CHAPTER 3: Food Waste from Farm to
58. As highlighted in the previous chapter, there
is an urgent need for progress to tackle the issue of food waste,
turning rhetoric into action. During the inquiry, we explored
the supply chain and its individual components to understand where
action needs to be taken to tackle such waste most effectively.
The significance of considering the supply chain as a whole is
that it has the potential to capture the interactions that occur
between different stages (see Figure 3). In this chapter, we first
consider food waste by consumers in the home, the highest-profile
component of the supply chain, before moving on to examine other
stages of the supply chain and cooperation between them.
Interactions throughout the supply chain
The diagram above shows the nature of the food and
drink supply chain from the original producer through to manufacturers,
processors, retailers, food service and hospitality (pubs, restaurants,
hotels and caterers) and, finally, the consumer. It demonstrates
that the supply chain involves a multitude of different relationships,
depending on the product and the ultimate consumer. The diagram
has intentionally simplified the supply chain. Within that structure,
it is the case that a manufactured product, such as a ready meal,
will contain a wide variety of ingredients, each from a different
The role of the consumer in the
59. A common theme throughout the inquiry was
a focus on the role of the consumer, at the end of the supply
chain, in cutting food waste.
The emphasis on consumer actions is also apparent in the European
Commission's own study of food waste across Europe.
60. In the Netherlands, this work is being led
by the Netherlands Nutrition Centre Foundation (NNCF), which provides
information and encourages consumers to take the right decisions.
The NNCF aims to achieve this by raising awareness amongst consumers,
interacting with them and providing consumers with practical tools,
such as a 'Smart Cooking' application for mobile phones. This
provides purchasing, cooking and storage advice in addition to
healthy customised recipes and daily suggestions.
61. As part of its work to raise awareness, the
NNCF takes part in a variety of campaigns, such as 'Damn Food
Waste' in Amsterdam in June 2013, where lunch was made for 5,000
people using food that would have otherwise been wasted.
At the event, the NNCF also established a life-sized interactive
"big fridge", which the public could walk into and discuss
food waste, including the problems they faced and tips on what
could be done. In
2009 it also launched radio and television campaigns to highlight
economic incentives for consumers, suggesting that individuals
could save 50 a year, or 150 a year for a family.
Other examples included educating consumers on improved fridge
storage, a greater use of shopping lists and meal planning.
62. In terms of interaction with consumers, we
learnt of the NNCF's newest campaign, 'Why 50 kilos?', which uses
social media to create awareness about the 50 kilograms of avoidable
'good' food wasted by each person every year. The NNCF also has
a journalist who posts media blogs twice a week regarding their
experience with food waste, which is used to inspire other people
when dealing with food waste, including opportunities on what
to do with it.
63. In the UK, meanwhile, work focusing on the
role of the consumer is being led by WRAP. Several witnesses made
reference to WRAP's 'Love Food Hate Waste' (LFHW) campaign, including
how funding had been used locally (see Box 3).
The UK Government provided a helpful summary of the campaign's
"WRAP's partly Government-funded Love Food
Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign helps consumers to make informed choices
on reducing food waste. LFHW has established a respected, credible
and effective brand, materials and messages, working in partnership
with a broad range of organisations (e.g. local councils, retailers
and the food supply chain). Through LFHW, consumers have been
helped to save money and waste less food by a combination of innovations
such as resealable salad bags, meal planning, leftovers recipe
ideas, and smaller size loaves of bread."
North London 'Love Food Hate Waste' project
The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) explained
how it had used LFHW funding to deliver a 10-month food waste
reduction campaign in the local area. This included, among other
activities, community kitchen workshops, information stalls in
libraries and live cookery demonstrations. Promotional items issued
included recipe cards, tea towels and spaghetti measures. It was
estimated that, by the end of the campaign, 3,787 people had been
advised directly and 61,000 people had been exposed to the campaign.
64. The extent to which consumers are realistically
able to take further action within the constraints of current
lifestyles was, however, questioned by some witnesses. WRAP, for
example, acknowledged that lifestyles today are more chaotic,
stating that the debate "has to be about recognising the
way people lead their lives and helping them to do as much as
they can within the context in which they live". When pressed,
WRAP agreed that one must be realistic when considering the role
of the consumer, and noted that a significant degree of "common
sense" applied to the debate.
