Support amongst UK pig farmers and agricultural stakeholders for the use of food losses in animal feed.

While food losses (foods which were intended for human consumption, but which ultimately are not directly eaten by people) have been included in animal feed for millennia, the practice is all but banned in the European Union. Amid recent calls to promote a circular economy, we conducted a survey of pig farmers (n = 82) and other agricultural stakeholders (n = 81) at a UK agricultural trade fair on their attitudes toward the use of food losses in pig feed, and the potential relegalisation of swill (the use of cooked food losses as feed). While most respondents found the use of feeds containing animal by-products or with the potential for intra-species recycling (i.e. pigs eating pork products) to be less acceptable than feeds without, we found strong support (>75%) for the relegalisation of swill among both pig farmers and other stakeholders. We fit multi-hierarchical Bayesian models to understand people's position on the relegalisation of swill, finding that respondents who were concerned about disease control and the perception of the pork industry supported relegalisation less, while people who were concerned with farm financial performance and efficiency or who thought that swill would benefit the environment and reduce trade-deficits, were more supportive. Our results provide a baseline estimate of support amongst the large-scale pig industry for the relegalisation of swill, and suggest that proponents for its relegalisation must address concerns about disease control and the consumer acceptance of swill-fed pork.

Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options.

The disposal of food waste is a large environmental problem. In the United Kingdom (UK), approximately 15 million tonnes of food are wasted each year, mostly disposed of in landfill, via composting, or anaerobic digestion (AD). European Union (EU) guidelines state that food waste should preferentially be used as animal feed though for most food waste this practice is currently illegal, because of disease control concerns. Interest in the potential diversion of food waste for animal feed is however growing, with a number of East Asian states offering working examples of safe food waste recycling - based on tight regulation and rendering food waste safe through heat treatment. This study investigates the potential benefits of diverting food waste for pig feed in the UK. A hybrid, consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to compare the environmental and health impacts of four technologies for food waste processing: two technologies of South Korean style-animal feed production (as a wet pig feed and a dry pig feed) were compared with two widespread UK disposal technologies: AD and composting. Results of 14 mid-point impact categories show that the processing of food waste as a wet pig feed and a dry pig feed have the best and second-best scores, respectively, for 13/14 and 12/14 environmental and health impacts. The low impact of food waste feed stems in large part from its substitution of conventional feed, the production of which has substantial environmental and health impacts. While the re-legalisation of the use of food waste as pig feed could offer environmental and public health benefits, this will require support from policy makers, the public, and the pig industry, as well as investment in separated food waste collection which currently occurs in only a minority of regions.

A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention.

The environmental evaluation of food waste prevention is considered a challenging task due to the globalised nature of the food supply chain and the limitations of existing evaluation tools. The most significant of these is the rebound effect: the associated environmental burdens of substitutive consumption that arises as a result of economic savings made from food waste prevention. This study introduces a holistic approach to addressing these challenges, with a focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from household food waste in the UK. It uses a hybrid life-cycle assessment model coupled with a highly detailed multi-regional environmentally extended input output analysis to capture environmental impacts across the global food supply chain. The study also takes into consideration the rebound effect, which was modelled using a linear specification of an almost ideal demand system. The study finds that food waste prevention could lead to substantial reductions in GHG emissions in the order of 706-896kg CO2-eq. per tonne of food waste, with most of these savings (78%) occurring as a result of avoided food production overseas. The rebound effect may however reduce such GHG savings by up to 60%. These findings provide a deeper insight into our understanding of the environmental impacts of food waste prevention: the study demonstrates the need to adopt a holistic approach when developing food waste prevention policies in order to mitigate the rebound effect and highlight the importance of increasing efficiency across the global food supply chain, particularly in developing countries.

The UK waste input-output table: Linking waste generation to the UK economy.

In order to achieve a circular economy, there must be a greater understanding of the links between economic activity and waste generation. This study introduces the first version of the UK waste input-output table that could be used to quantify both direct and indirect waste arisings across the supply chain. The proposed waste input-output table features 21 industrial sectors and 34 waste types and is for the 2010 time-period. Using the waste input-output table, the study results quantitatively confirm that sectors with a long supply chain (i.e. manufacturing and services sectors) have higher indirect waste generation rates compared with industrial primary sectors (e.g. mining and quarrying) and sectors with a shorter supply chain (e.g. construction). Results also reveal that the construction, mining and quarrying sectors have the highest waste generation rates, 742 and 694 tonne per £1m of final demand, respectively. Owing to the aggregated format of the first version of the waste input-output, the model does not address the relationship between waste generation and recycling activities. Therefore, an updated version of the waste input-output table is expected be developed considering this issue. Consequently, the expanded model would lead to a better understanding of waste and resource flows in the supply chain.