1. Recommen­dations

Retailers are experts at getting us consumers to buy more than we intended, and once we get home with an excess of food, it is easy for some of it to go to waste. Research shows that there is more waste in stores when promotional items do not sell, or when other similar items sell less. Offers like “buy two for a discounted price” also result in us bringing home more food than planned. Promotions should be limited to when there is a surplus of fresh food that needs to be sold to avoid waste.

“Best before” is perceived by many as meaning that the food cannot be eaten after this date, a perception reinforced by the fact that retailers do not sell products after the “best before” date has passed. Additionally, the date is set with a large safety margin by producers. We suggest that retailers significantly reduce the price of products when the “best before” date has passed instead of throwing them away, preferably in combination with information about what ”best before” actually means. This would send a clear signal that the food can still be eaten after the “best before” date, and it would also allow people to buy good food at a lower price instead of it being discarded.

Packaging has ended up in the “green shame corner” due to its environmental impact, but the function of packaging—to reduce food waste—is often forgotten or taken for granted. A common reason for food to be thrown away is that the consumer uses part of the contents of the packaging, places it back in the fridge, and then later finds that the contents have gone bad. When the package is opened, the ingenious protections built into it often disappear, and the food deteriorates quickly. Smaller amounts of food per package can, in some cases, reduce waste. Packaging can also serve as a messenger, providing information on how the consumer can determine if the food in a specific product is safe to eat. We propose that food packaging should have its own legislation, separate from other packaging, where the benefits of packaging for reducing food waste and ensuring food safety are weighed against its environmental impact.

In our research, we clearly see that many people change their behaviour when they become aware that their actions lead to unnecessary food waste. When someone realizes that they pour out brewed coffee every day, it becomes hard to continue brewing the same amount. By involving many people in measuring their food waste for a day, waste behaviours are made more visible. If designed correctly, such a day can generate a lot of attention and impact. 

There are major opportunities to increase learning on this complex topic through increased cooperation among the Nordic countries. The different countries have variously organised their work among authorities, research institutes, universities, and industry organisations. Different countries apply different methods for measuring food waste and have introduced different policies. By sharing experiences from both successful and less successful measures, there is much to learn from each other. Increased cooperation regarding policy measures would also be desirable to ensure similar rules for companies in the Nordic market. A collaborative body tasked with coordinating food waste efforts in the Nordic countries should be established. There is also a need for an inventory of the rules, nationally and in the EU, that hinder measures against food waste as well as a common Nordic strategy for how to relate to these rules.

Few, if any, interventions to reduce food waste are implemented in a way that allows for measuring effectiveness and durability. To increase knowledge about the effectiveness of interventions, it is proposed that more focus be placed on systematically evaluating them.

There is potential to reduce food waste through data sharing among actors. Sometimes, the causes of waste for one actor depend on how other actors behave, which can make it difficult or impossible for the affected actor to take measures. This can be due to power imbalances, unwillingness to share data, and so-called “take-back” agreements in retail (an agreement between a manufacturer or distributor and a retailer to take back unsold products). Clearer requirements should also be placed on actors in the value chain to carefully and systematically assess and report how their activities affect food waste for other actors, known as “due diligence” or “aktsomhetsvurdering”.