Copa-Cogeca stated that food waste in industrialised societies
is more closely linked to "changes in family structure or
The NLWA argued that contributing factors to food waste include
lack of time and lifestyle, such as buying ingredients but eating
65. Innovation may, over time, help consumers
to reduce food waste further. We heard how Wageningen University
in the Netherlands is currently working with the Pasteur project
on developing an innovative microchip that would monitor the quality
of perishable food from farm to fridge. A microchip is placed
on a batch of fruits, vegetables or meat, with the first prototypes
containing sensors to measure various environmental conditions,
such as temperature, humidity, acidity, oxygen content and ethylene
content. This information, combined with information about transport
and storage, provides details about the state the fresh produce
is in, and the likely quality in the future. Although it is not
possible to mass produce this microchip at present, it is expected
that the technology will become economically viable within a few
from Peking University in Beijing have reportedly developed a
similar technology, with food label 'tags' that can tell whether
food is "going off in real time". These tags use metallic
nanorods that degrade slowly in line with the environment in which
food is stored, changing colour from green to red as the product
66. We agree that consumers have an important
role to play in reducing food waste. While increasingly unpredictable
lifestyles create challenges for food waste prevention and reduction
in the home, these are not insurmountable. Rather, efforts to
help consumers to tackle food waste must be made within the context
of those challenges. The awareness-raising work carried out in
a number of Member States has rightly put emphasis on enabling
consumers to find solutions to food waste in the home. Tools that
can be used include simple and practical ideas for recipes, but
extend also to innovations such as the Dutch 'Smart Cooking' mobile
phone application and the innovative microchip and food label
'tags' that can monitor the actual state of food.
Retailers and consumers
67. Consumers are heavily influenced by other
parts of the supply chain, particularly the retail sector.
According to WRAP, retailers have "a huge role to play".
We heard that it can be in the economic interest of retailers
to assist consumers in this way as although consumers may purchase
less food, they may subsequently upgrade their purchases to higher
68. Retailer actions can pass food waste on to
the consumer through incentives and promotions such as 'buy one,
get one free' (BOGOF), which encourage consumers to purchase in
As explained by Professor Benton, consumers have a psychological,
"reflexive" response, in that although they may not
have the storage space or need for the extra food, they will buy
it because they feel they are getting a bargain.
In Tesco, for example, it was discovered that two-for-ones on
bagged salad were creating a high level of food waste, and so
the supermarket decided to discontinue such offers. WRAP suggested
that the amount of food waste caused by promotions such as BOGOF
depended on the product purchased.
In addition to incentives and promotions, some highlighted the
need to sell food in a variety of packaging sizes in order to
ensure that consumers are not forced to purchase a higher volume
of food than they need.
69. It is clear that retailers must assume
a far greater responsibility for the prevention of food waste
in the home. Retailers must ensure that incentives and promotions
offered to consumers do not transfer waste from the store to the
70. It was suggested that there is a need for
clarification, and possible revision, of date labelling requirements,
and a need for explanation of what is meant by such dates.
Research by the NNCF found that only 37% of consumers knew the
differences between 'best before' and 'use by' dates on food packaging
(see Box 4), with only 58% checking the product after the expiry
date before throwing it away.
WRAP considered that progress, at least in the UK, had been made
in improving public understanding. Nevertheless, there was still
more work to do and "retailers have a huge part to play in
'Best before', 'use by' and 'sell by'
The sale of food beyond its 'best before' date is
not illegal, although the quality of the product would not be
expected to be the same as prior to expiry of the 'best before'
A 'use by' date should be applied to highly perishable
products that are likely to constitute an immediate danger to
human health after a short period of time. The food is deemed
unsafe after the 'use by' date and it is illegal to distribute
it or offer it for sale.
The use of 'sell-by' dates has reduced significantly.
Such dates are used for commercial stock control reasons, rather
than for consumer guidance.
71. The UK Government confirmed that, working
with industry, they are making a lot of progress in terms of how
to communicate issues relating to date labelling. They plan to
publish more advanced guidance but could not give a timetable.
72. We conclude that date labelling on foods
remains confusing to consumers. Retailers have a key role to play
in ensuring that consumers understand dates and are not misled.
We therefore recommend urgent publication of the advanced guidance
to which the UK Government referred.
73. Another area in which retailers could assist
consumers was that of providing advice on the correct storage
of food. Indeed,
information on "any special storage conditions" is a
requirement of EU legislation.
