Global Food Security and Sustainability Issues: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Theodoros Varzakas.

The accomplishment of food/nutrition security for all across sustainable food systems (SFS) is tied to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SFS is connected to all SDGs via the traditional framework of social inclusion, economic development, environmental safety, inclusivity, and the development of sustainable food systems.

  • governance
  • food safety
  • food system transformation

1. Introduction

Owing to the pressures provoked by the present, allied, global food systems leading to health/environmental degradation, challenges to redevelop them to be more sustainable are progressively emerging across the world. Above all, the tendency is to change from individualized agendas to cooperative strategies that can successfully promote the authentic transformation of food systems to be more sustainable. In this sense, according to the European Commission (2020) [1], food system transformation is required in order to shift towards a more sustainable and healthy diet, ensuring holistic food and nutrition security. Hence, a more thorough and comprehensive understanding of the different components of the current food systems and their interactions is required for the maximum co-benefits.
Future-proof sustainable food systems with a focus on health and inclusion are a key focus of the European Commission (EC). The Farm to Fork strategy and the European Green Deal policy are important tools related to the success of these food systems. Food 2030, an EU research and innovation policy framework, supports the transition towards maintainable, innovative, and comprehensive food systems that respect planetary boundaries. Human health, the climate, the planet, and communities will all benefit from the implementation of these systems.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) [2] and the European Green Deal [3] are considered essential to mitigate the anthropogenic climate change (CC) crisis. They are synergetic since they endorse maintainable agrifood systems and the preservation of the environment [4].
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), approved by the UN in 2015, include several worldwide goals focused on accomplishing a maintainable future for all by 2030 [5]. It should be noted that the change in food systems is crucial due to their unsustainable nature. Climate change, resource scarcity, effluence and waste, environmental degradation, biodiversity damage, human development, undernourishment, and diet-connected non-communicable diseases are all drivers heavily affecting this change.
Food 2030 requires that the entire food system is linked together, associating multiple sectors from farm to fork, i.e., from primary production and food processing to retailing and distribution, food services, and consumption.
All stakeholders should be involved in this process, engaging science–policy–society (consumers). In this way, research and innovation policy will be improved, aiming at coherence and stability, and research and innovation funding and investment will be increased. Hence, the consumer should be an integral part of this process. Finally, the role of innovative technologies should be supported and initiated, along with new approaches and business models, accompanied by social, institutional, and governance innovation relevant to food system change (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Research and innovation for future-proofing of food systems.

1.1. Nutrition for Maintainable and Healthy Diets

It is important to tackle important issues such as malnutrition and obesity, the support of healthy ageing, the development of novel protein substitutes towards plant-based diets, the improvement of food authenticity/traceability, the support of the cultivation and consumption of overlooked harvests for nutrition and resilience, and the support of the shift towards sustainable healthy diets in Europe and Africa.
Additional expansions and applications of EU food directives and food safety policies (Food Safety—European Commission (europa.eu)) and the Expert Group on Public Health—European Commission (europa.eu) (https://ec.europa.eu/health/non_communicable_diseases/steeringgroup_promotionprevention_en and https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/ health-knowledge-gateway) (accessed on 28 December 2023) are relevant to Sustainable Development Goals 2, 3, 8, and 10 [1].

1.2. Food Systems Supporting a Healthy Planet

Water, soil, land, and sea should be managed dependably, thus making them available in the future. Smarter food systems are the priority of Food 2030. Hence, they will be better aligned with climate change, and, in this way, will help to preserve the environment. In this direction, environmental risks will be limited and the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be reduced [1]. The priority is to devise and operate environmentally friendly and resilient food systems that boost biodiversity, fostering sustainable and healthy agriculture and aquaculture.

1.3. Circularity and Resource Efficiency

The aim of circularity and resource efficiency is to use more efficient and greener industrial processes and logistics in order to reduce food, water, and energy waste. This can be achieved by using unavoidable biomass and waste resources. Another solution is the provision of local food on demand for short supply chains.
Circularity can be defined by the use of maintainable, resource-effective food systems that can manage the 1.3 billion tons of food lost and wasted each year. This could be achieved by zero food waste (FW) policies, the efficient recycling of food waste, the biodegradation of food packaging, limiting microplastics, and responding to the increased demand for more local and healthy food [1].

