FAQ

FAQ

The overall aim of FUSIONS is to contribute significantly to the harmonisation of food waste monitoring: the definitional framework provides the main definitional choices for food and drink waste. It thereby establishes a standard approach on system boundaries. The framework will provide the EU with knowledge on current quantification methods and recommendations on how to, based on statistics, quantify food waste for the EU28 Member States (report PAGE 12). The Description of Work (DoW) for the FUSIONS Project includes the task (T1.1.2) to establish a standard approach on system boundaries and definitions on food waste: within this task, the main system boundaries and definitional choices for food and drink waste have been developed and possible technical economic and social aspects considered. The results were to be presented and discussed as part of the task reviewing current data and at the FUSIONS multi-stakeholder platform meetings. Its delivery is finalised with the report FUSIONS definitional framework for food waste. FUSIONS operates between 2012-16, it has no remit beyond the project to monitor food waste. The FUSIONS project will not require companies or other stakeholders to report on their food waste. The European Commission, the relevant Directorate Generals and institutions including Eurostat as the main statistical agency for the EU, are key stakeholders and they will take forward FUSIONS recommendations for quantification and monitoring as appropriate. The July 2014 proposal to revise the Waste Framework Directive seeks to establish uniform conditions for monitoring the implementation of food waste prevention measures undertaken by Member States. The FUSIONS Quantification Manual could support delivery of such a policy if it becomes approved. Regardless of these political developments, such as the recent news on the Circular Economy Package under scrutiny of deregulation initiatives of the EC, the FUSIONS work will continue to support food waste monitoring by EU Member States. The FUSIONS definitional framework is relevant to all stakeholders in the food supply chain. It indicates the scope, boundaries and the type of data required from stakeholders to produce reliable estimates. Information management support tools could be developed as derivatives from the framework. The targeted users for the Definitional Framework are the European Commission, the relevant Directorate Generals and institutions including EUROSTAT as main statistical agency for the EU, are key target groups and relevant political, legislative governmental organisations and statistical agencies on Member State level. FUSIONS is a time-defined project and will end in 2016; the implementation of monitoring based on the definitional framework is not within the scope of the project. FUSIONS will not require companies or other stakeholders to report on their food waste.

The announced “food waste quantification manual” will be based on the Definitional Framework. It will provide a harmonized method for representative, effective and meaningful quantification of food waste. All relevant stakeholders can make use of this manual. This manual will be delivered in fall 2015. The FUSIONS definitional framework is divided in two parts. The FUSIONS theoretical framework by which we can separate and quantify all resource flows leaving the food supply chain. It establishes the system boundaries and definition of food waste. It provides general guidance on boundary conditions relating to food, the food supply chain and the differentiation between edible and in-edible parts of food, which will facilitate the collection of comparable data. Based on the FUSIONS theoretical framework, a FUSIONS technical framework is given. This technical framework presents the resource flows leaving the food supply chain which are considered practically feasible to measure and monitor on a EU28 level to date. The only difference is that the technical framework does no separate edible and inedible fractions, but considers the total resource flow removed from the food supply chain. (report PAGE 25). However, where possible distinction between edible and inedible fractions is encouraged. The difference between the theoretical and technical framework in the report is visualised by using different colours for the connecting arrows in the Theoretical Framework Figure. The technical framework will serve as the foundation for the FUSIONS food waste quantification manual to be delivered in fall 2015. The manual will contribute with further guidelines on the implementation of the definitional framework, including more descriptions and decisions trees on terminology and measurement methodology. The Manual is also fed by the outcomes of the deliverable Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice and the report Standard approach on quantitative techniques (see www.eu-fusions.org/publications).

The FUSIONS Definitional Framework does include drinks/liquids as resources in the food supply chain. FUSIONS will provide guidance in the FUSIONS Quantification Manual on how to quantify and distinguish solid food and drinks (report PAGE 20).