Marks and Spencer acknowledged that additional storage information
could be provided but that available space on packaging was sometimes
an issue. The
BRC confirmed that work was underway within the retail sector
to standardise storage information, particularly around freezing.
74. The provision of information on storage was
closely related to developing greater understanding of the importance
of packaging in protecting food. It was explained to us that packaging
can have a positive role in preventing food waste by extending
the shelf life of food and protecting the product from damage.
We heard, on the other hand, that a high proportion of consumers
are unaware of the importance of food packaging to the preservation
of food. Finally,
we were told that retailers could help consumers by ensuring that,
where appropriate, food is packaged so that it could be resealed.
75. We conclude that few consumers are aware
that packaging can be crucial for the durability of food. Retailers
have a responsibility to communicate the benefits of packaging
and information about how food should be stored to avoid premature
deterioration and unnecessary food waste.
Retailers and producers
76. The inquiry heard that retail decisions can
lead to wastage at producer level, due to a range of interlinked
factors including: contractual requirements; product standards;
and poor demand forecasting.
77. In terms of contractual arrangements, witnesses
noted the high level of control the retail sector has over the
food sector generally and over producers in particular,
and the potential for contracts to create waste.
As insurance against poor weather conditions, producers may overplant.
The NGO, Feeding the 5,000, noted that farmers often produce food
exclusively for a specific supermarket, and so if an order is
cancelled at the last minute, it is the farmer who bears the cost
of the food waste.
Further to this, witnesses argued that long-term contracts between
retailers and producers should be encouraged, as they establish
a more frequent or better understood ordering pattern. According
to Sodexo, this encourages confidence amongst producers, and can
contribute to preventing both overproduction and over-ordering.
In the UK, the new Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA) is designed
to monitor the functioning of the groceries market, including
contractual arrangements (see paragraphs 98-102).
78. In identifying markets for their products,
producers must work within the restrictions of legislative and
cosmetic standards. EU marketing standards are explored in more
detail in Chapter 4. Retailers and manufacturers may impose additional
cosmetic standards relating to weight, size and appearance. These
can result in significant food waste pre-farm gate if crops are
rejected because of their appearance or shape.
Witnesses representing producers highlighted that it was often
difficult to find markets for produce that did not meet retailers'
standards and that much depended on prevailing market conditions.
Examples were, however, given by witnesses where food manufacturing
provided alternative markets for some products, such as their
use in soups.
Certain crop types were more susceptible to remaining unharvested,
depending on how stringent the market specifications were. One
example provided by the National Farmers' Union (NFU) was that
retailers demanded that Gala apples had to have a 50% red colour,
as a result of which 20% of the crop was often wasted. The rejected
crop could not even go into the juice market because the prices
were so low.
79. A number of witnesses argued that cosmetic
standards are unnecessary.
Feeding the 5,000, for example, stated that cosmetic standards
for fruit and vegetables in the retail sector are "indefensible",
highlighting that between 20-40% of these crops in UK farms are
"never harvested" as they do not comply with the strict
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF UK) emphasised that food should
not be rejected by retailers "for cosmetic reasons"
as the burden is put on the farmer who must then find a new market
for the food. It argued that retailers need to take responsibility
"to utilise that food if it is being grown".
80. Whilst the product standards applied by retailers
to fresh fruit and vegetables are in a few cases a result of mandatory
EU standards (see Chapter 4, paragraph 113), the dominant
reason given by retailers was because of consumer preference.
Tesco argued that customers "naturally select" and "always
pick the cream of the crop first", meaning that the rest
will be left to waste. It was claimed that consumers will always
go for the food that cosmetically looks better, and that adding
more produce which does not meet these standards will actually
As Professor Godfray noted in one example, "Consumers
themselves are still reluctant to buy misshapen cucumbers."
81. That argument was, however, queried by others,
citing the positive public response to the 'value ranges' of food
recently introduced in supermarkets, which provide an outlet for
less attractive food.
One witness commented that "it is clear that if you put a
straight carrot next to a wonky one, the consumer used to seeing
perfect produce will not go for the wonky one, but there are a
lot of creative ways that retailers can market this produce",
such as the use of value ranges.
