Interview: the skeptic's view on Food waste reduction — what would change their mind

Every year, approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally—a staggering one-third of all food production. Yet despite decades of awareness campaigns, technological innovations, and policy interventions, skeptics in the sustainability investment community argue that food waste reduction remains a sector where capital often fails to generate proportional impact. This synthesized perspective draws from conversations with supply chain operators, investment analysts, and food system researchers who challenge prevailing narratives while offering nuanced conditions under which their skepticism might be reversed.

Why It Matters

The climate arithmetic surrounding food waste is unambiguous. According to the United Nations Environment Programme's 2024 Food Waste Index Report, food waste accounts for 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions—if food loss and waste were a country, it would rank as the third-largest emitter behind China and the United States. The economic dimensions are equally staggering: the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that food waste represents approximately $1 trillion in direct economic losses annually, with an additional $700 billion in environmental externalities and $900 billion in social costs.

The 2024-2025 period has witnessed intensified regulatory pressure, particularly in the European Union where the Farm to Fork Strategy mandates member states to halve per capita food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030 relative to 2020 baselines. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency and USDA have maintained their voluntary 2030 target of 50% reduction, though compliance mechanisms remain limited. For investors evaluating Scope 3 emissions across food and beverage portfolios, food waste has emerged as a material risk factor—one that affects everything from brand reputation to regulatory compliance costs.

Yet skeptics point to a troubling reality: despite increased attention and capital deployment, absolute food waste levels in many developed economies have remained stubbornly persistent. Between 2019 and 2024, household food waste in Europe decreased by only 2.5%, far below the trajectory required to meet 2030 targets. This disconnect between investment activity and measurable outcomes forms the foundation of skeptical inquiry.

Key Concepts

Understanding the skeptic's position requires clarity on fundamental terminology that is often conflated in public discourse.

Food Loss vs. Food Waste: Food loss occurs during production, post-harvest handling, storage, and processing—typically in developing economies where infrastructure gaps predominate. Food waste occurs at retail and consumer levels—primarily a developed-world phenomenon driven by behavioral and economic factors. This distinction matters because interventions effective for one category may be entirely ineffective for the other. Cold chain investments address loss; behavioral nudges address waste.

Cold Chain Infrastructure: The temperature-controlled supply chain that maintains food quality from production through consumption. Skeptics note that while cold chain investments have reduced post-harvest losses in emerging markets by 15-25%, the energy intensity of expanded refrigeration creates a carbon trade-off that is rarely factored into impact claims.

Date Labeling Standardization: The confusion between "best before," "use by," and "sell by" dates contributes to an estimated 10% of consumer food waste in Europe. Regulatory harmonization efforts have been ongoing for over a decade, yet implementation remains inconsistent across jurisdictions.

Surplus Redistribution Networks: Organizations that redirect edible surplus from retailers and food service to charitable organizations. While morally compelling, skeptics argue that redistribution addresses symptoms rather than causes and may inadvertently reduce pressure on waste generators to optimize their supply chains.

Anaerobic Digestion: The biological process that converts organic waste to biogas and digestate. Critics observe that while anaerobic digestion captures value from unavoidable waste, it occupies a lower position on the food recovery hierarchy than prevention or redistribution, yet often receives disproportionate capital allocation due to its infrastructure-intensive, financeable characteristics.

Food Waste Reduction KPIs by Intervention Type

Metric	Baseline Range	Target Range	Measurement Challenge
Household waste per capita (kg/year)	70-95	35-50	Self-reporting bias; compositional analysis expensive
Retail shrink rate (%)	2.5-4.0	1.0-2.0	Definitional inconsistency; promotion-driven distortions
Supply chain loss rate (%)	8-14	4-7	Data fragmentation across stakeholders
Surplus redistribution rate (%)	5-12	20-30	Quality vs. quantity trade-offs
Consumer date label comprehension (%)	40-55	80-90	Survey methodology variation
Restaurant plate waste (g/cover)	100-180	40-80	Limited sampling; menu variability

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Surplus food applications have demonstrated genuine traction, with Too Good To Go reporting over 350 million "magic bags" saved since launch and expansion into 17 countries. The company's marketplace model creates aligned incentives: retailers reduce disposal costs, consumers access discounted food, and the platform captures transaction fees. Critically, this model works because it monetizes behavioral economics rather than requiring behavior change.

Retail inventory optimization powered by machine learning has achieved measurable results. Tesco's partnership with AI vendor Blue Yonder reportedly reduced fresh produce waste by 35% in pilot stores through improved demand forecasting and dynamic markdown algorithms. Walmart's similar initiatives have achieved 20-25% reductions in specific categories. The success factors are clear: these interventions target decision points where economic incentives already favor waste reduction—they simply provide better information for decisions that operators are already motivated to optimize.

