sustainability

Review
Challenges for a Sustainable Food Supply Chain: A Review on
Food Losses and Waste
Annalisa De Boni 1, * , Giovanni Ottomano Palmisano 2, * , Maria De Angelis 1 and Fabio Minervini 1

1 Dipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro,
Via Amendola 165/a, 70126 Bari, Italy
2 Department of Economics, Università degli Studi di Foggia, Via Caggese 1, 71121 Foggia, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.D.B.); [email protected] (G.O.P.)

Abstract: To address global food security, new strategies are required in view of the challenges
represented by Climate Change, depletion of natural resources and the need to not further compro-
mise the ecosystems’ quality and biodiversity. Food losses and waste (FLW) affect food security
and nutrition, as well as the sustainability of food systems. Quantification of the adverse effects of
FLW is a complex and multidimensional challenge requiring a wide-ranging approach, regarding
the quantification of FLW as well as the related economic, environmental and social aspects. The
evaluation of suitable corrective actions for managing FLW along the food supply chain requires
a system of sound and shared benchmarks that seem still undefined. This review aims to provide
an overview of the environmental, economic and social issues of FLW, which may support policy
measures for prevention, reduction and valorization of food wastes within the food supply chain. In
fact, detection of the hotspots and critical points allows to develop tailored policy measures that may
improve the efficiency of the food supply chain and its sustainability, with an integrated approach
involving all the main actors and considering the several production contexts.
Citation: De Boni, A.;
Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Keywords: food losses; food waste; food byproducts; sustainable food systems; food security and
De Angelis, M.; Minervini, F. nutrition; food quality
Challenges for a Sustainable Food
Supply Chain: A Review on Food
Losses and Waste. Sustainability 2022,
14, 16764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
su142416764
In the last decades, the pressure on natural resources and ecosystems has strongly
Academic Editors: Tiziana Amoriello increased with the need for food for the growing world’s population. Between 702 and
and Roberto Ciccoritti 828 million people in the world faced hunger in 2021. Hunger affected 46 million more
Received: 12 October 2022
people in 2021 compared to 2020 and 150 million more people since 2019, before the
Accepted: 13 December 2022
COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of the people in the world affected by hunger in
Published: 14 December 2022
2021 lived in Asia and more than one-third in Africa [1]. To address global food security,
new strategies are required in compliance with the current economic and environmental
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
constraints, and in view of the challenges represented by Climate Change, the depletion
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
of natural resources and the need to not further compromise the ecosystems’ quality and
published maps and institutional affil-
biodiversity [2]. The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition [3]
iations.
defined food losses as the “decrease, at all stages of the food chain prior to the consumer
level, in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of
the cause” and food waste as “food appropriate for human consumption being discarded
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
or left to spoil at consumer level–regardless of the cause”. Both food losses and waste
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (FLW) generation have dramatically increased over the last few decades [4–6]; thus, their
This article is an open access article management and recovery strategies have been considered within the United Nations’
distributed under the terms and Agenda for Sustainable Development [7], notably by the Sustainable Development Goal
conditions of the Creative Commons “Responsible consumption and production” (SDG 12). Within this Goal, the Target 12.3
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// (FLW reduction) seeks to halve per-capita global food waste at the retail and consumer
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ levels and to reduce food losses along production and food supply chains (FSC), including
4.0/). postharvest losses [7]. Furthermore, FAO [8] identified the connections of SDG 12 and

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416764 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 2 of 14

Target 12.3 with almost all the other SDGs. In particular, they are strongly linked to the
SDG 2 that deals with ending hunger and achieving food security and improved nutrition.
Possible environmental effects fall under SDG 6 (sustainable water management), SDG 11
(sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13 (climate change), SDG 14 (marine resources)
and SDG 15 (terrestrial ecosystems, forests, land and biodiversity). There are also knock-on
effects on further SDGs: SDG 1 (ending poverty), SDG 8 (sustainable economic growth
and decent employment) and SDG 10 (reducing inequalities). Moreover, progress on
other SDGs, such as SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 9
(infrastructure, industry and innovation) and SDG 17 (partnerships), could have beneficial
impacts in terms of FLW reduction [9,10].
As a consequence, FLW impact the sustainability of food systems and their capacity
to ensure global food security and nutrition in the long term [11]. FLW pose problems
also for the ethics of wasting food in a world with increasing food insecurity in devel-
oped and developing countries [12]. Plant-based food is a key source of minerals and
energy, providing almost 90% of the calories and 80% of protein requirements for daily
human intake. Globally, about 210,000 M of hectares of agricultural land produces about
300,000 million tons (Mt) of vegetables [13]. Indeed, the amount of food produced on
farmers’ fields is much more than is necessary to feed humanity, but at the same time,
losses of food between the farmer’s fields and the dinner table are huge and aggravate
malnutrition [3,5,14,15]. Therefore, reducing FLW is widely seen as a key strategy to reduce
production impacts and increase the efficiency of the food system, improve food security
and nutrition and contribute to environmental sustainability [8]. Additionally, the reduction
of FLW could contribute to increase the income, not only for farmers, but also for processors,
transporters, retailers and food service providers. In turn, a decrease of food prices, with a
consequent increase of demand and consumption, could be achieved [16,17]. Although the
interest of the scientific community is growing, there is still a gap of knowledge about the
real extent of FLW, especially in terms of environmental, economic and social standpoints,
taking into account the stages of food supply chain.
In this challenging context, the aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the
environmental, economic and social issues of FLW. This study may be helpful in identifying
FLW causes and supporting the development of policy measures enhancing the sustain-
ability of FSC. This aim is pursued by performing an extensive narrative literature review,
which enables to identify and summarize what has been previously published, avoiding
duplications and seeking new study areas not yet addressed [18]. The narrative literature
review allows putting many pieces of information together into a readable format, and it is
a valid approach to present a broad perspective on a topic and to describe the history or
development of a problem or its management. Moreover, the narrative literature review
can serve to provoke thought, as it can be an excellent venue for presenting philosophical
perspectives in a balanced manner and stimulating scholarly dialog amongst readers. For
instance, readers can participate in this process by writing letters to the editor section of
the journal and presenting their opinions and critical appraisal [19].

