Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Food waste minimization from a life-cycle perspective

A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott*, T. Andersson
Water and Environmental Engineering, Lund University, Kemicentrum, Box 124, 210 00 Lund, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article investigates potentials and environmental impacts related to household food waste mini-
Received 21 February 2013 mization, based on a case study in Southern Sweden. In the study, the amount of avoidable and un-
Received in revised form avoidable food waste currently being disposed of by households was assessed through waste
18 July 2014
composition analyses and the different types of avoidable food waste were classied. Currently, both
Accepted 22 July 2014
avoidable and unavoidable food waste is either incinerated or treated through anaerobic digestion. A
Available online 26 September 2014
hypothetical scenario with no generation of avoidable food waste and either anaerobic digestion or
incineration of unavoidable food waste was compared to the current situation using the life-cycle
Keywords:
Waste minimization
assessment method, limited to analysis of global warming potential (GWP). The results from the waste
Waste reduction composition analyses indicate that an average of 35% of household food waste is avoidable. Minimization
Household waste of this waste could result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 800e1400 kg/tonne of avoidable
Food waste food waste. Thus, a minimization strategy would result in increased avoidance of GWP compared to the
Life-cycle assessment current situation. The study clearly shows that although modern alternatives for food waste treatment
Carbon footprint can result in avoidance of GWP through nutrient and energy recovery, food waste prevention yields far
greater benets for GWP compared to both incineration and anaerobic digestion.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmentally benecial treatment alternative for food waste

According to the FAO (2011), the amount of food waste gener-
ated in the EU equals 280 kg per year for each EU citizen. Of this,
66% is generated in the production to retail chain and 34% by
households. Thus, food waste accounts for a large part of the
municipal solid waste generated by households. Previous studies
have shown that the fraction of food waste in solid household
waste equals 38% in Sweden, (IVL, 2002) 50e70% in Brazil (Mahler
et al., 2002), 43% in Turkey (Banar and Ozkan, 2008) and 41% in
Denmark (Riber and Christensen, 2006). The European Union
Waste Framework Directive (WFD) encourages separate collection
and recycling of bio-waste and schemes for source-separation of
this fraction have been introduced in several European countries.
Due to the energy and nutrient content of this waste and the po-
tential for its recovery in the treatment process, previous studies
have suggested that treatment of food waste can result in net
environmental benets using anaerobic digestion or composting
alternatives (Mller et al., 2009; Boldrin et al., 2009; Smith et al.,
2001; Hirai et al., 2000). The WFD also encourages member states
to use life-cycle assessment (LCA) to determine the most
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anna.bernstad@chemeng.lth.se (A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott).
and other types of bio-waste in the specic local context. The use of
LCA as a decision support tool in solid waste management policy-
making, as previously proposed by Kirkeby et al. (2006), is there-
fore likely to increase in the coming years.
The current levels of food waste generation in Europe to a large
extent derive from mismanagement of edible food (WRAP, 2008;
Salhofer et al., 2008). According to the EU waste hierarchy
(European Parliament, 2008), prevention should be the main
strategy to decrease the environmental burdens from solid waste in
member states. However, the focus on LCA of solid waste man-
agement systems is commonly related to comparisons of different
treatment alternatives for a specic amount of generated solid
waste, while potential environmental benets from waste mini-
mization commonly not are addressed.
1.1. Denitions
The EU WFD denition of bio-waste, use the term food and
kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail
premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants
(European Parliament, 2008). However, in the present study, as
well as in many other academic works in this area, the focus is
limited to food waste exclusively. Partt et al. (2010) makes a
distinction between food losses and food waste, where the former

