THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
20192019IN BRIEFTHE STATE OFFOOD ANDAGRICULTUREMOVING FORWARDON FOOD LOSS ANDWASTE REDUCTION
This booklet contains the key messages and content from the publication The State of Food and Agriculture 2019.The numbering of the tables and figures corresponds to that publication. 2
CONTENTSFOREWORD4 as well as where they occur geographically17SUMMARY8Framing the issues to facilitate action} FIGURE 2 A conceptual framework forfood loss and waste (FLW)8Reducing food loss and waste lessens theenvironmental impact of food production fora given level of food consumption17Clarity in the environmental objectives beingpursued will be key when designing andimplementing interventions18Knowing what constitutes food loss and wasteand how to measure it precedes taking action} FIGURE 3 Food loss from post-harvest todistribution in 2016, percentages globallyand by region} FIGURE 4 Food loss from post-harvest todistribution in 2016, percentages bycommodity groups99The effectiveness of reducing food loss and wastein generating desirable environmental outcomesdepends on how it affects prices} FIGURE 13 Relative contributions of the mainfood groups to overall food loss and waste andtheir carbon, blue-water and land footprints} FIGURE 16 Carbon impact of food loss andwaste reduction along the food supply chain1011Variations in levels of food loss and waste canprovide preliminary guidance on where to intervene 11} FIGURE 6 Range of reported food loss and wastepercentages by supply chain stage, 2000–2017 13Even with limited information, getting the incentivesright and overcoming constraints facilitate actions14There is a rationale for public-sector interventionFood security and nutrition impacts depend onwhere food loss and waste reductions occur alongthe supply chain } FIGURE 12 Potential price and income effectsof food loss and waste reductions at variouspoints in the food supply chain181920Food loss and waste reductions have to be placedin the broader context of sustainability, evaluatingsynergies and trade-offs21141516 3 Putting all the pieces together – some guidingprinciples for policymakers} FIGURE 17 Objectives of loss and wastereduction measures and their entry pointsalong the food supply chain22The road ahead2321
FOREWORDIam heartened to see that the world is paying more attention to the issue of foodloss and waste and is calling for more decisive action to address it. The growingawareness and increase in calls for action are rooted in the strong negative moralconnotations associated with food loss and waste. These are partly based on thefact that losing food implies unnecessary pressure on the environment and thenatural resources that have been used to produce it in the first place. It essentially meansthat land and water resources have been wasted, pollution created and greenhouse gases(GHGs) emitted to no purpose. I also frequently wonder how we can allow food to bethrown away when more than 820 million people in the world continue to go hungryevery day.International attention on the issue of food loss and waste is firmly reflected in the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Specifically, Target 12.3 of the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs), which embody this agenda, calls for the halving by 2030 of percapita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and the reduction of food lossesalong production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses. Many countries arealready taking action to reduce food loss and waste, but the challenges ahead remainsignificant and we need to step up efforts. Furthermore, as this report argues, efforts tomeet SDG Target 12.3 could contribute to meeting other SDG targets, not least that ofachieving Zero Hunger, in line with the integrated nature of the 2030 Agenda.However, as we strive to make progress towards reducing food loss and waste, we canonly be truly effective if our efforts are informed by a solid understanding of the problem.Three dimensions need to be considered. Firstly, we need to know – as accurately aspossible – how much food is lost and wasted, as well as where and why. Secondly, weneed to be clear about our underlying reasons or objectives for reducing food loss andwaste – be they related to food security or the environment. Thirdly, we need tounderstand how food loss and waste, as well as the measures to reduce it, affect theobjectives being pursued. This report sheds light on these three dimensions in order tohelp design more informed and better policies for food loss and waste reduction. 4
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019IN BRIEFConcerning the first dimension, the surprising fact is how little we really know abouthow much food is lost or wasted, and where and why this happens. A broad estimate,prepared for FAO in 2011, suggested that around a third of the world’s food was lost orwasted every year. This estimate is still widely cited due to a lack of information inthis field, but it can only be considered as very rough. It is therefore in the process ofbeing replaced by two indices, thanks to efforts by FAO and UN Environment toestimate more carefully and more precisely how much food is lost in production or inthe supply chain before it reaches the retail level (through the Food Loss Index) or issubsequently wasted by consumers or retailers (through the Food Waste Index). Initialestimates made by FAO for the Food Loss Index, which I am pleased to release throughthis report, tell us that globally around 14 percent of the world’s food is lost fromproduction before reaching the retail level. Estimates for the Food Waste Index areunder preparation by UN Environment and will complement the Food Loss Index toprovide a better understanding of how much food is lost or wasted in the world. Theseindices will allow us to monitor progress towards SDG Target 12.3 over time, startingfrom a more solid baseline.However, to intervene effectively we also need to know where in the food supply chainlosses and waste are concentrated and the reasons why they occur. Evidence presented inthis report shows that losses and waste tend to be higher for some specific commoditygroups, although they can occur at all stages of the food supply chain to different degrees.However, what really struck me is the vast range in terms of percentages of food loss andwaste for the same commodities and the same stages in the supply chain both within andacross countries. This suggests that there is considerable potential to reduce food lossand waste where percentage losses are higher than in other places. However, it alsoshows that we cannot generalize about the occurrence of food loss and waste across foodsupply chains but must, on the contrary, identify critical loss points in specific supplychains as a crucial step in taking appropriate countermeasures.Regarding the second dimension, although the SDGs include the reduction of food lossand waste as a target in its own right, we need to be clear about why we are pursuing it –or what is the underlying objective. Individual actors, from farmers and fishers right upto consumers, may have a private interest in reducing food loss or waste to increase theirprofits or income, their personal well-being or that of their families. However, this privateincentive is not always strong since reducing food loss and waste may require investingmoney or time which, in the perception of these actors, could outweigh the benefits.There may also be barriers that prevent private actors from making these investments,e.g. credit constraints or a lack of information about options for reducing food loss andwaste. On the other hand, there may be a stronger public interest in reducing food loss 5
FOREWORDand waste because it contributes to other public objectives. This calls for publicinterventions in the form of investments or policies that create incentives for privateactors to reduce food loss and waste or remove the barriers that prevent them from doingso. The broad public objectives that this report considers are twofold: improving the foodsecurity situation of vulnerable groups and reducing the environmental footprintassociated with food that is lost or wasted.A key argument in this report is that the linkages between food loss and waste, on theone hand, and food security and environmental impacts, on the other, are complex andneed to be thoroughly understood. Positive outcomes from reducing food loss and wasteare far from guaranteed, and the impacts will differ according to where food loss andwaste is reduced. It is exactly for this reason that policymakers need to be clear about theobjectives they choose to pursue. Focusing on one objective will indeed have implicationsfor where food loss and waste reductions can be most effective.For instance, if the objective is to improve food security, reducing on-farm losses– particularly on small farms in low-income countries with high levels of foodinsecurity – is likely to have strong positive impacts. It may directly improve foodsecurity in the affected farm households and may also have positive effects in localareas, and even beyond, if more food becomes available. Reducing food loss and wastefurther along the food supply chain may improve food security for consumers, butfarmers may actually be negatively affected if demand for their produce declines. Onthe other hand, while reducing consumer food waste in high-income countries with lowlevels of food insecurity may have some impact on vulnerable people locally throughfood collection and redistribution initiatives, the impact on the food insecure in distantlow-income countries is likely to be negligible.If the objectives for reducing food loss and waste are essentially environmental, thesituation changes. In the case of GHGs, these accumulate throughout the supply chain.Therefore, cutting waste by consumers will have the biggest impact because food wastedat this stage represents a larger amount of embedded GHG emissions. In the case of landand water, the environmental footprint is tied mainly to the primary production phase.Therefore, reducing food loss and waste at any stage of the food supply chain cancontribute to reducing overall land and water use at the global level. However, if youwant to address local land and water scarcity, measures to reduce food loss are likely tobe more effective if they occur at the farm level or at stages in the supply chain close tothe farm level. 6