The report contains an annex A: Criteria document. This document was agreed upon by the project partners in spring 2013. The goal of this document was to create a common view on what criteria the suggested methodological framework should fulfil. FUSIONS set out to develop a framework that can contribute to both the development of reliable information sources and statistics, and the harmonisation of food waste monitoring. Its task was to propose clear boundaries for the food supply chain, such as clear starting and endpoints to ensure all food removed from the food supply chain (including inedible parts) are measured. To determine the methodological basis of the framework (including the definitions, methodology and indicators as developed under WP1), it was agreed that the framework should meet the following criteria:

  • Enable evaluation and monitoring of EU / EU-nations’ waste prevention initiatives and policy goals on food waste prevention.
  • Take into account the way data are collected today (level of detail and kind of data) using a reasonable combination of approximations to estimate/best quantify food waste (?).
  • Give guidance on how to move forward within the suggested framework (i.e. to progress from how / what data are collected now to more comprehensive and granular data collection in the future). This is developed in the tiered structured approach to be presented in the Manual.
  • Allow evaluation of key environmental and socio-economic impacts from waste generation. Other criteria on the applicability of the framework are presented in the report, page 30-31.

The FUSIONS core partners worked on a first draft for the FUSIONS definitional framework between September 2012 and May 2013. This draft framework was presented for discussion, as the external consultation process amongst the FUSIONS Members and stakeholders. This includes key stakeholder groups including various sector representatives/trade associations for food processing industry, retail, out-of-home food services, consumer organisations, NGOs, governmental institutions and knowledge institutes. The Members to the FUSIONS multi-stakeholder platform are listed at www.eu-fusions.org/members. The consultation on the definitional framework included multiple steps, as described below:

  • At the first four FUSIONS regional platforms meetings held in May-June 2013 in Paris (North West Europe region, organised by BIO Intelligence Service [now known as BIO by Deloitte]), Hohenheim (Central Europe Region, organised by the University of Hohenheim), Padua (Southern Europe Region, organised by Last Minute Market) and Helsinki (Nordic/Scandinavian Region, organised by MTT)
  • Within the FUSIONS External Expert Advisory Board (EEAB) in Paris, June 2013. This Board is part of the governance structure of the FUSIONS Project and has representatives from DG Sanco, DG Environment, DG Agro, FoodDrinkEurope, UNEP, OECD, WWF, and special guest members of Eurostat, FAO and Oakdene Hollins (now Anthesis Group).
  • A web-based survey carried out within the FUSIONS stakeholder platform Members in September 2013 Presenting and discussing a revised version of the definition framework at the annual FUSIONS European platform meeting in October 2013 (Amsterdam, organised by Wageningen UR)
  • According to original FUSIONS timeline, the definitional framework (part of the deliverable report D1.1 as described in the DoW) was going to be published as a “working definition” by the end of 2013, meaning a basis for continuing working on a definitional framework to be applied in the FUSIONS Quantification Manual. In this way, the work with the definitional framework presented in D1.1 was planned to continue as an integrated part of the up-coming work with the FUSIONS Quantification Manual.
  • However, the Project and Task Coordinators felt that the delivery of the work should be extended to assess and discuss the variety of feedback gathered from the consultation processes from October onwards and include additional consultation sessions with the Platform and the EEAB before finalising the definitional framework delivery. The underlying scientific research and external stakeholder consultation process and its outcomes are contributing to inform policy development, one of the core objectives of the FUSIONS projects.
  • Additional consultation with core partners and involving the EEAB between December 2013 and June 2014
  • Additional consultation with the Stakeholder platform members during the second Regional Platform meetings in March and May 2014 in Athens (Southern region, organised by Anatoliki Development Agency), London (NWE region, organised by BIO by Deloitte and WRAP), Düsseldorf (Central Europe region, organised by University of Hohenheim) and Stockholm (Nordic/Scandinavian region, organised by MTT and IVL) The final document was published 3 July 2014.

