New insights in food security and environmental sustainability through waste food management

Abstract

Food waste has been identified as one of the major factors that constitute numerous anthropogenic activities, especially in developing countries. There is a growing problem with food waste that affects every part of the waste management system, from collection to disposal; finding long-term solutions necessitates involving all participants in the food supply chain, from farmers and manufacturers to distributors and consumers. In addition to food waste management, maintaining food sustainability and security globally is crucial so that every individual, household, and nation can always get food. “End hunger, achieve food security and enhanced nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture” are among the main challenges of global sustainable development (SDG) goal 2. Therefore, sustainable food waste management technology is needed. Recent attention has been focused on global food loss and waste. One-third of food produced for human use is wasted every year. Source reduction (i.e., limiting food losses and waste) and contemporary treatment technologies appear to be the most promising strategy for converting food waste into safe, nutritious, value-added feed products and achieving sustainability. Food waste is also employed in industrial processes for the production of biofuels or biopolymers. Biofuels mitigate the detrimental effects of fossil fuels. Identifying crop-producing zones, bioenergy cultivars, and management practices will enhance the natural environment and sustainable biochemical process. Traditional food waste reduction strategies are ineffective in lowering GHG emissions and food waste treatment. The main contribution of this study is an inventory of the theoretical and practical methods of prevention and minimization of food waste and losses. It identifies the trade-offs for food safety, sustainability, and security. Moreover, it investigates the impact of COVID-19 on food waste behavior.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26462-y
FOOD WASTE GENERATION ANDMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ANDPOLICIES
New insights infood security andenvironmental sustainability
throughwaste food management
NazranaRaqueWani1· RauoofAhmadRather2 · AimanFarooq1· ShahidAhmadPadder3·
TawseefRehmanBaba4· SanjeevSharma5· Nabisab MujawarMubarak8· AfzalHusainKhan6· PardeepSingh7·
ShoukatAra2
Received: 18 August 2022 / Accepted: 10 March 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract
Food waste has been identified as one of the major factors that constitute numerous anthropogenic activities, especially in
developing countries. There is a growing problem with food waste that affects every part of the waste management system,
from collection to disposal; finding long-term solutions necessitates involving all participants in the food supply chain, from
farmers and manufacturers to distributors and consumers. In addition to food waste management, maintaining food sustain-
ability and security globally is crucial so that every individual, household, and nation can always get food. “End hunger,
achieve food security and enhanced nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture” are among the main challenges of global
sustainable development (SDG) goal 2. Therefore, sustainable food waste management technology is needed. Recent atten-
tion has been focused on global food loss and waste. One-third of food produced for human use is wasted every year. Source
reduction (i.e., limiting food losses and waste) and contemporary treatment technologies appear to be the most promising
strategy for converting food waste into safe, nutritious, value-added feed products and achieving sustainability. Food waste is
also employed in industrial processes for the production of biofuels or biopolymers. Biofuels mitigate the detrimental effects
of fossil fuels. Identifying crop-producing zones, bioenergy cultivars, and management practices will enhance the natural
environment and sustainable biochemical process. Traditional food waste reduction strategies are ineffective in lowering
GHG emissions and food waste treatment. The main contribution of this study is an inventory of the theoretical and practical
methods of prevention and minimization of food waste and losses. It identifies the trade-offs for food safety, sustainability,
and security. Moreover, it investigates the impact of COVID-19 on food waste behavior.
Keywords Bioenergy· COVID-19· GHG emissions· Biofuels· End hunger· Minimization
Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu
* Rauoof Ahmad Rather
rouf.haq@gmail.com; drrauoofrather@gmail.com
1 Division ofFood Science andTechnology, Sher-E-Kashmir
University ofAgricultural Sciences andTechnology,
Srinagar, JammuandKashmir190025, India
2 Division ofEnvironmental Sciences, Sher-E-Kashmir
University ofAgricultural Sciences andTechnology,
Srinagar, JammuandKashmir190025, India
3 Division ofBasic Science andHumanities, Sher-E-Kashmir
University ofAgricultural Sciences andTechnology,
Srinagar, JammuandKashmir190025, India
4 Division ofFruit Science, Sher-E-Kashmir University
ofAgricultural Sciences andTechnology, Srinagar,
JammuandKashmir190025, India
5 Centre fortheStudy ofRegional Development (CSRD),
School ofSocial Sciences-III, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
110067NewDelhi, India
6 Department ofCivil Engineering, College ofEngineering,
Jazan University, PO Box. 706, Jazan45142, SaudiArabia
7 PGDAV, College, University ofDelhi, Delhi, India
8 Petroleum andChemical Engineering, Faculty
ofEngineering, Universiti Teknologi Brunei,
BandarSeriBegawanBE1410, BruneiDarussalam

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Introduction
Food is an essential human requirement, and food waste is
the world’s biggest issue. According to the United Nations
International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) 2011
report, approximately 21,000 people perish daily due to
hunger-related problems. One out of every nine people
worldwide sleeps hungry. On the other hand, nearly one-
third of all food produced is sent to landfills (Singh etal.
2022). An estimated 222 million tons of food is wasted
every year in the developed world. This is almost as much
as the entire net food production of Sub-Saharan Africa. An
estimated 222 million tons of food is wasted every year in
the developed world. This is almost as much as the entire
net food production of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (230
million tonnes) (Boon and Anuga 2020). Food waste is
caused by various reasons, including food production, area,
lifestyle, industrialization, and consumer acceptance. Food
waste and food losses are frequently used interchange-
ably, but are they the same? When we talk about “food
loss,” it takes place in the supply chain after harvesting
(postharvesting stages like handling, transport, storage,
and distribution), and before reaching the consumer, it is
specifically the reduction in the quantity of food (Kour
etal. 2023) while the term “food waste” refers to the
loss of items meant for consumption by humans that are
later deteriorated, eventually lost, and discharged as land-
fill (Rather etal. 2022a; Pandey etal. 2021). It is mainly
caused by consumer behavior and retail operations. The
food is acceptable for other purposes; however, it is thrown
before eating. Food waste is primarily a concern in devel-
oped nations, as most food is thrown away at the retail or
consumer level. Curtailing food waste will automatically
reduce crop production and thus water is needed for agri-
culture. Water is generally polluted due to industrial efflu-
ent or a lack of appropriate sanitary facilities. Water pollu-
tion is also caused by inconsiderate human behavior, such
as dumping trash and other waste into water resources such
as a river or a lake(Rather etal. 2022a, 2023g). Traditional
water treatment and discharge methods are no longer viable
because they rely heavily on a centralized system (Thines
etal. 2017). Many studies have been reported to find differ-
ent applications, including fruit-based waste materials and
various carbon nanomaterials as adsorbents for wastewater
treatment (Solangi etal. 2021; Lingamdinne etal. 2020;
Dehghani etal. 2021). Developing countries suffer from
food loss due to poor postharvest facilities. Most food is
wasted in the supply chain during manufacture or different
processing steps (FAO 2011).
What lies ahead of food waste is its management,
treatment, and utilization. Different methods have been
optimized to control and adequately utilize the waste,
including extracting important nutrients from leachate. In
third-world countries, the number of studies on food waste
management is growing gradually (Filimonau and Delysia
2019; Rather etal. etal.2022b; Khan etal. 2022). But, a
few exceptions in analysis from the food service industries
and national cuisines in most developing countries were
excluded from it (Papargyropoulou etal. 2019; Filimonau
etal. 2020). Food material is discharged across the food
supply chain (FSC), involving all waste management sec-
tors right from collection to its disposal. The impact of
waste material formation (food waste or organic waste,
food losses) on all sectors engaged in food production, dis-
tribution, and consumption will be highlighted under the
FSC system (Girotto etal. 2015; Pfaltzgraff etal. 2013).
An FSC commences with agricultural food production,
which includes both husbandry and farming wastes, as
well as sub-products comprising organic waste (such as
manure or cornstalks), food loss, and food waste (low-
quality fruits and vegetables, unwanted productions left
in the field, products or co-products with lower or absent
commercial values). Food waste reduction starts with
eliminating unwanted surplus food and thwarting food
overproduction and glut (Papargyropoulou etal. 2014;
Girotto etal.2015). Moreover, the waste is utilized in
the industrial sector and animal feed in the food waste
hierarchy. Several industrial-scale alternatives exist, from
using waste for energy generation via anaerobic diges-
tion (e.g., bio-methane or bio-hydrogen productions) to
producing particular chemical compounds as precursors
for plastic material manufacture, medicinal, or chemical
uses. Composting can help replenish nutrients or sequester
carbon by generating humic chemicals. Composting has
the potential to be utilized to remediate food waste (FW)
and industrial process wastes (e.g., digestate). The final
and least desired alternative is landfilling or incineration.
Composting, landfills, and incineration are some of the
most common conventional disposal methods, but they
come with a number of negative health and environmen-
tal consequences (such as odors, leachate, groundwater
pollution, and global warming). It is urgent that we find a
sustainable and environmentally friendly solution for the
valorization of food wastes in order to address the draw-
backs of traditional approaches and prevent the loss of
valuable organic food resources (Kumar etal. 2022; Alam
etal.2022).
The Global Food Policy has reexamined food insecurities
as COVID-19 resulted in detrimental health consequences.
Most of the low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are
entirely dependent on jobs in the farming sector. Still, the
adverse situation of COVID-19 has resulted in lockdown
conditions, thereby contributing to job insecurities, which
leads to food loss and food waste and thus decreases perish-
able nutritious food stocks. This problem has corresponded

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
with a drop in demand for fresh, healthful foods, as many
people can no longer afford them. Due to a lack of access
to refrigerators, many LMICs began stocking up on non-
perishable, relatively inexpensive food (Diabetes 2021;
Rather etal. 2022c). COVID-19 has been a potential threat
to humans’ health since its outbreak and has ceased all out-
door activities in one way or another (Aldaco etal. 2020).
Lockdown tactics impact many supply chains, resulting in a
slowing of economic growth or an impending catastrophe.
Food supply chains are not immune to these disruptions.
Indeed, COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on food security,
access, and food loss and waste (FLW) from the pandemic’s
start (Baig etal. 2019; Aldaco etal. 2020).
This review explores and discusses some tradeoffs
between food security, sustainability, and safety. It discusses
the impacts of food waste at different levels and various
novel approaches for treating food waste and its conversion
to energy. The last section of this paper elaborates on food
waste source reduction strategies and the potential for miti-
gating climate change. Moreover, it discusses the status of
the food system and various behavioral changes during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Waste generation
Food waste (FW) is on the rise and is not confined to indus-
trialized countries. The Food and Agriculture Organization
provided data on FW generation from various world regions,
implying that FW generation occurs on an equivalent scale
in both industrialized and developing countries (FAO 2011).
Nonetheless, major disparities exist between developed and
developing nations. More than 40% of food losses occur at
the postharvest and processing stages in developing coun-
tries, whereas 40% of losses occur at the retail and consumer
levels; hence, the industrialized world loses much more food
on a per-capita basis than developing countries (FAO 2011;
Boon and Anuga 2020; Khan etal. 2021) and may be attrib-
uted to harvesting procedures, storage, and cooling facilities
in developing countries in challenging environmental condi-
tions, packaging, marketing systems, and infrastructure, all
facing financial, administrative, and technological constraints.
In contrast, the reason for the same in developed countries
is that customer behavior and poor coordination among the
many supply chain participants and farmer-buyer sales deals
may lead to agricultural crop waste. Food may be wasted due
to quality requirements, with food products that do not suit
the acceptable form or look being rebuffed. On a retail level,
insufficient preparation and the expiration of “best before
dates” result in enormous volumes of waste when paired with
customers’ often irresponsible attitude (FAO 2011).
The FW generation problem has two aspects: prevention
upstream and source segregation downstream. Prevention of
generation is the fundamental step in a practical FW control
approach. The inevitable resulting FW quantity must then
be appropriately source-separated. The food supply chain is
a merger of farmers and customers entangled with diverse
food processing and marketing companies. As a result of
globalization and industrialization, food supply chains have
grown longer and more complicated, growing the risk of
food spoilage (Ouda etal. 2016; Jeswani etal. 2021). There
are numerous food waste causes, most of which depend on
a particular stage where food is used, while specific reasons
are universal to all supply levels of the food chain. Under-
standing and knowing about sources of food waste is impor-
tant to tackle and frame a strategy for its prevention. Food
waste is categorized into the following forms depending on
where it occurs in the food supply chain.
Production offood wastes
In the food supply chain (FSC), primary production embod-
ies the pre-harvest (animal, fisheries farming, and agricul-
tural) and postharvest (handling, processing, and storage)
operation chain. Natural factors that include harsh weather,
spoilage, or any pest infestation are the core causes of food
waste at the farm level (Bond etal. 2013; Nicastro and
Carillo 2021). Significant agricultural losses are found in
third-world countries (FAO 2011). Moreover, challenges
such as obsolete harvesting methods, paucity of transporta-
tion, insufficient storage facilities, inadequate infrastructure,
and restricted preservation techniques increase postharvest
losses in third-world nations (Buchner etal. 2012; Halloran
etal. 2014; Jeswani etal. 2021).
On the other hand, industrialized nations show signifi-
cantly low levels of food wastage because of advanced
harvesting techniques, adequate infrastructure, and better
agronomic expertise. Surplus production, volatile market
pricing, quality control requirements, and esthetics, on the
other hand, are some of the prime causes of food waste
in affluent nations (Bond etal. 2013; El Sheikha and Ray
2022). The COVID-19 issue, which is still occurring at the
time of writing, is also expected to escalate food waste on
farms due to a lack of labor, notably in wealthy countries
that rely on imported seasonal work, such as agricultural
workers (Jeswani etal. 2021). Furthermore, commodities
that do not fulfill quality parameters or product appearance
which are used in food marketing guidelines (size, shape,
and weight) generally become trash, especially true with
fresh produce (Waitt and Phillips2016; Porter etal. 2018).
Also, the ill-government policies of encouraging farmers to
grow certain crops in excess without proper knowledge or
providing farmers with bad quality seeds which fail to yield
quality products result in food waste at the initial level of the
supply chain. The estimation of food waste from different