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.048
0301-4797/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
220 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226
is related to losses taking place in production, post-harvest and
processing stages of the food supply chain and the latter occurs in
the retail and nal consumption parts of the chain. However, in the
present paper, food waste is discussed only in relation to the very
last step of the chain e generated by end-consumers.
When discussing food waste prevention, it is important to
distinguish between different types of wastes. First, a distinction
can be drawn between avoidable and unavoidable food waste. The
need to differentiate avoidable and unavoidable food waste has
previously been highlighted (WRAP, 2008; Salhofer et al., 2008).
Unavoidable food waste can be dened as waste that occurs in the
preparation of food: peels, bones, shells etc., which commonly are
not are regarded as edible. Avoidable food waste can be dened as
products which could have been eaten and consists of prepared but
uneaten food (e.g., cooked pasta), food which was left to go bad
(e.g., dry bread or rotten fruits and vegetables) and other food
products that were disposed of in edible condition. In some cases, a
third category e possibly avoidable food waste e has been dened
as food waste which in some gastronomic cultures is seen as
avoidable, but as unavoidable in others (WRAP, 2009). Some ex-
amples are bread crusts and potato peels. In the present study, only
the two categories avoidable and unavoidable food waste are used.
Based on the denitions above, it can be argued that unavoid-
able food waste is a result of the very nature of the food we
consume at home. If this waste had not occurred in the home as a
part of the food preparation process, it would have emerged earlier
in the food production chain. Sale of unpeeled and peeled carrots
can serve as an example of this. In the rst case, a household will
produce a larger amount of food waste through the peeling of
carrots before consumption. In the latter case, the peeling takes
place in industrial facilities and increases the production of food
waste from such facilities. The elimination of peels prior to retail
sale could also increase the need for packaging and thus result in
increased resource utilization and environmental impacts. Such
impacts are not considered in the present paper. However, this
example clearly demonstrates that in order to address the envi-
ronmental benets related to food waste prevention, one must
focus on minimizing the avoidable food waste fraction.
1.2. Aim and scope
The present paper reports the potentials for household food
waste prevention based on a case study in southern Sweden. An
assessment was also made of environmental impacts related to two
different treatment alternatives for food waste, both unavoidable
and avoidable, by modeling of direct and upstream and down-
stream impacts related to treatment of the functional unit through
anaerobic digestion on the one hand and incineration on the other.
2. Methodology
2.1. Waste composition analysis method
Three waste composition analyses were performed in a multi-
family residential area in Malmo , southern Sweden. In this area,
household food waste has been collected separately in paper bags
since 2008. All separately collected food waste and 50% of the bins
for disposal of residual waste (randomly selected) were analyzed.
This approach is described in detail by Dahle n and Lagerkvist
(2008). Waste from a total of 486 households was investigated.
The main categories used in the analyses were avoidable and
unavoidable food waste. These fractions were divided into a total of
eleven sub-fractions, which in some cases were divided even
further. Thus a total of 19 fractions were used in the analyses
(Table 1). The weight of packaging was included in the categories
Table 1
Sub-fractions used in the detailed assessment of avoidable and unavoidable food
waste.
Avoidable Unavoidable
Unopened packaging Tea and coffee grind
Meat Peels, shells, cores and trimmings
Other unopened food Bones, skin, fat
Opened packaging Other unavoidable
Meat
Bread
Dairy products
Vegetables and fruits
Other opened food
Half eaten food
Vegetables and fruit
Dairy products
Prepared food
With meat
Without meat
Non packaged whole vegetables/fruits
Non packaged whole bread
Other meat
Other avoidable food
unopened packaging and opened packaging in cases where
food was disposed of in its original packaging. Thus, packaging was
not separated from the content and assumptions were made in
relation to the ratio of packaging to food waste.
The sub-categories used for avoidable food waste can be used to
describe the waste both in different types of food as well as to give
information of the life stage of the food product when discarded.
The groups for different food types used were: Meat, Bread, Pre-
pared food, Dairy products, Fruits and vegetables and Other. The life-
stage categories used were: Unopened packaging, Opened packaging,
Half-eaten food (unprepared left-overs, for example half-eaten ap-
ples), Prepared food (food which had been cooked/fried etc. before
being discarded, for example cooked pasta or fried meat), Non
packaged whole vegetables/fruits (for example whole, uneaten ap-
ples), Other meat (unprepared) and Other avoidable food (mostly
candy, potato chips and popcorn).
2.2. Environmental impact assessment
LCA methodology, as described by Finnveden et al. (2009), was
used, using system expansion and based on a consequential
approach. The avoidable food waste fraction was classied as 100%
preventable while the unavoidable food waste fraction was seen as
unpreventable. Waste prevention was evaluated through modeling
upstream and direct emissions associated with production of
avoided food and packaging material. Alternative treatment of this
waste was modeled as direct as well as upstream and downstream
impacts related to treatment of the functional unit through
anaerobic digestion, composting and incineration. The assessment
was limited to emissions of greenhouse gases.
2.3. Function unit and system boundaries
The functional unit was dened as the service of managing one
tonne (metric ton) of food waste from Swedish households. How-
ever, waste prevention inherently changes the functional unit
(Ekvall et al., 2007). Cleary (2010) uses the terms primary and
secondary functional units to ensure both a xed amount of MSW
managed in scenario comparisons including waste prevention, as
well as identical reference ows of functionally equivalent product
services. However, the same author also states that a secondary
functional unit is not required to ensure the functional equivalence
of product services if addressing services that are deemed
 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226 221