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019IN BRIEFI invite you to read this report carefully as it examines the complex ways in which foodloss and waste – and the measures taken to address it – affects food security and theenvironment. The report does not claim to have all the answers, particularly as itacknowledges the important information gaps that stand in the way of a comprehensiveanalysis. Among other things, the report attempts to highlight precisely where there is aneed for a more thorough understanding of the issues, both through more and betterdata and improved and expanded analysis. It is my hope that it can make a contributionto the debate on how to address the problem of food loss and waste most effectively andin ways that actually make a difference in terms of improved food security andenvironmental sustainability, following the spirit of the 2030 Agenda.Qu DongyuFAO Director-General 7
SUMMARYFRAMING THE ISSUESTO FACILITATE ACTIONhunger, the achievement of food securityand improved nutrition, and thepromotion of sustainable agriculture. Theexpected positive environmental impactsfrom reducing food loss and waste wouldalso affect, among others, SDG 6(sustainable water management), SDG 13(climate change), SDG 14 (marineresources), SDG 15 (terrestrialecosystems, forestry, biodiversity), andmany other SDGs.Reducing food loss and waste is widelyseen as an important way to reduceproduction costs and increase theefficiency of the food system, improvefood security and nutrition, andcontribute towards environmentalsustainability. Growing attention to foodloss and waste is ref lected in theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs).SDG Target 12.3 calls for halving percapita global food waste at the retail andconsumer levels and reducing food lossalong productionand supply chainsREDUCING FOOD LOSS(including postAND WASTE IS ANharvest losses) byIMPORTANT TARGET2030. ReducingOF THE SUSTAINABLEfood loss andDEVELOPMENT GOALSwaste also has(SDGs), AS WELL ASthe potential toA MEANS TO ACHIEVEcontribute toOTHER SDG TARGETS, INother SDGs,PARTICULAR RELATING TOincluding theFOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION Zero Hunger goalAND ENVIRONMENTAL(SDG 2), whichcalls for an end toSUSTAINABILITY.While the reduction of food loss andwaste appears as a clear and desirableobjective, actual implementation is notsimple and its complete elimination maynot be realistic. This report acknowledgesthe need to reduce food loss and waste,presents new insights on what is knownand what is not, and provides guidanceon how to target interventions andpolicies depending on policymakers’objectives and the information available.When considering actions and policyoptions, the report argues that food lossand waste reduction should be seen as away to achieve other objectives, notablyimproved efficiency in the food system, 8
FIGURE 2T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (FLW)IN BRIEFAGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES – PLANTS AND ANIMALSINTENDED USEFEEDINTENDED FOR FOODFRAGMENTSINEDIBLEPARTSFOODOtherwaste useCompostIncinerationLandfillDiscardFOOD LOSS AND WASTE ATEN BY PEOPLEIndustrialuseECONOMICALLYPRODUCTIVE USEFEED OTHERFOOD LOSS AND WASTEQuantitativeFOOD WITH OR WITHOUT QUALITATIVELOSS AND WASTEDESTINATIONSEED INDUSTRIAL OTHERUSENo FLW: Food remains in the food supply chain and is eaten by peopleNo FLW: Food and/or inedible parts are diverted to an economically productive non-food useNo FLW: Inedible parts are diverted to waste managementFLW: Food is discarded and diverted to waste managementNOTE: “Industrial use“ includes biofuels, fibres for packaging material, creating bioplastics (e.g. polylactic acid), making traditional materials such asleather or feathers (e.g. for pillows) and rendering fat, oil or grease into a raw material to make soaps, biodiesel or cosmetics. It does not includeanaerobic digestion, as the latter is intended to manage waste. “Other” includes uses such as fertilizer and ground cover. The length of the bars is notrepresentative of the total volume or value of the products concerned.SOURCE: FAO.food security and nutrition, andenvironmental sustainability. Howpolicymakers prioritize these differentdimensions, and the informationavailable on how food loss and wasteaffects them, will shape the mostappropriate mix of interventions andpolicies to reduce food loss and waste.is no commonly agreed definition of foodloss and waste. FAO has worked towardsthe harmonization of concepts related tofood loss and waste, and the definitionsadopted in this report are the result of aconsensus reached in consultation withexperts in this field. This reportunderstands food loss and waste as thedecrease in quantity or quality of foodalong the food supply chain. Empiricallyit considers food losses as occurringalong the food supply chain fromharvest/slaughter/catch up to, but notincluding, the retail level. Food waste,on the other hand, occurs at the retailand consumption level. This definitionalso aligns with the distinction implicitKNOWING WHATCONSTITUTES FOOD LOSSAND WASTE AND HOW TOMEASURE IT PRECEDESTAKING ACTIONThe notion of food being lost or wasted isdeceptively simple, but in practice there 9