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
sources in the household area, food service, and retail across
the countries sector-wise is shown in Table1.
Handling andstorage ofwastes
These types of wastes occur due to negligence during the
handling of food commodities from farm to store or from
store to markets/processing units. It is mainly an issue in
most third-world countries due to inadequate facilities and
knowledge of handling different commodities. The absence
of sufficient handling and storage facilities for fresh pro-
duce, poultry, and meat items contributes significantly to
food loss, particularly in underdeveloped countries. Under-
developed nations account for 19% of fruit and vegetable
loss (FAO 2011). These foods can spoil quickly in warmer
climes, necessitating adequate cold storage after catching,
slaughtering, or harvesting.
Furthermore, failure in grain storage or pulse crops
stored in air-tight containers where pests and moisture can
enter potentially contaminates the crop with mold, toxins,
or pests (Mishra etal.2021). This frequently means that
farmers must sell their whole crop immediately after har-
vest, resulting in lower prices due to increased supply. Thus,
in low-income nations, adopting and investing in technol-
ogy that allows for the safe storage and handling of fresh
vegetables and grains may assist in preventing food waste.
Fresh fruits and vegetables must be handled carefully after
harvest and during transportation, as they can be bruised
or blemished easily, rendering them nonsalable (Adegbola
etal. 2011; Badran etal. 2017; Yadav etal. 2021). Sacks and
bags commonly transport goods in underdeveloped nations;
however, they offer little protection (Rahman etal. 2019).
Plastic crates, for example, provide additional crop protec-
tion, can be reused for up to five years, and can frequently
make menial work more accessible due to their convenient
size and availability of handles (Kosseva 2020).
Processing food wastes
These wastes are the main contributors to the overall food
waste. The prime reason behind it is inefficient processing
unit operations to remove the edible and inedible parts from
food and inefficient handling processes. Most processing
wastes are accounted for inedible parts, including peel, eyes,
and skin. And these inedible wastes are distinctly rich in
proteins, carbohydrates, antioxidants, fats, and chemical or
biological oxygen demand. The foodstuff experiences differ-
ent processing steps during its manufacturing or processing,
such as trimming, peeling, cutting, slicing, milling, cooking,
boiling, and packing, owing to inefficiencies and a lack of
quality assurance standards (Bakalis etal. 2020;Morrow
etal. 2019; Dora etal. 2020). Flaws in devices that apply
or remove heat, such as distillation, sterilization, or cool-
ing, exacerbate the danger of bacterial contamination and,
as a result, spoil food ((Mena etal. 2014). Food manufac-
turers, like peasants, must meet retailer specifications based
on physical appearance, size, weight, and quality criteria
(FAO 2011). As a result, producers may discard things that
do not satisfy these specified quality standards and are not
esthetically acceptable to customers (Buchner etal. 2012).
Moreover, the reason for waste produced in manufactur-
ing and processing is inconsiderable: unhealthy animals,
contaminations, quality rejections, laws, and management-
related issues. The primary causes of meat product waste are
poor prognosis, inventory management, and planning (Mena
etal. 2014). Some wastes include fruit pomace produced
during wine or juice production, and whey produced during
cheese production is innate to the process. Though these may
be used as fodder, their utilization is restricted due to their
low nutrient quality (Kosseva 2020; Kour etal. 2023). The
estimated food waste concerning quantity produced (MT),
quantity wasted (MT), and quantity wasted (%) is shown in
Fig.1. Two main policy implications were highlighted by the
figure, demonstrating the significance of the aforementioned
findings. To begin, the environmental impacts of food waste
should be taken into account when formulating prevention
strategies and targets rather than just the volume of waste.
Meat, fish, rice, and cheese, for instance, have more nega-
tive effects on the environment than vegetables. As a result,
minimizing the waste of high-impact products is a sensible
Table 1 Sector-wise estimates of food waste in countries with high
confidence
Household Food service Retail Total
Australia Australia Australia
Austria Austria Austria
Canada China Denmark
Denmark Denmark Germany
Germany Estonia Italy
Ghana Germany New Zealand
Malta Sweden Saudi Arabia
Netherlands UK Sweden
New Zealand USA UK
Norway USA
Saudi Arabia
Sweden
UK
USA
Global
average
food
waste %
61 26 13 100
2019 total
(million
tons)
569 244 118 931

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
strategy for minimizing the negative effects of human food
consumption on the environment. Second, opportunities exist
at every stage of the food supply chain, so policies aimed
at reducing food waste should consider the entire system.
Some problems with the quality of the available data have
also been brought to light by the study. The total estimated
food waste concerning the quantity produced is about 9000
MT in the industrial sector, the highest food waste estimation
is about 6000 MT from the Beverage industry sector, and
the lowest food waste estimation is about 1000 MT from the
meat and meat product production, processing, and preserva-
tion respect to the quantity produced. The total food waste
estimation concerning the amount wasted is about 2000 MT,
and the highest food quantity waste estimation is about 1300
MT in the beverage industry, and the lowest food quantity
waste estimation is about 15 MT from the industrial sector in
meat and meat product production, processing, and preserva-
tion. The total quantity of waste in the industrial sector with
respect to percentage was 2.6%. The highest quantity of waste
was 4.5% produced from fruit and vegetable production and
preservation. The lowest amount of waste was 1.7% from the
production of grain and starch products.
Distribution offood wastes
The distribution of global food waste from production to
consumption in developing and developed countries is
mentioned in Fig.2 in detail with percentage consumption,
production, storage, packaging, and retail and distribu-
tion. These food wastes are subject to inefficient planning
of stocks which leads to overstocking in markets followed
by unpopular consumer preference and larger food portion
sizes which ultimately result in leftovers at a large scale and
consumer attitude of not taking leftovers/discarded food due
to consumer preferences. Distribution centers, wholesalers,
retailers, and allied transport are included in the distribution
stage. Perishable commodities are the root cause of waste
during storage and distribution. Products that need chilling
or freezing for enhanced shelf life are particularly difficult to
manage as inadequate cold chain management methodolo-
gies result in significant food waste (Jeswani etal. 2021).
Moreover, dents or damages during the lifting and car-
rying of commodities make them inadmissible later in the
supply chain. Poor record-keeping of items that have reached
the end of their shelf life, rendering them unfit for sale and
Fig. 1 Representing the estimated food waste concerning A quan-
tity produced in metric tonnes (MT), B quantity wasted (MT), and
C quantity wasted (%). And the industrial sector includes I meat and
meat product production, processing, and preservation; II fish and fish
product production and preservation; III fruit and vegetable produc-
tion and preservation; IV manufacturing vegetable and animal oils
and fats; V dairy products and ice cream industry; VI production of
grain and starch products; VII manufacture of other food products;
VIII beverage industry

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
consumption, leads to food waste (Jeswani etal. 2021). Food
waste at the retail level is more complex and varies with
the product when compared to other distribution activities.
Overstocking as a result of inaccurate projections, inade-
quate shelf stock rotation and the expiration of “best before”
dates, items removed from the cold chain, insufficient stor-
age facilities, and inadequate packaging are among them
(de Moraes etal. 2020; Mena etal. 2014). Employees who
are not adequately trained might contribute to food waste
due to inadequate stock rotation practices (Canali etal.
2016). Retailers may mitigate such issues and the economic
impact of food waste by making special offers and discounts
(Schneider 2014). Growing populations and more advanced
economies have focused the world’s attention on the issue
of wasted food to unprecedented levels. The World Bank
and the FAO estimate that each year, over 1.33 billion tons
of food are lost or wasted around the world. If this trend
continued, annual waste generation would increase to 2.2
billion tons. The percentage of food that is wasted around
the world at each stage of the value chain, from production
to consumption, is displayed in Fig.2. In countries with
higher incomes, dairy products account for nearly 17% of
food waste, while in countries with lower incomes, roots and
tubers account for 13%.
Consumer/household food wastes
Like agricultural waste, the percentage of household food
waste is much higher in industrialized countries than in third-
world countries. As per FAO (2011), the prime cause of food
waste in industrialized countries is enough money to afford
such wastage, and food loss in different regions of the world
is mentioned in Fig.3, while developing countries do not
have such income, resulting in the prevention of doing so
(Wani etal. 2018a; Buchner etal. 2012). According to FAO
data, there is little difference between developed and develop-
ing nations in terms of waste and losses per capita at the final
stages of consumption, with the exception of Southeast Asian
nations. The amount of food that is wasted at the retail level
is the main dividing line between developed and developing
nations. This garbage generates between 95 and 115g per
person per year in the European Union and North America.
There is only about 6–11kg of food wasted per person in
Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Throughout its pro-
duction, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption
phases, food is lost and wasted at a staggering rate. The pro-
duction, processing, and distribution phases account for the
vast majority of food waste in developing nations. In devel-
oped countries, food waste occurs primarily at the retail and
consumption stages as a result of consumption patterns and
expectations rather than a lack of infrastructure. In Europe,
North America, and Oceania, annual per capita food waste is
between 95 and 115kg. Those in South and Southeast Asia,
as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, only gain 6–11kg annually.
These visuals present condensed data from a 2011 study.
Furthermore, studies reveal that developed countries pro-
duce more household waste as they have high income per
capita than developing countries (Secondi etal. 2015). These
wastes are generated after the FSC (food supply chain) at the
hands of consumers/humans. The prime causes behind this
are unplanned and excess buying of products, discarding
products based on labeling/expiry date, improper storage
Fig. 2 Distribution (%) of
global food waste from produc-
tion to consumption in develop-
ing and developed countries.
Source: adapted from the High-
Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition Losses,
H.F, 2014; Sridhar etal. 2021

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
of food items, especially perishable ones, and discarding
behaviors.
Impacts offood waste
Food wastes threaten human health and the environment and
the ubiquitous utilization of different useful sources in pro-
ducing not consumed food. Poor management of decompos-
ing food wastes leads to the emission of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and contamination of water bodies by mineral and
leachate runoff which can act as a vector for diseases and
various health hazards.
Waste management andsustainability concepts
The waste hierarchy principles were first established in the
1970s in the European Policy, with the 1975 Waste Directive
and the EU’s 1977 Second Environment Action Program.
The concept of waste hierarchy was accepted globally as the
primary waste management framework after its clear defini-
tion given by the European legislation in the Community
Strategy for Waste Management in 1989. The waste hierar-
chy guides the most environmentally friendly EoL treatment
(Teigiserova etal. 2020). Asian countries, including Japan,
promoted additional frameworks for waste management that
have taken a similar line while highlighting the three Rs:
reduction, reuse, and recycle (Sakai etal. 2011; Rather etal.
2022d). The objective of the hierarchy is to classify solu-
tions that achieve the best environmental outcome overall;
“prevention” at the top of the pyramid is the most advan-
tageous option, whereas “disposition” at the bottom is the
least valuable. The prediction (prevention) at the head of the
hierarchy pyramid indicates the utmost effort to keep edible
food edible. This can be accomplished through a variety of
alleyways at the source, such as improved systematization
and executive tools (at the manufacturing, processing, and
retail levels) or by focusing on customer learning, behavior,
and utilization routine at the customer level (Papargyropou-
lou etal. 2014; Garrone etal. 2014; Teigiserova etal. 2020;
Rather etal. 2022e).
Prediction is followed by another level that depicts reuse
for human consumption, and surplus food is directly reused
for consumption. Furthermore, it is a component of pre-
vention strategies or studies (Garrone etal. 2014; Mourad
2016; Teigiserova etal. 2020). Because food is perishable,
the reuse of unused food is strictly governed by safety and
hygiene standards, which can lessen the amount of reused
food and, as a result, increase FW (Priefer etal. 2016; Tei-
giserova etal. 2020). Recycling is the third hierarchy level,
and it is frequently confused with recovery, even though
both are distinct categories. Anaerobic digestion, for exam-
ple, is used in both recovery (as energy recovery) and recy-
cling (Herszenhorn etal. 2014; Xin etal. 2018; Braguglia
etal. 2018). Food redistribution is called recovery whereas
FW stands for fodder (Garrone etal. 2014; Mourad 2016).
Despite the urgent need to weigh up the social and eco-
nomic repercussions, Member States and the environmental
impacts under the European Waste System Directive. As a
framework, waste hierarchy seeks to give the most preferred
ecological alternative. Several economists have criticized the
hierarchy of waste, arguing that waste hierarchy should be
used as an amenable protocol for developing a strategy for
waste (Bano etal. 2018).
Sustainable production andconsumption
In United Nations Environmental Program, Sustainable
consumption and manufacturing (SCP) was stated as “the
production and consumption of products and services that
Fig. 3 Food loss in different
regions (FAOSTAT2020)

