount of data forming the basis for the analysis of changes in behaviour that may affect the extent of food waste by consumers. The survey questions are related to five key areas of behaviour and how far the respondent agrees with a set of statements about behaviour in their household: - Buying food and shopping patterns - Packaging and interpretation of date stamps on food - Transport and storage of food - Meals and cooking - Food discard and treatment of food waste. The survey results regarding changes in behaviour related to purchasing and shopping patterns are shown in Figure 6-6. Østfoldforskning 44

49 2014 Average 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Buy too much of each product Normally use shopping list Normally know how much to buy of each product Often buys too much/too big units of product Too bad quality of product at shopping 27,2 % 24,7 % 35,0 % 64,0 % 85,2 % Storing and transport Quality reduced through transport to home Quality reduced through wrong storage conditions Always keep food well chilled in transport home Always store food in right conditions at home 9,7 % 14,0 % 49,7 % 87,9 % Data labelling and packaging Date label expired before product has been eatehn I always throw away food that has expired I know well the difference between data label It is often too much product in primary packaging Packaging has often too bad quality I normally store food in special boxes rather than 30,7 % 24,8 % 32,0 % 48,8 % 57,1 % 77,7 % Figure 6-6 Percentages responding "strongly agree/agree" to statements about buying food and shopping behaviour average and data from 2014 As the figure shows, most consumers believe that they have a good overview of what they need to buy (84.7% in 2014) and that they rarely buy too much or too large items (23.2%). A large majority state that they usually use a shopping list when shopping (65.9%) and only 26.7% often buy too much of each product. A large majority of consumers say they are careful to store food properly at home (87.3%) and nearly half say they ensure that food is kept well chilled during transport home (49.9%). This fits in well with the fact that a very small proportion believes that food deteriorates when stored in the home or during transport home (12.9% and 8.7% in 2014). 76.1% of consumers say they are very familiar with the different systems for date marking of food, while 52.3% state that food passes its expiry date before they get time to eat it. In 2014, only 23% stated that they always throw away food that has passed its expiry date (Figure 6-6). 29.4% of consumers say there is often too much of the product in the container, while only 22.1% reported poor packaging as a very important/important reason for discarding food. 46.1% of consumers prefer to store food in other containers than the original packaging, which indicates that this is not optimal for storage in the home.. Changes in behaviour and knowledge during the period are shown in Figure 6-7. The most interesting result here is the marked reduction in the proportion of consumers who report always throwing away food past its expiry date (a reduction of 10.7 percentage points in the period and 6 percentage points from 2013 to 2014). The strong focus on date marking in the ForMat project may be an important reason for this change. We also see positive trends in several other reasons for discarding food, such Østfoldforskning 45

50 as a 3 percentage point reduction from 2013 to 2014 in the proportion who say they are often tempted to buy for too large items/too much food. The results also show a clear decrease in the proportion of consumers who think there is too much of the product in the container (a 5.5 percentage point decrease from 2013 to 2014) and who believe that inadequate packaging leads to food discard (2.7 percentage points from 2013 to 2014). Percentage change Percentage points change % -9% -6% -3% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% Buy too much of each product Normally use shopping list Normally know how much to buy of each product Often buys too much/too big units of product Too bad quality of product at shopping Storing and transport Quality reduced through transport to home Quality reduced through wrong storage conditions Always keep food well chilled in transport home Always store food in right conditions at home Data labelling and packaging Date label expired before product has been eatehn I always throw away food that has expired I know well the difference between data label It is often too much product in primary packaging Packaging has often too bad quality I normally store food in special boxes rather than -5,8 % -2,9 % -2,5 % -3,0 % -6,0 % -3,7 % -5,5 % -0,7 % -0,4 % -0,2 % -3,0 % -2,7 % -4,4 % -1,3 % -1,1 % Figure 6-7 Percentages responding "strongly agree/agree" to statements about behaviour associated with shopping patterns, storage/transport, and packaging/date marking trends (percentages underlined indicate a significant Chi square test (p<0.05) for the entire period ). Østfoldforskning 46

