Reducing Food Losses Requires More Than Technology
Jan Broeze and Joost Snels
Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen University and Research, The NetherlandsEmbedded Files
Global food loss and waste: income per country makes a difference
Generation of food losses differs greatly in low-income versus medium- to high-income countries. In low-income countries, over 40% of the food losses occur at post-harvest and processing, while in high-income countries more than 40% of the food losses happen at retail and consumer levels (FAO, 2011). In total, low-income countries account for 44% of the food loss and waste (Lipinski et al., 2013). In low-income countries, food losses in the first stages of the food supply chain (i.e., production, handling and storage, and processing) are substantially higher than in high-income countries, where most of the food losses occur at the end of the food chain (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Share of Total Food Available (Kcal) that is lost or wasted. Source: Lipinski et al. 2013.
Food loss must be viewed from a supply chain perspective
More specific estimates of food losses per product category (refer to Porter et al., 2016) confirm that in low-income areas for most product categories the loss percentages in agricultural production and post-harvest handling are relatively large. Gustavsson (2011) deduced that the causes of food losses in low-income countries are mainly connected to financial, managerial, and technical limitations in harvesting techniques, storage and cooling facilities in difficult climatic conditions, infrastructure, packaging, and marketing systems.
Food loss is often related to quality decay
In these first stages of the supply chain, food losses are largely induced by pests and diseases, mechanical (handling) injuries, physical deterioration/aging, growth of spoilage micro-organisms, and temperature-initiated physiological mechanisms. The table below describes the primary and secondary causes that lead to the above-mentioned reasons for food loss.
Table 1. Types and causes of food loss.
Source: https://postharvest.nri.org/scenarios/fruit-and-vegetables, http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0073E/T0073E01.htm#Foreword.
Technology is a solution
Technological interventions for reducing food losses are aimed at preventing product damage and infestation, and postponing deterioration and microbial growth. Food loss is therefore most often linked to missing quality-oriented technological means, like refrigeration and advanced packaging.
It is generally recommended to apply quality-oriented interventions at the beginning of the supply chain to minimize rapid quality loss. However, technological interventions often are not economically feasible for most small-scale farmers in low-income countries. Hence, either rapid transport to a collection center where larger aggregated quantities may allow technological interventions and/or application of affordable low-tech solutions at farm sites: even small temperature reductions may have significant quality effects further along the supply chain.
Technology is often not a success in itself
The success of technological interventions depends on embedding the technology in the context of a specific supply chain. Each situation requires tailor-made solutions. Many projects in low-income countries fail, not for technological or economic reasons, but because the project designers either ignored or oversimplified the social and cultural relationships existing in context to the area of implementation (Murphy, 2001). This is even more true in the case of projects focusing on implementation of technologies. To implement the correct technology, one not only has to address the associated physical aspects of the technology (“hardware”), but also the organizational and economic (“orgware”) and educational/scientific (“software”) requirements of the supply chain as a whole. As Christiansen et al. (2011) and UNFCCC (2013, 2014) stated, hard and soft technologies are often introduced in isolation. It has been recognized that their simultaneous integration with orgware is necessary for successful adaptation. Though all three technology types are necessary, there is a concern that hard technologies are currently prioritized and often employed in isolation (Christiansen et al., 2011; UNFCCC, 2014).
Furthermore, practical value of such effects depends on correct and consequent use in the formal supply chain, whereas economic feasibility depends on the added value generated in the market. Research indicates (Seville et al., 2011) that formal chains tend to provide greater income security but not necessarily higher prices. When higher incomes do occur, it is often from higher yields, improved quality, or value-added activities. Adding value by aligning technology along the chain is therefore essential. For example, a cold chain should not be interrupted; when a cold product is placed in a warmer environment, moisture condensation will occur, which is a suitable environment for mold growth. Furthermore, fruit products tend to ripen at elevated temperatures. Thus, the orgware arrangements should take place in parallel to the hardware development. Likewise, gas protective packages are designed for specific produce, and barrier properties are optimized for a product at a specific temperature range. Because a product’s respiration activity largely varies with temperature (and ripeness stage), applying the package at suboptimal conditions may have counterproductive effects.
Summary
Focusing on improved product quality throughout the entire supply chain in the fight against food loss and waste in less developed low-income countries has shown to be an effective approach. The use of proven and affordable technology can greatly accelerate this improvement. However, employing technology in isolation will not lead to the desired effect in the longer term. Simultaneous integration of hardware and software with orgware is necessary for successful adoption. Additionally, it will always be necessary that each technology investment must ultimately pay-back through the realized added value from the market.
Page updated
Report abuse