See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321491988

The impact of food preservation on food waste

Article in British Food Journal · December 2017

DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2017-0114

CITATIONS READS

31 10,919

2 authors:

Wayne Martindale Walter Schiebel

University of Lincoln University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
65 PUBLICATIONS 1,062 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Eco-social business test View project

Agrarian Cooperatives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Walter Schiebel on 25 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ
119,12 The impact of food preservation
on food waste
Wayne Martindale
National Centre for Food Manufacturing,
2510 Food Insights and Sustainability Service, University of Lincoln, Holbeach, UK, and
Received 24 February 2017 Walter Schiebel
Revised 17 August 2017 Institute for Marketing and Innovation,
Accepted 22 August 2017
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relationship between food preservation and
reducing consumer waste is of value in developing sustainable meal options. The research reports insights
into Austrian marketplace for frozen and fresh foods that have been obtained from a consumer survey.
Design/methodology/approach – The consumer survey methodologies indicate how preservation can
change meal planning and lower food waste across frozen and fresh and ambient food purchases using
freezing preservation methods.
Findings – The results show food waste can be reduced by six-fold when frozen foods are compared with
fresh foods.
Research limitations/implications – This study highlights the requirement for a greater understanding
of the probability that specific foods will be wasted with respect to the frequency of purchase. This is a
limitation of the current study that has been investigated by other researchers.
Practical implications – This research has enabled the identification of different food waste amounts for
different food product categories. The data presented could be used to guide food product development so
that less consumer waste is produced.
Social implications – The research suggests a decision matrix approach can be used to can guide new
product development and a model of this matrix is presented so that it may provide fit-for-purpose food
preservation options for consumers.
Originality/value – This paper will continue to highlight the overlooked value of food preservation during
processing and manufacturing of foods and their preparation in households.
Keywords Consumers, Sustainability, Food waste, Frozen foods, Food preservation, Food value
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Consumers produce the greatest amount of food waste and loss in the food supply chains of
developing and developed economies (Gustavsson et al., 2011). A recent pan-European food
waste programme has identified consumer food waste as a major challenge (COST Action
TD1203, EUBIS). The COST Network, EU network on food waste valorisation has given
attention to solving the amount of consumer food waste produced through technological
and policy interventions (Morone et al., 2017; Privett et al., 2016). Reducing all food losses
will result in a more secure global food system and it is important for us to show how
consumers can reduce food waste in households. This is where food preservation has an
important role in facilitating this waste reducing action because it improves the utilisation of
food. It has also been identified that understanding why food is wasted by consumers