Standardized date labeling has progressed, albeit slowly. The UK's implementation of clearer "Use By" versus "Best Before" labeling, supported by WRAP's guidance, has been associated with an estimated 7% reduction in date-label-related consumer waste. The European Commission's 2025 revision of date marking regulations may accelerate this progress across the bloc.

Upcycled food products represent a growing market category. The Upcycled Food Association reports that certified upcycled products reached $4.8 billion in retail sales in 2024, with double-digit annual growth. Brands like ReGrained, which transforms spent brewing grain into nutrition bars, and Renewal Mill, which converts okara (soy pulp) into flour, have demonstrated that waste streams can be value streams when product positioning and distribution channels align.

What Isn't Working

Consumer behavior change campaigns have consistently underperformed expectations. Meta-analyses of food waste awareness interventions show modest effect sizes (typically 5-12% reduction) that often decay within months of campaign conclusion. The fundamental challenge is that food waste is a distributed, low-visibility behavior with weak feedback loops—consumers rarely perceive the cumulative impact of their individual decisions.

Measurement and reporting infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Despite voluntary frameworks like the Food Loss and Waste Protocol, fewer than 15% of major food companies report food waste data that meets basic comparability standards. Without consistent measurement, neither investors nor regulators can differentiate between genuine progress and greenwashing.

Household-level technology solutions have struggled with adoption curves. Smart refrigerator features, meal planning apps, and AI-powered inventory management for homes have collectively failed to reach mainstream penetration. The problem is not technological capability but user friction—the effort required to maintain these systems typically exceeds the perceived value of waste prevention.

Anaerobic digestion over-indexing represents a capital misallocation concern. While AD facilities provide essential treatment for unavoidable organic waste, their presence can reduce urgency around prevention. Research from University of Wageningen suggests that regions with robust AD infrastructure show 8-12% slower progress on waste prevention metrics—a moral hazard that skeptics argue is rarely acknowledged in impact reporting.

Key Players

Established Leaders

WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme): This UK-based charity operates as the intellectual infrastructure of food waste reduction globally. WRAP's Courtauld Commitment has united major retailers and manufacturers around voluntary reduction targets since 2005, with the Courtauld 2030 commitment now covering organizations responsible for 95% of UK grocery retail. WRAP's methodological contributions—particularly the Food Loss and Waste Protocol—provide the measurement foundation that enables credible impact claims.

ReFED: The US-based nonprofit combines research, data analytics, and stakeholder convening. ReFED's Insights Engine provides the most comprehensive database of food waste reduction solutions, analyzing over 40 intervention types across cost-effectiveness, emissions impact, and scalability dimensions. Their 2024 Roadmap to 2030 estimates that achieving US reduction targets requires $14.7 billion in annual investment—a gap analysis that informs capital allocation decisions.

Emerging Innovators

Too Good To Go: Beyond its consumer marketplace, Too Good To Go has expanded into B2B date labeling initiatives and policy advocacy. The company's "Often Good After" campaign challenges rigid date interpretation, while its partnerships with over 180,000 food businesses create unique data assets on surplus patterns.

Apeel Sciences: This Santa Barbara-based company develops plant-derived coatings that extend produce shelf life by 2-3x. Apeel's technology addresses post-harvest losses at scale—deployments with major retailers including Kroger, Costco, and Edeka have prevented an estimated 25 million pieces of fruit from becoming waste. Critics note, however, that shelf-life extension may simply shift waste from retail to household levels without net reduction.

Misfits Market and Imperfect Foods (merged 2023): This combined entity operates the largest "ugly produce" subscription service in North America, redirecting cosmetically imperfect produce from landfill to consumers at discounted prices. The company has prevented approximately 500 million pounds of food waste since inception, though unit economics remain challenging as scaled operations face margin compression.

Key Investors and Funders

Closed Loop Partners: This circular economy-focused investment firm manages the Center for the Circular Economy and has deployed significant capital into food waste infrastructure, including anaerobic digestion and composting facilities.

S2G Ventures: This multi-stage food and agriculture investor has made food waste reduction a thematic priority, with investments including Apeel Sciences, Full Harvest, and nutrient recovery company Nutrinsic.

The Rockefeller Foundation: Through its Food Initiative, Rockefeller has funded catalytic research and pilot programs, particularly around cold chain development in emerging markets.