1.4. Innovation and Empowering Communities

The development of an ecosystem supporting new business models and solutions for society is the aim of the fourth Food 2030 priority.
The achievement of this goal will help to link urban/rural/coastal economies and establish communities across the EU. Closer linkages and partnerships among industry and society will help to create new jobs, decrease prices, and enhance sustainability. Key challenges in this direction include governance innovation, social innovation through citizens’ involvement, citizens’ engagement in food science and policy, a farm to fork economy with a focus on social innovation, and the development of data-driven food and nutrition systems with the goal of meeting societal needs [1].

1.5. Impact of Climate Change on Food Security

Biodiversity is an essential source of food. In this context, an awareness of species disappearance is necessary, caused by factors such as pollution, pests, and food and medicine control. As an illustration, between 1996 and 2003, the precipitation in parts of equatorial East Africa provoked flooding and reductions in crops and agricultural yields [6]. Consequently, climate change has a direct impact on food production and distribution [7]. Firstly, an increase in the incidence of pests and diseases has been observed, and a loss of biodiversity and a decline in ecosystem functioning has been noted. Secondly, the accessibility of water for crops and fish production and a sea-level rise has been observed [8]. The impacts include the loss of life and food security of millions of people in disaster-prone areas. Through extreme weather, CC will disturb food security and crop yields too. By 2050, it is projected that agricultural yields in Africa alone could decline by >30% [9].
On the other hand, food preparation, processing, acquisition, distribution, and consumption are impacted by CC [10], which influences plant and animal growth, water cycles, biodiversity and nutrient cycling, and the ways in which these are managed for agricultural practices and food production [11]. In addition, CC could amend suitable cultivation zones with a wide range of crops.
CC also influences on income-earning balances, which could affect the ability to buy food, and a changing climate or climate extremes may affect the availability of certain food products. For example, in Tunisia and Egypt, there have been augmented prices for basic foodstuffs [12].
CC has augmented the genetic erosion of landraces and threatens wild species, including crops’ wild relatives [13]. As a result, the existing varieties could be lost as farmers replace them with other landraces and improved varieties that are better adapted to the new conditions.

2. Urban Food System Transformation

In order to understand urban food system transformation, it is essential to consider science-based multi-actor governance processes [1]. Nowadays, urban areas accommodate >50% of the world’s populace [14], with an estimated increase of over 70% by 2050 [15][16]. Considering that food consumption in cities is centrally linked to 79% of all produced food [17], the changing demand for food is linked to the urbanization of food [18]. This will of course affect rural areas and agricultural supply chains [19][20]. The understanding of how food is manufactured and consumed comprises one of the main aspects of urbanized justifiable expansion and food security but also affects rural areas, in relation to CC and socioeconomic inequalities [21]. Moreover, the globalization of the 1980s led to the increased disconnection of cities from food [22]. Hence, food systems are managed at the national level, since urban policies and regulations do not often pay significant attention [23][24]. Food security is a major urban problem in developed and high-income countries and around 50 million urban dwellers were found to be food-insecure in 2015, in North America and Europe [25]. This now includes food accessibility. Cities rely on external markets and long food chains, hence being vulnerable to supply chain shocks, including CC [26] or pandemics [27]. Recently, [28] stated that the key actors towards more sustainable food systems, despite the lack of a clear mandate, are city governments (and territorial communities) [29]. Food system transformation can be defined as ‘a process of major and key change in the food system structural, functional and relational issues leading to more equitable relationships and more benign patterns of interactions and outcomes’ [30][31]. Enhanced participatory governance structures using a multi-actor approach can be achieved with cities playing a pivotal role, according to Mattioni et al. [32]. National governments, due to their capacity to invest resources in the food system infrastructure, should promote food system transformation beyond local areas to create cohesion [33]. Eight projects contribute to the Food 2030 priority of nutrition and sustainable and healthy diets, nine projects contribute to the Food 2030 priority of the climate and environment, and twelve projects contribute to the Food 2030 priority of innovation through empowering communities. A useful framework based on place-based solutions, the connection of food with the climate and community, and the circularity and diversity of approaches is the recently developed Client-Led Information System Creation (CLIC) framework [34]. CLIC stands for ‘conceptual framework for integrated food policies and intervention design’ and is conceptualized by four pillars:
  • co-benefits across social, environmental, and economic objectives;
  • linkages between rural and urban areas;
  • the inclusion of all stakeholders and their knowledge;
  • connectivity between food and other policy priorities (e.g., Food 2030).