51 The results of behaviour related to cooking and waste generation and treatment are shown in Figure 6-8. A large proportion of consumers say they take smaller portions rather than throwing away leftovers (46.9%). However, 28.6% state that they often make too much food and discard pan leftovers. Only 11.6% give leftovers to their pets, while 16.5% think it is acceptable to throw away food as long as it goes to biogas or compost. Even with the increased focus on the production of biogas in several regions, most people realise that it is preferable to avoid discarding food rather than using it for biogas production. Over half the consumers report having become more aware of the problem of food waste during the past year (50.9%) and as many as 36.9% say they have managed to reduce food discard in the past year. Often makes too much food and throw away left overs Often takes too big portions and throw away plate residuals Often eat too much food to reduced food waste Often takes smaller portions to prevent food waste We ofte prepart too much food for dinner 2014 Average 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20,8 % 33,9 % 28,7 % 30,8 % 48,2 % Food waste behaviour Food waste in normally given to pet animals It is ok to throw away food if it goes to bio gas Been more conscious to amount of food being wasted Our household has reduced food waste last years 12,0 % 19,8 % 49,5 % 35,0 % Figure 6-8 Percentages responding "strongly agree/agree" to statements about behaviour associated with storage and transport of food trends (percentages underlined indicate a significant Chi square test p<0.05). Østfoldforskning 47

52 Changes in behaviour and attitudes with regard to cooking/meals and food discard in the period are shown in Figure 6-9. The results here are also very gratifying; the proportion of consumers who say they often make too much food and throw away the leftovers has been reduced by 6.8 percentage points during and by almost the same figure from 2013 to There is also a clear reduction in the proportion who take too large helpings on their plates and throw away the leftovers (3.9 percentage points). The proportion who report often making too much food for dinner decreased by 7.2 percentage points from 2013 to There is also a clear trend towards fewer people finding it acceptable to let food waste go to biogas/compost (4.3 percentage points reduction from 2010 to 2014 and 3.6 percentage points from 2013 to 2014). Percentage change Percentage points change % -9% -6% -3% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% Often makes too much food and throw away left overs Often takes too big portions and throw away plate residuals Often eat too much food to reduced food waste Often takes smaller portions to prevent food waste We ofte prepart too much food for dinner -6,5 % -3,9 % -3,5 % -7,2 % 0,4 % Food waste behaviour Food waste in normally given to pet animals It is ok to throw away food if it goes to bio gas Been more conscious to amount of food being wasted Our household has reduced food waste last years -3,6 % -0,4 % -1,7 % 0,2 % Figure 6-9 Percentages responding "strongly agree/agree" to statements about behaviour related to meals/cooking and waste generation and treatment trends ((percentages underlined indicate a significant Chi square test p<0.05 for the entire period ). Østfoldforskning 48

53 6.4 Variations in Food Discard and Associated Behaviour between Different Population Groups There are still significant differences between consumers in terms of age and household size in behaviour that can affect food waste. The general picture is as follows: - Consumers aged 25 years or younger and the age group years exhibit a behaviour pattern that leads to more food waste than in those aged 60 years and over, and to some extent also those aged Consumers in one and two person households show behaviour less likely to lead to food waste than consumers in larger households. - There are positive trends throughout the period for all age groups and household sizes, including the priority target groups of young consumers and those from large households, particularly with respect to date marking and discarding pan leftovers. It has long been clear that there are relatively large age variations in consumer behaviour with regard to shopping, planning meals and discarding food. It is therefore interesting to see whether these differences still exist and whether there are differences in behaviour trends in some key areas. Figure 6-10 shows the proportion of consumers who state that they always discard food past its expiry date. 60 % < 26 years old years years 60+ years All respondents 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 45,0% 43,0% 34,1% 33,7 % 14,5% 31,6% 28,9% 25,0% 23,0 % 12,1% 0 % Figure 6-10 Proportion of consumers stating that they always throw away food past its expiry date by age group (percentages underlined indicate a significant Chi square test p<0.05). Østfoldforskning 49

