Food Waste and Climate Change: Challenges, Policies, and Practical Solutions

Waste food is also the main driver of climate change, with nearly 10% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions—more than the entire aviation industry. Food waste would be the third largest polluter if it were a nation. The main source is from organic waste decomposing in landfills and emitting methane, a greenhouse gas about 28 times stronger than carbon dioxide in its global warming impact. Merging these emissions is essential to fulfilling global climate objectives, especially those outlined in the Paris Agreement. In America alone, the scope of food waste is exponential, with an estimated 5.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions generated from wasted food in 2023 alone. Along with the environmental cost, there is a massive economic cost, especially in the grocery food retail sector, with losses of up to $47 billion each year.

As a response to this twin crisis—climate and economic—a range of policy and market-based solutions has been proposed. One of the policy solutions is food-waste landfill banning, which is designed to deter supermarkets from sending unnecessary or out-of-date foods to landfills. Their success has been mixed in different states, though. Five of the early states to do so have included Massachusetts, Massachusetts being the sole state among those five that have had significant success keeping food from the landfill as waste. Its success has rested on effective education of the policy, strict enforcement, and availability of an active composting site. The other states have, however, struggled with poor penalties and low enforcement capacity, which will limit the impact of landfill bans. A different more widely researched and perhaps more effective alternative is dynamic pricing.

This involves applying algorithms to change prices of perishable food over a period of time during the day dependent on their shelf life and quantity. For instance, almost-expired milk can be sold at a discounted rate to prompt customers to buy it before it goes bad. This is unlike static pricing, where identical foods are always sold at the same rates, irrespective of freshness. Dynamic pricing could reduce waste by as much as half by making healthier, less-processed options cheaper, and reducing financial losses for retailers. Although it makes economic and environmental sense, however, dynamic pricing models for perishables have not yet been introduced by most grocery stores. At the consumer level, too, individual choices can make a measurable impact.

Reducing food waste begins with more planning—e.g., being aware of what's in your fridge, prepping meals, and using leftovers. For parties or get-togethers, forecasting food requirements ahead of time can help cut back on over-buying. Composting is also a better practice, preferable to landfilling, because it prevents methane emissions and reuses nutrients into the soil. In California, people are prompted to compost food waste through green bins, and further citizens who take part in composting schemes can hopefully provide a concrete difference in reducing waste. A second major cause of household food waste, however, comes from the uncertainty that surrounds date labeling "best by" and "use by." Research on what impact this has on consumer behavior and waste is ongoing.

Initial data indicate there are two broad categories of consumers: switchers who will purchase older editions of products at small discounts, and stayers who will pay more for newer editions except when discounts are available. But the unavailability of steady federal research funds has made it difficult to gather large-scale data on how label configurations affect behavior. This has consequences for newer bills such as California's AB 660, which oversees how expiration labels are written in an effort to diminish waste. Researchers in these fields are resorting to other sources of funding to continue studying the interaction between expiration dates, consumer psychology, and market incentives. That information is not just important to inform good public policy but also to shape industry behavior and personal choice. While recycling and composting are both worth it, the most effective response to halting the environmental expense of food waste is reduction at the source.

The more general solution to food waste lies in a blend of government policy, business practice, and consumer choice.

Food waste bans must be made more effective and pricing structures altered to include an element for the perishable nature of products. Additionally, public awareness and evidence-based research must continue to guide the direction of food systems towards sustainability. Without concerted action, food waste emissions will remain a significant barrier to the global effort to combat climate change.

Source/Credits: University of California - San Diego | Phys.org