Expert survey reveals a core consensus on food waste boundaries among domain specialists, highlighting how resolving definition grey zones aids sustainable development targets.
To prevent food waste, it is important to have a common and consistent definition of the problem. Yet several definitions are currently in use, and they are not fully comparable. Previous attempts to resolve this issue have often added to the confusion by introducing even more definitions. This study, therefore, focuses on finding the core of how food waste is defined in practice, concentrating on areas where definitions agree rather than where they diverge. To do so, a framework with four dimensions central to existing food waste definitions (scope of the food supply chain, final destination, edibility, and solidity) was developed and further explored through a questionnaire with experts in the field. The results indicate that there is a core area of consensus among experts, which aligns with the framework of most food waste definitions. There are also grey zones where experts disagree, and where existing definitions fail to bring enough clarity. With the developed framework, it is possible to further fine-tune existing definitions to bring the clarity needed, and once and for all draw the line between what is a food waste problem and what are adjacent resource inefficiency problems. With these distinctions in hand, food waste reduction as part of sustainable development becomes a more reachable target.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eriksson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: