Cited by 139Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFood, Nutrition, and Cultural PracticesWaste Management and Recycling

A Brief Pre-History of Food Waste and the Social Sciences

Evans, David, Campbell, Hugh, Murcott, Anne·2012·The Sociological Review

Abstract

Food waste is a compelling and yet hugely under-researched area of interest for social scientists. In order to account for this neglect and to situate the fledgling body of social science scholarship that is starting to engage with food waste, the analysis here does a number of things. It explores the theoretical tendencies that have underpinned the invisibility of waste to the sociological gaze alongside the historical transitions in global food relations that led to the disappearance of concerns about food scarcity – and with them, concerns about food waste – from cultural and political life. It also sketches out some of the processes through which waste has recently (re-)emerged as a priority in the realms of food policy and regulation, cultural politics and environmental debate. Particular attention is paid to the intellectual trajectories that have complemented food waste's rising profile in popular and policy imaginations to call forth sociological engagement with the issue. With this in place, the stage is set for the individual contributions to this Sociological Review Monograph – papers that engage with food waste in a number of contexts, at a variety of scales and from a range of disciplinary perspectives. Together they represent the first attempt collectively to frame potential sociological approaches to understanding food waste.

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 · 10.1111/1467-954x.12035

Cites

67 of 67 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

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 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A.
Venue
The Sociological Review
Published
2012-12
Volume
60
Issue
2_suppl
Pages
5-26
ISSN
  • 0038-0261 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-954X
OpenAlex
W1758569442
Cited by
139
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food, Nutrition, and Cultural Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
Keywords
food waste, food shortages, food policy, food regulation, cultural politics, environmental debate

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