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
respond to basic requirements and thereby increase the value
of life while reducing the use of natural resources, hazard-
ous materials, waste, and pollutant emissions throughout
the life span so that future generations are not jeopardized.”
In this context, the SCP approach is viewed as a feasible
implementation action plan to achieve long-term growth
that encompasses the economy, culture, and environment
by leveraging technical and social innovation. The strate-
gies included in SCP policies aim to meet humans’ basic
needs, decouple environmental degradation from economic
growth, and avoid the rebound effect, which describes the
situation in which the adverse effects of increased consump-
tion counterbalance the benefits of increased technological
advancement and efficiency (Barrett and Scott 2012; Bengts-
son etal. 2018). SCP’s main approaches target the demand
for goods, supply, and services by minimizing production
and consumption’s detrimental consequences. Furthermore,
including sustainable production on the supply side and sus-
tainable consumption on the demand side of human eco-
nomic activities is a cornerstone idea of SCP.
Food security andfood sustainability
Food security and food sustainability are two concepts that
share many attributes. Many systematic disciplines and other
general groups have used these broad concepts, including
administrative and NGOs, which frequently come up with
their definitions. They have been advanced in different arenas
by international negotiations for the international commu-
nity with common objectives. The concept of food security
and sustainability has progressed and extended during the
previous few decades. The idea of food security initially
only underlined the availability and production of food. It
soon grew to include physical, socio-cultural, and economic
availability of food, its consumption, and lastly, the stability
of all of these amounts. On the other hand, sustainability is
defined as “development that meets current demands without
jeopardizing future generations’ ability to satisfy their own
needs” (FAO 2009; Padder etal. 2022a, b; Salvatory 2022).
It also includes a time dimension that aids in determining
how to weigh commutation between environmental vs. social
and economic issues and assimilating long-term social and
economic dimensions (Berry etal. 2015; Nizami etal. 2017).
Furthermore, while the pandemic’s long-term influence
on all aspects of food security cannot be predicted, the short-
and mid-term effects of COVID-19 on food systems may
be quantified. COVID-19 has an immediate impact on bean
output, affecting food supply and consumption. As a result,
bean farmers were asked how the epidemic affected house-
hold food consumption. Farmers were asked if the outbreak
affected how frequently they consumed food. The combined
findings show that most Eastern African families ate twice
throughout the episode. According to the data, Uganda
was the most affected country in Eastern Africa, with all
questioned farmers indicating that they only ate once a day
throughout the epidemic. The immediate impact of COVID-
19 on the food chain and government containment efforts are
communicated in many ways. Seven COVID-19-related food
consumption shocks were found by farmers who verified that
the pandemic influenced food consumption patterns.
As a result of the epidemic and control procedure, food
shortages occurred in Uganda and Kenya. This might be
because of distribution and production challenges that arose
during the epidemic. Second, millions of jobs have been
destroyed (World Bank 2020; Nchanji and Lutomia 2021),
and livelihoods and food consumption were not spared (Fox
and Signé 2020). Over 3%, 20%, and 36% of farmers in
Kenya, Uganda, and Burundi lost revenue during the epi-
demic, creating shifts in food consumption patterns. Accord-
ing to Nchanji and Lutomia (2021), the significant repercus-
sions of coronavirus and government restrictions in Southern
Africa were access to farmworkers and farm inputs. Another
effect of the pandemic on bean yield, according to which
around 27% of farmers, is the inability to acquire agricul-
tural financing. Access to seed and product markets was
another issue in the Southern Africa subregion.
The development offood security andsustainability
“Food security” was coined during worldwide food short-
ages over 45years ago. It initially ensured food supply and
later price stability of essential food commodities globally
and locally. It resulted from the instability of prices of food
commodities in the early 1970s, followed by the fluctua-
tion in currency and energy markets, in addition to certain
unfavorable conditions. Due to famines, starvation, and food
scarcity, it is necessary to be familiar with the censorious
requirements and attitudes of more susceptible and afflicted
individuals. (Campi etal. 2021). The 1974 World Food Con-
ference resulted in a new definition of food security: “the
availability of an adequate global food supply of vital com-
modities at all times to ensure a constant increase of food
consumption and to compensate for changes in production
and price” (Burchi and Muro 2016; Bhat etal. 2021). The
blame for the crisis was put on the economic sciences that
changed the structure of food industries at a global level.
Though usage and stability are not mentioned explicitly
in this definition, they are mostly hidden in the phrase “at
all times.” The interpretation emphasizes the demand for
increased production because macronutrient hunger was
estimated to affect 25% of the world’s population. Future
food security can be seen as contingent upon sustainability.
Access to food is contingent on factors such as the local
climate, the state of the environment, and the availability of
natural resources. Access to food for all requires long-term

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
economic and social stability (see Fig.4). Food consump-
tion is also affected by factors related to social sustainability.
The stability of the systems is dependent on the consistency
of the other dimensions of food security, and all three of
sustainability’s pillars—social, economic, and environmen-
tal—work together to guarantee this. On the other hand, food
security is increasingly considered a condition for sustain-
ability (García-Díez etal. 2021).
Incorporation ofsustainability infood security
The history of sustainability is comparable to that of food
security. Evaluating a system’s robustness over time without
jeopardizing future generations’ ability to meet their own
needs is sustainability. Though food security is an individ-
ual-centered concern, ecological and environmental tenabil-
ity factors drive both regionally and globally. Sustainability
is thought to be a prerequisite for persistent food security.
The environment, particularly climate, and the availability
of natural resources are prerequisites for the availability and
preservation of food and biodiversity (Gomez-Zavaglia etal.
2020). For everyone to access food, economic and social
sustainability are required. In addition, social sustainability
is an essential aspect of food consumption. The three dimen-
sions of sustainability collaborate to ensure the system’s sta-
bility, dependent on the other dimensions of food’s fidelity.
Contrarily, food security is increasingly seen as a require-
ment for long-term viability. According to the Committee on
World Food Security (2012), WFS; United Nations System
High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security 2021, food
and nutrition security is built on four pillars.
(a) Food availability: the availability of ample amounts
of food regularly. Food production status, food stock
levels, and gross trade influence food availability. The
mere existence of sufficient food does not guarantee
that an individual will obtain and consume it. Food
must also be available to humans (Farrukh etal. 2020).
(b) Food access: acquiring enough food for a healthy diet.
Three elements, namely affordability, preference, and
distribution, describe the accessibility to food. All
aspects of accessibility include economic access (i.e.,
buying capability), physical availability (i.e., transport
and facilities), and social-cultural access and desires.
Concerns about food access necessitate a greater
emphasis on food costs, wages, spending, and markets.
(c) Food utilization: built on food safety, nutritional and
social value, and appropriate use of food. Utilization
leads to feeding, food preparation, diversity in diet, and
fair distribution of intra-household food. It is also about
ensuring sufficient power and nutrition from the food
consumed by individuals or households. (FAO 2011;
Farrukh etal. 2020).
(d) Stability: food availability, accessibility, and consump-
tion It demonstrates how a country, person, or home is
always food secure (Farrukh etal. 2020). Crisis and
disruptions such as political unrest, extreme climatic
conditions, and fiscal factors impact long-term food
security.
Global reasons forconcern aboutfood security
It is commonly said that there is enough food to feed the
entire planet, measured in calories per capita, if it were dis-
tributed more evenly. As per this analysis, distributive justice
regarding food security is a matter of distributive justice.
The dare is to build markets and work more resourcefully
to stabilize barriers to effective distribution and lift produc-
tivity for the future. Food security can be achieved only if
the food systems become sustainable. Therefore, sustain-
ability is the basis of food production and ensuring healthy
consumption. Climate change requires adaptation and miti-
gation; water stress, pressure on land use, finite fossil fuel
sources, requirements for increasing soil fertility, and a ris-
ing population to nine billion by 2050 are some strains at
the forefront. The UK government’s chief scientific adviser
Professor John Beddington has verbalized the upcoming
perfect storm of rising demand, stagnant production, and
climate change.
Source reduction: reduction ofwaste
andlosses
Food security aquestion ofindemnity?
There is a need for novel ways to look at food sustainability
and security. One of the outcomes of such a move in food
policy is focusing on zero hunger and nutrition. Change in
Fig. 4 The linkages and interrelationships between food security and
sustainability

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
perspective opens up a new way of considering food and
its long-term sustainability. A question arises: should food
security be viewed as an indemnity issue; what amount
should we pay in premiums to ensure that we don’t go hun-
gry, obtain the proper nutrients, and keep foodborne dis-
eases at bay in the future? The epithet mega-watt sparks
a new notion (Majumdar etal. 2018). Because the essen-
tial eco-friendly watt is the one that is not lost or wasted,
energy conservation expenditures were just as effective as
investments in increased production capacity. Is it possible
to apply the same approach to food security and sustain-
ability, for example, mega foods? An investment made in
reducing food waste will be equivalent to a more significant
food production capacity investment. As a result, decreasing
food waste and food losses from the farm to the plate will be
an essential component of the long-term solution for sustain-
ably feeding 10 billion people.
Source reduction: using novel IT andAI solutions
There is a need to cut down on food waste losses to accom-
plish sustainability. This proposal is in line with the goals of
lowering resource consumption and environmental impact.
In contrast, the customers desire to buy their required food
whenever convenient. Certain food businesses face difficul-
ties receiving suitable inventory policies, i.e., reordering
foods and maintaining appropriate stock levels. Moreover,
food businesses and retailers face problems in allocating
resources which is the current challenge of eliminating food
waste and stock-outs. In addition to inaccurate sales forecast-
ing, the incorrect ordering of products results in food waste
and stock-outs (Kayikci etal. 2022; Bano etal. 2022a). The
factors such as season, weather, event, price, promotions or
discounts, characteristics of products, and the number of
consumer visits are linked to the demand for food put up for
sale in stores. Few standard statistical model assumptions
are being violated because of the volatile time series in food
retail and the changing skewness over time.
Here arises a question: is there any possibility of using
predictive models, neural networks, machine learning, and
expert systems to predict demand for food by various food
business operators? Or is there any possibility of fine-tuning
the supply chain and demand projections, minimizing the
stock-outs and food waste? The daily sales of perishable
commodities could be forecasted using the seasonal autore-
gressive model, forecasting models with integrated moving
averages, and external variable models (Hussain etal. 2021;
Haselbeck etal. 2022). Using two or more models with
diverse investigative approaches would improve forecast
accuracy. Prediction of good demand at convenience stores
for fresh food is possible by combining moving averages
with the backpropagation neural networks.
Moreover, better predictions for food materials will pos-
sibly be made using huge data approaches, including remote
sensing images, metrology, genetic information, laboratory
findings, and historical production statistics (Gounden etal.
2015). To benefit from these promising data models, food
quality and food safety contemplations must be included. In
the age of big data, there are concepts for food security that
are complementary and competitive (Ropodi etal. 2016;
Nychas etal. 2016; Bano etal. 2022b). Multidisciplinary
approaches to food quality and safety should improve the
food business’s tools (Ropodi etal. 2016). Complicated and
opaque processes like machine learning and computational
intelligence could be used to analyze these massive data vol-
umes in real time (Beylot etal.2013; Ropodi etal. 2016).
Lack of precision means complex evidence-based recom-
mendations and interpretation of results. However, raw
applications regarding forecasting food supply and demand
by monitoring the food chain from the farm to the plate and
disregarding the concern related to food safety could be a
way to the disaster. Therefore, great statistical strategies
must be included in food safety considerations.
Moreover, the benefits possibly will include food waste
reduction, food safety assurance, and reassurance of trust
between the food industry and consumers. Furthermore, it
will be beneficial if a shift from destructive testing toward
automated monitoring, non-destructive or non-invasive
based on sensors, is made. The sensors monitor produc-
tion instantaneously and are implemented quickly on-site.
The vast amount of high throughput, analytical as well, and
metadata that is collected with such devices will automati-
cally provide a holistic sight of both spoilage as well as
decaying processes of the variety of food processes across
a wide range of storage conditions (packaging and tempera-
ture) allowing for better food supply forecasting. The cur-
rent available online knowledge would also provide endless
benefits for the food industry.
Shelf lives “best beforedate” and“use bydate”:
source reduction byintelligent labeling
In the case of food pieces of stuff, the important food qual-
ity management tool is the “best before date.” Food com-
modities’ shelf life is labeled “use by date” or “best before
date.” The food industries give complete assurance of the
quality and safety of food consumed before its “best before
date” and provide cold or dark storage instructions. Once the
food passes through its “best before date,” it is still accept-
able, with deteriorated quality. Consumers usually consider
the food unsafe and unfit for consumption resulting in the
throwing away of food as waste. This is because of consum-
ers’ confusion about interpreting “best before” and “use by”
dates as hazardous “after those dates.” In the case of use
by date, the food industry guarantees food safety, and then