SUMMARYFIGURE 3FOOD LOSS FROM POST-HARVEST TO DISTRIBUTION IN 2016, PERCENTAGES GLOBALLY AND BY REGIONWORLDAUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALANDCENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIAEASTERN AND SOUTH-EASTERN ASIALATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANNORTHERN AMERICA AND EUROPEOCEANIA (EXCLUDING AUSTRALIAAND NEW ZEALAND)SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAWESTERN ASIA AND NORTHERN AFRICA0510152025PERCENTAGE OF FOOD LOSSNOTE: Percentage of food loss refers to the physical quantity lost for different commodities divided by the amount produced. An economic weight isused to aggregate percentages at regional or commodity group levels, so that higher-value commodities carry more weight in loss estimation thanlower-value ones.SOURCE: FAO, 2019.in SDG Target 12.3. This report alsoasserts that, although there may be aneconomic loss, food diverted to othereconomic uses, such as animal feed, isnot considered as quantitative food lossor waste. Similarly, inedible parts arenot considered as food loss or waste.Food loss and waste has typically beenmeasured in physical terms using tonnesas reporting units. This measurementfails to account for the economic value ofdifferent commodities and can riskattributing a higher weight to low-valueproducts just because they are heavier.The report acknowledges this byadopting a measure that accounts for theeconomic value of produce.Agreeing on a consistent approach tomonitor SDG Target 12.3 is an importantstep in framing the debate on food lossand waste and will provide guidance onwhere to intervene. Efforts are underwayby FAO and the United NationsEnvironment Programme to measureprogress towards SDG Target 12.3through two separate indices: the FoodLoss Index (FLI) and the Food WasteIndex (FWI). 10
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019FIGURE 4IN BRIEFFOOD LOSS FROM POST-HARVEST TO DISTRIBUTION IN 2016, PERCENTAGES BY COMMODITY GROUPSCEREALS AND PULSESFRUITS AND VEGETABLESMEAT AND ANIMAL PRODUCTSROOTS, TUBERS AND OIL-BEARING CROPSOTHER051015202530PERCENTAGE OF FOOD LOSSNOTE: Percentage of food loss refers to the physical quantity lost for different commodities divided by the amount produced. An economic weight isused to aggregate percentages at regional or commodity group levels, so that higher-value commodities carry more weight in loss estimation thanlower-value ones.SOURCE: FAO, 2019.This reportreleases the firstestimates for theFLI, prepared byFAO, whichindicates thatglobally – in termsof economic value– around 14 percent of food produced is lostfrom post-harvest up to, but not including,the retail level. For the FWI, covering retailand consumption, significant work hasbeen carried out to prepare themethodological framework, but the firstestimates are yet to be released.GLOBALLY, AROUND14 PERCENT OF FOODPRODUCED IS LOST FROMTHE POST-HARVEST STAGEUP TO, BUT EXCLUDING, THERETAIL STAGE.VARIATIONS IN LEVELS OFFOOD LOSS AND WASTECAN PROVIDE PRELIMINARYGUIDANCE ON WHERETO INTERVENETo gain further insight into the locationand extent of food loss and waste acrossstages in the food supply chain, as well asbetween regions and commodity groups,FAO has also conducted a meta-analysisof existing food loss and waste studies allover the world. The meta-analysis finds awide range of values for percentagelosses at each stage in the food supply 11
SUMMARYchain. For example, in sub-SaharanAfrica the observations on fruits andvegetables report on-farm losses rangingfrom 0 to 50 percent, a very broad range.An intervention to reduce these lossesneeds to target the upper end of thisrange to have maximum impact.During transportation, good physicalinfrastructure and efficient trade logisticsare of key importance to prevent foodlosses. Processing and packaging can playa role in preserving foods, but losses canbe caused by inadequate facilities as wellas technical malfunction or human error.Generally levels of loss are higher forfruits and vegetables than for cerealsand pulses. However, even for the latter,significant levels are found insub-Saharan Africa and Eastern andSouth-Eastern Asia, while they arelimited in Central and Southern Asia.Studies on waste at the consumer stageare confined toIT IS ESSENTIAL TO ADDRESS high-incomecountries; wasteTHE CAUSES OF FOOD LOSSlevels areAND WASTE. THIS WILLparticularly highREQUIRE INFORMATIONfor highlyON WHERE FOOD LOSSperishable foodsAND WASTE OCCURS INsuch as animalTHE FOOD SUPPLY CHAINproducts andAND THE DETERMINANTSfruits andBEHIND IT.vegetables.The causes of food waste at the retaillevel are linked to limited shelf life, theneed for food products to meet aestheticstandards in terms of colour, shape andsize, and variability in demand.Consumer waste is often