© Wayne Martindale and Walter Schiebel. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is
published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
British Food Journal distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial &
Vol. 119 No. 12, 2017
pp. 2510-2518 non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
Emerald Publishing Limited terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-02-2017-0114 The APC has been sponsored by MPC Research Ltd.
during meal occasions develops of waste reduction strategies that can be used for different Impact of food
foods and preservation methods (Martindale, 2014). preservation
Previous food waste reduction initiatives have typically focussed outside of this consumer
arena and they have focussed on manufacturing and retail food losses. They have been
successful at designing out food waste using the right-weighting of food products
(portion control) and light-weighting of packaging (material resource efficiency). Their success
has been made possible through cooperative actions across the food industry that have 2511
developed joint responsibility for food waste. It is essential that these initiatives now act to
reduce the food that consumers purchase but do not eat (Mena et al., 2011). Furthermore, FAO
reported Food Balance statistics show supply chain losses for food groups such as meat,
fruit and vegetables to be below 5 per cent of production or domestic supply quantities
(Martindale, 2017). While these food losses remain incredibly important it is reported by
national agencies and government departments that consumers’ food waste regularly reaches
20 per cent or more of food purchased (Defra, 2017).
There has been an emergence of re-distribution schemes and community focussed actions
that have been successful at removing food waste from supply chains. Redistribution of foods
that are close to shelf-life limits and schemes that facilitate providing food to consumers such
as “community fridges” have an exceptionally important role to play in waste reduction
particularly where communities experience limited accessibility and affordability of foods.
The redistribution of foods from retailers and manufacturers that are close to shelf life limits
or charitable donations has also seen the impact of using on-line communication technologies
that connect providers with consumers of redistributed foods (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017;
Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). What has become evident in this arena is the reduction of
food wastes from the food supply chain to the point of consumer sale is dependent on the
application of many actions. That is, there is no single solution here and many actions that
redistribute, involve communities and use on-line technologies will help to reduce food
waste and create awareness of responsible use of foods. The study reported here highlights
the value of preservation technologies and the need for food category models that take
account of differing shelf life and quality considerations because these will help to guide
food policy. Previous studies of fresh and frozen shelf life of foods have shown a reduction in
household waste associated with frozen food use (Martindale, 2014). A more recent study in
the Netherlands has developed a stochastic model to show the influence of ambient, frozen
and fresh preservation on household food waste ( Janssen et al., 2017). This study is critically
important because it shows how food preservation methods that extend shelf life of foods
in the home can reduce food waste over annual time periods. These studies also suggest
that knowledge of food preparation and the best use of foods in households are critical in
waste reduction.
Schemes that engage and redistribute resources to reduce food waste do not fully
address the issue of food and drink products being wasted by consumers because they are
not designed to reduce food waste. They redistribute food that would otherwise be waste;
the study reported here focusses on reducing the wastage of food that is purchased with the
intention of using it. The preservation of foods and types of food preservation methods
available to consumers can facilitate this because it reduces food degradation and improves
the utilisation of food in the domestic environment. This is a principle that has remained
largely unconsidered even though the production of food waste increases greenhouse gas
emissions or the carbon footprint of food consumption (Garnett, 2013; O’Rourke, 2014).
It is crucial to consider food waste reduction as an outcome of using preserved foods
because research carried out previously demonstrated it can help us to define the
sustainability of meals that consumers prepare (Martindale, 2017).
In this study, it is demonstrated how frozen preservation can provide greater utilisation
of food by consumers and reduce household food waste. It is not intended to show frozen is
BFJ the only option for reducing consumer food waste. It is hoped that the research will highlight
119,12 the use of preservation methods in reducing consumer food waste and that there are
several factors that must work together in food waste reduction is to be successful.
Previous research carried out in the UK market compared fresh and frozen food use in
households and the amount of consumer food waste was dependent on food preservation
method. The study showed a 47 per cent reduction in household food waste for frozen
2512 products compared to fresh products (Martindale, 2014).
Frozen food in this study is defined by all food that is frozen via quick freezing; this
ensures the cell intactness and preserves the nutritional value of the food. The process of
freezing food in this household focussed study is defined as non-frozen food which gets frozen
via a standard freezer (at home), as such this is slow freezing where cell structure is not
maintained and it is less beneficial than quick freezing but adds to shelf life significantly.
The definition of fresh food in this study is all non-frozen and non-freezing food.
Working with frozen foods not only gives us an opportunity to consider the value of food
preservation in households but we must also consider manufacturing factories providing
efficient use of resources and continual availability (Tukker, 2015). This provides us with
the opportunity to develop models of food preservation that identify control points in the
supply chain that can maximise food waste reduction. Frozen and freezing foods define this
requirement more effectively than many other food supply chains that do not preserve
foods. The consideration of frozen or freezing foods in this study has provided an
opportunity to investigate these wider impacts on food resource use by consumers.
For example, freezing foods provides availability of out-of-season produce which can be
included in the sustainability assessments of frozen and fresh produce (Foster et al., 2014).
While these benefits of food preservation are important it is the impact on consumer food
waste that is investigated here. The value of localising food supply is important in the
sustainability arena if it can provide what consumers demand and increased resilience.
There are studies that show localising food supply can achieve this, particularly where
there are strong regional food identities and a cultural preference of using food service
(Caputo et al., 2017). Localisation and the value of it to the food system are not within the
scope of this current study even though it is important to consider food preservation has
enabled the supply of foods that are out of season to consumers. Indeed, this was why
preservation of fruits and vegetables using pickling and osmotic preserving emerged
traditionally (Martindale, 2017).
Frozen foods have played a pivotal role in enabling the global food supply chain to
evolve and without that food losses would be increased in agriculture and processing.
Many of the food supply chain issues highlighted in current food loss and food waste
research do not exist with frozen foods because quick freezing leads to the extended shelf
life gains that many waste reduction initiatives seek (Parfitt et al., 2010). Furthermore,
freezing keeps within the conditions of “clean label” labelled trends and often provides
greater portion control in the home (Shove and Southerton, 2000). The “clean label” trend is
now clearly identified in retail environments where there are demands for ingredient
labelling that clarifies ingredients and communicates any potential allergens introduced in
processing and manufacturing (Asioli et al., 2017).
The Austrian market research reported in this paper allows us to extend current
understanding of the utilisation of frozen foods. It also leads us to consider the broader issue of
what incentivises consumers to eat a more sustainable diet. Austrian households currently
produce around 369,000 tons of packed and unpacked food waste each year and there is
over 23.4 million tonnes of food waste produced by households across the EC member
nations (Bräutigam et al., 2014; Stenmarck et al., 2016). A sustainable diet must eliminate
this food waste, the Austrian food waste volume is equivalent to 300€ of food thrown
away per household year (Lebersorger and Schneider, 2011; Penker and Wytrzens, 2005).
The data presented here shows both frozen food purchases and household freezing decrease Impact of food
food waste significantly and this has important implications for providing sustainable preservation
meals and diets.