unwanted by certain segments of the population, such as unsolic-
ited advertising material. Analogously to this, avoidable food waste
is in the present study regarded as an unwanted product and sec-
ondary functional units were not dened. Similarly to Gentil et al.
(2011) it was considered that the quantity of prevented waste is a
virtual waste ow. Thus, the consequences of reducing a waste
fraction in different waste management systems can be assessed
simultaneously as the avoided production impacts from the quan-
tity of prevented food waste measured, without affecting the
functional unit (Fig. 1).
2.3.1. System boundaries in waste management systems
Direct emissions from transport, pretreatment, treatment and
nal disposal of secondary waste or use of produced bio-fertilizers
were included in the study. Also, the impacts related to production
of collection material were addressed. In all cases it was assumed
that bio-fertilizers could be used to replace chemical fertilizers.
System expansion was used to address energy and nutrient re-
covery. Marginal data was used for use and substitution of power
(0.887 kg CO2-eq/kWh based on Fruergaard et al., 2009) and heat
(0.11 kg CO2-eq/MJ based on Gode et al., 2011). Emissions from use
of bio-fertilizers on farmland were addressed, while ash treatment
not was considered. The collection of input data was restricted to
the information that could affect the GWP from compared
scenarios.
2.3.2. System boundaries in avoided production systems
GWP from prevention of avoidable food waste was assessed
through modeling of production, transport (from producer to
retail), nal transport (from retail to household) and food prepa-
ration, through a production life cycle inventory (LCI). Also, the
production of packaging found together with avoidable food waste
was included. Emissions related to storage (i.e. refrigeration or
freezing of food) was not included in the study, as results from
waste composition analyses give very little information relation to
such services.
3. Life cycle inventory
The composition of household food waste was based on a sub-
division of avoidable food waste into six categories: Meat, Bread,
Prepared food, Dairy products, Fruits and vegetables and Other. Thus,
assumptions were made regarding further distribution of these
categories in order to collect needed input data in the LCA
(Table 2).
The evaluation of the avoided production impacts was based on
previously performed life cycle assessment of food production
(Table 1, SI). Environmental impacts related to food production can
vary greatly depending on how (i.e., organic/conventional pro-
duction) and where the production occurred. Such information
commonly cannot be gained through waste composition analyses
so assumptions had to be made regarding the origin of the food
waste assessed in the study. In order to address these uncertainties
throughout the study, two datasets were created: a high-impact
(HI) and a low-impact (LI) scenario. The same was done for the
consumer transport and preparation processes (Table 2, SI). The
prepared food fraction consisted mainly of cooked pasta, potatoes
and rice, according to observations during the waste composition

1 ton food waste Collection and Incineration Ash treatment

(avoidable+ transportation
unavoidable)
Substitution of
electricity and
heat

1 ton food waste Collection and pretreatment Incin- Ash treatment

(avoidable+ transportation eration
unavoidable)
Substitution of AD
car fuel Substitution of
electricity and
Substitution of Digestate heat
chemical
fertilizers

0.65 ton unavoidable Collection and Incineration Ash treatment

food waste transportation

Non-production of Substitution of
0.35 ton avoidable electricity and
food waste heat

0.65 ton Collection and pretreatment Incin- Ash treatment

unavoidable food transportation eration
waste
Substitution of AD
car fuel Substitution of
Non-production of electricity and
0.35 ton avoidable heat
Substitution of Digestate
food waste
chemical
fertilizers

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of investigated systems.

222 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226

Table 2 12%
Composition of food waste (unavoidable and avoidable) (%) as average based on 8%
three waste composition analyses.

Type of waste Avoidable (%) Unavoidable (%) 12% 5%

Meat
Meat 10.0
Pig 5.0 Dairy
Cow 2.5 Vegetables
Chicken 2.5
Bread 15.0 Bread
Dairy 3.0
Cheese 2.4 Other
Yoghurt 0.3
Cream 0.3 63%
Vegetables and fruit 37.0
Carrot 4.1
Leek 4.1
Fig. 2. Avoidable food waste divided in ve different food groups.
Tomato 4.1
Cucumber 4.1
Lettuce 4.1
Broccoli (frozen) 4.1 4. Results
Apple 4.1
Orange 4.1 4.1. Results of waste composition analyses
Melon 4.1
Prepared food 27.0
Pasta 9.0 The results of the detailed analyses in the case study area show
Rice 9.0 average percent of avoidable food waste equaling 35% (SD 10.5%).
Potatoes 9.0 The results were divided into life stages and food groups (Figs. 2
Coffee/Tee 19.0
and 3). The fractions of dairy products and meat were higher in
Peels etc.a 66.4
Bones etc.b 9.5 avoidable food waste found in residual waste. Also, while opened
Other 8.0c 5.2d packaging accounted for 42.5% (SD 10.5%) of the avoidable food
Total 100 100 waste in residual waste, this fraction accounted for only 24.5%
a
Including non-edible parts of vegetables/fruits and egg shells. (SD 9.0%) in of avoidable, separately collected food waste. Un-
b
Including non-edible parts of animals. opened packaging was not found among separately collected food
c
Including mainly crisps, candy and marmalade. waste, while it accounted for 6.6% of the avoidable food waste
d
Mostly owers and tissues.
found in residual waste.