2. Quantification of FLW in the European Union (EU)

A homogenous framework for the quantification of FLW has not yet been defined and
shared at European level [2,20,21]. Worldwide, it is estimated that about 1.3 billion tons of
food is wasted annually [8,22,23], with a wide variability of the same figure at European
level. According to estimates by Corrado and Sala [15], FLW annual per capita production
ranges between 158 and 298 kg. As part of the FUSIONS project, analyzing the data on
the amount and composition of waste in European countries, it has been estimated that
88 Mt of FLW is produced annually in the European Union (EU-28) and that about 20%
of the total food manufactured is wasted [17]. The estimated per capita waste is about
173 kg/person and includes both edible and inedible food parts. This figure has been
used as a benchmark for policies (for example, in the farm-to-fork strategy) [24]. Some
researchers [2,20], who have analyzed the entire food chain through an analysis of mass
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 3 of 14

flow, reported much higher data: according to their estimates, an input of about 638 Mt of
food raw materials should correspond to a production of about 129 Mt of “fresh” FLW.
Several studies have deepened the analysis in order to break down the waste stream by
allocating the quantities of waste material at the different stages of production, distribution
and consumption of food [14,25–28]. Waste has very different characteristics depending
on the stage of the FSC in which it is generated [29]: in general, food losses (FL) generated
in the upstream stages of the FSC (i.e., production, harvesting and processing) are poorly
differentiated and contain a great quantity of raw waste of a limited number of types; waste
from the downstream stages of the FSC (for example, distribution, retail and domestic
consumption) contains smaller volumes of residues that are much more heterogeneous [30].
Scholars have generally agreed that farming and husbandry activities produce FL mainly
at the postharvest stage, due to agricultural residues (e.g., roots and straw), unharvested
crops and losses during harvest and spoilage during storage. This occurs mainly due to
a lack of storage facilities, non-compliance with quality standard or required shape or
appearance, farmer–buyer sales agreements failure and inefficiencies in transportation
between farm and distribution [25]. Alexander et al. [26] estimated that globally a share
of about 8.4% of primary crops harvested is lost. Other authors estimated losses in the
USA from 2 to 23%, depending on the commodity, and about 9% in the UK [14,25,30–32].
In the definition and quantification of FL in the postharvest phase, it is essential to keep
perishable and non-perishable foods separately [14]. In developed countries, waste is low
for non-perishable crops such as cereals. For instance, losses are very low for barley, which
can be as low as 0.07–2.81% under normal circumstances and mainly due to exogenous
factors such as moisture, insects or rodents [14,25,30–32]. Oppositely, for perishable crops
the waste is generally higher and mainly due to non-compliance with quality and size stan-
dards. These losses depend on the inefficiency of the handling systems during harvesting
and packaging, cold storage and refrigerated transport facilities, scarce development of
marketing systems dealing with “sub-standard” products and lack of integration among
producers and marketers, which negatively affects logistics, supply management and
delivery planning [25,31,32]. Table 1 summarizes the different authors’ results regarding
quantification (in kg per capita per year) of FLW at the different stages of the FSC.

Table 1. Amount of FLW (kg per capita per year) and share in each phase of the food supply chain.

Share (%) at Each Phase of the Food Supply Chain

Total Amount References
(kg/y/Capita) Primary Livestock Processing and Retail and
Consumption
Production Production Manufacturing Distribution
180 - - 39 5 56 [33]
275 47 - 12 7 34 [5,22]
289 43 - 12 5 40 [34]
173 11 - 19 5 65 [17]
179 - - 39 5 56 [35]
290 9 - 21 12 58 [36]
- 8.4 12 36 19 33 [26]
257 25 24 5 46 [2]

The different methodologies applied for data collection and evaluation lead to data
variability. The most important references are the Accounting and Reporting Standard
for Food and Waste Losses [37], developed jointly by different institutions (e.g., WRI,
FAO, WRAP, UNEP and WDCSD) [15], and the FUSIONS quantification manual [38]
and European Union Directive 2008/98/EC [39]. It should be noted that the numerous
studies and projects on FLW in the EU [2,5,17,26,31,33,34,36,40] refer to different definitions,
methodologies and objectives, system boundaries and databases. Moreover, data are
related to a variable number of countries with great difference in production processes,
also providing different results in terms of amount of waste. The highest number of waste
(33–65%) is related to consumption behaviors, and it is influenced by socio-economic
consumers’ features (gender, age, income, education, etc.), frequency and planning of
shopping and food preparation, awareness and sensitivity to environmental issues [4,40,41]
(Table 1). This share could be reduced by applying targeted prevention strategies turned to
 ologies and objectives, system boundaries and databases. Moreover, data are related to a
variable number of countries with great difference in production processes, also provid-
ing different results in terms of amount of waste. The highest number of waste (33–65%)
is related to consumption behaviors, and it is influenced by socio-economic consumers’
features (gender, age, income, education, etc.), frequency and planning of shopping and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 4 of 14
food preparation, awareness and sensitivity to environmental issues [4,40,41] (Table 1).
This share could be reduced by applying targeted prevention strategies turned to con-
sumers [42]. A share of waste between 12 and 39% comes from industrial processing and
may arise from[42].
consumers eachAfoodsharesupply chainbetween
of waste stage (Table
12 and1). The
39%highcomes amount
from of waste in processing
industrial pro-
cessing
and mayis mainly due toeach
arise from the food
spoilage of commodities
supply chain stage during
(Table 1).transport
The high andamount
storageof and
waste in
theprocessing
scrap arising from washing,
is mainly due to the peeling, cutting
spoilage and cookingduring
of commodities operations. The amount
transport of and
and storage
waste may further
the scrap arisingincrease if there are
from washing, accidental
peeling, cuttingprocess
and interruptions,
cooking operations.contaminations,
The amount of
inappropriate packaging
waste may further or crops
increase selection
if there [25,27,28]. process
are accidental The main causes of losses
interruptions, in the
contaminations,
distribution phase,packaging
inappropriate ranging from 5% to 19%,
or crops are inefficient
selection [25,27,28]. means
The of transport,
main causesunsuitable
of losses in the
packaging and phase,
distribution planning errors from
ranging in the5%purchase
to 19%,and arereception
inefficientofmeans
goods of (Table 1) [43–45].
transport, unsuitable
The production
packaging andof waste
planningin theerrors
sales phase,
in the both at wholesale
purchase and retail,
and reception of is strongly
goods (Tablerelated
1) [43–45].
to The
the ability to predict
production demand,
of waste in theto program
sales phase,supply,
both at to the management
wholesale and retail, ofisstocks
stronglyandrelated
inventories and to
to the ability to the management
predict demand,policiesto programof unsold
supply,food.
to Food labeling mayof
the management play a and
stocks
significant
inventoriesrole and
because
to thethemanagement
indication “best before”,
policies of “sell
unsold by”food.
or “use by” labeling
Food may be easilymay play a
misunderstood
significant role by because
consumers. theTo reduce the
indication waste
“best at retail
before”, level,
“sell by”anorincreasing
“use by” numbermay be easily
of misunderstood
food retailer andby large-scale
consumers. distribution
To reduce firms
the cooperate with level,
waste at retail charitable organizations
an increasing number of
forfood
foodretailer
redistribution (e.g., food banks) or sell close-to-expiry products
and large-scale distribution firms cooperate with charitable organizations for at discounted
prices.
food redistribution (e.g., food banks) or sell close-to-expiry products at discounted prices.
Caldeira et al.
Caldeira [2] [2]
et al. estimated
estimated thethe
contribution
contribution of FLW
of FLW from each
from food
each group
food groupas well as as the
as well
theamount
amountofof“EU“EUavailable”
available”food foodcommodities
commodities(calculated
(calculated as as production,
production, plus plus import,
import, minus
minus exports
exports of primary
of primary commodities,
commodities, minus
minus non-food
non-food uses).
uses). Figure
Figure 1 showsthat
1 shows thatcontribution
con-
tribution on a plane of Cartesian axes wherein the horizontal axis reports the food groups,
on a plane of Cartesian axes wherein the horizontal axis reports the food groups, while the
while the vertical axis reports the FLW and food commodity availability as a percentage
vertical axis reports the FLW and food commodity availability as a percentage of their own
of their own total amount.
total amount.