3. Food from Ocean and Freshwater Resources

A key factor for European and global food and nutrition security is seafood production through harvesting (fisheries) and farming (aquaculture). Primary food production systems contributing to food and nutrition security by 2030 comprise sustainable fisheries and aquaculture [35]. Europeans consume roughly twice as much as they produce [36] and most imports come from Asian countries. By 2030, aquaculture could enhance seafood production and deliver close to two thirds of the global seafood demand [37]. However, this necessitates development in sustainable and less impactful ways, including freshwater aquaculture, which is decisive for noncoastal countries, as reported in the Blue Growth Strategy. Sustainably farmed seafood production requires overcoming obstacles such as a lack of knowledge of the elementary biology/ecology of fish and shellfish, sickness prevention, and management. Moreover, there is a need to control weak governance structures for fisheries management and build on new technology uptake by the fisheries sector, as well as the consumer acceptance of farmed seafood. Hence, better risk assessment and management in seafood systems will be required [1]. Approximately three billion people are supplied with fish, with an average per capita animal protein intake of 20%, accompanying various crucial micronutrients. Around 10–12% of the world’s population depends on blue foods for their livelihoods [38]. Operational costs for aquaculture producers, seafood processors, and fishermen come from energy and raw material price increases, according to Rahman et al. [39]. Prices are reaching EUR 1 per liter in several EU nations, with the industry claiming profits from EU vessel operations of up to EUR 0.60 per liter [40][41]. The worldwide transition to a sustainable agri-food system will be supported by the EU. This will include the sustainable management of fish and seafood resources and the control of ocean governance, marine cooperation, and coastal management. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries will face a zero tolerance policy. The governance of the agriculture and fishery industries can enhance the cycle of sustainable development for food and nutrition security, as reported by [42][43][44][45]. This will affect global food security and development.

4. Resource-Efficient Food Systems and Food Waste

Accelerated action to reduce food loss and waste represents United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, with the target of halving FW by 2030 [46]. “A reduction in food quantity and quality” is the definition of food loss and waste [47] and refers to “food lost or wasted in the part of food chains leading to edible products going to human consumption” [48]. Fish provides 20% of the average per capita intake of animal protein, making fisheries central to achieving food security [49] in order to feed more than 3.3 billion people globally [50]. All food losses take place along the food supply chain (FSC) and the retail level is included through FW [1]. Two separate indexes, the Food Loss Index (FLI) and the Food Waste Index (FWI), have been reported by the FAO and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). It is projected by the FLI that 14% of food produced is lost from post-harvest without retail [51][52]. Drivers of FW are differentiated as below. Specific food products are represented by generic and systemic approaches [53]. The highest FW generation (46%) comes from the consumption stage, succeeded by principal production and processing/production at 25 and 24%, respectively. Regarding FLW, according to the World Food Programme [54], hunger is a common paradox as it leads to food insecurity. In 2019 alone, the EPA estimated [55] that the food retail, food service, and residential sectors accounted for approximately 66 million tons of wasted food, with most of this waste (about 60%) directed to landfills. The EPA estimated that, in 2018 in the U.S., 24 percent of the amount was landfilled and 22 percent of the amount was combusted with energy recovery. Moreover, they reported that landfills and combustion facilities were overloaded with more food than any other single material [56]. Reducing wasted food saves resources such as land, water, energy, and labor; reduces greenhouse gas emissions (the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from wasted food result from production, transport, processing, and distribution); and reduces methane from landfills. It is necessary to consider that when wasted food enters landfill, the nutrients in the food never return to the soil. The EPA estimates that 58% of landfill methane emissions to the atmosphere come from wasted food [57]. Nutrients can be returned to the soil by composting, hence supporting a circular economy (CE). In 2021, the EPA released the first of two reports in a series on the environmental impacts of wasted food. Part 1 was titled From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste (https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste [56]) (accessed on 28 December 2023), and Part 2 was titled From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways [57], released in 2023. The most important themes in discussing FW nowadays are as follows: (1) the anaerobic digestion of FW for CE conception; (2) FW systems and life cycle valuations for CE; (3) bio-based CE methods; (4) consumer performance and approaches towards CE; (5) food supply chains/FW in a CE; (6) material flow analysis and sustainability; (7) challenges, policies, and practices involved in achieving circularity; and (8) CE and outlines of consumption [58]. The CE is designed to substitute traditional linear supply chains with systems in which materials are recycled within creation systems, grounded on the principle of “waste = food” [59][60], reinforcing the transition from recycling to upcycling [61]. This refers to any waste transformation process transforming waste into higher-value products by using them as input for other products. Hence, the CE seeks to transform one person’s waste into another person’s resources [62], stimulating radical innovation and integrating human activities into ecosystems [63]. International policy makers often discuss the need to shift towards a CE [64]. However, in order to allow the CE to shift towards sustainability, several actors need to be engaged [54], including society and consumers [65]. A food use hierarchy should be employed focusing on prevention, followed by the redistribution and reprocessing of surplus food to people in need, the production of animal feed, and recycling and disposal, as shown in Figure 2 [66].
Figure 2. Sequence of management of food surplus, by-products, and FW deterrence: 10 strategies.
A Malaysian model has been proposed analyzing the factors affecting FW [67]. Poor food management practices and gender are important issues that affect FW, reinforced by the consumer behavior concept. The projected presented rice waste in the CE model, which was well accepted by the public. Moreover, they mentioned people’s readiness to pay a certain sum of money to process their FW. A study conducted in Daegu, South Korea in 2019–2020, collecting FW from 218 households, showed an average daily contribution of FW of 0.73 kg per household, with the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 0.71 CO2, a water footprint of 0.46 m3, and economic losses of KRW 3855.93 [68].