Research method
The Austrian market data was collected via an online survey carried out by the Institute of
Marketing & Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) 2513
and Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK SE) during July 2015 (GfK, 2016). The survey
questionnaire obtained data from 2,800 participants on the frequency of their food
purchases for fresh and frozen foods.
The survey participants were selected to represent the typical Austrian population with
regard to age and educational level. The selection made for geographic distribution across the
Federal States was proportional to the population in each Federal State. The selection to the
panel of 2,800 was made using the GfK market survey methods used for market research.
GfK are a commercial and international company that provided the survey panel of
2,800 households. GfK’s services are routinely used by the food sector by manufacturers and
retailers to develop business activities and identify food and drink trends. The participants used
in this survey bought food and drink for their household and were asked how much food they
wasted across six food groups as a percentage of the total amount of the food they purchased.
The six food groups were selected because they were important food categories in Austria that
have both frozen and fresh options. Notably this included bread where the offer and purchasing
of frozen bread rolls is typical for Austrian consumers.
The participants of the survey were asked to consider their household food waste in a
week from the food they purchased, partly utilised food, leftovers (plate waste) and
preparation residues. The core questions of the survey that asked participants to report
their proportion of food purchased that was wasted as a percentage were as follows:
(1) What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away?
(2) What percentage of the frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away?
(3) What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away
per following product groups?
(4) What percentage of frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away
per following product groups?
The food groups were fruit; vegetables (including specific questions for potatoes and
spinach); bread ( fresh only); pasta; meat; and, fish ( fish sticks also known as fish fingers for
frozen foods). The core questions were developed in terms of what food product groups were
wasted in households. The survey also collected demographic information so that the 2,800
participants reflected a typical sample of the Austrian population and this was determined
using GfK’s demographic methods.

Research results
The amount of food waste produced in the sample of 2,800 Austrian households is shown
in Figure 1. The data show that participants reported wasted 9.3 per cent of total fresh food
purchased and 1.6 per cent of total frozen food purchased. Thus, the amount of reported
food waste derived from the fresh foods is 5.8-fold greater than that of frozen foods in the
2,800 households assessed. This means that the six fresh food groups have a reported food
waste that is 5.8-fold greater than comparable frozen food groups (see, Figure 1).
Figure 2, shows the food waste for fresh and comparable frozen food groups assessed in
the Austrian study of 2,800 households. The food groups are fruits, vegetables, bread, pasta,
BFJ meat and fish. Data obtained for the vegetable group were also specifically obtained for
119,12 potatoes and spinach because of the importance of these products in the frozen categories.
A similar approach was taken for fish products where fish sticks (also known as
fish fingers) are an important frozen product category.
Figure 2, shows the amount of food waste derived from fresh food purchases is greater
than frozen food purchases across the six food groups assessed apart from fish which is
2514 assessed as “other fish” in the reported frozen products here. These data are summarised
in Table I where the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste is provided.

