C H A P T E R

1

Recent European Legislation on Management ofWastes in the Food Industry

Maria R. Kosseva

1. INTRODUCTION

The European Union (EU) 6th Environmental ActionProgramme (6th EAP)1 provides the framework forenvironmental policymaking in the EU for the period2002 to 2012 and outlines actions that need to be takento achieve them. It identifies four environmental issues:climate change; nature and biodiversity; environmentand health; and natural resources and waste. Theseare the priority issues of current European strategic pol-icies. The 6th EAP also promotes the full integrationand provides the environmental component of thecommunity’s strategy for sustainable development.

The analyses below indicate that today’s understand-ing and perception of environmental challenges arechanging—no longer can they be seen as independent,simple, and specific issues. The challenges are increas-ingly broad ranging and complex, part of a web of linkedand interdependent functions provided by different nat-ural and social systems. This implies an increased degreeof complexity in the way we understand and respond toenvironmental challenges (European EnvironmentalAgency [EEA], 2010).

In parallel, existing European environmental poli-cies present a robust basis on which to build newapproaches that balance economic, social, and environ-mental considerations. Future actions can draw ona set of key principles that have been established atthe European level: the integration of environmentalconsiderations into other measures; precaution and pre-vention; rectification of damage at source; and the pol-luter-pays principle. Waste policies can essentiallyreduce three types of environmental pressures: emissions

from waste treatment installations such as methanefrom landfill; impacts from primary raw material extrac-tion; and air pollution and greenhouse gas emissionsfrom energy use in production processes. The use ofresources, water, energy, and the generation of wasteare all driven by our patterns of consumption and pro-duction. Eating, drinking, and mobility are the areasof household consumption with the highest pressureintensities and the largest environmental impact.European policy has only recently begun to address thechallenge of the growing use of resources and unsustain-able consumption patterns. European policies such asthe Integrated Product Policy and Directive on Eco-design focused on reducing the environmental impactsof products, including their energy consumption,throughout their entire life-cycle. It is estimated thatover 80% of all product-related environmental impactsare determined during the design phase of a product(EEA, 2010).

In this chapter, food wastes generated along the foodsupply chain are defined, and various legal aspects ofthis waste are presented. Best Available Technique can-didates for the food and drink sector are evaluated as areference point in the environmental permit regulationfor industrial installations in EU Member States. Thismethod is used to implement the Integrated PollutionPrevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (96/61/EC).Other EU documents, which we address here, are thePackaging Waste Directive (1994), the Animal By-products Directive (2000), and the Waste FrameworkDirective (2008).

1.1 Definitions of Food Industry Waste (FIW)

Different definitions of food waste with respect tothe complexities of food supply chains (FSCs) exist.

1The 6th EAP (2002) is a decision of the European Parliament

and Council adopted on 22 July 2002.

3Food Industry Wastes.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391921-2.00001-9 © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC,although it is most readily defined at the retail andconsumer stages, where outputs of the agricultural sys-tem are self-evidently food for human consumption. Incontrast to most other commodity flows, food is bio-logical material subject to degradation, and differentfoodstuffs have different nutritional values. Below arefive definitions referred to herein:

1. Wholesome edible material intended for humanconsumption, arising at any point in the FSC that isinstead discarded, lost, degraded, or consumed bypests (FAO, 1981).

2. As (1), but including edible material that isintentionally fed to animals or is a by-product offood processing diverted away from the humanfood (Stuart, 2009).

3. Waste is “any substance or object the holder discards,intends to discard or is required to discard”.“Products whose date for appropriate use hasexpired” targets food waste, with “date” referring tothe expiry date of a food. This definition is from the EUCouncil Directive Waste 75/442/EEC [91/156/EEC](EU, 1991a, b). Clearly any produce that does end upin landfill is a waste and can be quantifiedaccordingly by the tonnage. But quantifying waste infarm-to-retailer supply chains is more difficultbecause rejection does not necessarily triggerdisposal, but redirection to other markets.

4. “Uneaten food and food preparation wastes fromresidences and commercial establishments such asgrocery stores, restaurants, and produce stands,institutional cafeterias and kitchens, and industrialsources like employee lunchrooms” as defined bythe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (2006).

5. Food or drink products that are disposed of(includes all waste disposal and treatment methods)by manufacturers, packers/fillers, distributors,retailers and consumers as a result of beingdamaged, reaching their end-of-life, are off cuts, ordeformed (outgraded) (WRAP, 2010).

1.2 Waste Streams Considered in This Book

Within the literature, food waste postharvest islikely to be referred to as “food losses” and “spoilage”.

