Requirements for reduced prices for goods with “short” dates
We propose requirements for shops to reduce the price of goods with short dates. Most of the waste in shops should be avoidable if the reduction is large enough. The requirements for a price reduction should not be quantified, as conditions differ between products and shops. With engaged staff who have the mandate to lower prices, the reduction should be able to be adjusted so that it is sufficient to avoid waste. Retailers should, while maintaining food safety, be able to sell goods after the “best before” date has passed. This would send a strong signal that the food is safe to eat after the date has passed. If consumers were confident that the goods were safe to eat, these goods would be attractive at a significantly reduced price. We believe that such a measure would be the most effective way to reach out with knowledge about the meaning of date labelling to consumers, preferably in combination with information campaigns. COOP Norway, for example, has taken measures in relation to this and gives a 70% discount on goods that have passed their best before date. We assess that this is a potentially effective measure to reduce waste both in shops and with consumers. This measure can also have positive social effects in enabling the purchase of quality products at a lower price.
Include the packaging aspect in food waste work
As mentioned in Section 4.4, packaging design has a significant impact on the amount of FLW. There is great potential to reduce food waste (not the least in households) where packaging design can have a significant impact. We therefore propose that the role of packaging in reducing FLW is included more clearly in packaging legislation; packaging should be designed to minimise the total environmental impact of the packaged food, where food waste is included in calculations. Furthermore, the communicative role of packaging regarding messages indicating when food is safe to eat should be included in the work of spreading knowledge about date labelling. The packaging is an excellent messenger of information on how the specific product should be stored and how to determine if it is safe to eat. Communication can take place via text if space or a QR code is available. Finally, information on choosing the right packaging size should be included in the communication about FLW to households, with data on how the economy and environment are affected by it.
Regulation of campaigns
One of the main causes of FLW in households is simply that consumers, for various reasons, buy more food than they need. One explanation has to do with campaigns aimed at encouraging additional purchases. Campaigns cause more waste in shops (see Section 7.4) and most likely in relation to consumers, although there is no scientific evidence of this. However, it is very difficult to conduct studies that can provide good evidence on this issue (see Chapter 4), which is why we believe that measures to regulate campaigns can be implemented according to the precautionary principle. Since campaigns are used by shops to increase sales and attract and satisfy customers, it is difficult for individual retail chains to implement such measures. Thus, there is a need for either legislation or industry agreements. Most importantly, it is proposed that campaigns that provide quantity discounts of the type “buy three for the price of two” and “reduced price when you buy 2” cease. In addition, centrally planned campaigns on fresh goods with reduced prices should be avoided entirely, except for large batches of fresh goods that need to be sold before they spoil.
Increased VAT on food
Swedish statistics show that there has been a reduction in FLW in recent years, as food prices have risen. The more expensive food is, the less waste is generated. Low VAT on food is motivated by social considerations, as everyone should be able to eat good and nutritious food. However, it is a costly measure for the state treasury, with imprecise targeting; food is subsidised for everyone, even high-income earners’ entrecôte purchases. The Swedish National Audit Office investigated the issue and found that reduced VAT on food has a lower cost-effectiveness compared to other forms of support. Increasing the VAT on food brings in many billions that can be used for more targeted support, such as increased child benefits and pensions. We also propose the exemption of fruits and vegetables from the increase. This would overall support the The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR2023) calling for a reduced meat and sugar intake. Our proposal is that the issue of increased VAT on food is among the measures aimed at reducing food waste and that previous investigations on this issue are reviewed in order to identify appropriate compensatory support for vulnerable groups. Considering the extent to which such a restructuring could improve the situation of socially vulnerable people, such a reform should be able to gain acceptance if it is explained in a manner that is accessible and compensatory support reaches the target groups before the VAT increase.
A Nordic Day for Measuring Food Waste
Measuring FLW has proven to be one of the most effective measures to bring about behavioural change. We propose that in connection with the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, there should be campaigns where all citizens are encouraged to measure their waste for one day and report on an appropriate web portal. This should generate a great deal of media attention, in addition to the impact on those who measure.
Regulation of “take-back agreements”
The practice of entering into agreements where the shop can return goods to the producer at no cost should be regulated. In Finland, a ban on such agreements has been introduced,, which requires further investigation, where the effects of such a ban are also evaluated.