References

  1. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Food 2030. Pathways for Action. Research and Innovation Policy as a Driver for Sustainable, Healthy and Inclusive Food Systems; European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussel, Belgium, 2020.
  2. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. 2022. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  3. European Commission. The European Green Deal: Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent. 2021. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  4. Kuc-Czarnecka, M.; Markowicz, I.; Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. SDGs implementation, their synergies, and trade-offs in EU countries–Sensitivity analysis-based approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109888.
  5. Mondejar, M.E.; Avtar, R.; Diaz, H.L.B.; Dubey, R.K.; Esteban, J.; Gomez-Morales, A.; Hallam, B.; Mbungu, N.T.; Okolo, C.C.; Prasad, K.A.; et al. Digitalization to achieve sustainable development goals: Steps towards a Smart Green Planet. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 794, 148539.
  6. Funk, W.C.; Blouin, M.S.; Corn, P.S.; Maxell, B.A.; Pilliod, D.S.; Amish, S.; Allendorf, F.W. Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 483–496.
  7. Meybeck, A.; Laval, E.; Lévesque, R.; Parent, G. Food security and nutrition in the age of climate change. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by the Government of Québec in Collaboration with FAO, Québec City, QC, Canada, 24–27 September 2017; p. 132.
  8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change and Biodiversity; IPCC Technical Paper V; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002; Volume 24, p. 77.
  9. Juma, S.G.; Kelonye, F. Projected rainfall and temperature changes over Bungoma county in western Kenya by the year 2050 based precis modeling system. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag. 2016, 9, 625–640.
  10. Wheeler, T.; Von Braun, J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 2013, 341, 508–513.
  11. Yadav, S.S.; Redden, R.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Hall, A.E. Crop Adaptation to Climate Change; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  12. Sasson, A. Food security for Africa: An urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 1–16.
  13. Jarvis, A.; Lane, A.; Hijmans, R.J. The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 13–23.
  14. UN Habitat, 2019. Several Definitions of what Constitutes a City or an Urban Area Are in Use, with Significant Variations between Countries. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/city_definition_what_is_a_city.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  15. World Economic Forum. Project MainStream. Urban Biocycles; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2017.
  16. FAO. Urban Food Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
  17. Available online: https://urban.jrc.ec.europa.eu/thefutureofcities/what-is-a-city#the-chapter (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  18. USGCRP. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I; Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; p. 470. Available online: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/ (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  19. Brussels, European Commission. DG research and Innovation. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/ca8ffeda-99bb-11ea-aac4-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  20. IPES-Food. 2017. What Makes Urban Food Policy Happen? Insights from Five Case Studies. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. Available online: www.ipes-food.org (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  21. Doernberg, A.; Horn, P.; Zasada, I.; Piorr, A. Urban food policies in German city regions: An overview of key players and policy instruments. Food Policy 2019, 89, 101782.
  22. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organizaion of the United Nations. Food, Agriculture and Cities: Challenges of Food and Nutrition Security, Agriculture and Ecosystem Management in an Urbanizing World, FAO Food for the Cities Multi-Disciplinary Initiative Position Paper. 2011. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/FoodAgriCities_Oct2011.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  23. MUFPP—Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Milan Urban Food Policy Pact and Framework for Action. 2015. Available online: https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/ (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  24. C40 Cities Report. The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5 °C World. 2019. Available online: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/The-future-of-urban-consumption-in-a-1-5-C-world?language=en_US (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  25. FAO. Integrating Food into Urban Planning; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781787353763.