4.2. GWP from food waste management

analyses. An equal division between these food types was assumed. The GWP from the two alternative treatments for generated
Packaging was included only when food waste was found in its food waste (anaerobic digestion and incineration) is presented in
original packaging in the waste composition analysis. According to Table 3 divided into different processes in the treatment chain.
the analyses, 35% of the avoidable food waste was found in original
packaging. However, the analytical method did not take the type of 4.3. GWP from production, transport and preparation of avoidable
packaging into consideration. Instead, assumptions were made on food waste
the fraction of plastic, paper, metal and glass packaging disposed
together with avoidable food waste, based on the average division The GWP from production, transport and preparation of avoid-
of these materials in household waste from the same area, as pre- able food waste is presented in Fig. 4 (high and low assumptions).
viously reported by Bernstad et al. (2012a). The assumptions made The results are based on the composition of avoidable food waste
in relation to the ratio of packaging in relation to the total amount and GWP from the production/consumption chain presented
of packed food disposed of were based on averages from Wallman above.
and Nilsson (2011). It was assumed that packaging would have The results from the combination of prevention of avoidable
been incinerated with energy recovery under the same conditions food waste and management of unavoidable food waste as well as
as the food waste incineration process. Data on lower heating value those for treatment of both avoidable and unavoidable food waste
(LHV) and dry matter were obtained from Riber and Christensen are presented in Fig. 5.
(2006) (Table 3, SI).
Evaluation of the environmental impacts related to treatment
food waste was based on literature data and previously performed
life-cycle assessments of food waste management (Table 4, SI). The 6%
energy content (as lower heating value, LHV) in food waste has in
14% Unopened packaging
previous LCA studies has been assumed to range from 1748 to 32%
6300 MJ/tonne wet waste (Lee et al., 2007; Bo rjesson and Berglund, Whole food
2007). 4820 MJ/tonne wet waste was assumed in the present study. Opened packaing
Potentials for nutrient recovery, biogas production and energy re-
covery from total food waste were based on literature values, while
Halfeaten food
the gures for unavoidable food waste were based on primary data Prepared food
12%
(Table 5, SI). GWP impacts related to an avoided production and use
of energy and mineral fertilizers recovered through food waste 36%
treatment processes were estimated using literature values
(Table 6, SI). Fig. 3. Avoidable food waste divided on ve different life-stages.
 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226 223

Table 3 4.4. Sensitivity analyses

GWP from food waste management as total food waste (avoidable unavoidable)
and unavoidable food waste (kg CO2-eq/ton currently generated food waste) divided
on processes in the waste management chain.
Variations in literature data used for the assessment of GWP
from production, transportation and preparation of avoidable food
Waste management process Anaerobic digestion Incineration waste were addressed here through the presentation of a high and
Total Unavoidable Total Unavoidable low impact scenario. Therefore, sensitivity analyses were primarily
food food waste food food waste carried out in relation the waste management alternatives. Envi-
waste waste
ronmental impacts from different types of management and
Collection material 1.2 0.7 6.8 4.1 treatment alternatives of municipal solid waste can, according to
Collection/transportation 7.2 4.3 7.2 4.3
previous studies, vary greatly (Gentil et al., 2010; Morris, 2011).
Pretreatment 26.6 16.0
Treatment (energy use) 23.9 18.2 71 48 Differences are often related to methodological variations (such as
Treatment emissions 7.0 2.7 15.5 9.3 the view on biogenic emissions of CO2 in relation to global warm-
Upgrading (energy use) 9.1 6.0 ing), differences in system boundary setting (e.g., included/
Methane emissions upgrading 36.8 14.7 excluded processes) or variations in input data (Bjo rklund, 2002).
Transportation of secondary 6.1 3.7 4.8 3.84
The following factors were chosen for performance of sensitivity
waste
Spreading of biofertilizers 0.5 0.3 analyses, as they have previously been shown to have a large
Farmland emissions 80.6 45.6 impact on the results in studies of similar systems (Lantz et al.,
Energy recovery from 37.6 22.6 188 113 2009; Smith et al., 2001; Bo rjesson and Berglund, 2007; Sonesson
combustion
et al., 2000) (Table 4).
Avoided fuel production 288.7 112.2
Avoided fertilizer production 66.8 16.0
In Fig. 6 presents best- and worst-case scenarios for increased
GHG emissions from treatment, combined with decreased avoid-
Total 194.1 38.6 82.8 43.3
ance through substitution of energy and fertilizer production. The
results of the sensitivity analyses show that these changes cause
large alterations, primarily in relation to the net GWP from anaer-
obic digestion of both avoidable and unavoidable food waste, while
differences between the base case and the high/low scenarios are