Figure 1. Contribution
Figure of FLW
1. Contribution (green
of FLW columns)
(green and “EU
columns) and available” food commodities
“EU available” (light blue
food commodities (light blue
columns). Data
columns). from
Data Ref.Ref.
from [2]. [2].

According to the
According authors,
to the the largest
authors, amount
the largest of FLW
amount is related
of FLW to vegetables
is related (24% of(24% of
to vegetables
total losses
total and
losses waste)
and andand
waste) fruits (22%),
fruits followed
(22%), by cereals
followed (12%),
by cereals oil crops
(12%), (10%),
oil crops pota-
(10%), potatoes
toes (7.3%)
(7.3%) and
and sugar
sugar beets(4%).
beets (4%).OnOnthe
theother
otherhand,
hand,animal
animalorigin
origin food,
food, such
such as
as meat
meat (11%),
dairy (5.3%), fish (3.3%) and eggs (1.4%), generate the lowest quantities of FLW. Despite the
growing interest of the scientific community, gaps still remain in the availability of data on
the contribution of individual products or product groups to the total waste. The highest
availability of information concerns the products that generate most of waste (cereals, fruits
and vegetables) and products of animal origin [33], probably due to the increasing concerns
about their environmental impact. The percentages of FLW have been reported as waste
loss coefficients (in percentage) only by few authors [5,12,16,34]. Table 2 summarizes the
coefficients of FLW per food group and stages of FSC [2]. Again, the high variability in the
coefficients depends on differences regarding countries’ supplying data, quantification data
methodologies, FSC stages and the season during which data were attained and estimates
were performed.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 5 of 14

Table 2. Ranges of FLW coefficients (%) per food group and food supply chain stage.

Food Groups
Food Supply Chain
Stage Fruit and Oil Roots and References
Cereals Meat Dairy Fish Eggs
Vegetables Crops Tubers
Primary production 18.0–20.0 1.5–4.3 0.8–3.2 2.5–10.0 2.8–20.0 0.3–3.5 9.4 4.0–4.8 [12,20,35]
Storage and
5.0–7.3 3.9–4.0 0.7 1.0–1.2 7.6–9.0 0.5–1.7 0.5–7.9 1.9 [20,35]
Handling
Processing and
2.0–6.4 3.2–10.5 4.7–5.0 5.0–28.2 4.9–15.0 0.7–1.2 6.0 0.5–1.6 [12,20,35]
manufacturing
Retail and
1.2–10.0 2.0–3.0 2.8–4.0 0.7–7.0 0.3–1.0 0.3–0.8 9.0 1.6–2.0 [12,20,35]
distribution
Consumption 17.9–26.2 13.0–27.0 11.0–14.6 4.0–5.0 13.3–25.5 9.8–15.0 8.0–22.6 2.0 [12,20,34,35]

The analysis of the scientific literature shows a gap of knowledge regarding the data
useful for quantifying the contribution of each phase of the supply chain (for example,
primary phase, transformation, sale and consumption) to the total quantities of FLW. This
step represents the starting point for planning, evaluating and identifying well-founded
waste prevention actions.

3. Economic Evaluation and Costs of FLW

To the best of our knowledge, scientific literature has been more focused on FLW
quantification, prevention, reduction and environmental impacts, and has devoted less
attention to the economic assessment of FLW and food byproducts and wastes (FBPW).
According to the Directive 2008/98/EC on waste [39], a byproduct is a substance resulting
from a production process, which can be further used after standard industrial processing,
excluding adverse environmental or human health impacts.
However, there is scientific evidence for the strong relations between economic per-
formances, the behavior of individual actors in the FSC (i.e., consumers, producers, etc.)
and the generation of losses and waste [30]. FAO explains in detail that the causes of FLW
widely vary along the FSC and can be directly or indirectly linked to a specific point of
loss [36]. The causes are generally context-specific, including inadequate collection times,
climatic conditions, practices applied at the time of collection and handling, difficulties
in marketing products and deficiency of economic incentives to prevent losses [37]. Dur-
ing transport, good physical infrastructure and efficient commercial logistics are vital to
prevent further FL [38]. The estimation of the value of wasted food is mainly carried out
following two approaches: (i) its cost of production and (ii) its market price [33]. Regarding
the production phase, the estimated value of FLW and byproducts at the producers is
about 75 billion euros, about 60 billion euros in the phases of postharvesting, processing
and distribution, while the consumption stage generates a waste value of about 70 billion
euros [2,39]. According to the results of the FUSIONS project, the costs related to FLW for
EU-28 in 2012 were estimated at around 143 billion euros [8]. The consumption phase is
responsible for most of this cost: domestic waste has been estimated at a value of about
98 billion euros, and postcollection, processing and distribution operations generate losses
of about 43 billion euros, while the losses of the primary phase have been estimated of
approximately 1.8 billion euros.
Apart from an overall economic quantification of the waste value, it is crucial to
evaluate how the overall economic losses connected to FLW are shared among the food
chain actors in relation to their market or purchasing power, and to consider the costs of
FLW reduction [40]. Analyses that quantify the management costs of food recovery or its
profitability are still poor [23,41]. Firms often underestimate the cost of waste, although
a proper waste and byproducts management can be paramount in improving profits
and the evidence and communication of the economic benefits, which may enhance the
sustainability of FLW reduction policies. Moreover, evidence about the efficacy of actions
to reduce FLW and improve economic sustainability are still scarce and do not guide key
actors in obtaining economic incentives within a farm-to-fork virtuous approach [35]. Some
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 6 of 14

