Cited by 1,300Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactAgricultural and Food Production Studies

Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use

Open access
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J.·2012·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Reducing food losses and waste is considered to be one of the most promising measures to improve food security in the coming decades. Food losses also affect our use of resources, such as freshwater, cropland, and fertilisers. In this paper we estimate the global food supply losses due to lost and wasted food crops, and the resources used to produce them. We also quantify the potential food supply and resource savings that could be made by reducing food losses and waste. We used publically available global databases to conduct the study at the country level. We found that around one quarter of the produced food supply (614 kcal/cap/day) is lost within the food supply chain (FSC). The production of these lost and wasted food crops accounts for 24% of total freshwater resources used in food crop production (27 m(3)/cap/yr), 23% of total global cropland area (31 × 10(-3)ha/cap/yr), and 23% of total global fertiliser use (4.3 kg/cap/yr). The per capita use of resources for food losses is largest in North Africa & West-Central Asia (freshwater and cropland) and North America & Oceania (fertilisers). The smallest per capita use of resources for food losses is found in Sub-Saharan Africa (freshwater and fertilisers) and in Industrialised Asia (cropland). Relative to total food production, the smallest food supply and resource losses occur in South & Southeast Asia. If the lowest loss and waste percentages achieved in any region in each step of the FSC could be reached globally, food supply losses could be halved. By doing this, there would be enough food for approximately one billion extra people. Reducing the food losses and waste would thus be an important step towards increased food security, and would also increase the efficiency of resource use in food production.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The waste of resources caused by global FLW accounts for 24% of total freshwater use and 23% of global fertilizer use.

    “The waste of resources caused by global FLW has been estimated to account for 24% of the total usage of freshwater resources and 23% of the global fertilizer use [27].”
  • Kummu et al. suggested that 47% of agricultural food wastes and over 86% of consumer wastes could be effectively utilised.

    “From a global perspective, their study suggested that 47% of agricultural food wastes and over 86% of consumer wastes could be effectively utilised.”
  • Kummu et al. found that the biggest improvements in food waste management would occur where the demand for additional food was the least.

    “The study also found that the biggest improvements in food waste management would occur where the demand for additional food was the least [169].”
  • Kummu et al. found that the preferred option for food waste utilisation was to use wastes generated from agriculture and consumers.

    “A recent study by Kummu et al. found that the preferred option for food waste utilisation was to use wastes generated from agriculture and consumers.”
  • Globally, enough food is wasted every year to feed nearly 2 billion people a 2,100 kcal/day diet.

    “Globally, enough food is wasted every year to feed nearly 2 billion people a 2,100 kcal/day diet,[14] which amplifies the negative environmental externalities associated with agriculture and increases resource scarcity.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Kummu, M.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
438
Pages
477-489
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072377819
Cited by
1,300
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 128 · 2018: 99 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 22
FWCI
47.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Aalto-Yliopisto
  • Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Food Production Studies
Keywords
food loss, food waste, food supply chain, freshwater use, cropland use, fertilizer use, resource efficiency, food security, global food production, regional disparities
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fertilizers, Food Supply, Waste Products, Water Supply, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review