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
only consumers can discard the food. The food must adhere
to the microbiological safety guidelines of the end product
on the last “use by date.” Microbiological safety guidelines
are legally enforceable in the European Union (E.U.) [Com-
mission Regulation (E.C.) No 2073/2005]. Governments’
capacity to mitigate famines by importing food from other
countries, for example, should be based on the amount of
listeria. Food safety requires confidence, and block-chains
usage could help build that trust while speeding up the
process.
Intelligent labeling andsensors
Among the most significant opportunities for decreasing
food waste and enhancing food security are using sensors
and intelligent packaging (Newsome etal. 2014). The sen-
sors are categorized into four major classes—freshness sen-
sors, gas sensors for food package integrity, identification
tags like radio-frequency identification tags, and time–tem-
perature indicators (TTI). Now temperature violation at
any point along the distribution chain could be detected by
TTI permitting lively dating of a food product’s shelf life.
Cheating a consumer by replacing labels of “use by dates”
has become difficult for business operators as TTI indica-
tors quickly show the condition of foodstuff by the color
on its strip. If the color has turned red, the food is unpalat-
able, while yellow indicates declined food quality. There
are also freshness indicators that monitor the freshness of
the product simply by reacting to metabolites generated by
the food product. For each foodstuff, freshness indicators
need to be calibrated. Gas sensors check the food packag-
ing integrity, changes in gas metabolites, and leakages of
protective atmospheres (Ghaani etal. 2016; Malik etal.
2018). Commercializing sensors globally needs to be cheap,
reusable, reversible, and long-lasting. There are RFID tags
that help trace and track foodstuffs as it gives real-time data
regarding the identity of the food chain and the food product.
RFID tags also provide complete data to analyze food waste
sources and losses. Moreover, food frauds in food production
that emerged a few years back could be controlled by these
tags (Evans 2011; Manning and Soon 2016).
Source reduction: reduction offood losses
bytheintensification offood production
As per Rockström etal. (2017), the long-term sustainability
criteria must be aligned with the development of food pro-
duction. Agriculture must operate within its environmental
constraints to be long-term sustainable. This approach’s
fundamental considerations include resource footprints and
resilience, ecological and social elements of food security,
and advances in the lives of global food production systems.
Both aquaculture and agriculture are considered drivers of
global climatic and environmental change, and they should
change their focus to become the foundation for global sus-
tainability. Food security resilience and its ability to deal
with the stress and shocks in food production and distribu-
tion severely raise the risk of hunger, foodborne diseases,
and malnutrition. The binary challenge of shrinking arable
land and increasing the global population (Gerhardt etal.
2020). As per Johnson etal. (2018), the loss percent of the
edible vegetable in the fields is more than half of its produc-
tion. These losses are due to failures at different levels, such
as at the harvest, supermarkets (e.g., wrong, shaped cucum-
bers), and uneven crop ripening. This suggests a simple
technique to increase the available food and improve food
security while posing a few hazards, such as food safety.
Furthermore, sustainability will show improvement as
doubling the plant food amounts supplied to consumers will
require the same amount of footprints in labor, fertilizer,
chemicals, and irrigation water. The second strategy may
replace traditional meat products with innovative animal
proteins generated from insect-fed food waste and byprod-
ucts. The third option is increasing resilience by moving
down the food chain and ingesting grains destined for ani-
mal feed. Food security and sustainability would improve
reasonably if animal production depended on feeds only and
was not accessible for human utilization (i.e., grasslands and
pastures). It means for high-quality protein supply ensuring
future food security, and the significant contributors would
be the Nigerian production of beef, mutton, and milk. Due
to increased animal nutrition, health, and illness preven-
tion, animal production intensification might considerably
contribute to low and middle-income countries’ sustainable
development (Canali etal. 2016; Dora etal. 2020).
Antimicrobials infood production: acase
ofunsustainable intensification
The use of antimicrobials intensifies animal production
simply by fixing feed conversions and animal growth, i.e.,
zoo-technical service. The method is associated with sub-
stantial industrial production systems wherein antimicrobi-
als are used as raw materials. One of the controversies rose
when Swedish joined E.U. in 1995 and banned zoo-technical
antimicrobials. The Swedish Commission on Antimicrobial
Feed Additives SOU, 1997, concluded that even as antimi-
crobial use intensifies animal production and decreases
footprints, such improvements cannot outweigh the nega-
tive consequences of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). With
Regulation (E.U.) 2019/4, the E.U. has outlawed antimicro-
bials for growth promotion and prevention after more than
20years. The antimicrobials used in plant production are
“tetracycline" and “streptomycin,” usually used as spray
treatments for orchards. Streptomycin resistance has become
extensive among bacterial plant diseases, exemplifying the

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
general issues with utilizing antimicrobials as productiv-
ity boosters. As a result, together with biocontrol agents,
resistant plants, and disinfectants, a new approach to antimi-
crobials in plant production is required (Nafees etal. 2023;
Thakur and Rather 2023). As a result, we need biocontrol
agents, disinfectants, and resistant plants as alternatives to
antimicrobials in plant production.
Reprocess orredistribute food
Food redistribution is done through different food donation
programs and food banks. Both are examples of urban mining
(Schneider 2014; Wani etal. 2018b; May etal. 2020). Such
events are significant for making food available to underprivi-
leged and socioeconomic groups. Moreover, the foods that
are being donated are close to their end shelf lives, and “use-
by dates,” would specify an increased foodborne risk, while
“best before “dates usually denote the decreased quality.
Food donations: liability concerns
Is it possible that liability concerns will limit people’s food
donation or redistribution willingness? Well, an example
will help us to understand it. For example, around 10%
of every bread in Austrian supermarkets is rejected (Leb-
ersorger and Schneider 2014). Only 7% of the abandoned
bread is donated to food banks, accounting for less than 1%
of bread production. One of the reasons might be the liabil-
ity concerns of food business operators associated with the
foodborne disease while donating perishable food items.
Two developed countries USA and Italy implemented Good
Samaritan laws to ease liability concerns. These laws are
fruitful for donors as it protects them from liability. At the
same time, they donate to such non-profit organizations and
protect them from civil and criminal liability if the product
contributed causes any harm to the needy beneficiary. To
support this food donation, legislation on donating these
food pieces of stuff without incurring penalties is needed.
Reprocessing offoodstuffs forhuman consumption
Reprocessing is when an item approaches its “best before”
or “use by” dates; it is frozen or reheated. For example, beef
chunks and salmon fillets are chopped to produce salmon
or beef patties, then fried to extend their shelf life. Freezing
items just before their use-by or best-before dates is another
option. The third option is to reheat leftovers or utilize
them as a raw material for a subsequent meal. A study was
conducted by Swedish supermarkets (Fogelberg 2011) that
found supermarkets have a chef who makes warm lunches
and dinners a paying proposition. With this approach, the
amount of food waste was significantly reduced. Moreover,
customers got improved services, and business operators and
supermarkets got another opportunity. The food planned to
throw in the bin is now being processed into meals and sold
to fetch more profits. In addition, hygiene standards were
enhanced among both chefs and other employees. Once the
food is processed and reheated, it would increase sales but
leave food at risk. The growth of toxin-producing bacteria
linked with delayed cooling and then warming of pea soup
is a good example.
A typical example would be the growth of toxin-pro-
ducing bacteria associated with delayed cooling and then
warming of pea soup (Fogelberg2011; Wani etal. 2018c).
In Sweden, about 20% of reported cases of foodborne ill-
nesses linked with bacteria-producing toxins (Bacillus
cereus, Clostridium perfringens) had been reported (Vag-
sholm etal.2020), whereas EFSA (European Food Safety
Authority) indicated that 18.5% of foodborne outbreaks were
connected to bacterial toxins in the E.U. in the year 2018
(EFSA (European Food Safety Authority 2019). Clostrid-
ium perfringens intoxications in food are associated with
slow cooling and warming food such as pea soup with meat
(Fogelberg2011). Food reprocessing benefits food sustain-
ability and security, but there must be no negative trade-
offs with food security. As a result, food processing industry
owners and operators must be trained.
Food quality loss orwaste metrics
Food quality loss or waste (FQLW) is simply the loss of a
food quality characteristic (nutrition, appearance, etc.) due
to product deterioration in the food chain, from the harvest to
its consumption. Various metrics have distinct consequences
in terms of data requirements, measurement techniques,
computation outputs, and discussion of data. Some meas-
urements may be more meaningful based on the conditions
or types of people involved and how FLW is measured.
FLW is expressed in the form of food mass. Caloric
measures have been utilized in specific research, whereas
economic units have been used in others. FQLW is more
difficult to evaluate and quantify since it has various qualita-
tive and nutritional properties that are not connected. With
growing FQLW, there is often a loss of economic value, as
in the case of a drop in prominent quality features (fresh
products or expiration dates).
Food mass
At all levels of analysis, the most common method for met-
rics is the evaluation of FLW in mass, which is typically
the most conveniently available and analogous data. This
is consistent with the definition of FLW we employ in this
research. It has been embraced by the majority of studies

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
published to date, including the comprehensive FLW study
(FAO 2011).
Calorie
Measuring FLW in calorie units is another option. Kummu
etal. 2012 used the caloric content of various meals to
transform FLW statistics as stated in mass in FAO (2011)
into calories. As a result, the FLW of the energy-dense
meals is given a higher “weight” in the FLW computa-
tion. This technique should not be confused with the one
employed to assess efficient food systems, which is fun-
damentally distinct.
Nutritional value offood waste
The nutritional components are not fully accounted for by
FLW accounting in mass: food amount can be retained (low
FLW levels), but protein quality and nutrients are not always
preserved. Hence, in this paper, we have proposed a new
FQLW definition to account for scenarios where nutritional
characteristics are lost without a corresponding FLW.
The FAO and Messe Düsseldorf GmbH created the
Worldwide Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction
(also known as SAVE FOOD) in 2011, one of the most sig-
nificant global efforts. “SAVE FOOD” facilitates and ena-
bles (i) making people aware; (ii) collaboration and coordi-
nation of global activities, and community organizations;
(iii) policy, strategy, and evidence-based program creation;
and (iv) technical support with funders, bilateral/multilat-
eral bodies, banks, the public and commercial sectors, and
community organizations. Moreover, this comprises techni-
cal and administrative support and capacity development
(guidance) for food supply chain actors and organizations
interested in food waste reduction and food loss, whether
at the subsector or policy level. Loss assessments can be
improved by integrating a food chain approach with a
cost–benefit analysis. SAVE FOOD is performing several
national–regional studies in the field that are needed to iden-
tify the most effective strategies for minimizing food loss
and techniques that offer the highest returns on investment.
The program also conducts research on the socioeconomic
effects of food loss and waste and the political and regula-
tory environment that influences food loss and waste. Studies
on grains, fruits and vegetables, roots and tubers, milk, and
fish have already been undertaken in Kenya and Cameroon,
and more will be conducted (FAOSTAT2020). Globally,
some case studies and initiatives on food waste generation
and their effective management and environmental sustain-
ability are listed below in Table2.
Current food waste treatment methods:
novel approaches
The five basic treatment strategies commonly used in
developed countries are composting or natural fertilizer,
livestock feeding, incineration, landfills, and anaerobic
digestion. According to the literature, landfills and open
dumps are the most prevalent food waste disposal meth-
ods due to their high usage rates (Thi etal. 2015; Rather
etal. 2022f). The recorded statistics on current food waste
treatments in developing countries show dumps or landfills
(90% use) and compositing (1 to 6%) as a widely used
methods. Anaerobic digestion (0.6%) and animal feed-
ing and incineration treatments are barely used. To help
meet the growing demand for energy around the world,
the anaerobic digestion method has emerged as a viable
option.
Application I: animal feeding
A range of food waste items from various sources and
kinds are employed in feeding trials. These food wastes are
divided into three categories: (i) manufacturing co-prod-
ucts/byproducts, which usually comprise consistent and
well-known constituents like wheat middlings and oilseed
meals; (ii) refusals/residuals from processed foods, such as
those from industrial bakeries or produce packing plants
sites; (iii) a tangle of discarded food from food service
establishments (e.g., cafeterias, restaurants), the contents
of which are uncertain. This is because manufacturing co-
products/byproducts and food-processing refusals/residues
are commonly employed in animal feed. For example, in
the USA, 10.9 million tons of milling co-products, 30.4
million tons of oilseed meals, 2.5 million tons of animal
proteins, and an estimated 27 million tons of brewing and
ethanol co-products are given to livestock animals each
year (Ferguson 2016). This feeding approach is helpful
because of the economies of scale and the predictability of
the quality and amount of waste materials. Indeed, in the
USA, industrial by-products are not included in food waste
statistics (ReFED 2016). Contrarily, food waste occurring
during the consumption phase provides the most signifi-
cant challenge since it is the largest waste stream formed
in the food chain. Given its enormity and the limits of
alternative management methods, its recovery and treat-
ment for feeding animals are significant.
Local legislation in several nations with solid demand
for livestock feed, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan,
encourages food waste to feed animals, accounting for
33%, 81%, and 72% of the overall FW generation (Thi
etal. 2015). On the contrary, developing countries do