caused by poorpurchase and meal planning, excessbuying (inf luenced by over-largeportioning and package sizes), confusionover labels (best before and use by) andpoor in-home storing.Causes of food loss and waste differ widelyalong the food supply chain. Importantcauses of on-farm losses includeinadequate harvesting time, climaticconditions, practices applied at harvestand handling, and challenges in marketingproduce. Significant losses are caused byinadequate storage conditions as well asdecisions made at earlier stages of thesupply chain, which predispose products toa shorter shelf life. Adequate cold storage,in particular, can be crucial to preventquantitative and qualitative food losses.Surveys into the extent, location andcauses of food loss and waste are complexand costly. As a result, only 39 countrieshave officially reported data on anannual basis between 1990 and 2017 toFAO. Efforts are ongoing to improve dataon losses and waste at a finer scale.Starting in 2015, FAO’s Global Initiativeon Food Loss and Waste (Save Food) hascarried out case studies to identifycritical loss points in the food supplychain where food losses have the highestmagnitude, the greatest impact on foodsecurity, and the largest economicdimensions. They indicate thatharvesting is the most frequentlyidentified critical loss point for all typesof food. Inadequate storage facilities andpoor handling practices were identifiedas the main causes of on-farm storagelosses. For fruits, roots and tubers, 12
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019IN BRIEFFIGURE 6RANGE OF REPORTED FOOD LOSS AND WASTE PERCENTAGES BY SUPPLY CHAIN STAGE, 2000–2017A. CEREALS AND PULSES(214)ON-FARM POST-HARVEST ATION(7)(19)(12)PROCESSING AND PACKAGING(15)(18)(18)WHOLESALE AND RETAIL(3)01020304050FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)B. FRUITS AND VEGETABLES(244)ON-FARM POST-HARVEST ATION(11)(15)(15)PROCESSING AND PACKAGING(3)(7)(80)WHOLESALE AND RETAILCentral and Southern Asia(40)Eastern and South-eastern Asia(30)Sub-Saharan Africa01020304050FOOD LOSS AND WASTE (%)NOTE: The number of observations is shown in brackets. The dates, 2000–2017, refer to when the measurements were taken; however, the date ofpublication was used if the study dates were not available or were unclear.SOURCE: FAO, 2019. 13
SUMMARYpackaging and transportation alsoappeared critical. Such results arevaluable in providing guidance whenidentifying potential interventions forfood loss reduction.maximize their profits (in the case ofproducers or suppliers) or theirwell-being (in the case of consumers).Reducing food loss and waste generallyentails costs, and suppliers andconsumers will only undertake thenecessary efforts if these are outweighedby the benefits. Thus, incentivizing thebusiness case will involve identifyingoptions that either increase the netbenefits or provide better information onthe existing net benefits. Any policiesthat affect food prices (e.g. subsidies) orthe costs of managing waste will alsoaffect the incentives. However, a numberof factors may prevent actors from takingfully rational decisions. In particular,food operators and consumers may haveinadequate information on how muchfood they lose or waste, on the reductionoptions available, or on the benefits ofdoing so. Stakeholders may also faceconstraints that prevent or deter themfrom implementing actions to reduce foodloss and waste. For example, withoutfinancial help private actors indeveloping countries (especiallysmallholders) may not be able to bear thehigh upfront cost associated withimplementing such actions. Improvingcredit access could be an option even inthe absence of detailed informationon losses.EVEN WITH LIMITEDINFORMATION, GETTING THEINCENTIVES RIGHT ANDOVERCOMING CONSTRAINTSFACILITATE ACTIONSThis report aims to provide guidance onpolicy and interventions to reduce foodloss and waste even in the face of thelimited information available. This isbased on an incremental argumentstarting from the business case forreducing food loss and waste, whereincentives and adequate information canencourage the private sector to reducefood loss and waste in their own interest.This may also bring benefits to society,and providing information in thesesituations is particularly important. Theincremental approach then continues bymaking the economic case for food lossand waste reduction, looking beyond thebusiness case, and is based on thebroader benefits that can accrue tosociety. These may result in improvedincomes for other actors in society;improved food security and nutrition;and environmental sustainability.The business case for reducing food lossand waste rests on the private gains thatcan be realized by stakeholders whoreduce levels of food loss and waste. Theassumption is that actors in the foodsupply chain make rational decisions thatTHERE IS A RATIONALEFOR PUBLIC-SECTORINTERVENTIONThe broader case for reducing food lossand waste looks beyond the businesscase to include gains that society can 14