Sustain argued that consumer perceptions and behaviour towards
cosmetic standards have been shaped and, by implication, "can
This was corroborated by a recent public opinion poll, which found
that more than 80% of British shoppers would be willing to buy
fruit and vegetables which are not perfect in shape or colour.
Cultural differences across Member States may apply in terms of
attitude towards fruit and vegetables. Tesco, for example, sells
a higher amount of "supplier seconds" in its central
82. A method for reducing food waste between
the producer and retailer was that of whole-crop purchases. The
retailer would purchase the entire crop, but use it for a variety
of purposes, depending on the quality of the crop. As one example,
the BRC explained how carrots might be used. A retailer will buy
virtually the whole crop of carrots and put the highest graded
carrots in bags that would be purchased for preparation at home.
At the next level down, carrots might be chopped into batons and
used as prepared vegetables. Finally, the leftovers could be used
for soups, purées or ready meals.
The UK Government further supported this approach and pointed
to a case study which suggested that adopting this method for
potatoes improved crop use by over 20%.
83. A variant on whole-crop purchasing was that
of guaranteeing fixed percentages for orders. Using grapes as
an example, Tesco has been running a trial whereby it guarantees
to buy a fixed percentage of an order, regardless of changes in
demand. Whereas previously a retailer might have cancelled 100%
of an order, it might now commit to taking at least 70%. This
reduces food waste in two ways. First, the producer is not left
with a large amount of product for which they have to find a secondary
market. Second, by guaranteeing the order Tesco can take it straight
from the farm to its own distribution centres more quickly, thus
bypassing the supplier's storage facilities and extending the
product's shelf life at the retail and consumer stages.
84. In tackling waste at the producer level,
retailers could improve forecasting, be this for the weather or
for consumer demand. With better forecasting, it was argued, retailers
could go back to the producer in advance so that they could flex
85. It is clear that actions by retailers,
such as the cancellation of orders of food that has already been
grown, leads to food waste earlier in the food supply chain. We
recommend a renewed effort by businesses to promote cooperation
and shared financial responsibility. This effort should, amongst
others, include: careful consideration of contractual requirements
in the sector, including much wider use of long-term contracts
and ones where the relationship between different ends of the
supply chain does not encourage overproduction; the encouragement
of whole-crop purchasing; and improvements to forecasting.
The hospitality and food service
86. Food is consumed both at home and outside,
in restaurants, bars and canteens. In the UK, WRAP's Hospitality
and Food Service Agreement (see Appendix 5) aims to cut food and
associated packaging waste in that sector by 5%, which is the
equivalent of approximately 100 million meals, and to increase
the overall rate of food and packaging waste that is being recycled,
sent to anaerobic digestion (AD) (see Chapter 5, Box 8) or composted
to 70%. The size
of businesses in the food service and hospitality sector presents
distinct challenges to those faced by the retail sector. While
the sector includes large multinational restaurant and catering
companies, it is composed largely of small businesses, such as
independent restaurants and pubs.
87. In this sector, food is wasted through a
combination of kitchen wastage and plate waste by consumers. Research
undertaken by WRAP suggests that consumers who waste food away
from home don't feel a sense of ownership or responsibility about
the food they leave and the amount of food they are given is considered
to be out of their control.
Portion size is, therefore, a significant challenge for the industry.
Neil Forbes, an independent restaurant owner, explained that his
restaurant monitors amounts of food returned to the kitchen and
responds by altering portion size.
Restaurants should also, it was argued, encourage consumers to
take surplus food home with them in a "doggy bag" for
later consumption, a practice which is more culturally acceptable
in the US.
88. In 2011, Unileverin association with
the Sustainable Restaurant Association (SRA)launched
the 'United Against Waste toolkit', which was designed to assist
the food service and hospitality industry reduce food waste. The
toolkit aims to help businesses by providing information about
food preparation and plate presentation, including portion size,
and monitoring what consumers leave on their plate.
Education and training were seen as key to achieving change in
the sector. The
restaurant Nando's, for example, highlighted their attempts to
incorporate food waste management training into the inductions
of new staff.
We also heard from the Dutch Sustainable Food Alliance (SFA) about
a programme in the Netherlands, whereby professionals in the sector
are trained to be able to forecast demand more effectively.
WRAP confirmed that it is working with the sector to "try
to help them understand what works on a menu, how to design menus
to reduce waste and to give the appropriate range of portion sizes".