Yes and no. Within the project, FUSIONS will keep to its definition, in order that it can progress to the next task of developing a quantification manual. Although the definition has been used in the proposal for a revised Waste Framework Directive, this is not yet agreed by Member States and further discussion is likely. The Fusions framework is a delivered proposal and may not suit all audiences. The main targeted audiences to the framework in the Fusions project are statistical agencies and policy makers at EU and member state level. The framework describing the food supply chain and the destinations of the resource flows removed from it are considered to be generic. According to the criteria, it is applicable for many purposes. The main goal for the Framework is that it can provide a matrix structure, with codified resource flows that can be identified and clustered for the use of policy making and monitoring of ambitions, which can vary over time. Which destinations are included, and whether or not inedible parts of food are included could be extracted from the framework for a particular audience. FUSIONS has set out to develop a definitional framework for food waste within the context of EC policy, current methods of EU28 quantification of food waste and to deliver improved food use and a more resource efficient European food supply chain. It has introduced a means of quantifying food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain. From this equivalent environmental, economic and social impacts could be estimated, and over time trends could be monitored. The framework describing the food supply chain and the destinations of the resource flows removed from it are considered to be generic. According to the criteria, it is applicable for many purposes. With the available knowledge and policy scope of FUSIONS, certain boundaries were made. The Framework is devised in such a way that it also supports different settlements of boundaries and in-/exclusion of resource flows. FUSIONS has chosen to include inedible parts of food within its definition of food waste to support practical measurement of total waste streams, and increased resource efficiency. It recommends, however, that stakeholders measure the edible and inedible fractions separately where possible. FUSIONS also chose to exclude certain destinations of food removed from the supply chain from its definition of waste. For example, food used to produce bio-materials or animal feed are classed as preventing that material from becoming waste. That said, the Framework provides a mechanism by which to codify all resource flows. As such it is inherently flexible as to which material streams can be aggregated. This means others may use the improved datasets, built on the FUSIONS Framework & forthcoming quantification manual, to in/exclude material streams which don’t align with their own definition of food waste. The starting point however, had to be a consistent structure.

No, FUSIONS as a project cannot and will not require any of its partners or members to adhere to this framework; it is co-developed in order to provide the EC with recommendations for informed decision making. For the FUSIONS project, the framework will significantly guide the remainder of the work, i.e. the development of a food waste quantification manual, and policy scenarios, enabling the project team to make recommendations for improved policies and measures to reduce food waste across EU28.

The initiative by WRI to develop a global food loss and waste protocol is seeking to deliver a voluntary based, global protocol for various stakeholders, on various geographical regions to report on food waste. It will function similarly as the Global Greenhouse Gas Protocol. FUSIONS Partners are represented in the Steering Committee as well as a number of Technical Working Groups, based on the high level of expertise on the topic. Also, this will ensure synergies between the Protocol and the Manual, and is in the interest of international coherence. FUSIONS will focus its own Manual on the European region.

The main differences to be considered are:

  • The definition of food waste: The preparatory study does not define food waste according to the destination of the food removed from the supply chain. The FUSIONS framework only considers those resource flows removed from the food supply chain and going into destinations labelled as waste categories ‘recovery or disposal’, including composting, plough-in, anaerobic digestion, bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to sewer, landfill or discarded to sea. To FUSIONS, the destination or end-use of the resource flow removed from the FSC defines whether or not the fraction is considered as waste.
  • The scoping of the food supply chain: The preparatory study does not include the primary sector, whereas the FUSIONS definitional framework addresses the primary production at the ‘ready for harvest/slaughter’ stage through to final consumption.
  • The inclusion of fractions in the relevant resource flows: The preparatory study includes the waste categories from the Waste Directive, which can be mixed with other ‘Organic Waste’ or ‘bio-waste’ not associated with food/inedible parts of food. The quantification of these fractions needs to be altered as they currently are mixed categories. FUSIONS aims to develop separate Food Waste indicator categories. It is mentioned that materials such as vegetable peelings, meat trimmings, and spoiled or excess ingredients or prepared food as well as bones, carcasses and organs are included. Their prevalence is in most cases an unknown variable in the available statistics.

The preparatory report uses data from Eurostat statistics. A more detailed review of the Eurostat statistics regarding the measurement of food waste is given in the FUSIONS report ‘Review of Eurostats statistics & reporting method’.

The section below cites the relevant information from the preparatory study.


 Direct citations Source:

BIO Intelligence Service, 2010: Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27.

  • Food waste 1 (summary, page 8):

“Food waste is composed of raw or cooked food materials and includes food loss before, during or after meal preparation in the household, as well as food discarded in the process of manufacturing, distribution, retail and food service activities. It comprises materials such as vegetable peelings, meat trimmings, and spoiled or excess ingredients or prepared food as well as bones, carcasses and organs.”