authors investigated the economics assessment and gains from adopting loss-reducing
technologies [42,43]. In particular, the economic importance of losses is directly linked to
their management along the FSC and to the resources devoted to loss-abating actions [42,44].
The economic value of FLW depends on volumes of products, on their position inside the
market place, on the collection and transport costs and on the period of assessment [45].
Several authors [42,44,45] agreed that the costs of loss reduction actions should be taken
into account in the economic assessment of food losses. With a view to a cost–benefit
analysis aimed at quantifying the economic impact of management actions, it is important
to consider all actors at different levels of the value chain involved in actions that aim to
eliminate or reduce FL.
An effective waste management may have significant effects on profitability for all
food chain operators [46], and this virtuous management can be implemented through
different actions. First, an effective management of material and energy inputs and outputs
of production processes can not only reduce production costs but also limit environmental
impacts [46]. Second, an effective process of recovery of materials otherwise thrown
away in the FLW process is feasible for waste management. Third, the application of
digital technologies for smart agriculture (e.g., Internet of Things, blockchain, artificial
intelligence, etc.) can prevent or reduce FLW by shortening harvesting and delivery times to
the market, as well as improve the information exchange between producers and suppliers
helping to schedule all the production and transportation processes [47,48]. An appropriate
recovery, recycling and valorization of FLW involving their use to extract high-value
compounds suitable for food, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics sectors may be obtained and
provide natural antioxidants, preservatives and dietary supplements [4]. Another economic
improvement that could be gained through the recovery of valuable components of FW is
the reuse of wastewater. For example, olive mill wastewater could be valorized as a source
of bioactive phenols and pectin [49,50].

4. Environmental Issues
FLW have a significant environmental impact due to the consumption of natural
resources such as land, water, nutrients and energy. In fact, they not only boost the cost of
food production but also have negative effects on the environment, namely biodiversity and
nutrient losses [47,48]. For these reasons, estimating the environmental and economic costs
related to FLW appears to be an important aspect to inform policy and design alternatives
and sustainable strategies for food production and consumption [5]. A reduction in FLW is
acknowledged to lead to positive environmental effects, but these consequences are highly
dependent on the amount of avoided loss and waste, the stage in the supply chain where
the savings are created and the saving costs achieved [6,49]. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is
the main approach for the assessment of the environmental impact of FLW, applied with
top-down approaches (data from input–output tables) or bottom-up, using databases from
specific more detailed inquiries. Several scholars applied a bottom-up LCA approach to
calculate the global warming potential (GWP) of waste, from databases of national statistics
and/or direct consumption survey results [51,52]. Kummu et al. [51] applied a top-down
approach to global statistics from FAO and estimated, at the country level, losses and
wastes of food crops in terms of resources used for their production. For Europe, it has
been estimated that 31% of the freshwater, 24% of the cultivated land and about a quarter
of the fertilizers used to produce food flow into FL [53]. The impact of agricultural land
use is related to various effects of cultivation: soil degradation, loss of landscape features
and loss of biodiversity, etc. Cereals contribute to the overall impact expressed in terms
of “land use” for about 45% of the cultivated area, legumes and oilseeds account for 30%,
fruits and vegetables for 19% and, lastly, roots and tubers account for 6%.
The total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of food over its life cycle, expressed in
kilograms of CO2 equivalents (eq), was defined by FAO in 2013 [52]. GHG emissions of
the agricultural phase include the emissions from soils and livestock (such as CH4 and
N2 O). According to FAO results, FLW global impacts are about 3300 Mt CO2 eq of GHG,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 7 of 14

240,000 m3 of irrigation water wasted and 1.4 billion hectares needlessly cultivated. The
total carbon footprint of Europe is about 495 Mt of CO2 eq (700–900 kg of CO2 eq per
capita and per year) with a contribution of 15% to global greenhouse gas emissions [3]. It is
possible to estimate the carbon footprint through the LCA, quantifying the contribution
of each stage of the FSC as GHG emissions. Notarnicola et al. [53] underlined that the
impacts associated with FLW are distributed in the impacts related to the different life cycle
stages of the supply chain. For food systems, GHG emissions from primary production
(agriculture, fishery, postharvest and handling) are always the major contributors to the
carbon footprint. According to FAO [3] estimates, the contribution of FLW in the EU to the
total production of GHG consists of 18% from the primary production phase, 18% from
handling and postharvest storage, 15% from processing and production, 14% from retail
and distribution and finally 35% from consumption. Cereals, meat and vegetables FLW
generate more than 60% of the global carbon footprint [3]. These wastes each cause an
emission of about 100 Mt CO2 eq. Lost and wasted roots and fruits give a contribution
of about 30 Mt CO2 eq each, milk of 40 Mt CO2 , while oil crops and pulses, fish and
seafood provide an emission of about 20 Mt CO2 eq each. The overall climate impact of
cereals is mainly due to the production and use of nitrogen fertilizer and fuels consumption
for farming operations. Moreover, yield level strongly affects the emission of different
cereal species.
Meat and dairy products’ waste impacts are linked to GHG emissions from animals.
For pigs and poultry (monogastric), the main component of emission is N2 O from feed
production due to mineral fertilizers production, followed by energy used for animal
housing [54,55]. Manure management contributes to GHGs to a lesser extent. Ruminants
rearing generates great CH4 emissions due to enteric fermentation and, in smaller measure,
manure management [54–56]. For ruminants, feed production is the second source of
emissions because of fertilizers and fuels employed in pasture and fodder production.
Fruits and vegetables production is associated with low GHG emissions, mainly due to
fertilizers and mechanization needs, which are proportional to the yield level, and farming
techniques (e.g., heated greenhouses generate higher emission). Pulses and legumes,
produced by nitrogen-fixing plants with modest nutritional needs, generate very low
emissions, similarly to roots and tubers, due to their high yields that reduce GHG emissions
per kg of product [54,55]. Scholars and policymakers devote attention also to the assessment
of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions due to the well-known negative effects on the loss
of nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture and herds. Grizzetti et al. [57] estimated
that 12% of the nitrogen pollution from agriculture in the EU is related to loss and wasted
products. A further cause of concern is that nitrogen pollution from agriculture is among
the causes of the eutrophication of European coastal waters [57,58], resulting in a threat to
drinking water located in agricultural areas. Regarding the strategies for the reduction of
the environmental impacts of FLW, recent research studies have shown that the application
of digital technologies for smart agriculture can be crucial for achieving environmental
sustainability of the food supply chain itself. These technologies may contribute to lowering
both the carbon footprint along the entire chain and waste production [47,59,60].