  26. Halliday, J.; Platenkamp, L.; Nicolarea, Y. A Menu of Actions to Shape Urban Food Environments for Improved Nutrition, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), MUFPP and RUA. 2019. Available online: https://www.gainhealth.org/resources/reports-and-publications/menu-actions-shape-urban-food-environments-improved-nutrition (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  27. IPES-Food. COVID-19 and the Crisis in Food Systems: Symptoms, Causes, and Potential Solutions; IPES-Food: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  28. Piorr, A.; Zasada, I.; Doernberg, A.; Zoll, F.; Ramme, W. Research for AGRI Committee—Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in the EU, Brussels, 2018. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/617468/IPOL_STU(2018)617468_EN.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  29. Battersby, J. Food system transformation in the absence of food system planning: The case of supermarket and shopping mall retail expansion in Cape Town, South Africa. Built Environ. 2017, 43, 417–430.
  30. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Urban Food System Transformation in the Context of Food 2030—Current Practice and Outlook towards 2030; European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussel, Belgium, 2023.
  31. Sonnino, R.; Milbourne, P. Food system transformation: A progressive place-based approach. Local Environ. 2022, 27, 915–926.
  32. Mattioni, D.; Milbourne, P.; Sonnino, R. Destabilizing the food regime “from within”: Tools and strategies used by urban food policy actors. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2022, 44, 48–59.
  33. Sonnino, R. City-To-City Cooperation for More Democratic and Inclusive Food Systems: What Has Been Achieved and What Remains to Be Done. Cidob Opinion. November 2021. Available online: https://www.cidob.org/es/publicaciones/serie_de_publicacion/opinion_cidob/2021/city_to_city_cooperation_for_more_democratic_and_inclusive_food_systems_what_has_been_achieved_and_what_remains_to_be_done (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  34. Edwards, F.; Sonnino, R.; Lopez-Cifuentes, M. Report on Facilitators of and Barriers to the Development and Implementation of Evidence-Based and Integrated Food Policies and Planning Frameworks. 2023. Available online: https://openresearch.surrey.ac.uk/esploro/outputs/99783469502346 (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  35. EC Website. Food from the Oceans. Scientific Advice in the Area of Food and Biomass from the Oceans. Research and Innovation—European Commission (europa.eu). Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/research-and-innovation_en (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  36. Eurostat and Eumofa. The EU Fish Market. 2018. Available online: https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-02/2019-02-18-eu-fish-market-publication_en.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  37. World Bank; FAO. Fish to 2030. Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014.
  38. Tidd, A.N.; Rousseau, Y.; Ojea, E.; Watson, R.A.; Blanchard, J.L. Food security challenged by declining efficiencies of artisanal fishing fleets: A global country-level analysis. Glob. Food Sec. 2022, 32, 100598.
  39. Rahman, M.S.; Huang, W.C.; Toiba, H.; Efani, A. Does adaptation to climate change promote household food security? Insights from Indonesian fishermen. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2022, 29, 611–624.
  40. Syddall, V.M.; Fisher, K.; Thrush, S. Collaboration a solution for small island developing states to address food security and economic development in the face of climate change. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 221, 106132.
  41. Alsaleh, M. The role of the fishery industry in the shift towards sustainable food security: A critical study of blue food. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 105575–105594.
  42. Collins, A.M. Empowerment, rights, and global food governance: Gender in the UN Committee for World Food Security. Globalizations 2022, 19, 220–237.