Meat
Bread
Low
Dairy
Vegetables and fruit
Pasta/rice/potatoes
Preparing of food
High Other
Packaging
Consumer transports
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
kg CO2/ton generated food waste

Fig. 4. GWP from production, transports and preparation of avoidable food waste (kg CO2-eq/ton avoidable food waste) as high and low assumptions.

Incineration
Avoided production
Waste management AD

Low avoided + Incineration

Low avoided + AD

High avoided + Incineration

High avoided + AD

-1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0

kg CO2-eq per ton food waste

Fig. 5. GWP from non-production of avoidable food waste (high and low assumptions) combined with either anaerobic digestion (AD) or incineration of unavoidable food waste, as
well as either anaerobic digestion or incineration of total food waste (avoidable unavoidable) as kg CO2-eq/ton currently generated food waste.
224 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226

Table 4 10.8e13.3 kg CO2-eq/kg of avoidable cheese waste. Thus, the nd-

Sensitivity analyses performed in relation to the waste management system. ings of the present study are in agreement with data observed in
Process Change previous studies. Reported benets from anaerobic digestion and
Pretreatment (material losses) High/low based on Bernstad et al. (2012b)
incineration of food waste are also similar to earlier results (Mller
Treatment (energy recovery) () 20% et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2001).
Treatment (energy use) () 50% electric and thermal energy Based on assumptions made on the inuence of original pack-
Methane emissions treatment () 50% methane emission aging, food packaging amounted to 4.3% by mass of avoidable food
Upgrading (energy use) () 50% energy use
waste, i.e. 50% of the results presented by Lebersorger and
Methane emissions upgrading () 50% methane emission
Direct emissions from combustion Excluding emissions of N2O Schneider (2011). Sensitivity analyses show that even a doubling
Energy recovery from combustion () 20% of this not would inuence the results to any large extent. Thus,
Avoided fuel production () 20% according to results from this study, food waste packaging does not
Avoided fertilizer production () 20%
have a large inuence on the overall GWP related to food waste
minimization.

smaller in relation to incineration alternatives. Also, changes in
input data used in assessment of GWP from the waste management
system can change the hierarchy between the two compared
treatment alternatives. In the case of anaerobic digestion of un-
avoidable food waste, the results change from net avoidance to net
contribution to GWP (Fig. 6). The most inuential processes were
related to energy input in pretreatment, substitution of fuel,
emissions from farmland and fugitive emissions from anaerobic
digestion in relation to the biological treatment alternative, as well
as assumptions regarding energy recovery and emissions of N2O
from incineration.
5. Discussion
5.1. Uncertainties related to LCI data and waste composition
analyses
As seen in Fig. 5, the net-benets from food waste minimization
vary greatly depending on assumptions related to the GWP from
the production of avoidable food waste. In previous studies, Gentil
et al. (2011) assumed a GWP of 5.3 kg CO2-eq/kg of meat waste and
1.0 kg CO2-eq/kg of vegetable waste, while Mogensen et al. (2011)
used values for avoidable meat production ranging from 5.6 and
5.7 kg CO2-eq/kg of pork and chicken to 32.7 kg CO2-eq/kg of beef,
with an average (assuming equal parts of these types of meat) of
14.7 kg CO2-eq/kg. The same author assumes emissions equal to 1.0
CO2-eq/kg for avoidable vegetable waste and 12.2 kg CO2-eq/kg
avoidable cheeses. This can be compared to the results from the
present study: 8.3e11.8.3 kg CO2-eq/kg of avoidable meat waste,
0.7e1.0 kg CO2-eq/kg of avoidable vegetable waste and
5.2. LCA hot spot identication
Identication of hot spots, i.e., factors responsible for a large
contribution to the overall GWP from compared scenarios, was
done both in relation to the generated avoidable food waste and the
compared waste management alternatives.
The most critical factors related to the anaerobic digestion waste
management alternative are; amount and environmental impacts
related to fuels avoided by produced biogas, amount and environ-
mental impacts related to chemical fertilizers avoided by recovered
nutrients and emissions from farmland during spreading of diges-
tate. The most critical factors related to the incineration waste
management alternative are; amount and environmental impacts
related to energy use avoided by incineration, amount and envi-
ronmental impacts related to energy use in the incineration process
and treatment emissions, specically N2O.
Food preparation in the individual household can have a high
impact on GWP related to generation of avoidable food waste. In this
example, where the fraction of prepared and wasted food repre-
sents 27% of the total amount of avoidable food waste, food prep-
aration contributes to almost 20% of the total GWP from the
generated avoidable food waste. However, this result is strongly
connected to the environmental prole of energy used in the
preparation. Thus, assuming a more fossil lean electricity mix
(Swedish average, Uppenberg et al., 2001), food preparation would
represent around 1% of the total GWP. At the same time, the waste
composition analyses on which the data used in the present study
were based did not take into consideration that parts of the avoid-
able food waste in some cases had been prepared industrially before
discard. A previous comparison of GHG-emissions from home-