54 The figure clearly shows that there are age-related differences; the proportion that always discards food past its expiry date is far higher for the younger than the older age groups. While as much as 31.6% aged years and 28.9% below 26 years reported always throwing away food past its expiry date, this was stated by only 12.1% of people 60 years and older. However, considering all the measures and information on date marking and food waste, a very positive feature is that all age groups show a significant reduction during the period. For the entire sample there is a decrease of 32% from 2010 to 2014 in the proportion who report always discarding food past its expiry date (Figure 6-10). The analysis also shows that a greater percentage of the younger consumers report buying too much food or too large items, at 32% for the age group years and 30% for those below 26 years in The trend over time shows an increase for most groups from 2010 to 2013, while all groups show a marked decline from 2013 to One possible reason for this change could be the extensive campaign run by one of the supermarket chains in winter/spring 2014, since there is such a marked break in the trend in the past year. Behaviour related to cooking also shows considerable age differences between consumers; here about 33% of consumers aged years reported often making too much food and discarding pan leftovers in 2014, while this was true of only 22.5% in the age group 60 years and older. Here too we see a positive development over time in that all age groups show a clear tendency towards less discard of pan leftovers. For the entire sample, there is a 19% decrease from 2010 to 2014 in the proportion who report making too much food and throwing away pan leftovers, while the reduction is 28% and 23% respectively for consumers aged below 26 years and years from 2010 to Østfoldforskning 50

55 Previous ForMat reports and findings from the research project Food Waste Prevention have shown a greater frequency of food waste in households with young children than in those with one or two persons. An analysis was therefore conducted of changes in consumer behaviour over time based on how many people the questionnaire respondents represent. The results are shown in Figure The proportion of consumers in different household sizes reporting only discarding food on the basis of the date stamp is shown in Figure % 40 % 35 % 1 person 2 persons 3 or more persons All respondents 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 28,0% 23,0 % 21,7% 19,7% 10 % 5 % 0 % Figure Proportion of consumers stating that they always discarded food past its expiry date by household size (percentages underlined indicate a significant Chi square test p<0.05). This figure clearly indicates that households with three or more people (28% in 2014) throw away food only on the basis of the date stamp to a greater extent than one person households (21.7% in 2014) and two person households (19.3% in 2014). The positive feature is a significant tendency towards less waste due to the date stamp in all groups, including households with three or more persons where the frequency declined from 41% to 28% between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 6-11). This is a clear indication that consumers seem to have taken in the message that the date stamp alone should not determine whether food can be eaten, and this also applies to a considerable extent to priority target groups. All groups of households are now at the same or a substantially lower level compared to the lowest level in 2010 (about 28%) and the change over time is statistically significant for all groups. Østfoldforskning 51

56 Changes in the frequency of unnecessarily large purchases or purchases of too many/large items show a less clear trend than the two preceding areas of behaviour. For all groups except one person households, results show a slight increase in the percentage of consumers who bought too much food from 2010 to 2013, while there was a relatively clear decline from 2013 to With the exception of one person households, the 2014 results therefore ended with a slight reduction from baseline in 2010, although the changes were only significant for one person households. The distinct change from 2013 to 2014 may be seen in the context of the campaign of one of the supermarket chains "Buy 1, pay for 1", which received a great deal of media coverage. With regard to the planning of meals and discard of pan leftovers due to making more food than needed, the results also reveal clear differences between the groups of households, with households of three or more on top (37% in 2014) and one person households at the bottom (17% in 2014). All groups showed a slight increase in frequency of food discard from 2010 to 2013 but a marked decline from Households of three or more people showed the greatest decline, from 45% in 2013 to 37% in 2014, and all groups of households ended lower in 2014 than in The change from 2013 to 2014 can also be taken as an indication that consumers have generally become more conscious of using leftovers, which also applies to the target group in particular focus. Østfoldforskning 52

57 7 Results from Studies of Food Waste in Norway and Abroad 7.1 The Oslo Food Bank In 2012, the ForMat project was requested to take responsibility for further progress in efforts to establish a food bank for the Oslo area. The Oslo Food Bank was established in September 2013 and thus had its first full year of operation in The ForMat project therefore no longer has any formal role in the operation of the food bank, but it is appropriate to briefly mention some of its results since it helps to reduce food waste and also has an important social function. An overview by the Oslo Food Bank reveals that it redistributed around 600 tons of food to charities in its first full year of operation, which makes it already the largest food bank in the Nordic countries. The Oslo Food Bank has an important function in complementing the direct local redistribution to charities by shops and food producers in that it receives large consignments of food from wholesalers and producers. Such consignments cannot normally be handled in direct redistribution because of logistics and storage capacity. However, the Food Bank can ensure that food distribution is spread over large areas and involves more actors, as witnessed by the fact that over 70 organisations over a wide area of Eastern Norway received food in The redistribution of 600 tons of food is not a great deal in the overall picture, but if we include the fact that the Nordic project described in Section 7.2 probably redistributed at least as much locally, this activity becomes quite significant tons of food represents about 2.5 million meals per year or nearly 7000 meals each day throughout the year, which both reduces food waste and provides a large number of needy people with nutrition. Østfoldforskning 53

58 7.2 Nordic Projects In 2013 a new large Nordic project was initiated by the Working Group on Food under the Nordic Council of Ministers, which included suggestions for suitable topics from the Norwegian ForMat project, among others. In April 2013 the project start with three sub-projects was approved; this involves all the Nordic countries except Iceland and the management of the project and sub-projects is divided between the Nordic countries: - Further work on mapping and documentation of food waste from primary production in the Nordic countries, led by the Swedish Board of Agriculture - Evaluation of how date marking is practised in the Nordic countries, and how this affects the extent of food waste, originally led by Finland, but transferred to Ostfold Research in summer 2014 due to personnel changes - Evaluation of food redistribution schemes through voluntary organisations, including food banks, led by Ostfold Research The project has a total budget for of about NOK 4 million and the ForMat project serves as a reference group for project work in Norway. The first phase of the projects has yielded a number of interesting results. The first sub-project has focused on certain selected types of food (carrots, onions, peas, wheat and farmed fish), concentrating on the extent and causes of food waste from primary industries. The results will be published in winter 2015 and the work will continue in Phase II. The study of date marking has focused on how the food industry determines the durability of products in the different countries, whether the date stamp is "best before" or "use by" and the length of shelf life in each country for eight product groups. The study used a survey and in-depth interviews in different companies in each country. The survey showed that many product groups in Norway are marked with a longer shelf life than in the other Nordic countries, and that shelf life varies considerably between the different countries. The results of this survey will also be published in winter 2015 in a separate report. The third sub-project has concentrated on the redistribution of food in the Nordic countries through newly established food banks in Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Oslo and direct redistribution from shops and producers to charities. In Norway there were studies of three towns, Fredrikstad, Kristiansand and Trondheim in addition to the Oslo Food Bank. The survey showed that redistribution is widespread, and that local direct redistribution is at least as extensive as redistribution via food banks. In addition, the potential and the need for food redistribution are much greater than the current level, which suggests that the importance of redistribution may increase. The report from this sub-project has been published by the Nordic Council of Ministers and can be downloaded from the Council website Østfoldforskning 54

59 7.3 The FUSIONS Project In 2012, funding was announced for a major research project on food waste under the European Commission Framework Programme 7 (FOOD). Ostfold Research was invited to collaborate with other research groups in Europe, with the ForMat project as a Norwegian reference group and member of the partnership of users. The FUSIONS project (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies 2 ) was approved by the EU in the spring of 2012, and started in August 2012 with a duration of four years. The project has 21 research partners in 13 EU countries, and all the Nordic countries except Iceland are involved. The project aims to: - Harmonise definitions and methods of food waste monitoring in Europe - Improve understanding of how social innovation can reduce food waste - Develop guidelines for a common Food Waste Policy for EU-27 Ostfold Research plays a key role in the part of the FUSIONS project concerned with the harmonisation of methods for monitoring food waste. In cooperation with SIK and IVL in Sweden, WRAP in the UK, MTT in Finland, the University of Vienna in Austria and BIOIS in France, efforts are coordinated to describe the experiences of past and present projects in both Europe and the United States and form a basis for a common methodology. In this work, the experiences from the methodology developed in the ForMat project are of great benefit. In 2014 Ostfold Research coordinated work on two extensive reports from the FUSIONS project: - Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice - Standard approach on quantitative techniques This work will be continued in 2015 with the development of a Manual for the Mapping and Documentation of Food Waste under the leadership of BIOIS, and the testing of methodology through the provision of data and statistics on food waste from as many EU countries as possible. 2 Østfoldforskning 55

