Food waste is a Canadian and global problem. Food waste is estimated to contribute 8-10% to global greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission 2023). Food production requires water, oil and land – when food is wasted, so is the water, oil and land that were used in the food production (Naushad 2021). Deforestation for additional farmland can be avoided if food waste is reduced, which could result in “44.4 billion tonnes of harmful emissions being avoided” (Naushad 2021). Food waste creates emissions from the production, transportation and disposal process—including releasing methane in landfills once disposed of (Naushad 2021). Food waste is estimated to cost Canada “$107 billion in true cost, including costs of wasted water, energy, and resources” (Soma 273). However, there are policies out there that can improve this issue, including a landfill ban, incentivizing composting, food redistribution, public education and 

​

Landfill ban

A landfill ban on organics would ensure food waste does not end up in landfill, and is instead composted or used for a more beneficial purpose. Messer & Anthony (2023) have found “the most significant action to reduce the amount of food waste is to implement a landfill ban for organics.” However, it is essential that the landfill ban is also paired with “innovation funding” to develop new materials like bioplastics (made from plants rather than petroleum) for holding compost, “to ensure they can be properly managed in industrial composting operations” (Messer & Anthony 2023). If a ban was enacted, appropriate infrastructure would need to be created for the organic waste that could no longer be disposed of in the landfill—otherwise, this would not have too large of an impact on other stakeholders.

 

Incentivizing composting

Composting needs to be incentivized at the corporate level, and food waste reduction needs to be incentivized at the household level.

While composting is already conveniently structured for households in cities like Toronto, it is not set up effectively at the industrial level. Messer & Anthony (2023) recommend incentivizing businesses to send organic waste for composting—as unlike municipal residents, businesses generally need to find an independent contract with waste companies to pick up the organic waste. A pilot project was done in 2021 in Guelph-Wellington with a regional co-operative collection system for the industrial and commercial sectors (Messer & Anthony 2023). 45 organizations participated, saving food for meals as well as diverting “the weight of 100 cars worth of organic waste” from the landfill (Messer & Anthony 2023). Large organizations may incur additional costs unless the government financially incentivizes industrial composting or establishes a system for it.

At the household level, studies have shown reductions in food waste when unit-based pricing for waste disposal is utilized (pricing measured by weight) (Oria & Schneeman 2020). It is also effective to charge a separate fee for organic waste disposal (Oria & Schneeman 2020). While there may be very minor costs to households, this option is appealing because it would be very effective in reducing quantity of food waste—more so than educational campaigns alone.

 

Food redistribution

Food redistribution involves saving and using food that would otherwise be disposed of. Some examples include about-to-expire food (from grocery stores), produce that does not meet aesthetic standards (may not sell at a grocery store), or cooked meal or dessert leftovers that cannot be reused by the institution (e.g. restaurants, bakeries, university dining halls) in the following days (Giles 2021).

The French government combined regulation and incentivization with the food waste law LOI n° 2016–138. This law banned grocery stores from throwing away unsold food – and encouraged companies to sign contracts with food charities for surplus food (Pace & Busetti 46, Soma 274). Soma (2018) recommends incentivizing surplus food donation (273).

There are concerns about the lack of infrastructure to handle all the potential food donations, but with a slow implementation of this regulation, this should not be a problem with time for organizations to adapt. This option is beneficial because corporations will get corporate social responsibility points, people in need will have more access to produce and food (including meals), large amounts of waste can be diverted from composting or landfills, and money can be saved. Since even composting releases methane (Naushad 2021), diverting waste in the first place is a very effective policy.

 

Public Education

People mistakenly believe grocery stores and the food industry are largely responsible for food waste and that their behaviour is not contributing to the problem (You et. al 2022). Along with new incentives, there should be public education on the role of households in food waste to bring awareness to this issue. You et. al (2022) recommend messaging around shopping routines and reuse of leftovers to try to change behaviour and attitudes.