10
9.3
purchased that is wasted
Percentage of total food

8
n = 2,800
6

4
Figure 1.
The amount of
food waste associated 2 1.6
with the total
purchases of fresh
and frozen foods in 0
Austrian households Total household fresh Total household frozen
food wasted food wasted

6.2 Fresh foods Frozen foods

6
% of total food purchased

5.5 5.5
that is wasted

3.9
4
2.8

2 1.7
1.4 1.4
0.6 0.6 0.7
0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3
Figure 2.
The percentage 0
Fruit
Vegetable
Potatoes
Bread
Pasta
Meat
Fish
Fruit
Other vegetables
Spinach
Potatoes
Pasta
Meat
Other fish
Fish sticks

of food purchases
wasted for the
fresh and frozen
food product n = 2,800
categories assessed

Percentage of fresh food Percentage of frozen food Fresh to frozen

purchase wasted purchase wasted food waste ratio
Table I.
The ratio of fresh to Fruit 6.2 0.6 10.3
frozen food group Vegetables 5.5 1.4 3.9
waste for 2,800 Potatoes 3.9 0.5 7.8
Austrian households Pasta 1.7 0.5 3.4
for the food product Meat 2.8 1.4 2.0
groups assessed Fish 0.6 0.7 0.9
Research analysis Impact of food
The goal of the research reported is to show how food waste behaviours connect many preservation
sustainability issues across the complex food choices consumers make when meals are
prepared. Our research shows food manufacturers and food retailers occupy critical points
in supply that can determine how these food consumption behaviours can be transformed
into more sustainable ones. An important way of achieving this is through reducing the food
waste associated with every meal. 2515
Figure 1, shows fresh foods purchased have a reported 5.8-fold greater food waste
compared to frozen food purchases in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The assessment
of waste from different food groups provides important insights into how households utilise
fresh and frozen foods (Figure 2). Table I, shows the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste across
the food groups shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that fresh food is wasted in greater amounts
than frozen food in every category except fish where fresh food waste is 0.9 of frozen food
waste. The ratios show that the greatest differences between fresh and frozen food groups are
seen for fruit where fresh is 10.3-fold greater than frozen and potatoes where fresh is 7.8-fold
greater than frozen.
Notably, the fresh to frozen ratio of specific food products (Figure 2), include fresh
vegetables and frozen spinach which is 13.8; and, for fresh fish and frozen fish sticks
(also known as fish fingers) it is 2.0 in Austrian households. Spinach and fish sticks are
specifically tested here because they are extremely popular for meal purchases in the Austrian
and other European marketplaces. The 13.8-fold greater fresh vegetable waste than frozen
spinach waste; and 2.0-fold greater fresh fish waste than fish stick waste is important because
these products are developed to be directly placed into meals. They emphasise the impact of
food product development when it is aligned to the portioning of food in meal preparation
and if this is made to be optimal there is less food waste. This relationship between method of
food preservation and portioning is also apparent with other food groups such as potatoes
and pasta (Table I).
The reduction of food waste and correct meal portioning of specific food products are
important because when they align and work together they can reduce food waste.
This means data collected from consumers regarding what they consider to be the correct
portion size in a meal is exceptionally valuable in waste reduction actions and it is rarely
done. Obtaining such data is a challenge future research into food waste will need to
address so that it can be transferred to food product development operations for
maximum impact. The data collected here does not consider correct portion size data
specifically but it does indicate its importance. The Austrian research reported here has
shown that the fresh food thrown away per household per person for this sample was
37.48 kg each year while the frozen food thrown away per household per person
was 6.46 kg and per year. The nutritional losses associated with food waste have yet to be
fully characterised but they are an important component of food waste projections
(Halloran et al., 2014).
While we can determine the environmental impact of consuming foods in terms of their
carbon footprint, it is the impact of wasting foods as an outcome of consumption that
concerns us here. This is important because assessment of the environmental value of foods
requires considerable investment of finance, knowledge and skills. It seems futile to make
this investment if the assessed foods are wasted downstream in the food supply chain as
they are prepared and consumed. New supply chain models are required to promote the
value of reducing food waste and guide processes such as freezing that can reduce food
waste. The data presented in Figure 1, clearly demonstrate a means to reduce the
environmental impact of the food we choose to eat by reducing waste if frozen and
freezing options are considered. The difficulty is that consumers choose foods based on
what they like and this frequently changes, the choices made will rarely consider the
BFJ impact of high level issues such as climate change but food waste reduction will be
119,12 considered. This is because there is a very clear financial benefit to eliminating household
food waste.
Current carbon footprinting methods show us that agri-production and global distribution
can be the least of our problems because food wastage can be up to 20 per cent of food purchases
and food losses across the supply chain can be far greater than this (Foster et al., 2014).
2516 It is difficult to communicate such sustainability trade-offs in consumer arenas because debates
are too complex to be made at the point of purchase. This is partly because carbon footprinting
results are extremely variable due to the diversity of different food production systems and this
has been tackled by developing certifications that target many sustainability goals. These have
changed consumption of food by highlighting specific issues so that more ethical purchases are
made such as those concerned with sustainable fishing, rainforest produce and so on. But it is
day-to-day food waste at home and in supply chains that can make any diet unsustainable
regardless of food certification used. Different preservation formats can reduce food waste and
in the case of frozen food we know it can be reduced with respect to fresh foods because less of it
is thrown away. There is no evidence that the nutritional values of frozen foods are any different
to fresh foods if robust quality standards are in place from farm to fork. The nutritional losses
resulting from food waste are significant and it is important to develop a food supply chain that
is not losing these resources through wastage. There is not currently a certification that shows
food produced with less waste or the use of food products that result in less waste and it is
evident that there is a requirement to at least highlight the value of reducing consumer food
waste. Food certification schemes that take household food waste reduction into account must
be a future consideration in food and drink fast-moving consumer goods.
These ideas lead us to summarise the research presented here as a decision matrix model
(Table II). The decision matrix highlights the major themes of consumer food waste
reduction using frozen foods or freezing foods in households. It is proposed that such a
matrix can be used to help food technologists guide the development of products with
respect to preservation format and household food waste reduction. What is evident from
the decision matrix analysis is a requirement to highlight the value of food preservation in
reducing household food waste in the consumer space. This can be achieved by
communicating through food companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility programmes as

