Assessing the environmental sustainability of consumer-centric poultry chain in the UK through life cycle approaches and the household simulation model.

Chicken fillets, predominantly encased in disposable plastic packaging, represent a common perishable commodity frequently found in the shopping baskets of British consumers, with an annual slaughter exceeding 1.1 billion chickens. The associated environmental implications are of considerable significance. However, a noticeable gap exists concerning the household-level ramifications of chicken meat consumption, which remains a prominent driver (165 kg CO2eyr-1 per capita) of environmental impacts in the United Kingdom (UK). This study's primary objective is to integrate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology with insights derived from a spectrum of interventions simulated within the Household Simulation Model (HHSM). The interventions that are simulated are influenced by various consumer behaviours related to the purchase, consumption, storage and disposal of chicken fillets. The overarching aim is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the environmental consequences associated with each intervention. The research encompasses eight distinct household archetypes and the UK average, with a focus on discerning differences in their environmental influence. The introduction of shelf-life extension measures leads to a reduction in the overall environmental impacts (in µPt), with reductions ranging from 1 % to 18 %. Concurrently, waste treatment's environmental burdens can be curtailed by 9 % to 69 % for the UK average. Of the 12 interventions tested, the intervention that combines a one-day extension in the shelf life of open packs and a three-day extension for unopened packs leads to the greatest reduction in environmental impacts, at 18 % for the entire process and 69 % for the waste treatment. This intervention is estimated to yield annual reductions of 130,722 t of CO2 emissions across the entire process and 34,720 t of CO2 emissions from waste treatment, as compared to the default scenario. These findings demonstrate the importance of integrating consumer behaviour, food waste, and packaging considerations within the domain of food LCA research.

A validated survey to measure household food waste.

To assess household food waste in large-scale studies with the aim to understand differences in food waste levels between households, surveys are often employed. Yet, survey measures rely on people's awareness of their own food waste levels, draw upon their memory of instances of food waste, and can be subject to social desirability. Therefore, existing survey measures may not be optimal in measuring household food waste. The Household Food Waste Questionnaire has been developed to ameliorate these issues. It uses a pre-announcement to increase awareness of food waste, focuses on a short and specific time period (i.e. the past week), and specifies detailed product categories, whereas previous surveys mostly used general questions without reference to time period or product category. The amount of household food waste estimated using the Household Food Waste Questionnaire is likely to considerably underestimate the actual amount, so the method should not be used to obtain accurate waste amounts, but rather to distinguish differences between households and/or across time. Advantages compared to existing survey methods are that it: •Distinguishes better between households with low versus high levels of food waste•Correlates more highly with other measurements of household food waste (diary, kitchen caddy, photograph coding).

Comparing wasted apples and oranges: An assessment of methods to measure household food waste.

Food waste has become a global concern in recent years, especially the household food waste that is generated in the developed world. Multiple methods to measure household food waste have been proposed, but little is known about their validity. Five methods are selected and investigated empirically: survey questions about general food waste over a non-specified period of time, diaries, photo coding, kitchen caddies, and pre-announced survey questions regarding a specific time period. In an experiment, respondents were asked to assess their food waste using some or all of these methods depending on condition. Overall, the general survey questions appear to be less valid, as these lead to large underestimation of the level of food waste, low variance in reported food waste across households compared to the other methods, and low correlations with other measures. The other four methods are relatively highly correlated. A survey about food waste in the past week appears to be a useful method for large-scale measurements to differentiate households according to the amount of food waste each produces, although it should be noted that this method underestimates the amount of food waste. Kitchen caddies and photo coding seem to be valid methods and, for small samples, provide alternatives to food diaries, which have been more commonly used.

Nutrition in the Bin: A Nutritional and Environmental Assessment of Food Wasted in the UK.

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