100 All food waste Unavoidable food waste

Low

Base case
0
High
CO2-eq/ton food waste

-100

-200

-300

-400

Anaerobic Incineration Anaerobic Incineration

-500 digestion digestion

Fig. 6. Results from sensitivity analyses in relation to the waste management alternatives anaerobic digestion and incineration, presented as base case (with the assumptions
presented in Table 3) as well as high and low scenarios, according to changes presented in Fig. 4.
 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226
cooked, semi-prepared and ready-to-eat food, concluding that
semi-produced and ready-to-eat food commonly generate higher
emissions compared to home cooking, mainly due to increased need
for packaging, storage and inefcient transports (Sonesson, 2005).
Thus, it is likely that the GWP related to preparing food that goes to
waste is underestimated in the present study.
Consumer transports contribute to 2.5% of total GWP from
avoidable food waste if assuming that transportations are made in
private cars, using diesel. Thus, consumer transport was not of key
importance to overall GWP.
The results from the study are strongly associated with the type
of food wasted by households, as GWP from production of different
types of food can vary by several orders of magnitude. Beef, cheese
and rice result in especially high emissions of CO2-equivalents due
to large emissions of methane in the production chain. Production
of 1 kg of beef results in emissions 120 times larger than production
of 1 kg of carrots (SIK, 2009a,b). In fact, the results of this study
suggest that as much as 22e24% and 7e9% of the GHG-emissions
from wasted food are related to the meat and dairy products frac-
tions, while vegetables and fruits correspond to 6e10%. According
to Kramer et al. (1999), 28% of Dutch household food consumption
is related to meat and 23% to dairy products, while vegetables, fruits
and potatoes correspond to 15%. In a similar study of UK house-
holds, 30% of total GHG emissions from food consumption were
related to meat, 20% to dairy products and 11% to fruits and vege-
tables (including exotic fruits) (Audsley et al., 2009). Thus, there
seems to be similarities in the patterns seen in the GHG emissions
from wasted food, where vegetables and fruits correspond to a
relatively small part of the total GWP, although the fraction makes
up almost 40% of the total mass of generated food waste.
Decreasing the amount of specic categories of avoidable waste
could therefore have a large impact on the overall savings from
reduction of food waste generation.
5.3. Rebound effects related to waste minimization
According to Gentil et al. (2011), needs satised by products not
produced e and thus not ending up as waste e will have to be
served by other means. As an example, reduced production of un-
solicited paper advertisements will reduce the production of paper
waste. However, it could be argued that reduced use of this type of
advertising will be compensated by increased use of web-based
advertising and one would have to include any environmental
impacts connected to this in order to maintain a just comparison
between the alternatives. However, in the case of food waste, we do
not believe such considerations are justied since it cannot be
assumed that a decreased amount of avoidable food waste would
cause any increase in environmental burdens in other parts of the
system. The only potential rebound effect that is relevant in relation
to food waste minimization is related to a general rebound effect
when consumers change their behavior, resulting in both envi-
ronmental and monetary savings. If monetary savings are used to
consume more in other areas, environmental savings gained in one
area could be offset by increased impacts in others (Fo lster, 2008).
5.4. Impacts on the waste management chain
Waste prevention measures have potential not only to reduce
the total amount of food waste, but also can inuence the charac-
teristics of remaining food waste. This can have both negative and
positive impacts on GWP. A lower content of nutrients in food
waste means less potential for substitution of chemical fertilizers in
a waste management scenario where nutrients are recovered
through anaerobic digestion and use of digestate on farmland. This
reduces potential GWP avoidance. However, a lower content of
225
nitrogen in digestate can also reduce risks of emissions of nitrous
oxides (N2O) from digestate during storage and spreading on
farmland (Lantz et al., 2009) as well as formation of NOx and N2O in
incineration of food waste (Smith et al., 2001).
The present study was performed in a Swedish context. Thus,
alternatives for treatment of generated food waste only include
technologies where efcient recovery of energy and nutrients are
viable and food waste management can thus be connected to
environmental benets. However, in many countries, management
of food waste is related to several negative impacts on the envi-
ronment, such as fugitive methane emissions from landlls. Thus,
the net benets from food waste minimization are likely to be even
larger in cases where the general disposal route is restricted to
landlls.
5.5. Effects on other environmental impact categories
The present study was limited to assessment of GWP and energy
consumption related to food waste minimization. Thus, relevant
environmental impacts such as eutrophication, acidication and
toxicity were not included. According to the Swedish Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the agricultural sector is responsible for
around 40% of the human induced emissions of both nitrogen and
phosphorus in Sweden (SEPA, 2008). This shows that food pro-
duction contributes to many other types of negative environmental
impacts than GWP and energy use, again indicating the environ-
mental benets from prevention of avoidable food waste.
6. Conclusions
A case study based on three waste composition analyses among
multi-family dwellings in southern Sweden shows that on average
35% of the generated household food waste can be classed as
avoidable. Through the use of the life-cycle assessment method, the
greenhouse gas emissions from an assumed non-generation of this
avoidable food waste could be estimated. It was seen that the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could reach 800e1400 kg
CO2-eq/tonne of avoidable food waste. Currently this avoidable
waste in Sweden is mostly incinerated or treated through anaerobic
digestion, which also can result in net avoidance of greenhouse gas
emissions. However, compared to either anaerobic digestion or
incineration of both avoidable and unavoidable food waste, it was
estimated that the potential reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
could increase 6 and 19 times, respectively, if the generation of
avoidable food waste was to be reduced to zero and only un-
avoidable food waste was to be treated through anaerobic degra-
dation or incineration. The results are to large extent dependent on
the composition of what can be seen as avoidable food waste and
the date chosen to model the production of this waste. However, as
a general indication, a large part of the greenhouse gas emissions
related to the production of avoidable food waste comes from an-
imal products such as meat and dairy products. Thus, decreasing
the amount of specic categories of avoidable waste could have a
large impact on the overall greenhouse gas savings related to food
waste minimization. The results also suggest that increased focus
should be given to food waste minimization rather than just
collection and treatment of waste that already has been generated,
and provide quantitative estimates of the climate related benets
from such strategies.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.
048.
226 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226