60 8 Discussion Retailers, wholesalers and producers The ForMat project has studied food waste in the various stages of the value chain over a five-year period. The results for the retailers, wholesalers and producers show that the proportions and trends in food waste vary between product groups and between the stages in the value chain. However, the reasons for the differences between product groups and causes of trends in each product group have not been studied equally well. But in 2011 ForMat conducted a survey among store managers about the main reasons why food waste occurs throughout the value chain. The survey did not explore the reasons behind trends over time for individual groups; it would be interesting to explore this more closely through networking and further work in the ForMat project. The survey revealed that the reason most often given for food discard by retailers is that the food cannot be sold because it is past its expiry date. However, this is not a root cause, but rather a symptomatic cause. According to a survey conducted in 2011, the main root causes of food waste at the retail stage are: - Difficulties in estimating how much will be sold and should be ordered. This is particularly a problem with seasonal products and products sensitive to weather conditions, such as barbecue items in summer. - Too many consumer units in the retail pack, i.e. the cartons/trays delivered to the shop contain far more consumer units than the shop can sell. - An unnecessarily wide range of products. Analysis of waste as a percentage of sales shows a sharp increase for many groups when sales are slack. This applies especially to products with a short shelf life. Other causes are also important, such as the need for pressure on products and promotions (see Figure 8-1). A summary was also made of some important reasons for unnecessary food waste in the interface between food producers and retailers; these are presented in Appendix 1. Four areas were highlighted as important for the prevention of food waste: A. Type and structure of shop/adaptation of range of food items/retail chain policies B. Improved ordering procedures, optimised production series/deliveries and better flow of information in the distribution chain C. Optimal size of trade units and optimal distribution and exposure conditions, especially in relation to temperature and light D. Date marking and how this is practised (correct length of time, correct division between the stages, not too rigid practice). Østfoldforskning 56

61 Number of points from questionnairs Food Waste in Norway Root causes for food being wasted Figure 6-12 The number of times a cause of food waste was mentioned as important; total figures for six product groups (source: Hanssen & Getz 2011) In order to reduce food waste by retailers, the following measures may be appropriate at the production and retail stages: - Improved forecasting tools and increased information exchange between suppliers and customers - A more critical assessment of the need for a wide selection of items with a short shelf life or low sales - Increased use of reduced prices on goods approaching their expiry date - Reduction in the range of goods with a short shelf life near to closing time, such as fresh baked goods - Smaller retail packs for products with low sales to ensure correspondence between the quantities bought and sold Østfoldforskning 57

62 Fortunately, several of these measures seem to have already gained a certain foothold in the food industry and retail trade in Norway today, cf. Section 4.4. The following root causes of food waste by producers have been recorded (Hanssen & Getz 2011) - The expiry time is shorter than the industry threshold - Products are damaged during storage - Incorrect packaging or labelling - Errors during the production process - The products do not satisfy other standard requirements The causes of food waste by wholesalers and producers have not been studied in as much detail as for retailers. This also provides a much weaker basis for the recommendation of measures to reduce waste in these stages. But on the basis of the studies of causes in the retail trade, the following measures for producers and wholesalers may be recommended: - Increased degree of differentiation between retail packs for shops with high/low product rollover to avoid too large items in retail packs - Closer cooperation between producers, wholesalers and retailers is proposed to reduce the extent of waste related to surplus orders - Increased cooperation between producers and retailers on promotions and product range can provide a basis for a significant reduction in food waste (e.g. root vegetable blends) Consumers For household food waste, there have not been similar systematic annual measurements of the waste actually generated during the period. The waste sample analyses conducted in Fredrikstad and Hallingdal in 2011 were not followed by further similar analyses, but a new survey was conducted in the first quarter of 2015 to form a better basis for studying changes over time. Ostfold Research, Mepex and Statistics Norway carried out a project for the Norwegian Environment Agency in 2013 where data from a large number of waste sample analyses were analysed (Hanssen et al. 2013). A better data basis led to a lower estimate of the quantity of food waste from Norwegian households, from 51.1 kg to 46.3 kg. This was not a reduction in the amount of waste as such, but only the result of improved data. Waste sample analyses conducted by Oslo City Council showed that people in Oslo discarded 4 kg less waste in 2014 than in 2013, indicating that the amount of food waste also declined (Aftenposten, ). The results of the surveys also suggest this, where several behavioural factors with a possible influence on the extent of food waste appear to have shown a positive trend in the years , particularly in the last two years. Other very encouraging findings in the surveys are that far fewer people appear to allow the date stamp to be the decisive factor, more people are concerned about correct storage of food to maintain quality, fewer people buy more food or larger units than necessary and many more seem to keep pan leftovers. Furthermore, statistics show that it is largely people from the main target groups who have contributed to this positive development (Hanssen & Møller 2013), which suggests that the message is now reaching them. However, food waste from Norwegian households is still well above that of Finland and Sweden, at 23 kg and 28 kg per capita and year respectively. But both those countries also have a far lower proportion of food in wet organic waste, which may imply that the difference is partly due to the definition of food waste (Hanssen et al. 2013). Østfoldforskning 58