  43. Jones, E.C.; Ong, C.; Haynes, J. Disaster-related food security and past general governance strategies in a worldwide sample. Weather Clim. Soc. 2022, 14, 3–18.
  44. Adelle, C.; Dekeyser, K. Food and sustainable development governance. In Handbook on the Governance of Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 14–29.
  45. Leeuwis, C.; Boogaard, B.K.; Atta-Krah, K. How food systems change (or not): Governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Secur. 2021, 13, 761–780.
  46. FAO. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2022; pp. 1–236.
  47. Definitional Framework of Food Loss. Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. 2014. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/save-food/PDF/FLW_Definition_and_Scope_2014.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2023).
  48. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable. Healthy Diets; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2020; pp. 1–283.
  49. Kruijssen, F.; Tedesco, I.; Ward, A.; Pincus, L.; Love, D.; Thorne-Lyman, A.L. Loss and waste in fish value chains: A review of the evidence from low and middle-income countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100434.
  50. Peter, S.M.J.; Blomberg, S.P.; Holden, M.H.; Hoffman, L.C.; Tibbetts, I.R. Is Mushy Tuna Syndrome a Growing Problem for the Tuna Industry? Foods 2023, 12, 3590.
  51. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
  52. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-management-food-basics (accessed on 15 December 2023).
  53. REFRESH H2020 Project. Available online: https://eu-refresh.org/results.html (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  54. World Food Programme. Hunger Statistics; World Food Programme: Rome, Italy, 2016.
  55. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste (PDF); United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
  56. From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/from-farm-to-kitchen-the-environmental-impacts-of-u.s.-food-waste_508-tagged.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  57. The Part 2, From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/part2_wf-pathways_report_formatted_no-appendices_508-compliant.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  58. Tamasiga, P.; Miri, T.; Onyeaka, H.; Hart, A. Food Waste and Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9896.
  59. Wang, T.W.; Zhang, M.L.; Sun, N.N.; Chen, H.H.; Zhang, C.X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, W.Z. Analysis of the economically motivated food adulteration in China based on 6477 events from 2000 to 2020. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2023, 15, 222–231.
  60. Moreno, M.; de los Rios, C.; Rowe, Z.; Charnley, F. A Conceptual Framework for Circular Design. Sustainability 2016, 8, 937.
  61. Kenny, S.T.; Runic, J.N.; Kaminsky, W.; Woods, T.; Babu, R.P.; Keely, C.M.; Blau, W.; O’Connor, K.E. Up-cycling of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) to the biodegradable plastic PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate). Environ. Sci. Ttechnol. 2008, 42, 7696–7701.
  62. Borrello, M.; Lombardi, A.; Pascucci, S.; Cembalo, L. The Seven Challenges for Transitioning into a Bio-Based Circular Economy in the Agri-Food Sector. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2016, 8, 39–47.
  63. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy, Report—Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2012; Volume 1.
  64. European Union (EU). European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, COM(2015) 614/2. 2015. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614 (accessed on 17 January 2023).
  65. Mohajeri, S.; Harsej, F.; Sadeghpour, M.; Nia, J.K. Integrated reverse supply chain model for food waste based on industry 4.0 revolutions: A case study of producing the household waste recycling machine. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2021, 13, 70–83.
  66. United Nations. EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, Draft Key Recommendations for Action to Prevent and Reduce Food Waste; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  67. Jamaludin, H.; Elmaky, H.S.E.; Sulaiman, S. The future of food waste: Application of circular economy. Energy Nexus 2022, 7, 100098.
  68. Adelodun, B.; Kim, S.H.; Odey, G.; Choi, K.-S. Assessment of environmental and economic aspects of household food waste using a new Environmental-Economic Footprint (EN-EC) index: A case study of Daegu, South Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145928.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback