Sophie Attwood, Jose Maria Gil, Celine Giner, Emma Leask, Oksana Sapiga, Diogo Souza Monteiro, Katy Tapper, and Luiza Toma 

Reducing household food waste 

Across many high-income countries, food waste represents a significant share of the food households purchase. In the UK alone, households generate 6–7 million tonnes of food waste each year, roughly 58% of the total tonnage of waste generated across the national food supply chain. The impacts extend beyond economics: when food is sent to landfill, it produces methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.  

Reducing food waste is a global priority under United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, which aims to halve it by 2030. While new policies are emerging, some existing measures, such as date labelling practices, can unintentionally increase waste. Indeed, household food waste is shaped by a broader, complex food system designed to deliver plentiful, affordable, and convenient food. Understanding waste therefore requires looking beyond individual behaviour to the wider system—how food is produced, sold, consumed, and discarded. 

To explore these issues, a symposium at the Agricultural Economics Society’s 100th Anniversary Conference brought together experts from academia, government, FAO, OECD, and Zero Waste Scotland. Discussions focused on 1) behaviour factors producing food waste; 2) case studies of policy interventions at local, national and international level that have been designed to reduce food waste or improve its appropriate disposal; 3) what evaluation strategies have been developed to monitor behaviour and the effectiveness of the policies in place.  

Household food waste is driven by a complex interplay of factors operating at multiple levels, from individual habits, meal planning and cooking ab skills and taste preferences to broader societal influences such as advertising that promote over-purchasing and demanding work schedules that lead to a lack of time. A collaboration between the Centre for Food Policy at City St George’s, University of London,  Zero Waste Scotland and the World Resources Institute, considered these drivers and the interconnections between them. Despite the abundance of proposed solutions (over 80 were identified by the World Resources Institute) robust evidence on their effectiveness remains limited, with most interventions showing modest or uncertain impacts. This underscores the need for a more systematic approach to identifying and prioritising solutions, as well as a deeper understanding of how to motivate and support households to reduce their food waste.    

            2.1 FAO work on measuring and understanding food loss and waste 

 Reducing food loss and waste (FLW) along the food value chain before it reaches consumers, requires understanding not only where and at which stages of the food chain losses and waste occur, but also the complex decisions and interactions among actors that influence food system outcomes. FAO has strengthened the evidence base on FLW through the development of a comprehensive database that compiles information on the magnitude and distribution of FLW across commodities, geographical areas and stages of the food value chain.  

FAO has also enriched its FLW case study methodology by integrating behavioural assessment into its work, helping to better capture how policies, market incentives and behaviours interact in practice. 

 Reducing FLW is clearly central to addressing the triple challenge of feeding a growing global population, supporting livelihoods across agro-food systems, and meeting climate and sustainability goals. OECD quantitative analysis highlights the scale of the opportunity: achieving SDG 12.3 could cut agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by around 4% while lifting an estimated 137 million people out of hunger by 2030. To support this agenda, OECD policy work provides a comparative perspective on national approaches to FLW, helping countries learn from each other and accelerate the adoption of more effective, evidence-based and context-specific policies.  

While many countries are developing policies to address food waste, few define FLW reduction goals with measurable baselines and timelines. Progress varies widely due to differences in national contexts. Efforts are often weakened by unclear targets, limited coordination, and fragmented initiatives, which can confuse stakeholders and reduce impact.  

A critical gap lies in the limited evaluation of policy impacts. OECD evidence shows that only a small number of countries conduct regular and comprehensive evaluations of FLW policies, including their cost-effectiveness. Existing evaluations tend to focus on households and food processing, leaving important stages of the supply chain underexplored. Strengthening impact assessment is therefore essential to identify what works and scale up successful interventions.  

            2.3 Developing a Household Intervention Plan for food waste reduction in Scotland 

 As part of the Circular Economy and Waste Route map, the Scottish Government has made the development of a Household Food Waste Intervention Plan a priority. Zero Waste Scotland is leading on the development of this plan. This initiative represents Scotland's first comprehensive, evidence-based approach to tackling household food waste. The plan has three main focus areas:  

 
This plan will focus on households’ food waste and deliver targeted, adaptable interventions on populations across diverse regions (island, rural and urban areas), apply segmentation insights, and implement a mix of complementary actions rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. 

             2.4 Separate household food waste collection by local authorities 

Household food waste cannot be eliminated entirely, making effective management of its disposal essential. In the UK, The Environmental Act 2021 requires English local authorities to separate household food waste collections, seeking to reduce landfill use, cut methane emissions, and generate renewable energy through anaerobic digesters. Scotland and Wales had already enforced such collection. During the last decade, several local authorities in the South of England had voluntarily started collecting household food waste. However, participation in such schemes rarely exceeded 60%, limiting their overall impact. 

A 2024 pilot run by Newcastle City Council (in the North of England) aimed at testing the waste collection service and understanding patterns of household participation in kerbside food waste collection. The pilot also tested a solution to monitor participation. Working with academics at Newcastle and Northumbria Universities, the City Council has been able to conduct a viability study of a digital street-level monitoring system as well as better understand the barriers households face in separating out their food waste; a report of this work is here. Both high- and low-income households showed lower rates of using the new food waste collection service than middle-income groups. Residents expressed concerns about where waste ends up, levels of service reliability, and issues such as bin spillages and pests. Participation was especially challenging for elderly residents and those living in flats. 

These findings highlight the importance of targeted communication strategies, tailored to different groups, and stronger community involvement. They also underline the need for careful policy design to avoid unintentionally discouraging existing initiatives or promoting greater waste generation. 

           3.1 Measuring the effectiveness of interventions to reduce households’ food waste 

A study conducted in Catalonia (Spain) aims to measure the effectiveness of household food waste reduction interventions. 500 families were recruited in 2024 for a period of two years. In 2024, for each household, two food waste measurements (one-week self-reported data) were conducted in May and October, as food availability and climatic conditions are different. In 2025, these households were randomly distributed into three groups (one control and two treatments). Two interventions were defined: in the first one, only unilateral information was provided to households, namely tips to prevent/reduce food waste. The amount of food waste was again quantified in May (after 4 weeks of starting the intervention) and October (2 weeks after finishing the intervention). The Table below summarizes the main results. Participatory bilateral communication was more effective in reducing the waste of fresh products, both for elaborate and non-elaborate dishes. 

            3.2 Assessment of economic, societal and environmental impacts of food waste interventions – a system dynamics approach 

Understanding how food and packaging waste drivers and interventions interact is essential for achieving net zero and circular economy goals. Waste generation reflects dynamic relationships between behavioural, economic, environmental and institutional factors, meaning that policies assessed in isolation may overlook important interactions and unintended consequences. Using system dynamics modelling, the research captures feedback loops, delays and indirect effects across food production and consumption systems. Analysis of food waste alongside bans and charges on single-use plastic packaging shows how interventions can affect waste generation, consumption behaviour and costs for producers and households, while interacting with policy implementation, compliance and waste mitigation. For packaging interventions, estimated cost increases range from 12% to 31%, while waste reductions range from 27% to 67%, demonstrating substantial but varying economic and environmental effects. The research highlights the value of integrated, adaptive and evidence-based policy design. System-level analysis can help assess cumulative impacts and trade-offs across food and packaging waste, identify effective combinations of interventions, and support sustained waste reduction alongside wider net zero and circular economy outcomes.  

Conclusion & Next Steps 
Reducing household food waste requires coordinated, system-wide action that addresses both behavioural drivers and structural constraints. The evidence shows that isolated interventions are less effective than integrated approaches combining behavioural insights, policy alignment, and infrastructure development. 

Key next steps include scaling targeted, context-specific interventions, improving coordination across policies and stakeholders, and strengthening monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Increasing participation in food waste collection schemes through tailored communication and community engagement is also critical. Finally, investing in data-driven and adaptive approaches will help ensure interventions remain effective over time and deliver sustained environmental, economic, and social benefits.