5. Social Implications
The quantity, impacts and possibilities to limit waste are strongly related to a set
of social factors, arising from mutual interactions between subjective and contextual ele-
ments [61]. Among the subjective factors, some authors [25] included the errors of farmers
and food processors in the management of production, trade and logistics processes. small
companies in particular may overestimate both the food demand and production need,
due to inadequate facilities or skills and technical difficulties. Unforeseen price fluctuations
and inefficient technical capacities can make harvesting uneconomical and cause field
losses. Finally, the inadequacy of the processes of storage, packaging and processing can
adversely affect both the agricultural phase and the phases after harvesting. Awareness
and understanding of FLW, concerns about financial loss and the environmental and social
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 8 of 14

implications of FW are the main socio-demographic factors affecting food habits, household
food-related practices and routines [27,62–64]. National and local policies implementing
strategies for the collection and recycling of FLW are the external factors, playing a relevant
role in limiting waste generation, preventing landfilling and incineration. These strategies
trigger a circular economy approach, boosting the use of functional substances that can be
recovered from waste [64,65] and must be adapted to the waste origin, categories and sup-
ply stages, considering the possibility of interdisciplinary collaboration [66]. These policies
are generally carried out through the taxation of landfills or incineration, the payment of
economic incentives to companies that reduce the production of FW, the implementation of
efficient systems for the collection of municipal waste, the setup of information and public
awareness campaigns. Furthermore, recent studies highlighted that the employment of
digital technologies for smart agriculture may address certain social aspects of FLW, such
as improving transparency and safety in the FSC to prevent disposal of edible products or
loss through contamination tracing [48,67,68].
The opportunities related to the recovery of high-value compounds from FLW and
FBPW depend on the availability of appropriate techniques for the waste and byproducts
collection, management and extraction in compliance with ensuring traceability and safety
and sustainability of high-value-added compounds, according to the European regula-
tory framework [23,39,69]. In the current scenario, this is still a challenging task for the
researcher and entrepreneurs.
Many emerging technologies based on bioprocessing with selected microorganisms,
fluids at high pressures, membrane filtration, enzyme extraction, microwaves, ultrasounds,
high hydrostatic pressures and pulsed electric fields have been taken into account and are
currently under study [70–72]. Table 3 reports some examples of recent studies dealing
with the main bioactive compounds obtainable from widely available FBPW.

Table 3. Examples of the main bioactive compounds obtainable from widely available FBPW sources.

Food Groups FBPW Sources Bioactive Compounds References

Apple pomace Fibers [22]
Apple seeds Polyphenols [73]
Apple pomace Pectine [74]
Fruit and vegetables
Tomato pomace Polyphenols [75]
Tomato pomace Lycopene [76]
Orange peels Pectine [74,77]
Grape pomace (white wine) Fibers [70]
Grape pomace (red wine) Fibers [70]
Vine crops Grape pomace (red wine) Polyphenols [70]
Grape pomace (white wine) Polyphenols [70]
Grape pomace (white wine) Fibers [70]
Brewers’ spent grain Proteins [78]
Brewers’ spent grain Fibers [79]
Cereals Brewers’ spent grain Fibers [80,81]
Brewers’ spent grain Polyphenols [82]
Maize bran and germ Fermented byproducts [71]
Poultry byproducts Amino acids [83]
Meat Poultry byproducts PUFA [83]
Pig bones Collagen peptides [84]
Oil crops Olive pomace Polyphenol [85]
Cheese whey Sophorolipids [86]
Dairy Cheese whey Dairy starter cultures [87]
Cheese whey Bacteriocins [88]
Shrimp and different parts of crab Chitin [89]
Fish Shrimp and different parts of crab Carotenoid pigments [89]
Fish waste Protein hydrolysates [90,91]

The implementation of virtuous practices for lowering, collecting and recovering

FBPW may contribute to the sustainable development of rural, coastal and industrialized
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 9 of 14

areas, notwithstanding the social acceptability results strongly influenced by the level of in-
formation and knowledge of involved firms and citizens [92]. Moreover, innovative supply
chains recovering and up-cycling FBPW can create job opportunities, especially for small
and medium-sized enterprises, favoring virtuous paths for local development [93]. How-
ever, it should be noted that consumers’ knowledge and awareness about the nutritional
quality and environmental performance of foods enriched with high-value compounds
obtained from FBPW are still scarce. In fact, the willingness of consumers to accept these
new foods is still low; thus, actions to enhance appreciation are required [94,95].

6. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Public authorities, institutions and non-governmental organizations at different territo-
rial levels show an increasing attention and commitment to achieve food security goals and
efficient and sustainable food systems. A deeper knowledge of the FSC can allow detecting
the hotspots and critical points related to FLW, allowing to develop tailored policies and
strategies to improve sustainability. In addition, the quantification of the adverse effects
of FLW and the evaluation of suitable corrective actions require a system of sound and
shared benchmarks that seems still undefined. The number of recent studies bears witness
to the scientific community’s interest and attention to issues related to waste generation,
which is unquestionably a complex and multidimensional challenge. This issue requires
a wide-ranging approach, addressing not only the economic, environmental and social
aspects of sustainability, but also the involvement of all actors of the FSC (i.e., farmers,
processors, distributors, sellers and consumers) from production to consumption.
The need to ensure food security and nutrition and the sustainability of food systems,
in compliance with the SDGs, brings the urgency of a global commitment for the man-
agement and reduction of FLW. In order to make progress towards SDGs related to FLW
reduction and to address the global food demand, the findings from this review suggest
that the following four actions could be applied to the FSC: (1) to quantify how much food
is lost and wasted, as well as where and why; (2) to explain and communicate the benefits
of reducing FLW to the FSC actors; (3) to suggest strategies and tools for FLW reduction,
optimizing the efficiency along the FSC; (4) to develop strategies to properly collect FBPW,
recovering high-value compounds, ensuring their traceability, safety and sustainability.
In particular, the insights of this study may support the efforts of policymakers and
government institutions, especially at the local level, in defining policy measures that have
to be designed and planned carefully considering the measurements of losses and waste,
the supply chain where they occur and the critical loss points. Therefore, tailored policy
measures should be structured at three different levels.
Firstly, measures aimed at preventing waste generation and ensuring food security
have to be strengthened in order to reduce inefficiencies in the food systems. For instance,
these measures could improve: the management of edible and inedible parts of food at
the primary production level and the efficiency of storage, packaging and processing by
adopting digital technologies for smart agriculture; the reduction of waste at the retail level
by the better management of “close-to-expiry” products and food redistribution, as well as
by stimulating the consumers’ awareness about food waste management through food and
nutrition knowledge campaigns.
Secondly, specific policy measures could support the implementation of FW collection
and treatment infrastructures and services, which should be designed in relation to the
quantity and quality of food waste to be managed (e.g., recovery of high-value-added
compounds, anaerobic digestion, composting, etc.). In this step, the quantification of
environmental impacts, costs and benefits of FW reduction will be crucial to justify the
targeted allocation of financial resources.
Finally, weighing the costs and benefits of FW reduction represents a guidance for
designing policies in the view of the valorization of waste as energy/material (e.g., using
FW to produce high-value compounds or biofuels). In this regard, the overview raised
from this study may improve the awareness of the origin and composition of FW flows
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 10 of 14