Intervention issues identified by

Defining issues alternate and specific terms Qualifier and outcome identifiers

Is frozen or freezing suitable Is the food material is suitable? LCA metrics can be used to improve the
for the food Is the frozen market realistic communication of environmental impact
(requiring market research)? (e.g. the Carbon Footprint of a product)
Continuity of supply is required
(e.g. to allow eating out-of-season)
How do you know it will There is a fresh equivalent There is currently a lack of tools to
reduce food waste Current volumes of food waste need provide consumer advice. The research
to be reduced presented here helps to identify the
Supply format provides convenience benefits of preserving foods by freezing
How are consumption Consumers must be familiar with Peer review research studies must be
trends identified product format. They may not used
Table II. typically use frozen formats
The decision matrix How do we change Feedback from consumers will There is currently a lack of tools to
used to define the use behaviours when more determine efficacy of using freezing provide consumer guidance
of food preservation sustainable ones are as a preservation method A need for more robust methods to
to reduce consumer identified demonstrate specific food preparations
food waste can result in less waste
well as interventions that improve culinary knowledge in households. There are several Impact of food
emerging methods for achieving these interventions including digital applications that aim preservation
to reduce food waste and social media communications by creating consumer interest
movements. It is important that food waste reduction initiatives integrate with these
communication methods that consumers use (Martindale, 2017).

Research conclusion 2517

The research reported here shows purchased fresh foods have a six-fold greater food waste
compared to purchased frozen food in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The research
supports previous research conducted in the UK where a 47 per cent food waste reduction
was demonstrated for frozen foods compared to fresh foods. This relationship shows
maximal resource use is achieved for frozen food products that are manufactured for the
convenience of being included in meals. The conclusion is that food manufacturers, food
retailers and policy makers must consider the role of food preservation in delivering a
sustainable diet. The decision matrix approach here provides initial guidance in new
product development a basis for doing this and it is supported by data sets that have
now been obtained in the Austrian and UK markets.

