waste are concentrated and the reasons why they occur. Evidence presented in this report shows that losses and waste tend to be higher for some specific commodity groups, although they can occur at all stages of the food supply chain to different degrees. However, what really struck me is the vast range in terms of percentages of food loss and waste for the same commodities and the same stages in the supply chain both within and across countries. This suggests that there is considerable potential to reduce food loss and waste where percentage losses are higher than in other places. However, it also shows that we cannot generalize about the occurrence of food loss and waste across food supply chains but must, on the contrary, identify critical loss points in specific supply chains as a crucial step in taking appropriate countermeasures.
Regarding the second dimension, although the SDGs include the reduction of food loss and waste as a target in its own right, we need to be clear about why we are pursuing it – or what is the underlying objective. Individual actors, from farmers and fishers right up to consumers, may have a private interest in reducing food loss or waste to increase their profits or income, their personal well-being or that of their families. However, this private incentive is not always strong since reducing food loss and waste may require investing money or time which, in the perception of these actors, could outweigh the benefits. There may also be barriers that prevent private actors from making these investments, e.g. credit constraints or a lack of information about options for reducing food loss and waste. On the other hand, there may be a stronger public interest in reducing food loss and waste because it contributes to other public objectives. This calls for public interventions in the form of investments or policies that create incentives
for private actors to reduce food loss and waste or remove the barriers that prevent them from doing so. The broad public objectives that this report considers are twofold: improving the food security situation of vulnerable groups and reducing the environmental footprint associated with food that is lost or wasted.
A key argument in this report is that the linkages between food loss and waste, on the one hand, and food security and environmental impacts, on the other, are complex and need to be thoroughly understood. Positive outcomes from reducing food loss and waste are far from guaranteed, and the impacts will differ according to where food loss and waste is reduced. It is exactly for this reason that policymakers need to be clear about the objectives they choose to pursue. Focusing on one objective will indeed have implications for where food loss and waste reductions can be most effective.
For instance, if the objective is to improve food security, reducing on-farm losses – particularly on small farms in low-income countries with high levels of food insecurity – is likely to have strong positive impacts. It may directly improve food security in the affected farm households and may also have positive effects in local areas, and even beyond, if more food becomes available. Reducing food loss and waste further along the food supply chain may improve food security for consumers, but farmers may actually be negatively affected if demand for their produce declines. On the other hand, while reducing consumer food waste in high-income countries with low levels of food insecurity may have some impact on vulnerable people locally through food collection and redistribution initiatives, the impact on the food insecure in distant low-income countries is likely to be negligible.
If the objectives for reducing food loss and waste are essentially environmental, the situation changes. In the case of GHGs, these accumulate throughout the supply chain. Therefore, cutting waste by consumers will have the biggest impact because food wasted at this stage represents a larger amount of embedded GHG emissions. In the case of land and water, the environmental footprint is tied mainly to the primary production phase. Therefore, reducing food loss and waste at any stage of the food supply chain can contribute to reducing overall land and water use at the global level. However, if you want to address local land and water scarcity, measures to reduce food loss are likely to be more effective if they occur at the farm level or at stages in the supply chain close to the farm level.
I invite you to read this report carefully as it examines the complex ways in which food loss and waste – and the measures taken to address it – affects food security and the environment. The report does not claim to have all the answers, particularly as it acknowledges the important information gaps that stand in the way of a comprehensive analysis. Among other things, the report attempts to highlight precisely where there is a need for a more thorough understanding of the issues, both through more and better data and improved and expanded analysis. It is my hope that it can make a contribution to the debate on how to address the problem of food loss and waste most effectively and in ways that actually make a difference in terms of improved food security and environmental sustainability, following the spirit of the 2030 Agenda.
Qu Dongyu
FAO Director-General
to read full report olease click on
^
waste are concentrated and the reasons why they occur. Evidence presented in this report shows that losses and waste tend to be higher for some specific commodity groups, although they can occur at all stages of the food supply chain to different degrees. However, what really struck me is the vast range in terms of percentages of food loss and waste for the same commodities and the same stages in the supply chain both within and across countries. This suggests that there is considerable potential to reduce food loss and waste where percentage losses are higher than in other places. However, it also shows that we cannot generalize about the occurrence of food loss and waste across food supply chains but must, on the contrary, identify critical loss points in specific supply chains as a crucial step in taking appropriate countermeasures.
Regarding the second dimension, although the SDGs include the reduction of food loss and waste as a target in its own right, we need to be clear about why we are pursuing it – or what is the underlying objective. Individual actors, from farmers and fishers right up to consumers, may have a private interest in reducing food loss or waste to increase their profits or income, their personal well-being or that of their families. However, this private incentive is not always strong since reducing food loss and waste may require investing money or time which, in the perception of these actors, could outweigh the benefits. There may also be barriers that prevent private actors from making these investments, e.g. credit constraints or a lack of information about options for reducing food loss and waste. On the other hand, there may be a stronger public interest in reducing food loss and waste because it contributes to other public objectives. This calls for public interventions in the form of investments or policies that create incentives
for private actors to reduce food loss and waste or remove the barriers that prevent them from doing so. The broad public objectives that this report considers are twofold: improving the food security situation of vulnerable groups and reducing the environmental footprint associated with food that is lost or wasted.
A key argument in this report is that the linkages between food loss and waste, on the one hand, and food security and environmental impacts, on the other, are complex and need to be thoroughly understood. Positive outcomes from reducing food loss and waste are far from guaranteed, and the impacts will differ according to where food loss and waste is reduced. It is exactly for this reason that policymakers need to be clear about the objectives they choose to pursue. Focusing on one objective will indeed have implications for where food loss and waste reductions can be most effective.
For instance, if the objective is to improve food security, reducing on-farm losses – particularly on small farms in low-income countries with high levels of food insecurity – is likely to have strong positive impacts. It may directly improve food security in the affected farm households and may also have positive effects in local areas, and even beyond, if more food becomes available. Reducing food loss and waste further along the food supply chain may improve food security for consumers, but farmers may actually be negatively affected if demand for their produce declines. On the other hand, while reducing consumer food waste in high-income countries with low levels of food insecurity may have some impact on vulnerable people locally through food collection and redistribution initiatives, the impact on the food insecure in distant low-income countries is likely to be negligible.
If the objectives for reducing food loss and waste are essentially environmental, the situation changes. In the case of GHGs, these accumulate throughout the supply chain. Therefore, cutting waste by consumers will have the biggest impact because food wasted at this stage represents a larger amount of embedded GHG emissions. In the case of land and water, the environmental footprint is tied mainly to the primary production phase. Therefore, reducing food loss and waste at any stage of the food supply chain can contribute to reducing overall land and water use at the global level. However, if you want to address local land and water scarcity, measures to reduce food loss are likely to be more effective if they occur at the farm level or at stages in the supply chain close to the farm level.
I invite you to read this report carefully as it examines the complex ways in which food loss and waste – and the measures taken to address it – affects food security and the environment. The report does not claim to have all the answers, particularly as it acknowledges the important information gaps that stand in the way of a comprehensive analysis. Among other things, the report attempts to highlight precisely where there is a need for a more thorough understanding of the issues, both through more and better data and improved and expanded analysis. It is my hope that it can make a contribution to the debate on how to address the problem of food loss and waste most effectively and in ways that actually make a difference in terms of improved food security and environmental sustainability, following the spirit of the 2030 Agenda.
Qu Dongyu
FAO Director-General
to read full report olease click on
/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/The%20State%20of%20the%20Food%20and%20%20Agriculture.pdf
^