within the FSC and to what extent these flows may vary over time. This may support
the development of specific policy measures aimed at facilitating the implementation
of innovative sustainable processes for bioactive molecules and functional ingredients
recovery. These processes contribute to the efficient management of waste, meanwhile
taking advantage of an inexpensive source of valuable compounds with recognized positive
effects on human health.
As practical implications, these possible policy measures must necessarily be based
on integrated food chain approaches taking into account the strong link between FLW
reduction and food security, within the horizontal and vertical cooperation among the
FSC actors and institutions. Indeed, effective measures for preventing and reducing FLW
have to involve all the main actors and institutions in sharing concrete strategies and tools.
However, it is useful to identify critical loss and waste points along the different supply
chains as key steps for implementing these measures, which should be based consequently
on the peculiarities of the several production contexts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.D.B. and F.M.; methodology, A.D.B. and F.M.; formal
analysis, A.D.B., F.M. and G.O.P.; investigation, A.D.B., F.M. and G.O.P.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.D.B. and F.M.; writing—review and editing, A.D.B., F.M. and G.O.P.; supervision,
M.D.A.; funding acquisition, M.D.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the project SYSTEMIC “an integrated approach to the chal-
lenge of sustainable food systems: adaptive and mitigatory strategies to address climate change
and malnutrition”, Knowledge Hub on Nutrition and Food Security, which has received funding
from national research funding parties in Belgium (FWO), France (INRA), Germany (BLE), Italy
(MIPAAF), Latvia (IZM), Norway (RCN), Portugal (FCT) and Spain (AEI) in a joint action of JPI
HDHL, JPI-OCEANS and FACCE-JPI launched in 2019 under the ERA-NET ERAHDHL (n◦ 696295).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN
978-92-5-136499-4.
2. Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of food waste per product group along the
food supply chain in the European Union: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 479–488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. HLPE. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. In A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; HLPE: Rome, Italy, 2014.
4. Amicarelli, V.; Bux, C. Food waste measurement toward a fair, healthy and environmental-friendly food system: A critical review.
Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 2907–2935. [CrossRef]
5. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention; Study Conducted for the
International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, [16–17 May], Düsseldorf, Germany; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 978-92-5-107205-9.
6. Corrado, S.; Caldeira, C.; Eriksson, M.; Hanssen, O.J.; Hauser, H.-E.; van Holsteijn, F.; Liu, G.; Östergren, K.; Parry, A.; Secondi, L.; et al.
Food waste accounting methodologies: Challenges, opportunities, and further advancements. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 20, 93–100.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
8. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. In Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
9. Lemaire, A.; Limbourg, S. How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
234, 1221–1234. [CrossRef]
10. Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Bottalico, F.; El Bilali, H.; Cardone, G.; Capone, R. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable
food and nutrition security. In Food Security and Nutrition; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 235–255. ISBN
978-0-12-820521-1.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 11 of 14

11. Pinstrup Andersen, P.; Gitz, V.; Meybeck, A. Food Losses and Waste and the debate on food and nutrition security. In Food Losses
and Waste and the Debate on Food and Nutrition Security; Pritchard, B., Ortiz, R., Shekar, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor &
Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 283–308, ISBN 978-1-138-34349-8.
12. Poças Ribeiro, A.; Rok, J.; Harmsen, R.; Rosales Carreón, J.; Worrell, E. Food waste in an alternative food network—A case-study.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 210–219. [CrossRef]
13. Jaiswal, D.K.; Krishna, R.; Chouhan, G.K.; de Araujo Pereira, A.P.; Ade, A.B.; Prakash, S.; Verma, S.K.; Prasad, R.; Yadav, J.; Verma,
J.P. Bio-fortification of minerals in crops: Current scenario and future prospects for sustainable agriculture and human health.
Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 98, 5–22. [CrossRef]
14. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [CrossRef]
15. Corrado, S.; Sala, S. Food waste accounting along global and European food supply chains: State of the art and outlook. Waste
Manag. 2018, 79, 120–131. [CrossRef]
16. Drabik, D.; de Gorter, H.; Reynolds, C. A conceptual and empirical framework to analyze the economics of consumer food waste.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 500–509. [CrossRef]
17. FUSIONS. Definitional Framework for Food Waste. Available online: https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/
Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%20Framework%20for%20Food%20Waste%202014.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2022).
18. Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med. Writ. 2015, 24, 230–235. [CrossRef]
19. Green, B.N.; Johnson, C.D.; Adams, A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade.
J. Chiropr. Med. 2006, 5, 101–117. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Caldeira, C.; Corrado, S.; Sala, S. Food Waste Accounting Methodologies, Challenges and Opportunities; European Commission; Joint
Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 2017.
21. Parry, A.; Keith, J.; LeRoux, S. Strategies to Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food Waste. 2015. Available
online: https://newclimateeconomy.report/workingpapers/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/WRAP-NCE_Economic-
environmental-gains-food-waste.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022).
22. Tlais, A.Z.A.; Fiorino, G.M.; Polo, A.; Filannino, P.; Di Cagno, R. High-Value Compounds in Fruit, Vegetable and Cereal
Byproducts: An Overview of Potential Sustainable Reuse and Exploitation. Molecules 2020, 25, 2987. [CrossRef]
23. Lipinski, B.; Hanson, C.; Lomax, J.; Kitinoja, L.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T. Reducing Food Loss and Waste. 2013. Available online:
http://pdf.wri.org/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2021).
24. European Commission. EUGreenDeal Farm to Fork Strategy—For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
25. Girotto, F.; Alibardi, L.; Cossu, R. Food waste generation and industrial uses: A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 32–41. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26. Alexander, P.; Brown, C.; Arneth, A.; Finnigan, J.; Moran, D.; Rounsevell, M.D.A. Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global
food system. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 190–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Otles, S.; Despoudi, S.; Bucatariu, C.; Kartal, C. Food waste management, valorization, and sustainability in the food industry. In
Food Waste Recovery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 3–23, ISBN 978-0-12-800351-0.
28. Pfaltzgraff, L.A.; De Bruyn, M.; Cooper, E.C.; Budarin, V.; Clark, J.H. Food waste biomass: A resource for high-value chemicals.
Green Chem. 2013, 15, 307. [CrossRef]
29. Lundqvist, J.; de Fraiture, C.; Molden, D. Saving Water: From Field to Fork Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain;
Stockholm. 2008, p. 67. Available online: https://siwi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PB_From_Filed_to_fork_2008.pdf
(accessed on 20 June 2021).
30. Aiello, G.; Enea, M.; Muriana, C. Economic benefits from food recovery at the retail stage: An application to Italian food chains.
Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1306–1316. [CrossRef]
31. FAO SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction Definitional Framework of Food Loss; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014.
32. Kader, A.A. Handling of Horticultural Perishables in Developing vs. Developed Countries. Acta Hortic. 2010, 877, 121–126.
[CrossRef]
33. Monier, V. Preparatory Study on Food Waste Across EU 27; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; ISBN 978-92-79-22138-5.
34. Bräutigam, K.-R.; Jörissen, J.; Priefer, C. The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: Different calculation methods and the
reliability of their results. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 683–694. [CrossRef]
35. Mirabella, N.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: A review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 65, 28–41. [CrossRef]
36. van Holsteijn, F.; Kemna, R. Minimizing food waste by improving storage conditions in household refrigeration. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2018, 128, 25–31. [CrossRef]
37. Hanson, C.; Lipinski, B.; Robertson, K. World Resources Institute (WRI), Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard;
2016. Available online: https://flwprotocol.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FLW_Standard_final_2016.pdf (accessed on
20 June 2022).
38. Tostivint, C.; Östergren, K.; Quested, T.; Soethoudt, H.; Stenmarck, Å.; Svanes, E.; O’Connor, C. Food Waste Quantification Manual
to Monitor Food Waste Amounts and Progression. 2016. Available online: https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/
Publications/FUSIONS%20Food%20Waste%20Quantification%20Manual.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 12 of 14