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019reap but which individual actors may nottake into account, namely: (i) increasedproductivity and economic growth,referred to in this report as the economiccase; (ii) improved food security andnutrition; and (iii) mitigation ofenvironmental impacts of losing andwasting food, in particular in terms ofreducing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions as well as lowering pressureon land and water resources. The lasttwo societal gains, in particular, aretypically seen as externalities of reducingfood loss and waste.The rationale for government interventionaimed at influencing decisions byindividual suppliers and consumers restson two pillars. First, the incentive forindividual actors to reduce food loss orwaste – the business case – may be weakand/or these actors may face constraintsin implementing them. Therefore, thebusiness case alone may not lead to asignificant reduction in losses and waste.Second, private actors are unlikely to takeaccount of the negative implications theirlevels of food loss and waste have onsociety. These potentially large negativeexternalities provide a strong justificationfor public intervention.Governments can intervene in differentways. They can raise awareness of thebenefits of reducing food loss and wasteand convince suppliers or consumers ofthe business case for doing so; or they caninfluence the business case throughvarious types of actions or policies (e.g.through taxes and subsidies).IN BRIEFWhen taking action to reduce food lossand waste, the type of externality – foodsecurity and nutrition as opposed toenvironmental impacts – will determinewhich type of intervention is mostappropriate along a value chain and inwhich geographical location. However, anintervention to reduce food loss and wasteshould take account of the distributionalconsequences; some actors may benefit,others may lose out.FOOD SECURITY ANDNUTRITION IMPACTS DEPENDON WHERE FOOD LOSS ANDWASTE REDUCTIONS OCCURALONG THE SUPPLY CHAIN Food loss and waste has potential effectson food security and nutrition throughchanges in the four dimensions of foodsecurity: food availability, access,utilization and stability. However, thelinks between food loss and wastereduction and food security are complex,and positive outcomes are not alwayscertain. Reaching acceptable levels offood security and nutrition inevitablyimplies certain levels of food loss andwaste. Maintaining buffers to ensurefood stability requires a certain amountof food to be lost or wasted. At the sametime, ensuring food safety involvesdiscarding unsafe food, which then iscounted as lost or wasted, whilehigher-quality diets tend to include morehighly perishable foods.How the impacts on the differentdimensions of food security play out andaffect the food security of different 15
SUMMARYpopulation groups depends on where inthe food supply chain the reduction inlosses or waste takes place as well as onwhere nutritionally vulnerable andfood-insecure people are locatedgeographically. Importantly, noteverybody stands to gain.Reducing on-farm losses – particularlyfor small-scale farmers in low-incomecountries – can allow farmers to improvetheir diets due to increased foodavailability and gain higher incomes ifselling part of their produce. It can alsolead to increased supply and lower pricesfurther along the food supply chain andeventually for consumers. On the otherhand, if a processor reduces losses, whilethis will also lead to increased supplyand lower prices further down the foodFIGURE 12POTENTIAL PRICE AND INCOME EFFECTS OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTIONSAT VARIOUS POINTS IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAINAGRICULTURALPRODUCTION ANDHARVEST, SLAUGHTEROR CATCHPOST-HARVEST,SLAUGHTER ORCATCH OPERATIONSPROCESSINGWHOLESALEAND RETAILCONSUMPTION:HOUSEHOLDS ANDFOOD SERVICESFOOD LOSSREDUCTIONFOOD LOSSREDUCTIONFOOD LOSSREDUCTIONFOOD LOSSOR WASTEREDUCTIONFOOD WASTEREDUCTIONPoint of loss or wastereductionLower prices, more disposableincome for food and other goodsSOURCE: FAO. 16 Demand shrinks and production falls,income is affected
T H E S TAT E O F FO O D A N D AG RI CU LT U RE 2019supply chain and eventually forconsumers, it may result in farmersseeing reduced demand for their produceand thus lower income and worseningfood security. Reducing consumers’ foodwaste may improve their food availabilityand access, in addition to that of possibledirect beneficiaries of food redistributionschemes, but farmers and other sup
promotion of sustainable agriculture. The expected positive environmental impacts from reducing food loss and waste would also affect, among others, SDG 6 (sustainable water management), SDG 13 (climate change), SDG 14 (marine resources), SDG 15 (terrestrial ecosystems, fo
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Food outlets which focused on food quality, Service quality, environment and price factors, are thè valuable factors for food outlets to increase thè satisfaction level of customers and it will create a positive impact through word ofmouth. Keyword : Customer satisfaction, food quality, Service quality, physical environment off ood outlets .
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
