Agrotechnology & Policy Brief: food loss and waste reduction Food Sciences Group strategies to fill the protein gap DATE November 2, 2021 AUTHOR Xuezhen Guo VERSION 1 Table of contents I. Background information STATUS Public II. Key findings of this study III. Policy advice based on this study IV. Acknowledgement V. References Wageningen University & Research is specialised in the domain of healthy Page 1 of 4 food and living environment. I. Background information Food loss and waste (FLW) reduction is an important matter which is not only relevant to food and nutrition security e.g., [1,2,3] but also climate change [4,5,6]. Reducing FLW and the associated environmental impacts can be approached from the angle of waste prevention, namely preventing FLW from happening in the first place. It can also be addressed by waste valorization, namely reusing FLW for other value-added applications, for example, feed application. In this study, Wageningen University and Research (WUR) investigated the FLW reduction strategies both from the prevention and valorization perspectives. Firstly, we looked into the protein potentials of using the FLW to directly fill the protein gaps at the country level. If all the FLW of a country are avoided, to what extent the protein gap of that country could be closed. Then, we investigated the alternative scenario of feeding all the FLW to chickens to see if the converted chicken proteins can fill the protein gap in that country. II. Key findings of this study The key findings of this study are listed as follows: • In general, there are enough proteins to ensure the WHO-recommended protein intakes to be met at the global and continental levels • At the country level, there are only 14 countries which do have the protein gaps. The large majority are low & middle-income countries with Slovakia as an exception (Figure 1). • The protein gaps can be closed in the 14 countries if all the FLW in those countries are avoided (prevention strategy) (Table 1). • 5 out of the 14 countries’ protein gaps can be filled following the “chicken feed” valorization strategy (Table 2). • The prevention strategy seems to be better off than the valorization strategy in terms of protein gap fulfilment efficiency because of the protein conversion losses for feed applications. It is also due to the assumption that the animal-product wastes can not be used for feed applications. However, since not all the FLW are avoidable, feed application still has its value when human can not use the unavoidable FLW directly. Figure 1. The 14 countries with the protein intake gaps. Page 2 of 4 Table 1 Protein gap analysis for the prevention strategy Table 2 Protein gap analysis for the chicken feed application strategy III. Policy advice based on this study Based on the work done by WUR the following policy advice can be given to the policy makers: 1. The policy makers should target at the 14 countries listed in Figure 1 for protein gap interventions. 2. The results that Republic of Moldova and Slovakia have the protein intake gaps are conflicting with the common notion derived from the previous study. In this study, we have used the FAO food balance sheets (2018) as the data source to derive the protein intake numbers per country. Since FAO has changed the methodology of food balance sheets calculation since 2014, there could be a gap caused by the methodological change. Anyhow, based on the new FAO food balance sheets data, Republic of Moldova and Slovakia fall in the countries with protein intake gaps which desire the policy attention. However, policy makers should use this piece of information in a more careful way and more validation on this point should be conducted. 3. When possible, FLW prevention is preferred because feed application has low protein conversion ratio and animal production is not favorable from a climate change perspective. 4. For the non-avoidable FLW, the chicken feed application strategy could be applied. 5. Moreover, it is necessary to point out that there are FLW that may not be edible even for chicken. We also acknowledge that there are other practical restrictions that affect the efficiency of FLW valorization. In this sense, the results of this research should be considered as a theoretical upper bound for the protein potentials instead of practical guideline for policy making. Page 3 of 4 6. Finally, the intake standards presented in Figure 1 and Table 1 & 2 are actually the minimum requirements suggested by WHO. To ensure the protein intakes to be met especially in the abnormal period such as period of the COV-19 outbreak, a buffer should actually be added to the minimum requirements. In this research, we have also calculated the resilient scenarios with the “buffers”. In the resilient scenarios, more countries are added to the picture because they have the protein intake gaps when taking the buffers into account. IV. Acknowledgements This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For details please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. V. References 1. Adamashvili, N., Chiara, F., & Fiore, M. (2019). Food Loss and Waste, a global responsibility?! ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE. 2. Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. (2017). Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agricultural systems, 153, 190-200. 3. Koester, U., 2014. Food loss and waste as an economic and policy problem. Intereconomics 49(6), 348-354. 4. Cattaneo, A., Federighi, G., Vaz, S., 2021. The environmental impact of reducing food loss and waste: A critical assessment. Food Policy 98, 101890. 5. Galford, G.L., Peña, O., Sullivan, A.K., Nash, J., Gurwick, N., Pirolli, G., Richards, M., White, J., Wollenberg, E., 2020. Agricultural development addresses food loss and waste while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Science of The Total Environment 699, 134318. 6. Guo, X., Broeze, J., Groot, J.J., Axmann, H. and Vollebregt, M., A Worldwide Hotspot Analysis on Food Loss and Waste, Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Protein Losses. 2020: p. 19. Page 4 of 4