89. Nando's acknowledged the importance of considering
the impact of its activities elsewhere in the supply chain, including
collective engagement in discussions with their suppliers.
Ultimately, though, large retailers hold such power over the market
that the ability of smaller operators to influence the supply
chain is "limited", a view that was shared by both the
SRA and Dutch food banks.
The exception to this is where local supply chains and small suppliers
are used. By working with local and small producers, retailers
can react immediately to surplus supplies, whereas it becomes
a much more difficult situation when larger retailers are included
and operate at a national scale.
Improving supply chain cooperation
90. A common recognition throughout the evidence
was that, while efforts made at each individual stage of the supply
chain are important, there are strong links between these stages
and it is critical to consider the supply chain as a whole. There
was general agreement that cooperation along the supply chain
is essential and that this would assist with food waste prevention.
91. Witnesses argued that there is currently
a lack of an integrated approach across the supply chain.
Whilst more cooperation and integration throughout the supply
chain is occurring, there needs to be more "rigidity and
rigour", particularly at the earlier stages of the supply
chain. Such a
view was echoed by FDF and Keep Britain Tidy (KBT), who argued
that a whole supply chain approach is vital for achieving "real
positive good", particularly in identifying where food losses
Pointing to the Courtauld Commitment (see Appendix 5) and existing
efforts to work up and down the supply chain, KBT noted that this
has already produced positive results. It stressed, however, that
it is more difficult for certain sectors and organisations, such
as NGOs, to work across the entire food chain due to their more
92. An example of how such an approach might
help applies to food rejected by retailers, but which might potentially
be used by food manufacturers. For manufacturers "the appearance
of the raw material is not a primary consideration", with
'imperfect' food being used instead for products such as ready
meals and soups.
On the other hand, there were some instances where manufacturers
required products of equally high specification to those demanded
by retailers in order that the product sizes are aligned to machines
used to process them.
The supply chain is, therefore, highly complex, pointing to the
need for sophisticated communication.
93. The ease with which supply chain stages can
work together is also influenced by differences between retailers
in their relationship with their supply chains. The UK retailer
Morrisons explained its integrated supply chain model, which meant
they were able to "drive efficiency through flexibility".
This is achieved by purchasing direct from primary meat and produce
farmers and suppliers in the UK, utilising more of what they buy
in their own abattoirs or produce packhouses, buying whole animals
and, where practical, processing whole crops. The combined effect
of this is that Morrisons is better able to manage and reduce
associated food waste than would otherwise be the case if it had
less control over the supply chain. In owning its own packhouses,
Morrisons has greater scope to use different parts of a crop by
packaging them itself in a different way. Smaller potatoes, for
example, can become 'baby roasters' or sold as a value line.
94. During our visit to the Netherlands, the
inquiry heard how supply chain partners collaborate through the
SFA. The SFA is composed of five umbrella organisations representing
the various links of the Dutch food supply chain. Although initially
brought together by the Dutch government, the funding was withdrawn
and so the partners now cooperate on a voluntary basis. The aim
of the SFA is to consider the Dutch food supply chain in its entirety,
and it has a set common agenda with the Dutch government: to take
responsibility as private actors in the supply chain and work
together with the government. Presently, the SFA has four working
groups, one of which includes food waste. The work of the SFA
includes sharing best practice and tools across the supply chain,
whilst also initiating research. Standards are set collectively
within the private sector in a precompetitive manner, with the
government ensuring that there is a level playing field and certain
minimum standards. Food waste prevention and reduction is considered
a top priority, and the SFA emphasised the importance of a commonalityparticularly
as regards language used throughout the entire supply chain. This
translated to "a common approach, a common definition and
a common framework".
The importance of such commonality was also highlighted by the
Examples of the work the SFA conducts included investigating waste
"hotspots", pilot projects and contributing to harmonised
Several witnesses made reference to the work of the SFA, noting
the high degree of collaborative work.
95. WRAP's Product Sustainability Forum (see
Appendix 5) provided another tangible example of whole supply
chain working, cited by a number of witnesses.
'Pathfinder' projects are currently underway. Specifically addressed
at product categories that have the largest potential environmental
impacts, these look from 'farm to fork' at waste in the supply
chain and the results of such studies are then shared across the
sector. One such example in the potato sector is set out in Box
5. In relation to its work on the whole supply chain approach
] there are some great examples
where we are starting to see some of those supply chains sitting
down and thinking about this. We now have a Pathfinder
] looking at the beef supply chain, trying to work
out where the hotspots are in that supply chain and getting the
whole supply chain to sit down together and talk about how to
address that. It would not happen naturally".