Examples

Denmark's National Food Waste Movement (Stop Spild Af Mad): Launched in 2008, this grassroots campaign evolved into a coordinated national effort that achieved a 25% reduction in household food waste between 2011 and 2018. Success factors included celebrity endorsement, retail partnership (particularly with supermarket chain Rema 1000), and policy integration through government collaboration. The Danish model demonstrates that sustained, multi-stakeholder campaigns can achieve population-level behavior change—though the seven-year timeline and intensive resource requirements raise questions about replicability.
Tesco's Community Food Connection: Tesco's partnership with FareShare and charity redistributors has diverted 100 million meals from waste since 2016. The program operates across all UK stores, using a centralized digital platform to match surplus with local charities in real-time. The initiative demonstrates that retail redistribution at scale is operationally feasible but requires significant corporate commitment and infrastructure investment.
South Korea's Pay-As-You-Throw Program: South Korea mandates that households pay for food waste disposal based on weight, with an 83% separate collection rate for organic waste. The economic incentive structure has driven a 30% reduction in per capita food waste since implementation. The Korean model illustrates that policy mechanisms creating direct cost feedback can achieve outcomes that voluntary approaches cannot—though the required enforcement infrastructure is substantial.

Action Checklist

Conduct a baseline food waste audit using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol methodology to establish credible measurement before any intervention claims
Evaluate intervention options using ReFED's Solutions Database to compare cost-effectiveness across prevention, recovery, and recycling tiers
Implement date label standardization across all product lines, aligning with WRAP guidance for "Use By" and "Best Before" application
Establish surplus redistribution partnerships with local food banks, integrating donation into standard operating procedures rather than treating it as exceptional
Deploy AI-driven demand forecasting for fresh categories, targeting 20-30% markdown waste reduction within 12 months

FAQ

Q: Why hasn't increased investment in food waste reduction translated to proportional impact? A: The disconnect stems from capital clustering around readily financeable solutions (infrastructure, technology platforms) rather than the harder-to-monetize interventions that address root causes. Anaerobic digestion facilities attract infrastructure investors, but they treat symptoms rather than preventing waste generation. Meanwhile, consumer behavior change—which drives 60% of developed-world food waste—remains chronically underfunded because its returns are diffuse and difficult to capture.

Q: What evidence would change a skeptic's position on food waste reduction investments? A: Three categories of evidence would be persuasive: First, consistent measurement data showing absolute waste reduction at population scale (not just pilot results). Second, demonstrated durability of behavior change interventions beyond 24-month time horizons. Third, total cost accounting that includes the carbon intensity of intervention technologies themselves, particularly cold chain expansion.

Q: How do Scope 3 requirements affect the investment case for food waste reduction? A: Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements under frameworks like the CSRD and SEC climate rules create new demand signals for food waste reduction. Companies face reputational and regulatory risk from high-emission supply chains, and food waste is a significant Scope 3 contributor. However, the complexity of food system emissions makes attribution difficult—a challenge that may limit the regulatory pressure's effectiveness in driving actual reduction.

Q: Is redistribution a sustainable long-term solution or a band-aid? A: Redistribution occupies an important but intermediate position. It addresses food insecurity while capturing value from surplus, but critics correctly observe that robust redistribution networks can reduce commercial pressure on waste generators. The sustainable path requires prevention-first strategies with redistribution as a safety net for genuinely unavoidable surplus—not as a primary waste management strategy.

Q: What role does policy play in achieving 2030 food waste reduction targets? A: Policy is likely essential for achieving targets at scale. Voluntary corporate commitments have achieved meaningful but insufficient progress. The South Korean pay-as-you-throw model, French legislation banning supermarket food destruction, and EU mandatory reporting requirements demonstrate that regulatory mechanisms can shift incentive structures in ways that voluntary approaches cannot. Skeptics argue that absent similar policy in the US and other major markets, 2030 targets are aspirational rather than achievable.

Sources

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Food Waste Index Report 2024. Nairobi: UNEP.
ReFED. (2024). Roadmap to 2030: Reducing US Food Waste. New York: ReFED.
WRAP. (2024). Courtauld Commitment 2030 Annual Progress Report. Banbury: WRAP.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2023). The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Making Agri-food Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses. Rome: FAO.
European Commission. (2024). EU Farm to Fork Strategy: Progress Report on Food Waste Reduction. Brussels: EC.
Too Good To Go. (2025). Annual Impact Report 2024. Copenhagen: Too Good To Go.
Diaz-Ruiz, R., Costa-Font, M., & Gil, J.M. (2024). "Moving the food waste research agenda forward: A systematic review of behavioral interventions." Journal of Cleaner Production, 428, 139385.