The possibility of producers “renting” shelves in shops should also be investigated. In these cases, the shop has no opportunity to work with measures to reduce waste, such as limiting the range or lowering prices before the goods are sorted out. This creates difficulties regarding ownership of the work against food waste and should be understood in relation to the work of the various actors involved.
Donation obligation
Finland introduced a donation obligation, which means that food operators must donate surplus food so long as it can be done without compromising food safety and must do so at a reasonable cost. In Norway, similar measures are being investigated in the form of a “food waste law” and “due diligence assessment”. We propose the leveraging of Finnish experiences and an evaluation of whether it is an effective measure and how regulations can be developed. Another possibility is a ban on throwing away food where a reasonable level of food waste is determined by best practices in the area. A pilot study showed that food waste in public large-scale kitchens would decrease by 76% if best practices became the norm.
Documentation obligation
A further example of legislation is the documentation obligation introduced in Finland., It means that restaurants, retail, and the food industry must be able to report to supervisory authorities the amount of waste, the composition of the waste, and the treatment of the waste. There are several advantages to this documentation obligation; for example, actors can become more aware of their FLW and be motivated to reduce it. Measuring FLW is in itself a measure that has shown good waste reduction effects. However, it is important to also consider that it is labour-intensive if all operations are to measure and account for the composition of food waste (see Section 5.4). To the best of our knowledge, evaluations of the effectiveness of this measure are lacking. We recommend an evaluation of the Finnish experiences in this regard. Perhaps documentation obligation should be introduced selectively to certain operations that handle large volumes? The level of detail in the reporting also has a significant impact on the work effort.
Development of standards and regulations for data sharing
For several companies, internal data sharing has led to a reduction in FLW by considerable amounts. Similar data sharing between actors in the value chain would likely also yield good results. Several reports have called for enhanced data sharing, but we have not seen any work on how this could be implemented or how such data sharing could be standardised. Many actors have testified to the difficulties of sharing data in the value chain for technical and strategic and legal reasons. The question, therefore, is whether voluntariness within “industry agreements” and similar agreements is sufficient or whether binding legislation is needed. We propose that this issue should be investigated separately – a common Nordic standard could have a major impact on the waste of fresh goods in the value chain.
Ban on throwing away food in its packaging
In 2022, there was a proposal in Norway specifying that packaging needed to be emptied of its contents before it could be placed in the waste. The proposal was criticised and previous practice remained in place, which means that some packaged food waste is source-sorted in shops (e.g. fruit and bread), while others that are more difficult to source-sort (e.g. yogurt containers and salad mix) could be sent on and sorted at a recycling facility. In Denmark, shops do not need to empty the packaging of its contents before it is thrown away. A ban on throwing away food in its packaging came into effect for shops in Sweden on 1 January 2024. Such a proposal would greatly increase incentives for shops to reduce food waste through price reductions and donations; however, it needs to be evaluated.
More resources to lead the work
In general terms, the authorities have allocated too few resources towards the work of reducing FLW based on the complexity of the task. There are many actors who need to be influenced and made to cooperate. We propose that the Nordic countries use the British Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) as a role model and allocate resources and a mandate. WRAP has presented completely different opportunities to engage in serious work on the issue, with a significantly larger and more long-term budget. More resources would also enable national bodies to have sufficient time to exchange experiences and coordinate with other Nordic countries. In the interviews, it emerged that such exchange was desirable; however, there was not enough time to engage in such activities.
Review of rules that hinder good measures
As mentioned in Section 4.4, laws and regulations make it difficult or impossible for many measures to reduce FLW, as they are in direct opposition to initiatives aimed at reducing FLW. One reason is that rules relating to food safety, standards of appearance, etc. did not take the issue of waste into account during the design stage. We propose an investigation and compilation of legal obstacles to measures addressing FLW. This would include both the regulatory framework within the EU and national rules. In particular, national legislation should be identified and, if possible, promptly adjusted. An urgent area is to remove obstacles to donations, both in terms of economics (VAT) and responsibility for food safety.
Thus, an investigation of the regulatory framework of the EU should be able to be done jointly through Nordic cooperation, and work should be carried out jointly for justified changes. Routines should also be developed so that the FLW issue is integrated when regulations for food safety and other standards are updated.