WRAP Product Sustainability Forum Pathfinder
project: resource efficiency in the potato supply chain
|This project is a farm to fork assessment of the potential to reduce waste and improve resource efficiency in the potato supply chain. Detailed data on resource inputs and losses across the value chain have been compiled internally by the Co-operative Food and Farms, with support from WRAP. These have been translated into costs at each stage and sub-stage (e.g. grading, storage, washing, sorting), to demonstrate the financial case for intervention and inform the cost/benefit of taking action to reduce losses and optimise inputs.
A workshop with the Co-operative Food and Farms has been held, to review initial findings, discuss root causes and potential solutions. This included the potato buyer, packhouse manager, lead agronomist and other representatives from policy and commercial teams. A number of potential solutions to mitigate losses have been discussed. The follow-up project currently underway is working on an Action Plan to trial prioritised solutions.
96. There is limited cooperation among food supply
chain stakeholders at the EU level. One example of such cooperation
is the Retail Forum in the context of the Retailers' Environment
Action Programme. The Retail Forum was established by the Commission
in 2009, and is a multi-stakeholder platform intended to exchange
"best practices on sustainability in the European retail
sector". This platform was created in the belief that retailers
can play a significant role in "provoking positive changes
in patterns of consumer demand through their partnerships with
suppliers and through their daily contact with European consumers".
97. The supply chain cooperation model observed
in the Netherlands is, we conclude, helpful and self-sustaining.
It is one that could be promoted at the national and European
levels, along with the best practice from WRAP's whole supply
chain work under the Product Sustainability Forum. We recommend
that the European Commission considers bringing together EU level
bodies representing the various parts of the supply chain, building
on existing mechanisms. Consumers must be represented in such
The Groceries Code Adjudicator
98. The inquiry took evidence about the new GCA
in the UK (see Box 6), and particularly how the monitoring and
enforcement activities of the GCA might include supply chain abuses
that lead to food waste.
UK Groceries Code Adjudicator
The GCA is the UK's first independent adjudicator to oversee the relationship between supermarkets and their direct suppliers. It was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act, which came into force in June 2013.
The GCA ensures that large supermarkets treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly by upholding and enforcing the Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP). The GSCOP is a legally binding set of rules imposed on those supermarkets with a UK groceries turnover of over £1 billion.
If a supplier is concerned that there has been a breach of the GSCOP, it can complain to the GCA. The GCA can receive information about potential breaches of the GSCOP from anyone, and any complaints received are kept strictly confidential.
In enforcing the GSCOP, the GCA has the power to:
· investigate confidential complaints from any source about how supermarkets treat their suppliers;
· make recommendations to retailers if a complaint is upheld;
· require retailers to publish details of a breach of the GSCOP;
· in the most serious cases, impose a fine on the retailer; and
· arbitrate disputes between retailers and suppliers.
99. The GCA confirmed that whilst the only part
of the GSCOP that relates to food waste is poor demand forecasting,
this has the potential to make a significant reduction in food
waste (see paragraph 77).
At present, retailers can impose penalty fines on suppliers for
not delivering against an order that may be substantially higher
than a forecast. This can be a penalty of £10 a case, which
in some instances is more than the value of the product. If the
GCA can ensure that the supermarket accepts some of the financial
responsibility, this could act as an incentive to improve retail
forecasting and at the same time reduce overproduction at the
producer level. The GCA argued that the current relationship between
retailer and producer is "causing overproduction", and
that, "it is the forecaster who drives production. If the
retailer can get good at forecasting, that will help the supplier
100. Some witnesses considered that there would
be a case for the GSCOP model to be extended across the EU.
This argument was particularly made in the context of the transnational
nature of the grocery supply chain. WWF UK, for example, noted
that a European level model could create a "slightly more
level playing field", especially as multiple European retailers
might use the same supplier from another country.
In considering a pan-European body, the inquiry heard from the
GCA that the Commission favoured a "common code" that
would be supported by individual Member State regulation.
This approach was supported by the GCA, claiming Member State
regulation would be easier than introducing an "EU adjudicator".