References Lantz, M., Ekman, A., Bo rjesson, P., 2009. Systemoptimerad produktion av for-
donsgas e En miljo - och energioptimerad studie av So dersens bio-
gasanla ggnin (Systems Optimized Production of Vehicle Gas e an
Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bukern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A.,
Environmental and Energy Assessment of the So dersen Biogas Production
2009. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from
Plant). Report 69. Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University,
the UK food system end and the scope to reduce them by 2050. http://assets.
Lund Sweden (in Swedish).
wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf.
Lebersorger, S., Schneider, F., 2011. Discussion on the methodology for determining
Banar, M., Ozkan, A., 2008. Characterization of the municipal solid waste in Eski-
food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manage. 31 (9e10),
sehir City, Turkey. Environ. Eng. Sci. 25 (8), 1213e1220.
924e1933.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., Aspegren, H., 2012a. Local strategies for efcient
Lee, S.-H., Choi, K.-I., Osako, M., Dong, J.-I., 2007. Evaluation of environmental
management of solid household waste e the full-scale Augustenborg experi-
burdens caused by changes of food waste management systems in Seoul, Korea.
ment. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2), 200e212.
Sci. Total Environ. 387 (1e3), 42e53.
Bernstad, A., Malmqvist, L., Truedsson, C., la Cour Jansen, J., 2012b. Need for im-
Mahler, C.F., Araujo, F., Paranhos, R., 2002. Solid Waste Management and Com-
provements in physical pretreatment of source-separated household food
posting. Pollution Aquatic Pollution and Solid Waste Acuarius Publication,
waste. Waste Manage. 33 (3), 746e764 (accepted for publication).
rklund, A., 2002. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int. J. LCA 7 Editorial Group/Bio-Rio Foundation (in Portuguese).
Bjo
Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J., Knudsen, M.T., 2011. Madspild i fdevareproduktionen
(2), 64e72.
e fra primrproduktion til detailled (Food Waste in the Food Production Chain
Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Mller, J., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Composting and
e from Primary Production to Households) (in Danish). Det Jord-
compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
brugsvidenskabeligt Fakultet (DJF), Aarhus University.
contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 800e812.
rjesson, P., Berglund, M., 2007. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems Mller, J., Boldrin, A., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Anaerobic digestion and digestate use:
Bo
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste
e Part II: the environmental impact of replacing various reference systems.
Manage. Res. 27 (8), 813e824.
Biomass Bioenergy 31 (5), 326e344.
Morris, J., 2011. Review of LCAs on Organics Management Methods and Develop-
Cleary, J., 2010. The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle as-
ment of an Environmental Hierarchy. Alberta Environment, Edmonton AB, US.
sessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological is-
Partt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
sues. Int. J. LCA 15 (6), 579e589.
n, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2008. Methods for household waste composition studies. quantication and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365,
Dahle
3065e3081.
Waste Manage. 28 (7), 1100e1112.
rklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life-cycle Riber, C., Christensen, T.H., 2006. Method for fractional solid waste sampling and
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjo
chemical analysis. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 87 (5), 321e336.
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F., Lebersorger, S., 2008. Potentials for the
Manage. 27 (8), 989e996.
prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 28 (2), 245e259.
