Cited by 60Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFood and Agricultural Sciences

Nutrition in the bin: a nutritional and environmental assessment of food wasted in the UK

Open access
Cooper, Karen A., Quested, Tom E., Lanctuit, Helene, Zimmermann, Diane, Espinoza-Orias, Namy, Roulin, Anne·2018·Frontiers in Nutrition

Abstract

The UK currently has the most detailed, directly measured data for food wasted in the home. This includes information on the exact types of food wasted. This data allows calculation of the nutrients within that waste, as well as its environmental impact. The results progress the conversation beyond how much food is wasted or its energy content; it permits the implications for nutrition and sustainability to be assessed in detail. Data for UK household food waste was expressed as an average waste per capita for each type of food. Each food type was matched with an item (or group of items) from the UK Composition of Foods (7th Ed). The level of nutrients wasted was compared to UK Reference Nutrient Intakes (RNIs) for adult women (19-50y, used as a proxy for general population requirements). The data was normalized into ‘nutrient days’ wasted per capita per year, then into the number of complete diet days (for 21 nutrients plus energy). Results show that approximately 42 daily diets were discarded per capita per year. By individual nutrient, the highest losses were vitamin B12, vitamin C and thiamin (160, 140 and 130 nutrient days/capita/year respectively). For protein, dietary energy and carbohydrates, 88, 59 and 53 nutrient days/capita/year respectively were lost. Substantial losses were also found for under-consumed nutrients in the UK: calcium, which was mostly lost via bakery (27%) and dairy/eggs (27%). Food folate was mainly lost through fresh vegetables/salads (40%) and bakery (18%), as was dietary fiber (31% and 29% respectively). Environmental impacts were distributed over the food groups, with wasted meat and fish the single largest contribution. For all environmental impacts studied, the largest contribution came from agricultural production. This paper shows that there are areas where interventions preventing food waste and promoting healthy eating could work together (e.g. encouraging consumption of vegetables or tackling overbuying, especially of unhealthy foods). Food manufacturers and retailers, alongside governments and NGOs, have a key role to minimize waste of environmentally impactful, nutrient-dense foods, for instance by helping influence people’s behaviors with appropriate formulation of products, packaging, portioning, use of promotions, or public education.

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 · 10.3389/fnut.2018.00019

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • Cooper et al. (16) found fruits and vegetables to be a smaller proportion of total edible food waste (34%) than was found in this study (66%).

    “The food categories fresh vegetables and salad, fresh fruit, and processed vegetables and salad contributed a total of 34% of total edible food waste (16), compared to our 66%.”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • The study results support a mutual benefit to initiatives seeking to increase consumption and therefore decrease waste of fruits and vegetables.

    “our results support a mutual benefit to initiatives seeking to increase consumption (and therefore decrease waste) of fruits and vegetables.”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • Cooper et al. suggest that avoidable food waste used 6.3 cubic meters per person per week.

    “who suggest that avoidable food waste used 6.3 cubic meters per person per week.”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • The study results from Canada are consistent with those from the UK.

    “are consistent with those from the UK.”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • The avoidable food waste water use estimates from the study sample are lower than those from Cooper et al.

    “The avoidable food waste water use estimates from our sample are lower than those from Cooper et al. (16)”

    From Valuing the multiple impacts of household food waste (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [27]Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Groups to the Fifth Assessment: Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: IPCC (2013). 1535 p.
  2. [34]Waste & Resources Action Programme. Chapter 13 (Uncertainty). Methods Used for Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 2012. Banbury: WRAP (2013). 103 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, K. A., Quested, T. E., Lanctuit, H., Zimmermann, D., Espinoza-Orias, N., & Roulin, A.
Affiliations
  • Nestlé (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Wrap (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Karen A.
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Published
2018-03-28
Volume
5
Pages
19-19
ISSN
2296-861X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789819783
Cited by
60
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
household food waste, food waste prevention, environmental impact of food waste, vitamin B12, calcium, dietary fiber, folic acid, protein loss, energy loss, healthy eating, portioning

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