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
not practice the segregation and collection of food waste,
thereby mixing food waste with municipal solid waste,
which could not be decontaminated and utilized as animal
feed.
Application II: anaerobic digestion
From 2006 onwards, the EU and many developed coun-
tries of Asia widely accepted anaerobic digestion (AD)
as a food waste treatment (Abbasi etal. 2012; Sharma
etal. 2022). On the contrary, AD is hardly applied to man-
age food waste. Various institutes and NGOs in China
and India established different anaerobic digesters for
food waste treatment at residential and industrial levels
(Rodriguez-Jiménez etal.2022). Several institutes use
pilot-scale anaerobic digester and biogas plants installed
in India. About twenty anaerobic digestive projects are
being planned or implemented in China for municipal solid
wastes, food wastes, and manures. However, the full scale
of anaerobic digestive plants based on food abutments has
still to be established. Inadequate operations or manage-
ment regulations do not function adequately in the majority
of the anaerobic digesters due to technical failures (Thi
etal. 2015). Some countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, and
the Philippines generally assimilate anaerobic digestion
with compositing to dispose of food waste in landfill sites
(Kim 2016).
Meanwhile, Thailand and Jamaica have important suc-
cess through anaerobic digestion and the aerobic composting
process for various food waste treatments. Jamaica has a
group of biogas Carib Share that treats food waste through
anaerobic digestion to generate power for agrarian societies
(Meghan 2014). Enzymatic hydrolysis, acid synthesis, and
gas production are the three steps of anaerobic digestion.
Application III: composting
In developing countries, compositing is considered the
most efficient form of waste disposal. Around 70 composite
plants handle the mixed urban waste in India, generating
Table 2 Globally case studies and initiatives on food waste generation
Country Case study Reference
China “Empty Plate” Campaign raises awareness about food waste. Initially, the program focused on food
consumption by the public, various receptions, and dinners. According to anecdotal evidence, since the
campaign began, restaurant food waste has decreased significantly since January 2013. It includes national
public media mobilization, including the state-run CCTV and several provincial T.V. stations, and a series
of public advertisements aimed at reducing food waste
Losses 2014
Republic of Korea “Half-bowl” Campaign—to prevent food waste in restaurants, this ad encourages consumers to order half
a rice bowl. By the end of the year, it was intended to have reduced restaurant FLW by 20%. Some firms
developed a new food container with an additional layer inside to keep air and moisture out and halt the
rotting process
Losses 2014
Japan “Extending delivery dates in Japan”—to reduce FLW, Japan tried to extend the delivery date. In Japan’s
food industry, there is a “1/3 rule,” which states that more than one-third of food goods are not distributed
to shops over their expiration date. The food delivery date will be extended to half of the expiry date by
participating firms
Losses 2014
UK “Love Food Hate Waste”—in just 6months, food waste in West London was reduced by 14% due to this
effort. The “4 E’s” behavioral change paradigm was used to construct the campaign and approach: ena-
bling individuals to make a difference, motivating action, participating in the community, and exemplify-
ing what others are doing. Families who reported they were aware of the commercial and other food-waste
messaging and claimed to do anything different reduced avoidable food waste by 43%, a statistically
significant difference
(WRAP 2013)
Netherlands “Food Battle”—this campaign aimed to reduce family food waste. Recognizing that knowledge alone is
insufficient encourages individuals to feel the amount of food wasted at home physically. This entailed
maintaining a 3-week journal on how much food was wasted and providing practical advice and specific
solutions. A unique component of the Food Battle intervention is the influence of the social environ-
ment (neighbors, sociological groupings, shopping places, etc.). In the Netherlands, the first Food Battle
resulted in participants wasting 20% less food over 3weeks
In 2014, the second Food Battle, staged in partnership with the national women’s organization Vrouwen van
Nu, resulted in a 30% reduction in edible food waste
(Bos-Brou-
wers etal.
2013)
Denmark Stop wasting food—consumers developed this consumer campaign against food waste in Denmark for con-
sumers by a non-governmental organization (NGO). It aims to raise awareness among people by organiz-
ing campaigns, mobilizing the media, and fostering discussions, debates, and other events to reduce FLW.
It encourages customers to take action and take personal steps like preparing leftovers, purchasing more
wisely, and distributing excess food. It contributes to the Danish Minister of the Environment’s Initiative
Group Against Food Waste
Losses 2014

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
approximately 4.3 million tons each year by recycling up
to 5.9% of total FW. In Vijayawada and Suryapetare, two
plants are recognized for handling the source’s organic
waste (Annepu 2012; Bano etal. 2021). Compositing is a
common approach in Thailand to treat organic solid waste.
The production of organic fertilizer and biogas was done by
composting around 0.59 million tonnes of food waste (Zhang
etal. 2014;Thi etal. 2015).
The Malaysian government has taken vermicompost as
a primary national policy to produce bio-fertilizer utilizing
FW (Wani etal. 2018d). However, there are still a few ineffi-
ciencies in composting output induced by unprocessed waste
feedstock, which is a consequence of most developed coun-
tries’ incomplete source-segregated food waste schemes.
Therefore, composite markets are weak, and food waste
composts must compete with chemical fertilizers, which
causes problems in composite facilities’ operations and
investment. Increased communication, knowledge diffusion,
and training about how to build resilience and improve food
waste reduction practices among different actors can result
from the implementation of food waste reduction initiatives
by non-governmental organizations and retailer associations.
(de Oliveira etal. 2022).
Application IV: incineration
Incineration is the most effective way to reduce waste
volumes and demand for sites. This technique is used in
high-income nations, including Singapore and America
(Roy and Tarafdar 2022) and countries such as Ethiopia,
Bangladesh, and India have recently taken initiatives
to adopt incineration plants although with small-scale
capacity (Kabir etal. 2022). It is an invasive investment
requiring much upkeep compared to other treatments. In
addition, the control of gas emission residues involves the
application of expensive instruments with highly technical
operations. However, this method is unusual for treating
food waste in developing countries like Brazil and Ukraine
(Thi etal. 2015).
Application V: landfill
The special food waste treatment techniques in developing
countries which are estimated to dispose of 90% of total
food waste are open dumps and landfills. Several new land-
fills have been built to capture potentially harmful landfill
gas emissions and convert them to biofuel (Sufficiency
etal. 2022). Many countries have been found to disposal of
unsorted food waste from waste through landfill sites, includ-
ing Malaysia, Romania, Brazil, Mexico, Southern Africa,
China, Turkey, Costa Rica, Belarus, Jamaica, Ukraine, Viet-
nam, and Nigeria, estimating that about 20 to 80% of food
waste generated globally has not been segregated from the
solid waste by municipal governmental authorities. As per
various pieces of literature, the landfill method is considered
a realistic method for food waste treatment because of its
biodegradability and the potential to produce disease vec-
tors. Moreover, it has been found that there is an increase of
8% in the emission of greenhouse gases.
Energy generation byfood wastes
Food waste is simply recycled, treated with different pro-
cesses, and deposited in most developing countries and
does not generate any resource in return. Such practices
pose a serious ecological risk and are not economically
sustainable for food waste management. Table3 repre-
sents the various methods for converting food waste to
energy, including their products and uses in most devel-
oped and developing countries, particularly in generating
resources.
Anaerobic digestion
Many biogas and electricity generation studies were
recently conducted to develop a more feasible and eco-
nomical way of managing food waste and recovering
energy. Anaerobic digestion (AD) has become a popular
approach to reducing volume and energy recovery. To max-
imize methane production, a two-step anaerobic digester
separates hydrolysis and fermentation from a methano-
genic final stage in anaerobic digestion to optimize biogas
production (methane). Feeding food waste into a digester
increases methane generation: the more significant the
methane load concentration, the greater the energy pro-
duction. Without oxygen, waste is decomposed at different
time–temperature combinations in the digesters. Biogas is
collected in storage tanks and desulphurized to reduce the
biogas sulfur content. Biogas is further processed follow-
ing application and competence rules.
There are four main stages to anaerobic digestion: hydrol-
ysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis; AD
is the disintegration of organic compounds in digestors.
Hydrolysis breaks organic matter into simple sugar, fatty
acids, and amino acids. The products are then fermented in
acidogenesis into volatile fatty acids and alcohol. The fer-
mented products undergo conversion in acetogenesis, lead-
ing to carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and ammonia. Biogas is
produced from acetate acid and hydrogen in the final stage
of methanogenesis. Figure5 shows the following steps.
Anaerobic digestion is done at different time–temperature
combinations with optimal temperatures ranging from 55 to
60°C (thermophilic) and 35–40° C (mesophilic) (Oreggioni
etal. 2017). Most of the global food waste is handled in
mesophilic ranges. Such installations need less heat and are

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
easily managed. The anaerobic digesters are classified into
different categories depending on the components of foods,
which are listed in Fig.5. The main drawback of A.D. is the
acidity (pH < 5) developed by the production of volatile fatty
acids (VFA), which can end the whole digestion process.
However, this procedure has been highly appreciated.
Table 3 Various methods for converting food waste to energy
Current technology Advantages Challenge Primary products Application
Anaerobic digestion Treatment of high-moisture
biomass feedstock with this
technology is common
Lower CO2 production than a
landfill with a greater CH4
concentration
Not suited for all types of trash
(especially waste with little
organic content)
System stability has deteriorated
Biogas Electricity, fertilizers, biore-
fineries
Compositing Waste stabilization and volume
reduction
To create an efficient yield, soil
conditioners are required
Appropriate for the composting
process
It necessitates labor
Nutritional losses and odor prob-
lems as a result of the process
Compost Heat energy, fertilizers
Incineration Reductions in mass and volume
of up to 70 to 80% are possible
High-calorie content
Has the ability to treat large
amounts of waste in a short
length of time
Toxic compounds are produced,
resulting in pollution of the air
and water
High initial investment costs
Heat Heat energy, electricity
Landfills No expert labor is required
Least cost
Any type of land can be used
Natural resources are returned to
the earth
Pollution of the soil and ground-
water
It necessitates a significant
amount of land
Excessive emissions of green-
house gases (GHGs)
Treatment of leachates is expen-
sive
Increased transportation prices
Landfill gas Electricity
Fig. 5 Classification of different
anaerobic digesters for waste
conversion

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Microbial fuel cells
The bioelectric system of microbial fuel cells (MFCs)
directly converts stored chemical energy into electricity
from food waste. The electrochemically active micro-
organisms in this procedure aid in the catalysis of the
organic reaction by acting as an electron acceptor in
an electronic diode. Unlike AD, MFCs are less acidic
(low pH) and low temperature and susceptible to an
acidic environment. It is more appropriate for treating
low-strength organic compounds VFAs (volatile fatty
acids). VFAs are very much present in hydrolysis and
acidic stages due to leachate production (Xu etal. 2011;
Padder etal. 2021). Therefore, it is better to use MFCs
to transform VFA into electrical energy instead of the
last methanogenic phase of biogas production. Several
organic feedstocks in MFCs have been driven by elec-
trical production, from simple organic products such as
glucose, acetate, and butyrate to complex organic pieces
like starch, protein, and meat processing waste.
Current state ofthefood system (during
COVID‑19)
According to Caiazza and Bigliardi 2020, a value chain
becomes an economic and social reality during a pandemic.
Food hoarding has been reported in the media in many
nations, with photographs of bare shop shelves and stretched
internet delivery unable to meet demand. The closure of the
majority of catering firms resulted in significant food waste
and financial losses. As the situation intensifies, big food
corporations have issued dire warnings about disrupted sup-
ply lines and, as a result, food waste. In contrast, records
show that food was purchased from supermarkets 50% of
the time before the outbreak and food services 50%. Almost
all food purchases are now made in supermarkets (at least
for the middle class). It is worth mentioning that food chains
may have to deal with fluctuating and growing demand.
Another point to consider is the food truck traffic in
France, which accounts for around 5% of total traffic. Con-
sumer behavior or purchase patterns have also changed,
according to reports. There is some indication that customers
did not “stockpile” to the supposed initial level; there was an
average rise of 15% in the amount spent each visit, although
the number of trips decreased. This shift might be due to
more people making meals for themselves and their fami-
lies. When compared to other countries, the USA produced
less food waste, according to Rodgers etal. (2021). When
the limits were implemented, gender, age, and perceived
financial security were all considered; logistic regression
found that Americans have had a more significant food waste
reduction since the pandemic than Italians.
According to Waugh, the UK produces 90,000 tons of
flour each week. The majority goes to commercial bakeries
and other food manufacturers (supplied in tankers or 16kg
or 25kg sacks), and only 4% goes to stores and supermar-
kets. The current estimates of 3000 tons of flour per week,
or two million 1.5kg bags, or one bag per family every
14weeks, have altered dramatically. Baking at home grew
popular as a family activity, and bakeries became scarce.
The issue of food insecurity, which affects a substantial por-
tion of the population, is one of the primary challenges that
COVID-19 has identified. As a result of the lockdown, many
of the social programs that were in places, such as school
meals and family/grandparent support, have been halted.
This has put the most vulnerable members of our communi-
ties in grave danger (because of hunger). Food insecurity
among low-income households was exacerbated by induced
unemployment. Programs that give back to the community,
whether they be charities, food banks, or financial incentives
and measures, have addressed the problem in certain nations.
Nonetheless, it is a major source of concern (Vidal-Mones
etal. 2021).
Furthermore, a higher priority for health concerns when
making food selections and more frequent cooking and
avoiding shops were linked to a lower likelihood of food
waste. Scarcity and an increased reliance on cooking may
prompt people to think about their food waste habits. Beyond
the epidemic, more research should be done to see how these
elements may be targeted to prevent food waste. According
to food typologies, the changes in domestic food waste dur-
ing the COVID-19 lockdown, including fruits, vegetables,
Fig. 6 Changes in domestic food waste owing to COVID-19 accord-
ing to food typologies during the lockdown. The food typology repre-
sents A fruits, B vegetables, C bread, D dairy, E eggs, F fish, G meat,
H rice and pasta, I biscuits, J drinks, K precooked meals. And per-
centages within rows include I less than before, II same as before, II
more than before, IV we do not eat this food

