Cited by 306Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Wasted food, wasted energy: The embedded energy in food waste in the United States

Open access
Cuéllar, Amanda D., Webber, Michael E.·2010·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

This work estimates the energy embedded in wasted food annually in the United States. We calculated the energy intensity of food production from agriculture, transportation, processing, food sales, storage, and preparation for 2007 as 8080 +/- 760 trillion BTU. In 1995 approximately 27% of edible food was wasted. Synthesizing these food loss figures with our estimate of energy consumption for different food categories and food production steps, while normalizing for different production volumes, shows that 2030 +/- 160 trillion BTU of energy were embedded in wasted food in 2007. The energy embedded in wasted food represents approximately 2% of annual energy consumption in the United States, which is substantial when compared to other energy conservation and production proposals. To improve this analysis, nationwide estimates of food waste and an updated estimate for the energy required to produce food for U.S. consumption would be valuable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es100310d

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the U.S., the production of wasted food requires over 25 percent of total freshwater used, about 300 million barrels of oil, and represents two percent of annual energy consumption.

    “In the U.S., the production of wasted food requires the expenditure of over 25 percent of the total freshwater used in the U.S., about 300 million barrels of oil (Hall et al. 2009), and represents two percent of annual energy consumption (Cuellar and Webber 2010).”

    From Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development (2016) · cites this paper as Cuellar and Webber 2010

  • Lost food has important implications for public health, natural resource use, and resiliency in the face of climate change.

    “Lost food has important implications for public health, natural resource use, and resiliency in the face of climate change (Cuellar and Webber, 2010;Dorward, 2012;Lewison et al., 2011;Parfitt et al., 2010), and the issue is gaining traction among a wide range of stakeholders.”
  • Loss prevention would reduce unnecessary production and harvesting, which would improve the ecological sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, contribute to increased future food security, and reduce the carbon and energy used in production and trade per unit of seafood consumed.

    “Loss prevention would reduce unnecessary production and harvesting, which would improve the ecological sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, contribute to increased future food security, and reduce the carbon and energy (Cuellar and Webber, 2010) used in production and trade per unit of seafood consumed.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. EPA. Demographics; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 2007. 11645578
  2. Elitzak H. Food Cost Review, 1950−97; Report No.: Agricultural Economic Report No. 780; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: 1999
  3. EIA. Annual Energy Review 2007; Energy Information Administration: 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuéllar, A. D., & Webber, M. E.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Webber, Michael E.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2010-07-21
Volume
44
Issue
16
Pages
6464-6469
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2133718480
Cited by
306
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
FWCI
24.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
food waste, embodied energy, energy consumption, food loss, food transport, food processing, food storage, cooking, energy conservation, United States
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Energy Resources, Food, Food Handling, Thermodynamics, Transportation, United States, Waste Products, United States Department of Agriculture

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