  • Food waste 2 (introduction, page 23):

“Food waste, composing a large proportion of bio-waste, is waste composed of raw or cooked food materials and includes food materials discarded at any time between farm and fork; in households relating to food waste generated before, during or after food preparation, such as vegetable peelings, meat trimmings, and spoiled or excess ingredients or prepared food. Food waste can be both edible and inedible. Edible food waste is considered avoidable, although WRAP describes some of this as “possibly avoidable”, given certain foods that are not unanimously considered edible. The distinction is clarified in the below table.”

“Bio-waste is defined by the European Commission in the green paper on the management of bio-waste3 as biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants. The definition does not include forestry or agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge or other biodegradable waste, such as natural textiles, paper or processed wood. Bio-waste accounts for 30-45 % of municipal solid waste in Europe.”

Quantification based on EUROSTAT statistics and EWC variables (based on the Waste Directive)

Relevant waste categories

The principle source of data on food waste generation was EUROSTAT27, which lists data for the 27 EU MS in the following categories:

  • (EWC_09) Animal and vegetal wastes
  • (EWC_0911) Animal waste of food preparation and products
  • (EWC_093) Animal faeces, urine and manure

From these a further waste stream, more pertinent to the current study, can be calculated:

  • (EWC_09_NOT_093): Animal and vegetal waste excluding slurry and manure

Methodologies of data collection and calculation differ between MS. EUROSTAT states that “Member States are free to decide on the data collection methods. The general options are: surveys, administrative sources, statistical estimations or some combination of methods.” (EWC_09) Animal and vegetal wastes may as a result, in some instances, include some green wastes in addition to food waste, but it forms nevertheless the most reliable waste category for which all MS have data. Other more specific data available on EUROSTAT, including (EWC_0911) animal waste of food preparation and products, are included within the EWC_09 total and have therefore not been disregarded. As this study does not address agricultural waste, (EWC_093) animal manure has been excluded.

Sectors

The EWC_09 data are given for all MS by NACE-branch28. The NACE branches distinguished are:

  • A - Agriculture, hunting and forestry
  • DA - Manufacture of food products; beverages and tobacco
  • HH - Households
  • Other Sectors

Branch DA has been used for Manufacturing sector data and branch HH for the Household sector. As this study does not address agricultural waste, Branch A - Agriculture, hunting and forestry has been excluded from calculations, but the EUROSTAT data for this sector remains in Table 2 below for reference purposes. It can be noted that this sector has the second highest proportion of food waste according to EUROSTAT data disclosure.

DG Environment published in July 2014 2 main documents referring to food waste:

  • COM(2014) 397: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment 2.7.2014, kortweg ‘rFWD’
  • COM(2014)398: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and he committee of the regions - Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe”7.7.2014 en de Annex bij dit document, kortweg ‘Circular Economy’

Answer:

There are many similarities between the food waste definition described in these publications and the FUSIONS definitional framework.

The main differences are:

  • The proposed directive refers to the resource flows going towards their destinations as ‘lost to’, whereas the FUSIONS framework refers to these as ‘removed from’,using a different word for basically the same thing – “not longer included in the food chain”. The terminology assumes that any food being produced for human consumption, but which leaves the food supply chain, is ‘removed from’ it regardless of the cause, point in the food supply chain or method by which it iis removed (Report PAGE 6)
  • The related legislative proposal on waste targets and the circular economy package mentions the destinations not seen as food waste similar to the FUSIONS framework, whereas the latter explicitly includes the resource flows destinations that can be considered as waste categories to provide a full overview of the resource efficiency of food produced for human consumption.
  • The Fusions framework is much more than a definition, whereas the proposed directive limits itself to a proposed definition. The framework facilitates a full overview of all the resource flows both within the food supply chain as those removed from the supply chain. For policy makers or other stakeholders the fusions framework offers more insight and therefore possibilities to formulate actions towards improved resource efficiency.

The section below cites the relevant information.