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
bread, dairy, and eggs (Fig.6). This study investigated
how these changes in consumers’ daily lives influenced
food waste generation at the household level. The changes
in domestic food waste during the COVID-19 lockdown
according to food typologies, including fruits, vegetables,
bread, dairy, and eggs, besides this highest food waste gen-
eration in rice, pasta, 82.60%, eggs and dairy, 78.2%, meat,
and fish, drinks, 73.44%, vegetables, 68.87%, biscuits and
bread, 64.29%, precooked meals, 59.71%, fruits, 0.2%, etc.,
resulted from respondents’ self-reports of the amount of
food that was wasted before and during the lockdown, as
well as their explanations for how they handled their food
supply during that time.
Potential formitigating climate change
GHG emission reduction is associated with a biochemical
yield to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CO2 and
N2O are two main GHGs due to their vast size and various
genesis methods. According to several research investiga-
tions, the overall CO2 emission is substantially lower than
that of utilized oils owing to unmediated usage of bio-CO2.
Producing switchgrass instead of fossil fuels on marginal
land would reduce CO2 emissions by 29 mt CO2 – eq f yr
(2017). Based on the findings of the experiments, it was
determined that using ethanol in ethanol per megajoule
(MJ) energy for transportation would cut GHG emissions
by 40–85% in the USA; however, the reduction would be
modest. Their most recent study of potential biofuel effects
discovered that switching from agriculture to second-gener-
ation bioenergy crops could reduce CO2 emissions margin-
ally, while switching from first-generation bioenergy crops
to limited rotation cap lands would increase CO2 emissions.
Understanding several possible bioenergy crops and man-
agement strategies is increasingly critical when speculating
about lowering CO2 emissions. N2O (298 times CO2), like
CO2, contributes to global warming, and this gas accounts
for most agricultural production. Land-use changes are the
most critical factor determining N2O emissions and CO2
emissions. We summarized the effect of transferring SRC
and perennial grass from agriculture to N2O 0.2 tons/ha,
but with a modest rise in NDA emissions from agriculture.
First, bioenergy can provide baseload electrical energy
demands despite intermittent energy sources, which will
become increasingly crucial as the present thermal capacity
based on fossil fuels is phased out. Second, massive powers
are needed for transportation and aviation, and biofuels can
provide this at a low cost. The cumulative assessment of the
capital loss experienced due to lost food is a time-consuming
and challenging procedure that will undoubtedly draw poli-
cymakers’ attention to more strict rules to reduce global food
waste (Sharma etal. 2021).
At last, BECCS has the prospect to be a carbon-free
source of energy. Essential investments in public and com-
mercial research and development (R&D) are necessary,
often funded by public money or sectors. The International
Energy Agency provided information on R&D funding for
certain energy technologies.
Future research directions forfood waste
management
• As a solution to the problem of food waste, biodigesters
hold great promise. Comprehensive life cycle planning
is essential for strategic food waste management. It must
begin with responsible food purchasing but must also
embrace opportunities to minimize waste along the entire
life cycle, ending with responsible disposal.
• Together, everyone in the food industry and beyond
must work to alter not only business practices but also
consumer behavior if food waste is to be reduced in the
future. We hope to contribute to that answer.
• Phood—artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled food waste
prevention: a lot of change has occurred in the way peo-
ple eat all over the world over the years. There has been
a recent trend toward eating out rather than cooking
at home. While this is convenient for many, it leads to
unnecessary waste of food in restaurants. Artificial intel-
ligence technology has advanced to the point where start-
ups can create novel approaches to the problem of food
waste in public settings. PHOOD X, a tabletop solution,
and PHOOD XL, for daily waste disposal, are two of the
waste tracking devices for kitchens offered by Phood, a
startup based in the USA. The company uses artificial
intelligence (AI) and computer vision (CV) to detect
garbage and collect data like garbage’s whereabouts and
how it got there from kitchens. This information is then
used by businesses to determine the causes of food waste
and implement preventative measures. Furthermore,
Phood distributes and manages food waste according to
the EPA’s food recovery hierarchy.
Conclusion
Wasting food can happen at any stage of the food supply
chain, from production to distribution to retail to the table.
However, the majority of food waste occurs in homes. Gov-
ernments and professionals alike have made it a top priority
to encourage citizens to reduce their food waste at home
because of the negative effects it can have on the economy,
the environment, and society. This article looks at several
types of food waste and how they are treated uniquely. Both
researchers and business professionals are increasingly

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
interested in finding ways to recycle materials, particularly
food scraps, into usable fuel. Current waste management
technologies such as incineration, composting, anaerobic
digestion, landfill, and animal feeding are discussed. To
safeguard the environment, however, sustainable methods
are required, which are frequently disregarded. Achieving
SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger) and 12 (Climate Action) will require
significant progress toward reducing FLW (ensuring sustain-
able consumption and production patterns). Food waste is
also one of the significant determinants of the three pillars
of sustainability: financial, environmental, and social con-
cerns. More scientific investigations are urgently needed to
provide reliable estimates of the food lost. Food waste may
be converted into a range of bioproducts, which opens many
possibilities in the bioeconomy of the future. More scien-
tific investigations are urgently needed to provide reliable
estimates of the food lost. Anaerobic digestion is the most
extensively utilized approach for treating food waste since,
unlike other procedures, it aids in the generation of energy
and the production of biogas. Food waste is diverted from
landfills by anaerobic digestion, which minimizes the quan-
tity of methane released into the atmosphere. However, due
to the arduous nature of the procedure, microbial fluid cells
(MFCs) are currently being studied as a source of energy. An
ample amount of food waste is produced each year indicate
that the food is generated in adequate amounts to support
the world’s population. Bioenergy production can diver-
sify agricultural production systems while reducing GHG
emissions, reaching fossil-fuel independence, and helping
to reduce climate change concerns, which are a serious con-
cern today. Moreover, some of the changes brought about
by the COVID-19 epidemic in the lifestyle of consumers
have the potential to improve the efficiency of the domestic
food production process and minimize the quantity of food
wasted by customers.
Acknowledgements The authors highly acknowledge the adopted
source of figures which are presented in the review article. The authors
also express their sincere gratitude to the unknown referee for critically
reviewing the manuscript and suggesting useful changes.
Author contribution Rauoof Ahmad Rather provided the conceptu-
alization and framed the manuscript; Nazrana Rafique Wani, Aiman
Farooq, and Rauoof Ahmad Rather drafted the study design; Rauoof
Ahmad Rather, Shahid Ahmad Padder, and Afzal Husain Khan Wani
performed the analysis and formatting; Nazrana Rafique Wani, Aiman
Farooq, Pardeep Singh, Sanjeev Sharma, Shoukat Ara, Afzal Husain
Khan, Nabisab Mujawar Mubarak, Tawseef Rehman Baba, and Afzal
Husain Khan helped in data collection data analysis, assisted in the
initial draft of the manuscript text, and revised and commented on the
manuscript critically.
Data availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication This is not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA, Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi
SA (2012) A brief history of anaerobic digestion and
“biogas”. Biogas Energy 11–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
978-1- 4614- 1040-9_2
Adegbola A, Bamishaiye EI, Olayemi F (2011) Factors affecting the
adoption of the re-usable plastic vegetable crate in three local
government areas of Kano State, Nigeria. Asian J Agric Sci
4:281–285
Alam P, Sharholy M, Khan AH, Ahmad K, Alomayri T, Radwan N,
Aziz A (2022) Energy generation and revenue potential from
municipal solid waste using system dynamic approach. Chemos-
phere 299:134351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chemo sphere. 2022.
134351
Aldaco R, Hoehn D, Laso J, Margallo M, Ruiz-Salmón J, Cristobal J,
Kahhat R, Villanueva-Rey P, Bala A, Batlle-Bayer L, Fullana-i-
Palmer P (2020) Food waste management during the COVID-19
outbreak: a holistic climate, economic and nutritional approach.
Sci Total Environ 742:140524. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito
tenv. 2020. 140524
Annepu RK (2012) Sustainable solid waste management in India.
Columbia University, New York 2(01):1–89
Badran A, Murad S, Baydoun E, Daghir N (2017) Water, energy & food
sustainability in the middle east. Springer, Cham. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 48920-9
Baig MB, Al-Zahrani KH, Schneider F, Straquadine GS, Mourad M
(2019) Food waste posing a serious threat to sustainability in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia–a systematic review. Saudi J Biol
Sci 26(7):1743–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sjbs. 2018. 06. 004
Bakalis S, Valdramidis VP, Argyropoulos D, Ahrne L, Chen J, Cullen
PJ, Cummins E, Datta AK, Emmanouilidis C, Foster T, Fryer PJ
(2020) Perspectives from CO+ RE: how COVID-19 changed our
food systems and food security paradigms. Curr Res Food Sci
3:166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. crfs. 2020. 05. 003
Bano H, Lone FA, Bhat JI, Rather RA, Malik S, Bhat MA (2018)
Hokersar wet land of Kashmir: its utility and factors responsible
for its degradation. Plant Arch 18:1905–1910
Bano H, Rather RA, Bhat JI, Bhat TT, Azad H, Bhat SA, Hamid F,
Bhat MA (2021) Effect of pre-sowing treatments using phytohor-
mones and other dormancy breaking chemicals on seed germi-
nation of Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. Ex Griseb.: an Endangered
Medicinal Plant Species of North Western Himalaya. Eco Envs
Cons 27:253–260
Bano H, Malik S, Rather RA, Bhat JI, Islam S, Bhat TA, Bhat MA
(2022) Impact of anthropogenic activities on physico-chemical
properties of sediment of Hokersar wetland: a protected wildlife
reserve (Ramsar Site No. 1570) of Kashmir Himalaya. Bang-
ladesh J Bot 1:83–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3329/ bjb. v51i1. 58824
Bano H, Rather RA, Malik S, Bhat MA, Khan AH, Américo-Pinheiro
JH, Mir IA (2022) Effect of seasonal variation on pollution load
of water of Hokersar wetland: a case study of Queen Wetland of
Kashmir, J&K, India. Water Air Soil Pollut 233(12):518. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11270- 022- 05988-w
Barrett J, Scott K (2012) Link between climate change mitigation and
resource efficiency: a UK case study. Global Environ Chang
22(1):299–307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2011. 11. 003

