La polaridad de la actividad helicasa de G40PΔN109.

In this document, a generic approach has been presented for the development of a food waste monitor which can handle by far the majority of existing definitions. By filling a so-called parent table for secondary resources (= the aggregate of flows which are lost from the regular food flow), the quantity of food waste can be effectively calculated based on an arbitrary definition. Table 11 shows the parent table for the Netherlands (2009).

Secondary resources (kton) 2009

Avoidable Potentially avoidable

Unavoidable By-product Total

Food Bank 12 0 0 0 12 Convertible for human consumption Animal feed 277 135 470 2741 3623 Fermentation 3-27 110-125 88-112 182 383-407 Composting 47-210 0-699 100-962 0 661-1009 Incineration 780-984 0 481-685 0 1465 Landfill/discharge 16-102 0 10-96 0 112 Total 1135-1597 245-959 1907-2570 2923 6256-6628

Table 11: The food waste in kton within the total flows of secondary resources in 2009 is shown in the orange cells

The definition of food waste which the Ministry of Economic Affairs and business have agreed on in the ‘Optimising Residual Flows and Food Waste’ working group, part of the Sustainable Food Alliance, results in the flows which are coloured orange in Table 11. The quantity of

avoidable food waste in 2009 in the Netherlands then works out at 1123-1585 kton, with 245-959 kton of potentially avoidable food waste. That is to say that the avoidable food waste per capita was between 68 and 97 kg and the potentially avoidable food waste between 15 and 58 kg. The data sources required to update these figures every year are publicly available in annual

documents produced by various bodies such as AgentschapNL, Statistics Netherlands (CBS), OPNV and DPV.

Conclusion 1: in 2009, the quantity of food waste in the Netherlands was between 83 and 151 kg

per capita, totalling 1.4-2.5 million tonnes.

The quantity of food waste is up to a factor of 3.5 to 6 lower than reported in the only study of food waste for all European countries.

Secondary resources (kton) 2011

Avoidable Potentially avoidable

Unavoidable By-product Total

Food Bank33 _{14 0 0 0 14} Convertible for human consumption Animal feed 272 137 435 3138 3982 Fermentation 7-171 130-242 117-169 158 524-628 Composting34 _{51-381 0-954 108-1062 0 617-1113} Incineration 858-1217 0 528-887 0 1745 Landfill/discharge 9-108 0 5-104 0 113 Total 1211-2163 267-1333 1193-2657 3296 6995-7595

Table 13: The food waste in kton within the total flows of secondary resources in 2011 is shown in the orange cells

In 2011, the quantity of food waste was 89 and 210 kg per capita. Particular increases are visible between 2009 and 2011 in the totals for the categories ‘incineration’ and ‘fermentation’ of food. Overall, the other flows are comparable. It is not clear whether the increase in fermentation is a positive effect of a shift on Moerman’s ladder towards a higher utilisation value from

incineration, for example. Due to lack of scope for categorisation of the compost flows and to some extent also for incineration, there are large bandwidths in the data and, as a result, a degree of inaccuracy. The large bandwidth in the data for ‘composting’ makes it impossible to draw conclusions for this category.

Conclusion 2: Comparing the pictures for 2011 and 2009, we see an apparent increasing trend in

the weight of food waste in the Netherlands. This can primarily be explained by an increase in the ‘incineration’ and ‘fermentation’ categories.

Further research is required to establish whether this increase represents a positive development due to a shift towards higher value utilisation. Due to the fact that the bandwidth, and therefore the uncertainty, of the figures for composting and incineration is greater in 2011 than it was in 2009, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the total quantity of food waste has increased in absolute terms.

An important reason and possible explanation for the increase is a growth in the flows for which categories are not known (for example ‘other mixed flows’ or ‘other organic’). The increase in food production and consumer expenditure in relation to food in the Netherlands is a further cause of this increase. The increase in the ‘incineration’ category largely originates with

consumers and may be explicable by the reduced motivation among consumers for separating fruit, vegetable and garden waste and because a number of municipalities (for example

33 _{This figure is based on extrapolation of the number of people visiting the food bank in 2011} 34 _{A proportion of these volumes has been extrapolated}

Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Bosch [40]) stopped collecting waste separately in 2008, when this was made voluntary.

From this study it may be inferred that the Netherlands is not on course to achieve the objective of a 20% reduction in food waste by 2015. In order to reduce food waste by 20%, between 276 and 511 kton less food would have to be wasted annually, or 17-31 kg per capita. Reducing food waste is only possible if the flows in the orange cells in Table 11 can be converted into human food or goes to the food bank, or if flows from the regular food flow can be prevented from becoming secondary resources.

A positive point to make here is that the focus and willingness to act among businesses in a broad sense is greater in 2011 than it was in 2009. There is also a significantly increased focus within society.

It is striking that 45.6% of the food waste is incinerated, which means it has a very low-value utilisation. Two-thirds of this flow originates from consumers and may be linked to the fact that less and less waste is being collected separately and a relatively large amount of food residues end up as general waste. The remaining third is mainly food in the operating waste of companies which belong to the ‘trade, services and government’ sector. This relates primarily to education, healthcare, retailers and wholesalers who send their waste to be incinerated. It is likely that this waste is largely made up of facilities & services flows.

Conclusion 3: The greater part (45.6%) of food waste ends up in the ‘incineration’ category.

Approximately two thirds of this originates from consumers, one third is food in operational waste which largely consists of facilities & services flows from commerce, services and government.

A significant proportion of food waste (21.3%) is used as animal feed. This animal feed originates primarily from the potato-processing industry, the bakery sector and plant-based fats, soya

products, products from fruit, vegetable and juice preparation/processing, drinks and cordials. This is food which is diverted from the regular food flow, for example due to economic reasons, low intrinsic nutritional value, marketing and trade standards, technological reasons or statutory barriers (or their interpretation). The quantities remained approximately the same in 2009 and 2011.

Conclusion 4: A significant proportion of the food waste originates from the food processing

industry (21.3%) and is converted into animal feed. This animal feed originates primarily from the potato-processing industry, the bakery sector and plant-based fats, soya products, products from fruit, vegetable and juice preparation/processing, drinks and cordials.

To a significant extent, the data cannot be related to a specific link in the chain. The most important reason for this is that the data were obtained from reports on consolidated waste flows, which generally cannot be related back to a specific link in the chain as the source of the flow. In addition, chain parties themselves issue little or no data, either about the effects of preventative measures or sufficiently accurate data about secondary resources, which could be used for further specification or verification. A rough estimate is that 75% of the flows can be related in some way to the specific links in the chain. The only exception to this is the

‘consumers’ link. Despite the fact that no detailed breakdown for the other links in the chain can be made on the basis of this study, it is clear that consumers make the biggest relative

contribution to the total quantity of food waste. Because representative research into the contribution of consumers is not conducted annually, no analysis can be made of the change between 2009 and 2011.

Conclusion 5: Consumers are, relatively speaking, the biggest wasters of food in the total chain. In

2009, consumers wasted between 661-794 kton of food, making them the ‘link’ with the biggest share in food waste.