This issue is currently under review at the EU level in the context
of the Retail Action Plan.
101. The GCA referred to the current European
voluntary code. This was launched in September 2013, mirroring
the GSCOP but also going further in scope to include indirect
suppliers into the retail sector.
Although it currently lacks the teeth of the GSCOP model, the
GCA stated that "There are moves afoot in Norway, Portugal,
Ireland and Holland to do something similar to what we have, so
there is a big push" to get some regulation to support it.
- We support the development of a Grocery Supply
Code of Practice across the EU, to be regulated by Member States
and monitored by the European Commission. The development of the
approach in the UK should feed into policy development at European
level, where extension of the Code beyond direct relationships
in the supply chain is welcome.
83 Q 110, Q 123 Back
Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27, BIO Intelligence
Service, a report commissioned by the European Commission, October
Q 85 Back
Come have lunch on Damn Food Waste, NNCF, 14 June 2013 Back
Q 90 Back
Q 94 Back
Q 95 Back
Q 55, Q 199, Defra, NLWA, Packaging Federation, Shropshire
Council, WRAP Back
Q 207 Back
Food waste reduction thanks to chip, Wageningen University,
17 January 2013 Back
Smart tags spell the end for sell-by dates, The Times,
18 March 2014 Back
Q 62 Back
Q 208 Back
Q 2, FDF, WRAP Back
Q 236, IME, NLWA Back
Q 288 Back
Q 190 Back
Q 288, Shropshire Council Back
QQ 36-37, Q 123, Q 165, Q 180, Q 254,
ARAMARK, Copa-Cogeca, FDF Back
Q 87 Back
Q 206 Back
Regulation No 1169/2011, BRC supplementary Back
Q 37, BRC supplementary Back
Q 298 Back
Q 208 Back
Defra, Regulation No 1169/2011 Back
Q 84 Back
BRC supplementary Back
Q 1, Q 73, Q 83, Q 146, Q 165, FDF, INCPEN,
Packaging Federation, WRAP Back
Q 1, Q 167 Back
Q 208 Back
Q 176, IME Back
Q 120 Back
Q 287, NFU Back
Q 45 Back
Q 59 Back
Q 16, Q 31, Q 172, IME, NFU Back
Q 6, Q 29, Q 31, Sodexo supplementary Back
Q 16 Back
Q 44, Q 67 Back
Feeding the 5,000 Back
Q 44 Back
Q 29, Q 67, Q 213 Back
Q 213 Back
Q 282 Back
Q 29, Q 43, Q 213, Defra, NFU Back
Q 43 Back
Q 67 Back
Most shoppers would buy 'ugly' fruit and veg, IME, 26 February
Q 213 Back
Q 29 Back
Q 6 Back
Q 214 Back
Q 33, Q 287 Back
Leading hospitality and food service companies sign up to waste
agreement, WRAP, 27 June 2012 Back
Q 198 Back
Q 257 Back
Q 262 Back
The SRA helps restaurants source food more sustainably, manage
resources more efficiently and work more closely with their community.
Restaurants are rewarded with a sustainability rating, which can
assist diners in their choice of restaurants. Back
Unilever Food Solutions: United Against Waste toolkit,
Q 256, Q 264 Back
Q 261 Back
Q 165 Back
Q 199 Back
Q 259 Back
Q 176, Q 265 Back
QQ 264-265 Back
Q 27, Q 32, Q 165, Q 192, Q 196, Q 202,
ARAMARK, Copa-Cogeca, NFU, Sodexo Back
Q 66 Back
Q 70 Back
Ibid., Q 27 Back
Q 70 Back
Q 31 Back
Q 18 Back
Q 165 Back
Q 123 Back
Q 165 Back
Q 96, Q 123, Q 150 Back
Q 7, Q 32, Q 192, Q 259, FDF, WRAP supplementary Back
Pathfinder projects, WRAP Back
Q 192 Back
Pathfinder projects, WRAP Back
About the Retail Forum, European Commission Back
What we do, Groceries Code Adjudicator Back
Q 272 Back
Q 275 Back
Q 18, Feeding the 5,000, NFU Back
Q 44 Back
Q 272 Back
An indirect supply relationship involves an intermediary, such
as a processor or manufacturer, between the producer and the retailer.
This is distinct to a direct supply relationship between a producer
and a retailer. Back
Q 271 Back