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Bengtsson M, Alfredsson E, Cohen M, Lorek S, Schroeder P (2018)
Transforming systems of consumption and production for
achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond
efficiency. Sustain Sci 13:1533–1547. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11625- 018- 0582-1
Berry EM, Dernini S, Burlingame B, Meybeck A, Conforti P (2015)
Food security and sustainability: can one exist without the other?
Public Health Nutr 18(13):2293–2302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/
S1368 98001 50002 1X
Beylot A, Villeneuve J, Bellenfant G (2013) Life cycle assessment of
landfill biogas management: sensitivity to diffuse and combus-
tion air emissions. Waste Manag 33(2):401–11. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. wasman. 2012. 08. 017
Bhat RA, Bhat ZA, Rafiq S, Nazki IT, Khan FU, Neelofar RZ, Masoodi
N, Altaf Q, Rather RA (2021) Influence of growing media on
vegetative, floral and bulb parameters of crown lily (Fritillaria
Imperialis L.). Acta Sci Agric 5(4)
Bond M, Meacham T, Bhunnoo R, Benton T (2013) Food waste within
global food systems. Swindon, UK: Global Food Secur
Boon EK, Anuga SW (2020) Circular economy and its relevance for
improving food and nutrition security in Sub-Saharan Africa: the
case of Ghana. Mater Circ Econ 2:1–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s42824- 020- 00005-z
Bos-Brouwers HE, Scheer FP, Nijenhuis MA, Kleijn F, Westerhoff
M (2013) FoodBattle: reductie milieudruk voedselverspilling op
het snijvlak van supermarkt & consument. Food Biobased Res
Wageningen UR
Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Pagliaccia P (2018) Anaerobic bio-
conversion of food waste into energy: a critical review. Biores Tech-
nol 1(248):37–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biort ech. 2017. 06. 145
Buchner B, Fischler C, Gustafson E, Reilly J, Riccardi G, Ricordi C,
Veronesi U (2012) Food waste: causes, impacts and proposals.
Barilla Center Food Nutr 53–61
Burchi F, De Muro P (2016) From food availability to nutritional capa-
bilities: advancing food security analysis. Food Policy 1(60):10–
19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2015. 03. 008
Caiazza R, Bigliardi B (2020) Web marketing in agri-food industry:
challenges and opportunities. Trends Food Sci Technol 103:12–
19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tifs. 2020. 04. 024
Campi M, Dueñas M, Fagiolo G (2021) Specialization in food production
affects global food security and food systems sustainability. World
Dev 141:105411. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2021. 105411
Canali M, Amani P, Aramyan L, Gheoldus M, Moates G, Östergren
K, Silvennoinen K, Waldron K, Vittuari M (2016) Food waste
drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions.
Sustainability 9(1):37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su901 0037
Committee on World Food Security (2012) Coming to terms with ter-
minology: food security, nutrition security, food security and
nutrition, food and nutrition security. Proceedings of the 39th
Session of the Committee on World Food Security [Internet]
de Moraes CC, de Oliveira Costa FH, Pereira CR, da Silva AL, Delai
I (2020) Retail food waste: mapping causes and reduction prac-
tices. J Clean Prod 256:120124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep
ro. 2020. 120124
de Oliveira Costa FH, de Moraes CC, da Silva AL, Delai I, Chaudhuri
A, Pereira CR (2022) Does resilience reduce food waste? Analy-
sis of Brazilian supplier-retailer dyad. J Clean Prod 338:130488.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2022. 130488
Dehghani MH, Salari M, Karri RR, Hamidi F, Bahadori R (2021)
Process modeling of municipal solid waste compost ash for
reactive red 198 dye adsorption from wastewater using data
driven approaches. Sci Rep 11(1):1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ s41598- 021- 90914-z
Diabetes TL (2021) Food policies: in times of COVID-19 and beyond
The Lancet. Diabetes Endocrinol 9(6):319. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ S2213- 8587(21) 00123-6
Dora M, Wesana J, Gellynck X, Seth N, Dey B, De Steur H (2020)
Importance of sustainable operations in food loss: evidence
from the Belgian food processing industry. Ann Oper Res
290:47–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10479- 019- 03134-0
EFSA/ECDC (2019)Scientific report on the European Union one
health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J 17:5926
El Sheikha AF, Ray RC (2022) Bioprocessing of horticultural wastes
by solid-state fermentation into value-added/innovative bio-
products: a review. Food Rev Intl 19:1–57. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 87559 129. 2021. 20041 61
Evans D (2011) Blaming the consumer–once again: the social and
material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some Eng-
lish households. Crit Public Health 21(4):429–40. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 09581 596. 2011. 608797
FAO G (2011) Global food losses and food waste–extent, causes and
prevention. Save FOOD: Initiative Food Loss Waste Reduction
9:2011
FAOSTAT F (2020) Agriculture organization of the United Nations—
statistics division. Available online: http:// faost at3. fao. org/
browse/ Q/ QC.E. Accessed 18 Feb2020
Farrukh MU, Bashir MK, Hassan S, Adil SA, Kragt ME (2020) Map-
ping the food security studies in India, Pakistan and Bangla-
desh: review of research priorities and gaps. Global Food Secur
26:100370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2020. 100370
Ferguson JD (2016) Food waste as animal feed. In: Food waste across
the supply chain: a US perspective on a global problem.The
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, pp
235–261
Filimonau V, Delysia A (2019) Food waste management in hospitality
operations: a critical review. Tour Manage 71:234–245
Filimonau V, Zhang H, Wang LE (2020) Food waste management in
Shanghai full-service restaurants: a senior managers’ perspec-
tive. J Clean Prod 258:120975. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro.
2020. 120975
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) Decla-
ration of the World Food Summit on Food Security. FAO, Rome
Fogelberg H (2011) Research on IT use and users in Sweden, with
particular focus on 1990–2010.KTH, Stockholm
Fox L, Signé L (2020) COVID-19 and the future of work in Africa:
how to reduce income loss for formal sector employees. Wash-
ington, DC: Brookings Institution. http:// hdl. voced. edu. au/
10707/ 539832
García-Díez J, Gonçalves C, Grispoldi L, Cenci-Goga B, Saraiva C
(2021) Determining food stability to achieve food security. Sus-
tainability 13(13):7222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su131 37222
Garrone P, Melacini M, Perego A (2014) Opening the black box of
food waste reduction. Food Policy 46:129–139. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2014. 03. 014
Gerhardt C, Suhlmann G, Ziemßen F, Donnan D, Warschun M, Kühnle
HJ (2016) How will cultured meat and meat alternatives disrupt
the agricultural and food industry? Ind Biotechnol 5:262–270.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ ind. 2020. 29227. cge
Ghaani M, Cozzolino CA, Castelli G, Farris S (2016) An overview of
the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends
Food Sci Technol 51:1–1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tifs. 2016. 02.
008
Girotto F, Alibardi L, Cossu R (2015) Food waste generation and indus-
trial uses: a review. Waste Manage 45:32–41. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. wasman. 2015. 06. 008
Gomez-Zavaglia A, Mejuto JC, Simal-Gandara J (2020) Mitigation
of emerging implications of climate change on food production
systems. Food Res Int 134:109256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
foodr es. 2020. 109256
Gounden C, Irvine JM, Wood RJ (2015) Promoting food security
through improved analytics. Procedia Eng 107:335–336. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. proeng. 2015. 06. 089

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Halloran A, Clement J, Kornum N, Bucatariu C, Magid J (2014)
Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy
49:294–301. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2014. 09. 005
Haselbeck F, Killinger J, Menrad K, Hannus T, Grimm DG (2022)
Machine learning outperforms classical forecasting on horticul-
tural sales predictions. Mach Learn Appl 7:100239. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. mlwa. 2021. 100239
Herszenhorn E, Quested T, Easteal S, Prowse G, Lomax J, Bucatariu C
(2014) Prevention and reduction of food and drink waste in busi-
nesses and households-guidance for governments, local authorities,
businesses and other organizations. U Nation Environ Program
Hussain SM, Hussain K, Malik AA, Hussaini AM, Farwah S, Rashid
M, Ahmad R (2021) Development of a novel in-vitro protocol for
micro propagation of tomato male sterile line (Shalimar FMS-1)
of Kashmir Valley India. Acta Sci Agric 5(4)
Jeswani HK, Figueroa-Torres G, Azapagic A (2021) The extent of
food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts.
Sustain Prod Consum 26:532–547. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. spc.
2020. 12. 021
Jiménez LM, Pérez-Vidal A, Torres-Lozada P (2022) Research trends
and strategies for the improvement of anaerobic digestion of food
waste in psychrophilic temperatures conditions. Heliyon 11174.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. heliy on. 2022. e11174
Johnson LK, Dunning RD, Bloom JD, Gunter CC, Boyette MD,
Creamer NG (2018) Estimating on-farm food loss at the field
level: a methodology and applied case study on a North Carolina
farm. Resour Conserv Recycl 137:243–250. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. resco nrec. 2018. 05. 017
Kabir Z, Kabir M, Rahman MA, Rahman M (2022) Operational tools
and techniques for municipal solid waste management. InEnergy
from Waste (pp. 23–36). CRC Press
Kayikci Y, Demir S, Mangla SK, Subramanian N, Koc B (2022) Data-
driven optimal dynamic pricing strategy for reducing perishable
food waste at retailers. J Clean Prod 344:131068. https:// doi. or g/
10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2022. 131068
Khan AH, López-Maldonado EA, Khan NA, Villarreal-Gómez LJ,
Munshi FM, Alsabhan AH, Perveen K (2021) Current solid
waste management strategies and energy recovery in developing
countries-State of art review. Chemosphere 291:133088. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chemo sphere. 2021. 133088
Khan AH, López-Maldonado EA, Alam SS, Khan NA, López JR, Her-
rera PF, Abutaleb A, Ahmed S, Singh L (2022) Municipal solid
waste generation and the current state of waste-to-energy poten-
tial: state of art review. Energy Convers Manag 267:115905.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. encon man. 2022. 115905
Kim JR(2016) Anaerobic digestion and acidification monitoring
parameters for Korean food waste. Doctoral dissertation,Seoul
National University Graduate School
Kosseva MR (2020) Sources, characteristics and treatment of plant-
based food waste. In: Food Industry Wastes. Academic Press,
pp 37–66 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978-0- 12- 817121- 9. 00003-6
Kour R, Singh S, Sharma HB, Naik TS, Shehata N, Pavithra N, Ali W,
Kapoor D, Dhanjal DS, Singh J, Khan AH (2023) Persistence and
remote sensing of agri-food wastes in the environment: current
state and perspectives. Chemosphere 14:137822. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. chemo sphere. 2023. 137822
Kumar SD, Yasasve M, Karthigadevi G, Aashabharathi M, Subbaiya
R, Karmegam N, Govarthanan M (2022) Efficiency of microbial
fuel cells in the treatment and energy recovery from food wastes:
trends and applications-a review. Chemosphere. 287:132439.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chemo sphere. 2021. 132439
Kummu M, De Moel H, Porkka M, Siebert S, Varis O, Ward PJ (2012)
Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and
their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci Total
Environ 438:477–489. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2012.
08. 092
Lebersorger S, Schneider F (2014) Food loss rates at the food retail,
influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste preven-
tion measures. Waste Manag 34(11):1911–9. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. wasman. 2014. 06. 013
Lingamdinne LP, Vemula KR, Chang YY, Yang JK, Karri RR, Koduru
JR (2020) Process optimization and modeling of lead removal
using iron oxide nanocomposites generated from bio-waste mass.
Chemosphere 243:125257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chemo
sphere. 2019. 125257
Losses HF (2014) Waste in the context of sustainable food systems.A
report by the high-level panel of experts on food security and
nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security 1–6
Majumdar A, Pradhan N, Sadasivan J, Acharya A, Ojha N, Babu S,
Bose S (2018) Food degradation and foodborne diseases: a
microbial approach. In: Microbial contamination and food deg-
radation, vol 1. Academic Press, pp 109–148.https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ B978-0- 12- 811515- 2. 00005-6
Malik S, Bano H, Rather RA, Ahmad S (2018) Cloud seeding; its
prospects and concerns in the modern world-A review. Int J Pure
App Biosci 6(5):791–796
Manning L, Soon JM (2016) Food safety, food fraud, and food defense:
a fast evolving literature. J Food Sci 81(4):R823–R834. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1750- 3841. 13256
May J, Williams A, Cloke P, Cherry L (2020) Food banks and the pro-
duction of scarcity. Trans Inst Br Geogr 45(1):208–222. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ tran. 12340
Meghan S (2014) Caribbean Biogas Company to provide energy from
waste to housing development in Jamaica
Mena C, Terry LA, Williams A, Ellram L (2014) Causes of waste
across multi-tier supply networks: cases in the UK food sec-
tor. Int J Prod Econ 152:144–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijpe.
2014. 03. 012
Mishra G, Panda BK, Ramirez WA, Jung H, Singh CB, Lee SH, Lee
I (2021) Research advancements in optical imaging and spectro-
scopic techniques for nondestructive detection of mold infection
and mycotoxins in cereal grains and nuts. Compr Rev Food Sci
Food Saf 20(5):4612–4651
Morrow O (2019) Sharing food and risk in Berlin’s urban food com-
mons. Geoforum 99:202–212. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. geofo
rum. 2018. 09. 003
Mourad M (2016) Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”:
competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United
States and France. J Clean Prod 126:461–477. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jclep ro. 2016. 03. 084
Nafees S, Nafees H, Nizamudeen S, Rather RA (2023) Pharmacologi-
cal profile of active phytometabolites from traditional medicinal
plants. In: Phytohormones and Stress Responsive Secondary
Metabolites.Elsevier Inc., pp 75–88.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/
C2021-0- 00172-3
Nchanji EB, Lutomia CK (2021) Regional impact of COVID-19 on
the production and food security of common bean smallholder
farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: implication for SDG’s. Global
Food Secur 100524. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2021. 100524
Newsome R, Balestrini CG, Baum MD, Corby J, Fisher W, Good-
burn K, Labuza TP, Prince G, Thesmar HS, Yiannas F (2014)
Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Compr
Rev Food Sci Food Saf 13(4):745–769. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
1541- 4337. 12086
Nicastro R, Carillo P (2021) Food loss and waste prevention strategies
from farm to fork. Sustainability 13(10):5443. https:// doi. org/
10. 3390/ su131 05443
Nizami AS, Rehan M, Waqas M, Naqvi M, Ouda OK, Shahzad K,
Miandad R, Khan MZ, Syamsiro M, Ismail IM, Pant D (2017)
Waste biorefineries: enabling circular economies in developing
countries. Biores Technol 241:1101–1117. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. biort ech. 2017. 05. 097