39. European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 OnWaste and Repealing
Certain Directives (Text with EEA Relevance); European Union: Mestreech, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume OJL 312, pp. 3–30.
40. Segrè, A.; Falasconi, L.; Politano, A.; Vittuari, M. Background Paper on the Economics of Food Loss and Waste. 2014. Available
online: https://www.fao.org/3/at143e/at143e.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
41. Amicarelli, V.; Bux, C. Food waste in Italian households during the Covid-19 pandemic: A self-reporting approach. Food Secur.
2021, 13, 25–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Dudziak, A.; Stoma, M.; Derkacz, A.J. Circular Economy in the Context of Food Losses and Waste. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10116.
[CrossRef]
43. Campoy-Muñoz, P.; Cardenete, M.A.; Delgado, M.C. Economic impact assessment of food waste reduction on European countries
through social accounting matrices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 202–209. [CrossRef]
44. Porter, S.D.; Reay, D.S.; Higgins, P.; Bomberg, E. A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss &
waste in the global food supply chain. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 571, 721–729. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Cattaneo, A.; Sánchez, M.V.; Torero, M.; Vos, R. Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy
2021, 98, 101974. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Uddin, M.A.; Siddiki, S.Y.A.; Ahmed, S.F.; Rony, Z.I.; Chowdhury, M.A.K.; Mofijur, M. Estimation of Sustainable Bioenergy
Production from Olive Mill Solid Waste. Energies 2021, 14, 7654. [CrossRef]
47. Annosi, M.C.; Brunetta, F.; Bimbo, F.; Kostoula, M. Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers,
barriers and collaboration practices. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 208–220. [CrossRef]
48. Benyam, A.; Soma, T.; Fraser, E. Digital agricultural technologies for food loss and waste prevention and reduction: Global trends,
adoption opportunities and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 323, 129099. [CrossRef]
49. Cedola, A.; Cardinali, A.; D’Antuono, I.; Conte, A.; Del Nobile, M.A. Cereal foods fortified with by-products from the olive oil
industry. Food Biosci. 2020, 33, 100490. [CrossRef]
50. Chegere, M.J. Post-harvest losses reduction by small-scale maize farmers: The role of handling practices. Food Policy 2018, 77,
103–115. [CrossRef]
51. Eriksson, M.; Strid, I.; Hansson, P.-A. Carbon footprint of food waste management options in the waste hierarchy—A Swedish
case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 115–125. [CrossRef]
52. Tonini, D.; Albizzati, P.F.; Astrup, T.F. Environmental impacts of food waste: Learnings and challenges from a case study on UK.
Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 744–766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Kummu, M.; de Moel, H.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O.; Ward, P.J. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain
losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 438, 477–489. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. FAO. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources: Summary Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; p. 63.
55. Pandey, P.K.; Cao, W.; Biswas, S.; Vaddella, V. A new closed loop heating system for composting of green and food wastes.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 1252–1259. [CrossRef]
56. Roma, R.; Corrado, S.; De Boni, A.; Forleo, M.B.; Fantin, V.; Moretti, M.; Palmieri, N.; Vitali, A.; Camillo, D.C. Life Cycle
Assessment in the Livestock and Derived Edible Products Sector. In Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector; Notarnicola, B.,
Salomone, R., Petti, L., Renzulli, P.A., Roma, R., Cerutti, A.K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015;
pp. 251–332. ISBN 978-3-319-11939-7.
57. Grizzetti, B.; Pretato, U.; Lassaletta, L.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J. The contribution of food waste to global and European nitrogen
pollution. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 33, 186–195. [CrossRef]
58. Sutton, M.A.; Bleeker, A. The shape of nitrogen to come. Nature 2013, 494, 435–437. [CrossRef]
59. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ghadge, A.; Raut, R. A performance measurement system for industry 4.0 enabled smart
manufacturing system in SMMEs—A review and empirical investigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107853. [CrossRef]
60. Bahn, R.A.; Yehya, A.A.K.; Zurayk, R. Digitalization for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Potential, Status, and Risks for the
MENA Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3223. [CrossRef]
61. Piras, S.; Pancotto, F.; Righi, S.; Vittuari, M.; Setti, M. Community social capital and status: The social dilemma of food waste. Ecol.
Econ. 2021, 183, 106954. [CrossRef]
62. Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gözet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy
implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [CrossRef]
63. Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.-A.; Ferrari, G.; Secondi, L.; Principato, L. From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour
towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 8–18. [CrossRef]
64. Hebrok, M.; Boks, C. Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 151, 380–392. [CrossRef]
65. Lin, C.S.K.; Pfaltzgraff, L.A.; Herrero-Davila, L.; Mubofu, E.B.; Abderrahim, S.; Clark, J.H.; Koutinas, A.A.; Kopsahelis, N.;
Stamatelatou, K.; Dickson, F.; et al. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels.
Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 426. [CrossRef]
66. Dora, M.; Biswas, S.; Choudhary, S.; Nayak, R.; Irani, Z. A system-wide interdisciplinary conceptual framework for food loss and
waste mitigation strategies in the supply chain. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 492–508. [CrossRef]
67. Astill, J.; Dara, R.A.; Campbell, M.; Farber, J.M.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Sharif, S.; Yada, R.Y. Transparency in food supply chains: A review
of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 240–247. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 13 of 14