References
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I.E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grønhøj, A. and Oostindjer, M.
(2017), “Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-
related food waste – a multiple case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 33-45.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T. and Oostindjer, M. (2015), “Consumer-
related food waste: causes and potential for action”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6457-6477.
Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T. and Varela, P. (2017),
“Making sense of the ‘clean label’ trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and
discussion of industry implications”, Food Research International, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Bräutigam, K.-R., Jörissen, J. and Priefer, C. (2014), “The extent of food waste generation across EU-27:
different calculation methods and the reliability of their results”, Waste Management &
Research, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 683-694.
Caputo, P., Clementi, M., Ducoli, C., Corsi, S. and Scudo, G. (2017), “Food chain evaluator, a tool for
analyzing the impacts and designing scenarios for the institutional catering in Lombardy
(Italy)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140 No. 2, pp. 1014-1026.
Defra (2017), “Food statistics pocketbook: office of national statistics”, available at: www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553390/foodpocketbook-2016report-
rev-15sep16.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).
Foster, C., Guében, C., Holmes, M., Wiltshire, J. and Wynn, S. (2014), “The environmental effects of seasonal
food purchase: a raspberry case study”, in van der Werf, H.M.G., Garnett, T., Corson, M.S.,
Hayashi, K. and Cederberg, C. (Eds), Towards Eco-Efficient Agriculture and Food Systems:
Selected Papers from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food Conference, 2012, Vol. 73, Saint Malo,
pp. 269-274.
Garnett, T. (2013), “Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions”, Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
GfK (2016), “We are GfK”, available at: www.gfk.com/de-at/ (accessed 24 February 2017).
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A. (2011), Global Food
Losses and Food Waste, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C. and Magid, J. (2014), “Addressing food waste
reduction in Denmark”, Food Policy, Vol. 49, pp. 294-301.
BFJ Janssen, A.M., Nijenhuis-de Vries, M.A., Boer, E.P. and Kremer, S. (2017), “Fresh, frozen, or ambient
119,12 food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch households”, Waste
Management, Vol. 67, New York, NY, pp. 298-307.
Lebersorger, S. and Schneider, F. (2011), “Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in
household waste composition studies”, Waste Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 1924-1933.
Martindale, W. (2014), “Using consumer surveys to determine food sustainability”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 116 No. 7, pp. 1194-1204, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0242
2518
Martindale, W. (2017), “The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste”, Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 28-33.
Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B. and Yurt, O. (2011), “The causes of food waste in the supplier – retailer
interface: evidences from the UK and Spain”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55
No. 6, pp. 648-658.
Morone, P., Papendiek, F. and Tartiu, V.E. (2017), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation:
Sustainability Assessment and Policy Analysis, Springer International Publishing AG.
O’Rourke, D. (2014), “The science of sustainable supply chains”, Science, Vol. 344 No. 6188, pp. 1124-1127.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. (2010), “Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 365 No. 1554, pp. 3065-3081.
Penker, M. and Wytrzens, H.K. (2005), “Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020 and its landscape
impacts”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 175-189.
Privett, K., Clark, J.H., Arshadi, M., Koutinas, A., Gathergood, N., Morone, P. and Luque, R. (2016),
“Food supply chain waste: emerging opportunities”, Chemicals and Fuels from Bio-based
Building Blocks, pp. 667-680.
Shove, E. and Southerton, D. (2000), “Defrosting the freezer: from novelty to convenience a narrative of
normalization”, Journal of Material Culture, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 301-319.
Stenmarck, A., Jensen, C., Quested, T., Moates, G., Buksti, M., Cseh, B. and Redlingshofer, B. (2016),
“Estimates of European Food Waste Levels”, IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
Stockholm.
Tukker, A. (2015), “Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review”,
in Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Diehl, J.C. and Kohtala, C. (Eds), Why have Sustainable Product-Service
Systems’ not been Widely Implemented?, Vol. 97, pp. 76-91.

About the authors

Dr Wayne Martindale is a Project Director for the Food Insights and Sustainability Service at the
National Centre for Food Manufacturing, University of Lincoln. He is CSIRO McMaster and OECD
Fellow directing a diverse folio of consumer focussed research in food and drink. Dr Wayne Martindale
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Professor Walter Schiebel is a University Professor of Agricultural Marketing and Nutritional
Economics with extensive experience in International Academic and Consulting Projects in Western and
Eastern Europe.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats