(684c) Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Combined Economic and Environmental Approach

Food waste (FW), defined as the discarded or lost food due to improper storage and labeling, oversized servings, overstocking, lack of meal planning, pests, weather conditions, etc., has become a critical global issue. Approximately 13.2% of food produced is lost between harvest and retail, while an estimated 19% is wasted in households, food service, and retail[1]. FW is not merely an ethical issue of throwing away food while millions of others go hungry, it has substantial social, economic, and environmental repercussions too. The global economic cost of FW is enormous. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FW costs the economy over 2.6 trillion USD per year[2]. Also, concerns about the environmental impact of FW disposal methods are escalating, due to its significant effect on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide. The conventional method of FW management by landfill has been reported to generate a great amount of GHG emissions. Several methods of FW management such anaerobic digestion, composting, incineration, etc. have also been implemented. However, the environmental impact of such technologies is yet to be widely assessed. The environmental impacts of all these FW management techniques need to be measured in a way that fairly compares them. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has emerged as the primary tool for policymakers for sustainable decision making and design of processes. LCA is a systematic process for tracking and quantifying environmental impacts of a product or process through all the stages of its life cycle[3] . The choice of FW management technique is influenced not only by environmental factors but also economic considerations. However, there has been limited research on optimized pathways for FW management through a balanced assessment of both economic and sustainability metrics.

In this study, we conducted the techno-economic analysis (TEA) and LCA of four FW treatment pathways, landfill, anaerobic digestion, incineration, and composting. Process simulation was conducted using SuperPro® Designer and ASPEN^TM for the TEA and SimaPro for the LCA. Landfilling was selected as the base case to provide a benchmark for comparison, as it is the most widely used food waste disposal method. This baseline enables a clear evaluation of the economic and environmental trade-offs associated with various treatment techniques. The TEA was carried out in two different ways to offer a full assessment of the financial viability of each food waste management pathway. In the first approach, a cost-only analysis was carried out, in which the total costs associated with each treatment procedure were determined without regard for prospective revenue sources. In the second approach, a cost-revenue analysis was performed to assess the economic performance of each treatment process in terms of revenue from byproducts. This analysis took into consideration income earned from methane sales in anaerobic digestion and landfill gas recovery, electricity sales from incineration and compost sales from the composting process. This approach provides a more comprehensive picture of each food waste management strategy's long-term financial viability by incorporating revenue streams. The LCA was conducted in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, with the ReCiPe Midpoint(H) methodology used to evaluate environmental consequences. Environmental offsets were considered, which meant that byproducts like biogas, electricity, and compost were credited with replacing traditional energy and fertilizer sources.

According to the TEA results, landfilling remains the most cost-effective alternative, whereas incineration is the most expensive due to high capital and operational costs. Anaerobic digestion became more financially viable when revenue from methane sales was considered, and composting demonstrated moderate cost-effectiveness. The LCA results showed landfilling had the greatest environmental impact, whereas anaerobic digestion was the most sustainable due to its potential to offset fossil fuel emissions. Composting had minimal environmental impact, whereas incineration contributed to air pollution despite reducing waste volume. Overall, anaerobic digestion proved to be the most balanced choice, providing economic and environmental benefits.

[1] UNEP, “International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste (IDAFLW),” Stop Food Loss and Waste. Accessed: Mar. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://www.stopfoodlosswaste.org/theme

[2] “Sustainability Pathways: Food loss and waste.” Accessed: Mar. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste/en/

[3] M. Jegen, “Life cycle assessment: from industry to policy to politics,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 597–606, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11367-023-02273-8.