 

Source: Brussels, 2.7.2014; COM(2014) 397 final; 2014/0201 (COD)

Title: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment

Directive 2008/98/EC is hereby amended as follows:

  • (1) Article 3 is amended as follows: '
    • (4a). "food waste" means food (including inedible parts) lost from the food supply chain, not including food diverted to material uses such as bio-based products, animal feed, or sent for redistribution;

Include link to document here http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-8_EN.pdf

Answer:

The main differences are:

  • The HLPE report approaches food losses and waste from a (global ) food security perspective, focusing on the availability of food for human consumption, whereas the FUSIONS framework focuses on a resource efficiency perspective, describing the use and destinations of food & associated inedible parts throughout the food supply chain and its destinations. Also, the associated environmental, social and economic concerns are addressed. In developing countries, a major problem is to deliver sufficient food to the consumers. In the industrial countries, food reaches the consumers but large amounts are lost at the retail & household steps of the FSC.
  • The HLPE reports refers to food losses and waste, distinguished by its origin in the FSC, whereas the FUSIONS definitional framework sees the parts removed from the food supply chain going into recovery & disposal destinations as ‘waste’, regardless of the cause or origin of the flow.
  • The HLPE report excludes inedible parts of food as food waste, whereas the FUSIONS definitional framework includes it within its technical framework. Upon availability of more detailed data on both edible and inedible fractions to be collected, this can be used to improve the measurements.

The section below cites the relevant information from the HLPE report.


 

Direct citation Source:

HLPE – Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems – a report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. (Committee on World Food Security)

Definition 1 Food loss and waste

  • Food loss and waste (FLW) refers to a decrease, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of the cause.
  • Food losses (FL) refers to a decrease, at all stages of the food chain prior to the consumer level, in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of the cause.
  • Food waste (FW) refers to food appropriate for human consumption being discarded or left to spoil at consumer level – regardless of the cause.
  • Food quality loss or waste (FQLW) refers to the decrease of a quality attribute of food (nutrition, aspect, etc.), linked to the degradation of the product, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption.

Therefore, FLW occur between the moment when a product is ready to be harvested or harvested, and the moment when it is consumed or removed from the food supply chain.4 Inedible fractions removed from the food supply chain (e.g. side streams) are not considered as FLW (Figure 1). Neither are yield gaps, conversion of plant products in animal products, and overnutrition considered as FLW, as they are rather related to broader considerations on the efficiency of food systems.

Foot notes:

  1. A food supply chain encompasses all those activities that help ensure the delivery of finished products to the consumer from the primary producer. Such activities can include storage, transport and distribution, processing, wholesale, retail and consumption.
  2. Some use “food waste” as a generic term. It is often in contexts linked either to waste in general or to a concern about use of natural resources, and in relation to the natural environment or other dimensions. What others call “loss is for them a “waste/wastage”, because they associate it to a “waste” of resources (meaning they could have been used for other purposes). The term wastage is also sometimes used with such a broad meaning. In such waste-related approaches, some, as the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), distinguish “non-avoidable waste” (defined by them as the non-edible parts of food), and “avoidable waste”, which is defined as edible food waste. In the definition used in this report, such “unavoidable waste” is not considered FLW. Under the definition used by FAO (2011) and also in this report, non-edible parts of produce -- what WRAP calls “unavoidable waste” – are never accounted as FLW.

The primary objective of FUSIONS is to support the EU and Member States to optimise food use and improve the resource efficiency of the European food supply chain. For this reason, FUSIONS includes the inedible parts of food in its definition of ‘food waste’ with a view to ensuring the management of resources in the food supply chain as resource efficient as possible. Excluding inedible parts may have led to them not being prioritised in management in line with the waste / food use hierarchy. Furthermore, capturing information on inedible parts also highlights the potential of this fraction for improved food use (e.g. bringing currently ‘inedible’ food into wider food use, such as orange peel into marmalade). Where possible, the definitional framework recommends that the edible and inedible fractions should be separately analysed or estimated in order to allow for the development of accurate management strategies for the different resource flows. How to manage edible and inedible streams separately will be elaborated on in the FUSIONS Quantification Manual. More importantly, however, FUSIONS also seeks to make a practical contribution to food waste measurement across EU28. For the majority of the food chain, food and inedible parts are inseparable fractions and are only measured in conjunction. There are sectors and companies in the FSC that are able today to separate and separately measure the fractions, or estimate the separate fractions on the basis of the total. However, most stakeholders do not yet have this measurement ability in place. Therefore, in light of comparability and harmonised monitoring, it is not useful to measure it differently in different sectors. What needs to be done is to encourage all stakeholders involved to discern the two fractions and report on them both. As all data are introduced in the framework, a matrix will be presented on all countries, on all sectors, showing the spread of food and inedible parts of food, as well as on all valorisation and waste destinations: Decision makers can then establish and compare food waste levels, and use the data to discriminate between food and inedible part fractions in the various destinations of resources.