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Nychas GJ, Panagou EZ, Mohareb F (2016) Novel approaches for food
safety management and communication. Curr Opin Food Sci
12:13–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cofs. 2016. 06. 005
Oreggioni GD, Gowreesunker BL, Tassou SA, Bianchi G, Reilly M,
Kirby ME, Toop TA, Theodorou MK (2017) Potential for energy
production from farm wastes using anaerobic digestion in the
UK: an economic comparison of different size plants. Energies
10(9):1396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ en100 91396
Ouda OK, Raza SA, Nizami AS, Rehan M, Al-Waked R, Korres NE
(2016) Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Ara-
bia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 61:328–340. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. rser. 2016. 04. 005
Padder SA, Mansoor S, Bhat SA, Baba TR, Rather RA, Wani SM,
Popescu SM, Sofi S, Aziz MA, Hefft DI, Alzahrani OM (2021)
Bacterial endophyte community dynamics in apple (Malus
domestica Borkh.) germplasm and their evaluation for scab
management strategies. J Fungi 7(11):923. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3390/ jof71 10923
Padder SA, Rather RA, Bhat SA, Shah MD, Baba TR, Mubarak NM
(2022) Dynamics, phylogeny and phyto-stimulating potential of
chitinase synthesizing bacterial root endosymbiosiome of North
Western Himalayan Brassica rapa L. Sci Rep 12(1):6742. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41598- 022- 11030-0
Pandey A, Tripathi PH, Paliwal A, Tripathi AH, Pandey SC, Joshi
T, Pande V (2021) Various approaches for food waste process-
ing and its management. In Research Anthology on Food Waste
Reduction and Alternative Diets for Food and Nutrition Security,
IGI Global 578–594
Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger JK, Wright N, Bin Ujang Z
(2014) The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the manage-
ment of food surplus and food waste. J Clean Prod 76:106–115.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2014. 04. 020
Papargyropoulou E, Steinberger JK, Wright N, Lozano R, Padfield R,
Ujang Z (2019) Patterns and causes of food waste in the hospital-
ity and food service sector: food waste prevention insights from
Malaysia. Sustainability 11(21):6016. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/
su112 16016
Pfaltzgraff LA, Cooper EC, Budarin V, Clark JH (2013) Food waste
biomass: a resource for high-value chemicals. Green Chem
15(2):307–314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1039/ C2GC3 6978H
Porter SD, Reay DS, Bomberg E, Higgins P (2018) Avoidable food
losses and associated production-phase greenhouse gas emissions
arising from application of cosmetic standards to fresh fruit and
vegetables in Europe and the UK. J Clean Prod 201:869–878.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2018. 08. 079
Priefer C, Jörissen J, Bräutigam KR (2016) Food waste prevention in
Europe–a cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant
leverage points for action. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:155–165.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2016. 03. 004
Rahman MA, Islam M, Begum MM, Arfin Sn (2019) Technical and
economic feasibility of improved postharvest management prac-
tices in enhancing the eggplant value chain of Bangladesh. Int
J Agric Res, Innov Tech (IJARIT) 9(2355–2020–1124):35–41.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 22004/ ag. econ. 303813
Rather RA, Ara S, Sharma S, Padder SA, Lone FA, Mir SA, Ahmad
Baba Z, Ayoub I, Bhat TA, Baba TR (2022a) Seasonal changes
and determination of heavy metal concentrations in Veshaw
River of Western Himalaya. Front Environ Chem 3:1018576.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fenvc. 2022. 10185 76
Rather RA, Bano H, Firoz A, Mohammed Ali H, Bhat MA, Padder SA,
Nafees H, Hakeem KR (2022b) The assessment of morphological
diversity of Colchicum luteum L., an economically important
threatened medicinal plant of Kashmir Himalaya. Sustainability
14(3):1327. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su140 31327
Rather RA, Bano H, Padder SA, Baba TR, Ara S, Lone FA, Nazir S
(2022c) Impact of anthropogenic pressure on physico-chemical
characteristics of forest soils of Kashmir Himalaya. Bull Envi-
ron Contam Toxicol 6:1088–1097. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s00128- 022- 03458-x
Rather RA, Bano H, Padder SA, Perveen K, Al Masoudi LM, Alam
SS, Hong SH (2022d) Anthropogenic impacts on phytosocio-
logical features and soil microbial health of Colchicum luteum
L. an endangered medicinal plant of North Western Himalaya.
Saudi J Biol Sci 29(4):2856–2866. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sjbs.
2022. 01. 011
Rather RA, Bano H, Perveen K, Bukhari NA, Padder SA, Baba TR,
Qureshi A, Khan NA, Khan AH, Samaraweera H (2022e) Anti-
fungal potential of Colchicum luteum and determination of
colchicine content using HPLC for application as a fungicide.
J King Saud Univ-Sci 34(3):101876. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jksus. 2022. 101876
Rather RA, Wani AW, Mumtaz S, Padder SA, Khan AH, Almohana
AI, Almojil SF, Alam SS, Baba TR (2022f) Bioenergy: a founda-
tion to environmental sustainability in a changing global climate
scenario. J King Saud Univ-Sci 34(1):101734. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jksus. 2021. 101734
Rather RA, Ara S, Padder SA, Sharma S, Pathak SP, Baba TR (2023g)
Seasonal fluctuation of water quality and ecogenomic phylogeny
of novel potential microbial pollution indicators of Veshaw River
Kashmir-Western Himalaya. Environ Pollut 19:121104. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envpol. 2023. 121104
ReFED A (2016) A roadmap to reduce US food waste by 20 percent.
Rockefeller Foundation: New York, NY, USA 20
Rockström J, Williams J, Daily G, Noble A, Matthews N, Gordon L,
Wetterstrand H, DeClerck F, Shah M, Steduto P, de Fraiture C
(2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human pros-
perity and global sustainability. Ambio 46:4–17. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s13280- 016- 0793-6
Rodgers RF, Lombardo C, Cerolini S, Franko DL, Omori M, Linardon
J, Guillaume S, Fischer L, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M (2021) “Waste
not and stay at home” evidence of decreased food waste during the
COVID-19 pandemic from the US and Italy. Appetite 160:105110
Ropodi AI, Panagou EZ, Nychas GJ (2016) Data mining derived from
food analyses using non-invasive/non-destructive analytical
techniques; determination of food authenticity, quality & safety
in tandem with computer science disciplines. Trends Food Sci
Technol 50:11–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tifs. 2016. 01. 011
Roy D, Tarafdar A (2022) Solid waste management and landfill in
high-income countries. InCircular Economy in Municipal Solid
Waste Landfilling: Biomining & Leachate Treatment: Sustain-
able Solid Waste Management: Waste to Wealth Cham: Springer
International Publishing 1–23
Sakai SI, Yoshida H, Hirai Y, Asari M, Takigami H, Takahashi S,
Tomoda K, Peeler MV, Wejchert J, Schmid-Unterseh T, Dou-
van AR (2011) International comparative study of 3R and waste
management policy developments. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage
13:86–102
Salvatory S (2022) Sustainability assessment of existing septic systems
in residential buildings: a case study of Mwanza city, Tanza-
nia(Doctoral dissertation, NM-AIST). https:// dspace. nm- aist. ac.
tz/ handle/ 20. 500. 12479/ 1647
Schneider F (2014) Review of food waste prevention on an interna-
tional level. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Waste and Resource Management. ICE Publishing, pp 187–203.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1680/ warm. 13. 00016
Secondi L, Principato L, Laureti T (2015) Household food waste
behaviour in EU-27 countries: a multilevel analysis. Food Policy
56:25–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2015. 07. 007
Sharma P, Gaur VK, Sirohi R, Varjani S, Kim SH, Wong JW (2021)
Sustainable processing of food waste for production of bio-
based products for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour Technol
325:124684. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biort ech. 2021. 124684

Environmental Science and Pollution Research
1 3
Sharma P, Bano A, Singh SP, Srivastava, SK, Iqbal H, Varjani S (2022)
Different stages of microbial community during the anaerobic
digestion of food waste. J Food Sci Technol 1–13
Singh A, Singhania RR, Soam S, Chen CW, Haldar D, Varjani S,
Chang JS, Dong CD, Patel AK (2022) Production of bioetha-
nol from food waste: status and perspectives. Bioresour Technol
20:127651. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biort ech. 2022. 127651
Solangi NH, Kumar J, Mazari SA, Ahmed S, Fatima N, Mubarak NM
(2021) Development of fruit waste derived bio-adsorbents for
wastewater treatment: a review. J Hazard Mater 416:125848.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jhazm at. 2021. 125848
Sridhar A, Kapoor A, Kumar PS, Ponnuchamy M, Balasubramanian S,
Prabhakar S (2021) Conversion of food waste to energy: a focus
on sustainability and life cycle assessment. Fuel 302:121069.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fuel. 2021. 121069
Sufficiency E, Qamar SA, Ferreira LF, Franco M, Iqbal HM, Bilal
M (2022) Emerging biotechnological strategies for food waste
management: a green leap towards achieving high-value products
and environmental abatement. Energy Nexus 6:100077. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. nexus. 2022. 100077
Teigiserova DA, Hamelin L, Thomsen M (2020) Towards transparent
valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: clarifying defini-
tions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy.
Sci Total Environ 706:136033. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito
tenv. 2019. 136033
Thakur R, Rather RA (2023) Conservation and sustainable manage-
ment of wild medicinal and aromatic plant species. Plants Med
Aromat Pharmacog Ecol Conserv 27:23
Thi NB, Kumar G, Lin CY (2015) An overview of food waste manage-
ment in developing countries: current status and future perspec-
tive. J Environ Manage 157:220–229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jenvm an. 2015. 04. 022
Thines RK, Mubarak NM, Nizamuddin S, Sahu JN, Abdullah EC,
Ganesan P (2017) Application potential of carbon nanomaterials
in water and wastewater treatment: a review. J Taiwan Inst Chem
Eng 72:116–133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jtice. 2017. 01. 018
United Nations System High Level Task Force on Global Food Security
(2021) Food and nutrition security: comprehensive framework
for action. Summary of the Updated Comprehensive Framework
for Action (UCFA)
Vagsholm I, Arzoomand NS, Boqvist S (2020) Food security, safety,
and sustainability—getting the trade-offs right. Front Sustain
Food Syst 4:16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2020. 00016
Vidal-Mones B, Barco H, Diaz-Ruiz R, Fernandez-Zamudio MA
(2021) Citizens’ food habit behavior and food waste conse-
quences during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Sustain-
ability 13(6):3381. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su130 63381
Waitt G, Phillips C (2016) Food waste and domestic refrigeration: a
visceral and material approach. Soc Cult Geogr 17(3):359–379.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14649 365. 2015. 10755 80
Wani MY, Ganie NA, Rather RA, Rani S, Bhat ZA (2018a) Seri bio-
diversity: an important approach for improving quality of life. Jr
Ent Zoo Sty 6(1):100–105
Wani MY, Mehraj S, Rather RA, Rani S, Hajam OA, Ganie NA, Mir
MR, Baqual MF, Kamili AS (2018b) Systemic acquired resist-
ance (SAR): a novel strategy for plant protection with reference
to mulberry. Int J Chem Stud 2:1184–1192
Wani MY, Rather RA, Bashir M, Shafi S, Rani S (2018c) Effect of zinc
on the larval growth and quality cocoon parameters of silkworm
(Bombyx mori L.): a review. Int J Fauna Biol Stud 5(4):31–36
Wani MY, Mir MR, Mehraj S, Rather RA, Ganie NA, Baqual MF,
Sahaf KA, Hussain A (2018d) Effect of different types of
mulches on the germination and seedling growth of mulberry
(Morus Sp.). Int J Chemical Studies 6(1):1364–37672
World Bank (2020) COVID-19 (coronavirus) drives Sub-Saharan
Africa toward first recession in 25 years. World Bank
WRAP (2013) The impact of Love Food Hate Waste. Household food
waste prevention case study: West London Waste Authority in
partnership with Recycle for London. http:// www. wrap. org.
uk/ sites/ files/ wrap/ West% 20Lon don% 20LFHW% 20Imp act%
20case% 20stu dy_0. pdf
Xin X, Ma Y, Liu Y (2018) Electric energy production from food
waste: microbial fuel cells versus anaerobic digestion. Biores
Technol 255:281–287. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biort ech. 2018.
01. 099
Xu SY, Lam HP, Karthikeyan OP, Wong JW (2011) Optimization
of food waste hydrolysis in leach bed coupled with methano-
genic reactor: effect of pH and bulking agent. Biores Technol
102(4):3702–3708. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biort ech. 2010. 11.
095
Yadav VK, Malik P, Khan AH, Pandit PR, Hasan MA, Cabral-Pinto
MM, Islam S, Suriyaprabha R, Yadav KK, Dinis PA, Khan SH
(2021) Recent advances on properties and utility of nanomateri-
als generated from industrial and biological activities. Crystals
11(6):634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ cryst 11060 634
Zhang C, Su H, Baeyens J, Tan T (2014) Reviewing the anaerobic
digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 38:383–392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 05.
038
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.