European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and
SEPA, 2008. Konsumtionens klimatpverkan (The Climate Effects from Consump-
the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
tion). Report No 5903. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriCELEX:32008L0098:
Sweden (in Swedish).
EN:NOT.
SIK, 2009a. Cederberg, C., Flysjo , A., Sonesson, U., Sund, V., Davis, J. Greenhouse Gas
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste. Extent Causes Prev. http://www.fao.
Emissions from Swedish Consumption of Meat, Milk and Eggs 1990 and 2005.
org/leadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf.
e, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., SIK Report No 794, Stockholm, Sweden.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine
SIK, 2009b. Klimatpverkan frn bro d- kommunikationsunderlag (Climate Impacts
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle
from Bread). SIK Report No P80427, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (1), 1e21.
lster, S., 2008. Fo rva l till va
rldsundergngen (Goodbye Armageddon). Albert Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., Bates, J., 2001. Waste Management
Fo
rlag, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish). Options and Climate Change. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Bonniers Fo
Environment. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities,
Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., Mller, J., Ekvall, T., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Energy use and
Luxembourg.
recovery in waste management and implications for accounting of greenhouse
Sonesson, U., 2005. Miljo massig jamfo relse av olika s
att att framstalla en mltid
gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (8), 724e739.
med ko ttbullar respektive kyckling (hemlagat, halvfabrikat och helfabrikat)
Gentil, E.C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., 2010. Models for waste life
(Environmental Comparison of Different Ways of Food Preparation). SIK,
cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manage. 30 (12),
Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
2636e2648.
Sonesson, U., Bjo rklund, A., Carlsson, M., Dalemo, M., 2000. Environmental and
Gentil, E.C., Gallo, D., Christensen, T.H., 2011. Environmental evaluation of municipal
economic analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resour.
waste prevention. Waste Manage. 31, 2371e2379.
glund, J., Palm, D., 2011. Conserv. Recyc. 28 (1e2), 29e53.
Gode, J., Martinsson, F., Hagberg, L., Oman, A., Ho
faktaboken 2011 e Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer fo r bra
nslen, el, va
rme Uppenberg, S., Brandel, M., Lindfors, L.G., Marcus, H.O., Wachtmeister, A.,
Miljo
Zetterberg, L., 2001. Environmental Facts for Fuels Part 1. Resources Con-
och transporter. Varmeforsk. Report No 1183.
sumption and Emissions throughout the Lifecycle (in Swedish). Swedish Envi-
Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for food
ronmental Institute (IVL), Stockholm, Sweden.
waste recycling and management. In: Proceedings from the 4th International
Wallman, M., Nilsson, K., 2011. Klimatpverkan och energianva ndning frn livs-
Conference on EcoBalance Methodologies for Decision Making in a Sustainable
medelsfo rpackningar (Climate Impacts and Energy Use from Food Packaging).
21st Century. October 31steNov 2nd, 2000, Tsukuba, Japan.
Report No 18-2011. SIK, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Kirkeby, J.T., Birgisdottir, H., Lund Hansen, T., Christensen, T.H., Bhander, G.S.,
WRAP, 2008. The Food We Waste, ISBN 1-84405-383-0. Banbury, UK.
Hauschild, M., 2006. Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid
WRAP, 2009. In: Quested, T., Johnson, H. (Eds.), Household Food and Drink Waste in
waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE).
the UK, ISBN 1-84405-430-6. Banbury, UK.
Waste Manage. Res. 24, 16e26.
Kramer, K.J., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S., Wilting, H.C., 1999. Greenhouse gas emissions
related to Dutch food consumption. Elsevier Energy Policy 27, 203e216.