All food waste is organic waste, but not the other way around. In the current waste statistics, organic waste also includes non-food organic waste, e.g. garden waste and public green waste. This is one of the shortcomings of the current measurements by EC as described in the Preparatory study (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010). To optimise food use and maximise resource efficiency, FUSIONS is only capturing materials food waste if they are removed to the recovery & disposal categories (described in box Bii ‘food waste’ of the technical framework). FUSIONS anticipates providing guidance on how to differentiate between total food waste and the edible / inedible fractions of food waste in the forthcoming FUSIONS Quantification Manual. The FUSIONS framework acknowledges that the inedible fraction should be considered separately, particularly if one’s focus is on waste prevention. For those stakeholders in the opinion of inedible fractions not to be counted as food waste, the food waste determined within the FUSIONS framework can be seen as a ‘total food waste’, whereas the edible fraction of food waste can be seen as ‘net food waste’. However, the FUSIONS framework does not include these terms. Other terms that were taken into consideration were ‘garbage’, ‘losses’, ‘spoilage’, ‘wastage’, ‘shrinkage’ etc. but none of them were able to accurately fit the purpose of the framework as well as food ‘waste’.

No, water intentionally removed during processing is not considered as food waste (since it’s not “intended to be eaten” and therefore not defined as “food”). On the other hand, if water is unintentionally removed (during e.g. evaporation during storage) the water is considered food waste since it was “intended to be eaten by humans”. Nevertheless, water is a very valuable resource in itself, where optimising the use of water in food production and processing is an important part in developing sustainable food systems.

To convert bio-based materials from the food supply chain, to e.g. feed, bio-based materials and bio-chemicals (including plastic packaging and products), can be almost as resource efficient as producing food, and may also add substantial economic value to the producing company. Also, these resource flows ensure the use of food which might otherwise go to waste. The removed food and inedible parts of food that are destined to animal feed are in large extent looping back into the food supply chain. Therefore, the FUSIONS project does not consider material sent to these routes to be food waste. To produce bio-energy, from bio-based materials from the food supply chain, is however in most cases not a resource efficient option. It is usually more resource efficient to produce bio-energy from other bio-materials than to first produce food which is then used to produce bio-energy.

In the summary document Figure 2 it is stated that only resource streams leaving the food supply chain ending up as composting, Bio-energy etc.,. (B3-B11) are defined as food waste. Resource streams being valorized or used as feed are not considered as food waste. From that Resource streams not leaving the food supply chain are not food waste e.g whey used as a protein source in other food products ( these products are kept food grade and never leave the food supply chain) By- products further valorized or recycled as for animal feed, bio based materials and biochemical processing ( page 23 in the definitional document)are not defined as food waste By product used for energy recovery are however defined as food waste (as well as any) use defined by box (B3-B11) in figure 2 in the summary document. A rational of this definition is that if you in the future put all supply chains on the top of each other only the B-ii box will remain and there is no risk for double counting in the statistics. I have seen in same cases that companies earn more on their by-products than main products and this must be considered as well. (FUSIONS have not the intention to interfere with companies product portfolio) A real issue concerns the edibility of the by-products. As a whole product they can be edible, but after processing in some cases limited, or only partly, with high processing costs. Mostly ending up in animal feed.

Left over cooking oil is considered as food waste if not used as feed or further processing (FUSIONS technical frame work Figure 4 page 24, Box B:i Valorization and conversion) . Cooking oil is seen as an ingredient since it is integrated into the food during cooking. Ideally the process is design so that a minimum of cooking oil is wasted. The same is valid for other process aid that are intended to be integrated into the food product as a part of the processing of the final product.


Copyright © 2016 | EU FUSIONS | Contact us
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 311972.
“The views and opinions expressed in this website are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.”