68. Kamilaris, A.; Fonts, A.; Prenafeta-Boldύ, F.X. The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends
Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 640–652. [CrossRef]
69. Bux, C.; Amicarelli, V. Separate collection and bio-waste valorization in the Italian poultry sector by material flow analysis.
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 24, 811–823. [CrossRef]
70. Ilyas, T.; Chowdhary, P.; Chaurasia, D.; Gnansounou, E.; Pandey, A.; Chaturvedi, P. Sustainable green processing of grape pomace
for the production of value-added products: An overview. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101592. [CrossRef]
71. Pontonio, E.; Dingeo, C.; Gobbetti, M.; Rizzello, C.G. Maize Milling By-Products: From Food Wastes to Functional Ingredients
Through Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 561. [CrossRef]
72. Panagiotopoulou, M.; Papadaki, S.; Bagia, H.; Krokida, M. Valorisation of olive processing waste for the development of
value-added products. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2022, 28, 100736. [CrossRef]
73. Gunes, B.; Stokes, J.; Davis, P.; Connolly, C.; Lawler, J. Pre-treatments to enhance biogas yield and quality from anaerobic digestion
of whiskey distillery and brewery wastes: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109281. [CrossRef]
74. Wang, X.; Chen, Q.; Lü, X. Pectin extracted from apple pomace and citrus peel by subcritical water. Food Hydrocoll. 2014, 38,
129–137. [CrossRef]
75. Nour, V.; Ionica, M.E.; Trandafir, I. Bread enriched in lycopene and other bioactive compounds by addition of dry tomato waste.
J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 8260–8267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Nour, V.; Panaite, T.D.; Ropota, M.; Turcu, R.; Trandafir, I.; Corbu, A.R. Nutritional and bioactive compounds in dried tomato
processing waste. CyTA J. Food 2018, 16, 222–229. [CrossRef]
77. Prakash Maran, J.; Sivakumar, V.; Thirugnanasambandham, K.; Sridhar, R. Optimization of microwave assisted extraction of
pectin from orange peel. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 97, 703–709. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Tang, D.-S.; Tian, Y.-J.; He, Y.-Z.; Li, L.; Hu, S.-Q.; Li, B. Optimisation of ultrasonic-assisted protein extraction from brewer’s spent
grain. Czech J. Food Sci. 2010, 28, 9–17. [CrossRef]
79. Niemi, P.; Tamminen, T.; Smeds, A.; Viljanen, K.; Ohra-aho, T.; Holopainen-Mantila, U.; Faulds, C.B.; Poutanen, K.; Buchert, J.
Characterization of Lipids and Lignans in Brewer’s Spent Grain and Its Enzymatically Extracted Fraction. J. Agric. Food Chem.
2012, 60, 9910–9917. [CrossRef]
80. Vieira, E.; Rocha, M.A.M.; Coelho, E.; Pinho, O.; Saraiva, J.A.; Ferreira, I.M.P.L.V.O.; Coimbra, M.A. Valuation of brewer’s spent
grain using a fully recyclable integrated process for extraction of proteins and arabinoxylans. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 52, 136–143.
[CrossRef]
81. Reis, S.F.; Coelho, E.; Coimbra, M.A.; Abu-Ghannam, N. Influence of grain particle sizes on the structure of arabinoxylans from
brewer’s spent grain. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 130, 222–226. [CrossRef]
82. Iadecola, R.; Ciccoritti, R.; Ceccantoni, B.; Bellincontro, A.; Amoriello, T. Optimization of Phenolic Compound Extraction from
Brewers’ Spent Grain Using Ultrasound Technologies Coupled with Response Surface Methodology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3309.
[CrossRef]
83. Lasekan, A.; Abu Bakar, F.; Hashim, D. Potential of chicken by-products as sources of useful biological resources. Waste Manag.
2013, 33, 552–565. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Wu, W.; He, L.; Liang, Y.; Yue, L.; Peng, W.; Jin, G.; Ma, M. Preparation process optimization of pig bone collagen peptide-calcium
chelate using response surface methodology and its structural characterization and stability analysis. Food Chem. 2019, 284, 80–89.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Ribeiro, T.B.; Costa, C.M.; Bonifácio-Lopes, T.; Silva, S.; Veiga, M.; Monforte, A.R.; Nunes, J.; Vicente, A.A.; Pintado, M. Prebiotic
effects of olive pomace powders in the gut: In vitro evaluation of the inhibition of adhesion of pathogens, prebiotic and antioxidant
effects. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 112, 106312. [CrossRef]
86. Daverey, A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Sumalatha, S. Sophorolipids production by Candida bombicola using dairy industry wastewater.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2011, 13, 481–488. [CrossRef]
87. Koutinas, A.A.; Papapostolou, H.; Dimitrellou, D.; Kopsahelis, N.; Katechaki, E.; Bekatorou, A.; Bosnea, L.A. Whey valorisation:
A complete and novel technology development for dairy industry starter culture production. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100,
3734–3739. [CrossRef]
88. Izzo, L.; Luz, C.; Ritieni, A.; Mañes, J.; Meca, G. Whey fermented by using Lactobacillus plantarum strains: A promising approach
to increase the shelf life of pita bread. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 5906–5915. [CrossRef]
89. Shahidi, F.; Synowiecki, J. Isolation and characterization of nutrients and value-added products from snow crab (Chionoecetes
opilio) and shrimp (Pandalus borealis) processing discards. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1991, 39, 1527–1532. [CrossRef]
90. Lopes da Silva, T.; Santos, A.R.; Gomes, R.; Reis, A. Valorizing fish canning industry by-products to produce ω-3 compounds and
biodiesel. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 9, 74–81. [CrossRef]
91. Zuo, X. Tilapia skin peptides, a by-product of fish processing, ameliorate DSS-induced colitis by regulating inflammation and
inhibiting apoptosis. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 988758.
92. De Boni, A.; Melucci, F.M.; Acciani, C.; Roma, R. Community composting: A multidisciplinary evaluation of an inclusive,
participative, and eco-friendly approach to biowaste management. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2022, 6, 100092. [CrossRef]
93. Carus, M.; Dammer, L. The Circular Bioeconomy—Concepts, Opportunities, and Limitations. Ind. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 83–91.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16764 14 of 14

94. Grasso, S.; Asioli, D. Consumer preferences for upcycled ingredients: A case study with biscuits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020,
84, 103951. [CrossRef]
95. Temkov, M.; Velickova, E.; Stamatovska, V.; Nakov, G. Consumer perception on food waste management and incorporation of
grape pomace powder in cookies. J. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. 2021, 21, 753–762.