Cited by 241Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Food Losses and Waste in China and Their Implication for Water and Land

Liu, Junguo, Lundqvist, Jan, Weinberg, Josh, Gustafsson, Josephine·2013·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Conventional approaches to food security are questionable due to their emphasis on food production and corresponding neglect of the huge amount of food losses and waste. We provide a comprehensive review on available information concerning China's food losses and waste. The results show that the food loss rate (FLR) of grains in the entire supply chain is 19.0% ± 5.8% in China, with the consumer segment having the single largest portion of food waste of 7.3% ± 4.8%. The total water footprint (WF) related to food losses and waste in China in 2010 was estimated to be 135 ± 60 billion m(3), equivalent to the WF of Canada. Such losses also imply that 26 ± 11 million hectares of land were used in vain, equivalent to the total arable land of Mexico. There is an urgent need for dialogue between actors in the supply chain, from farmer to the consumer, on strategies to reduce the high rates of food losses and waste and thereby make a more worthwhile use of scarce natural resources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es401426b

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Grain waste in the Chinese supply chain is 19.0% ± 5.8%, with consumers accounting for the single largest portion of the waste (7.3% ± 4.8%).

    “Studies have also shown that grain waste in the Chinese supply chain is 19.0% ± 5.8%, with consumers accounting for the single largest portion of the waste (7.3% ± 4.8%) [49].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, J., Lundqvist, J., Weinberg, J., & Gustafsson, J.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Forestry University (CN)
  • Stockholm International Water Institute (SE)
Corresponding author
Liu, Junguo
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2013-09-17
Volume
47
Issue
18
Pages
10137-10144
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2328751657
Cited by
241
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 loss, food waste, water footprint, land use, food supply chain, grain losses, consumer food waste, food security, natural resource use, China
MeSH terms
China, Conservation of Natural Resources, Food Supply, Waste Products, Water

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