63 Food producers can help consumers to reduce food waste in several ways: - Changing the date stamp from "use by" to "best before" where justifiable and informing consumers that products marked "best before" can be eaten after the date if they smell and look good. - Providing sizes of consumer packaging that are suitable for both small and large households. - Good opening/closing mechanisms on consumer packaging that protect the product after the first-time opening, especially for sliced meat and cheese. - Package design that facilitates complete emptying, perhaps also with reference to the surface properties of the packaging and the flow properties of the product. - Consumer information about correct storage of food, especially fresh fruit and vegetables which often need particular light and temperature conditions. There is also much the consumer can do to reduce food waste at home, such as planning shopping and using a shopping list, taking suitably-sized portions of food, keeping and using pan leftovers, storing food correctly at home and during transport home, etc. Food waste in Norway The 2011 ForMat report (Hanssen & Schakenda) contained a calculation of the total amount of food waste in Norway from the stages in the value chain involved in the ForMat project. Since then there has been no new study of data from the producers, wholesalers or retailers, and these data are presented unchanged in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Estimated amounts of food waste from different stages in the value chain in Norway (based on Hanssen & Schakenda 2011, Hanssen et al. 2013) Tons Percentage Stage in value chain of total Primary production - - Food production % Wholesale stage, including distribution % Retail stage (retail trade) % Horeca - Consumer stage/households % Overall food waste % Kg per capita from entire value chain 72.2 Kg per capita from households 46.3 The total food waste from the parts of the value chain where the ForMat project has a special responsibility to focus is about tons per year, or roughly 36% of the total amount. By comparison, household food waste accounts for about tons or approximately 64% of the total food waste from the ForMat section of the value chain (Table 6-1). In connection with the final ForMat report after 2015, new calculations will be made of food waste in Norway for each link in the value chain and overall. Østfoldforskning 59

64 Further work Since the ForMat project started in 2010, it has taken time to build up a reasonably robust organisation responsible for communication aimed at the main target groups, among both producers and consumers. It is only in the last two years that this has come about, partly through a better financing scheme involving both the industry and the government. This may well be an important part of the explanation of the changes now apparently taking place in food waste behaviour in companies and among consumers. The sector survey among member companies of NHO Food and Drink and NHO Food and Agriculture shows that food waste measures now have a strong foundation in corporate strategies and that internal resources are being allocated to identify food waste and integrate it into quality improvement processes such as lean production. New products based on food scraps, more flexible packaging solutions, the Kiwi campaign of 2014 which focused strongly on not buying more than necessary, retail chains that discount products about to reach their expiry date, the environmental award to COOP and the establishment of the Oslo Food Bank are all important measures that generally draw attention to the importance of reducing food waste in society. The response by consumers is also clearly seen in the survey. However, it has not yet been documented to what extent these changes in behaviour and attitudes actually result in reduced amounts of food waste in the dustbins of households and companies. Here the ForMat project plans to make a contribution in 2015 that hopefully can be followed up in future years. By repeating the waste sample analyses conducted in Fredrikstad and Hallingdal in 2011 with the same methodology and sampling, it will be possible to see changes in the amount and composition of food waste. Increased cooperation with local authorities for annual waste sample analyses to record food waste is a further measure initiated by the ForMat project. Cooperation is also being established with actors in the waste sector, which may lead to access to far more food waste data from the industry in the coming years, and thus provide the opportunity to see clearer trends in amounts of food waste in the value chain on the way to the consumer. The ForMat project is unique in the European context with its close links between different players in industry, government and research institutions. Such close cooperation related to the systematic study of food waste throughout the value chain, network projects between actors in the retail trade and food production, together with research based on the data, have few parallels in Europe. As far as is known, there are no other countries making systematic annual surveys of the extent and causes of food waste (Møller et al. 2014). This has also led to Norwegian research groups gaining key roles in Nordic and European projects on food waste. The links between national efforts and the international network provide many positive synergies, and will benefit from further development in the future. Østfoldforskning 60

65 9 References Hanssen, O. J., Kartlegging av nyttbart matavfall i Norge. Metodisk grunnlag - rapport til ForMat- prosjektet. Ostfold Research OR 21.10, Fredrikstad Hanssen, O.J., Getz, R., Rapport fra Arbeidsgruppe for Overordnede Strategier for Forebyggingstiltak mot Matavfall Rapport fra ForMat delprosjekt IV Forebygging. Hanssen, O. J., Schakenda, V., Nyttbart matavfall i Norge status og utviklingstrekk Rapport fra ForMat-prosjektet. Ostfold Research OR Hanssen, O. J., Schakenda, V., Nyttbart matsvinn i Norge Analyser av status og utvikling i matsvinn i Norge Rapport fra ForMat-prosjektet. Ostfold Research OR Hanssen, O. J., Skogesal, O., Møller, H., Vinju, E., Syversen, F. V., Kunnskap om matsvinn fra Norske husholdninger - Rapport til Miljødirektoratet. Ostfold Research OR Hanssen, O. J, Møller, H., Sundt, P., Stenmarck, Å., Palm, D., Kaysen, O., Nordic Conference: Prevention of Avoidable Food Waste in Retail, Canteens & Catering, Hotels and Restaurants, Oslo 11 June Short summarizing report. Ostfold Research OR 16.12, Fredrikstad. Hanssen, O. J., Møller, H. V., Matsvinn i Norge Status og utviklingstrekk Rapport fra ForMat-prosjektet. Ostfold Research OR Martinsen et al., Prevention of food waste in restaurants, hotels, canteens and catering. Nordic Council of Ministers. Møller, H., Hanssen, O. J., Gustavsson, J., Östergren, K., Stenmarck, Å., Dekhtyar, P., D1.3 Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice. Report D1.3 from FUSIONS project Møller, H., Hanssen, O. J., Svanes, E., Standard approach on quantitative techniques to be used to estimate food waste levels. Ostfold Research OR Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen O.J., Silvennoinen K., Katajajuuri J.M., Werge, M., Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades. IVL, Stockholm, Sweden Østfoldforskning 61

66 Appendix 1 Summary of results from the report on the prevention of food waste in the interface between producers and retailers, from the pilot project conducted in 2011 (Hanssen & Getz 2011). A) Type and structure of shop/adaptation of range of food items/retail chain policies Causal relationship with food waste Problem owner Strategic issues The data show a clear link between the percentage of food waste and sales, where the food waste percentage increases with decreasing sales. This trend is most marked for shops without a fresh food section and with a small range of products. In both groups of shops, there are items clearly below the expected waste percentage on the basis of sales, which shows that it is also possible for shops with low turnover to achieve low waste if the conditions are right. Product range is also an important factor in this picture, since product groups with low sales generally have a much greater percentage of waste than those with a higher turnover. An extensive product range will lead to greater food waste overall, and particularly for products with a short shelf life. The problem area is clearly at the retail stage, but changes in retail chains competition and consumer policies could provide them with more scope to make adaptations in terms of range of items and shop size. - Those involved in purchasing and deciding on product categories in the retail chains must consider their priorities in terms of range versus number of suppliers. Too large a range in certain product groups will make it difficult to prevent usable food being discarded. - Retail chains political priorities in relation to product range should be determined at shop level to enable adaptation to shop size, type and location. - Retail chains should consider agreeing to a quota system for certain products where it can be shown that a large range leads to much food waste. - Norway has a large number of shops. Where the range is large, product rollover is difficult for many small shops. Why does Norway have so many shops per capita? How does Norway differ from comparable countries? B) Improved ordering procedures, optimised production series/deliveries and better flow of information in the distribution chain Causal relationship with food waste Results from surveys of retailers own perceptions of the important reasons why food becomes waste show that it is often ordered in too large quantities in relation to turnover, so that shops are left with large stocks of products which pass their expiry date before they can be sold. Producers need for large amounts in each production series may be one reason why stocks are too large, and this can be remedied by better information flow and forecasting in relation to orders. Østfoldforskning 62

67 Problem owner Strategic issues This problem is typically common to all players in the value chain, where everyone has a responsibility to optimise their flow of products according to what is likely to be sold in the shops. - The mix of range, display and the relationship between pre-packaged fresh food and fresh food portioned in the shop will have be discussed, if both suppliers and retailers are to reduce the amount of food that passes its expiry date. - The number of deliveries, lead time for ordering before delivery and any requirements for quantity must be considered in order to facilitate the work of all players involved. There is also the question of whether certain products (groups) can be sold as part packs, to enable shops to buy the number of items they believe they can sell before the expiry date. - How can players in the value chain cooperate to predict correct production and sales volumes based on knowledge from previous years? - Is it possible to have the shortest possible route and the fewest possible number of stages between producer and shop? - To have stocks as far back as possible in the supply chain may increase flexibility; will this more easily capture the shops which sell more and less of the product than estimated? - How to avoid too strict quality standards that lead to much waste of e.g. fruit and vegetables in the primary stage and during packing? C) Optimal size of trade units and optimal distribution and exposure conditions, especially in relation to temperature and light Causal relationship with food waste Problem owner Strategic issues Because many products have low turnover and rollover in some shops, the standard trade unit will often be too large, resulting in food being discarded as it reaches its expiry date before it can be sold. This may occur both at the retail and wholesale stage. This is also a typical area where the ownership of the problem is distributed throughout the value chain, but with emphasis on the producer in terms of choice of packaging solutions and on the distributor/wholesaler in terms of how food is stored in the distribution chain. - How can improved packaging technologies ensure optimum protection of products throughout the value chain? - Many retailers report that there are often too many consumer units in trade units and that units portioned by the shop into packs of different weights are still often too large/heavy. If the shop has many suppliers with wide product ranges, the number of consumer units in a trade unit may easily become critical, because the choice is too big. How can trade units be made with the correct number of consumer units, without adversely affecting the filling of the pallet or pack? Trade units are assumed to comply with the requirements of STAND 009, i.e. that they fit all transportation devices and shelves and are suitable for a standard distribution chain. - For goods portioned into packs of different weights, the unit bought by the shop can be much smaller, but here the type of product will determine the correct weight. Østfoldforskning 63

68 - Optimal sizing of trade units: challenge the established practice. Must we have trade units for everything? What does it take to become more flexible? Why can a shop not order exactly the number or quantity it needs? Which stage in the value chain determines the dependence on the trade unit? How do systems such as EPD registration limit the number of variants that can be offered for sale in shops? - Is it possible to have optimal distribution and storage for the different product groups or are they distributed and perhaps stored under the same conditions? (Fresh goods should be as close to 0 C as possible, but fruit should have a higher temperature) D) Date marking and how this is practised (correct length of time, correct division between the stages, not too rigid practice). Causal relationship with food waste Problem owner Strategic issues Products with very short shelf life (less than 20 days from packing until they should be eaten) represent a major challenge in relation to food waste, and especially if they have low turnover and infrequent rollover. The main problem owner in determining shelf life is the producer, who is responsible for deciding on the correct expiry date from a food safety perspective. Producers also have primary responsibility to find packaging solutions that provide the best durability. Both shelf life and packaging solutions should be determined in consultation with the other players in the value chain. To implement product flow in relation to the date stamp is the joint responsibility of all involved, in order to ensure sufficient flexibility in e.g. division of the durability time. The following strategies are relevant to this problem area: - What is the optimal production lot size for production and distribution, and how should the time be divided in relation to production date and expiry date? - How can we ensure a good future dialogue between producers/suppliers to establish the total durability of products, apart from perishable goods where the Norwegian Food Safety Authority requires a use by date stamp? In the transition to more frequent use of the best before date, this should be determined jointly by the players involved. - How can the division of durability time be reconsidered if there is a delay in sending the product to the wholesaler or retailer? - Is it possible to ensure sale of the product through discounting or other arrangement to prevent wastage and hasty new production to avoid the product being sold out? - Are the division of time and associated rules suitable for all types of product? For dry goods and perishables? Østfoldforskning 64

69 - How can those involved communicate and gain acceptance if important rules are broken? - What financial measures could function in the value chain to ensure a more efficient distribution of goods? Østfoldforskning 65

70

71