As educational institutions are on the higher end of the food waste producer spectrum, targeting education at students is a choice that can have a large impact. In one study, classrooms weighed food waste from their school cafeterias, becoming aware of waste and its negative effects (Burton 7). Schools reduced waste by up to 53% from this program (Burton 7). Recommendations for schools following this study included allowing children to choose their own sized meal (rather than a standard size), and sharing unwanted but unwrapped food at designated tables (Burton 7). Since children also contribute to food waste, Oria & Schneeman (2020) also recommend K-12 education on composting (which impacts their households as well).

 

Recommendations

1. Landfill ban on organics

A landfill ban on organics would work in harmony with other food waste policies to promote circularity and encourage food redistribution rather than disposal.

​

    2. Incentivize composting 

       i. At the industrial level

Governments could either create an industrial composting system in bigger cities (to start) that is funded by taxpayers, or could financially incentivize industrial companies to compost by giving them a rebate. This would reduce the amount of food waste sent to landfills.

 

     ii. At the household level (incentivize reducing waste)

Municipal governments could implement a composting/Green Bin-fee-by-weight fee (which incentivizes households to reduce the amount of food waste they produce).

​

    3. Require food redistribution

Require restaurants, bakeries, grocery stores, universities and other large organizations that have leftover food or food close to expiry to partner with food rescue organizations who can pick up and distribute the food to those in need (e.g., food banks, soup kitchens, etc.). This regulation could be implemented at the provincial or municipal level.

​

Conclusion

Reducing food waste and promoting food circularity in Canada is necessary to improve environmental, economic and social outcomes. Three strong policy options for reducing food waste include a ban on food waste in landfills, incentivizing composting and requiring food redistribution/partnerships with food rescue organizations. Considering the large environmental and economic cost of food waste, it is essential the provincial and municipal governments in Ontario implement effective food waste regulation as soon as possible.

​

​

​

​

Sources

​

Burton, A. (2020). Reducing food waste: a child could do it. Frontiers in Ecology and the       Environment, 18(1), 7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26893297

​

European Commission. (2023). Food loss and waste prevention. Food Safety. Retrieved March         25, 2023, from https://www.food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/food-         loss-and-waste-            prevention_en#:~:text=Food%20waste%20also%20has%20a,EU's%20overall%20food%  20consumption%20footprint

​

Food Policy for Canada. (2023). Constitutional provisions. Food Policy for Canada: York University. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://foodpolicyforcanada.info.yorku.ca/instruments/constitutional-provisions/ 

​

Giles, D. B. (2021). The Anatomy of a Dumpster: Abject Capital and the Looking Glass of Value   (pp. 31-54). In A Mass Conspiracy to Feed People: Food Not Bombs and the World-  Class Waste of Global Cities. Duke University Press.

​

Government of Ontario. (2018, April). Food and organic waste policy statement. Ontario.ca. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/food-and-organic-waste-policy-statement

​

Messer, D., & Anthony, L. (2023, February 2). The circular opportunity to fix food waste. Policy Options. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2023/food-waste-circular-system/

​

Naushad, S. (2021, December 8). Food Waste in Canada. Youth in Food Systems. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://seeds.ca/schoolfoodgardens/food-waste-in-canada/#:~:text=Causing%20Climate%20Change,-Food%20waste%20in&text=It%20contributes%20to%2056.5%20million,times%20worse%20than%20carbon%20dioxide.

​

Oria, M., & Schneeman, B. (2020). A national strategy to reduce food waste at the consumer level (M. Oria & B. Schneeman, Eds.). The National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564039/

​

Pace, N. & Busetti, S. (2023). Food Loss and Waste Policy: From Theory to Practice.

            Routledge. 

 

Soma, T. (2018). Closing the loop on Canada’s National Food Policy: A food waste agenda. Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des Études Sur L’alimentation, 5(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i3.314 https://canadianfoodstudies.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cfs/article/view/314

 

You, S., Sonne, C., Park, Y.-K., Kumar, S., Lin, K.-Y. A., Ok, Y. S., & Wang, F. (2022). Food loss and waste: A carbon footprint too big to be ignored. Sustainable Environment, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2022.2115685 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27658511.2022.2115685?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

​

​​​​​​​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​