Food loss refers to a decrease in food quantity orquality, which makes it unfit for human consumption(Grolleaud, 2002). At later stages of the FSC, theterm food waste is applied and generally relates tobehavioral issues. Food losses/spoilage, conversely,relate to systems that require investment in infra-structure. In this work, we refer to both food lossesand food waste generated along the food and drinksupply chain (Figure 1.1) as food industry waste,considering the first two definitions to be most rele-vant. The method of measuring the quantity of foodwaste is usually by weight, although other units ofmeasure include calorific value, quantification ofgreenhouse gas impacts, and lost inputs (e.g., nutrientsand water).

2. VARIOUS LEGAL ASPECTS OFFOOD WASTE

Legislation has been used around the world to pre-vent, reduce, and manage waste (e.g., promoting recy-cling and energy recovery). In the EU, the CouncilDirective on Waste (1991), originally introduced in1975 and revised in 1991, deals with the regulatoryframework for the implementation of the EuropeanCommission’s Waste Management Strategy of 1989.It covers waste avoidance, disposal, and management.The EU Council directive on Hazardous Waste (1991)was introduced to align management of these materialsacross Member States (MS). Other documents relatedto food waste include the EU Council Directives onPackaging Waste (1994), Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control (1996), Landfill of Waste (1999), and AnimalBy-products (2000).

EU Directive 94/62/EC aimed to harmonizenational measures concerning the management ofpackaging and packaging waste in order to preventany impact thereof on the environment of all MS aswell as of third countries or to reduce such impact.MS may encourage a system of reuse of packagingin an environmentally sound manner. Moreover, theyshould encourage the use of materials obtainedfrom recycled packaging waste for the manufactureof packaging and other products (Arvanitoyannis,2008).

Packagingsuppliers

Agriculture &Fishing

Food & Drinkmanufacturing

Groceryretail

Consumers

CateringWholesale

FIGURE 1.1 The food and drink

supply chain. Adapted from Mena et al.(2010).

4 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The EU Council Directive on Animal By-products(2000) categorizes waste into three sections:

• Category 1: High risk, to be incinerated;• Category 2: Materials unfit for human consumption;

most types of this material must be incinerated orrendered;

• Category 3: Material which is fit for but notdestined for human consumption.

The UK has its own order for animal by-productsintroduced in 1999 and amended in 2001 and again in2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1484) (OPSI, 2003),which aims to minimize disease transmission suchas bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The cur-rent legislation requires the prevention of feeding live-stock with catering waste that has been in contact withanimal carcasses or material presenting similar hazards.

2.1 Selecting Best Available TechniqueCandidates for the Food and Drink Sector

Best Available Techniques (BATs) are an importantreference point in the environmental permit regulationfor industrial installations in the EU MS, which haveto implement the IPPC. BATs correspond to the techni-ques and organizational measures with the best overallenvironmental performance that can be introduced at areasonable cost (Derden et al., 2002). Central to thisapproach are scores given on technical feasibility, oncross media environmental performances, and on eco-nomic feasibility. The approach was tested in the fruitand vegetable processing industry. Their recommenda-tion to map the sector from a technical and economicpoint of view, in order to understand its structure andfinancial capabilities, as well as to be able to assesssustainability of decisions taken, was adopted in astudy by Midzic-Kurtagic et al. (2010).

Having in mind differences in the technologicalstructure and the environmental priorities betweencountries, Schollenberger et al. (2008) propose a consis-tent and flexible assessment method for the evaluationof process improvements based on resource efficiency.They suggest that determination of candidate BATsrequires the assessment of parameters from the threepillars of sustainability: economic, ecological, andsocial. Their logical application indicates that BATcandidate selection should be performed based onecologic, economic, and social criteria. In this context,a concept of sustainable development can be under-stood as proposed by Strange and Baley (2008):

• A conceptual framework: a way of changing thepredominant world view to one that is more holisticand balanced;

• A process: a way of applying the principles ofintegration, across space and time and to alldecisions;

• A goal: identifying and solving specific problemsof resource depletion, healthcare, social exclusion,poverty, etc.

Therefore, the selected method for assessing BATsustainability should offer the criteria for analysis ofrelations between different issues and propose ade-quate solutions. Problems related to the over-exploitation of resources, environment, and humanhealth are interconnected from the point of view ofcause and effect, and the solutions should be pur-sued in technical, institutional, economic, and legalmeasures, as a multi-criteria procedure.

LaForest and Bertheas (2004) carried out a study todefine BAT selection methods. This study revealed agreat number of redundancies and heterogeneity inthe considerations. They proposed a set of six objec-tives to which a technology must comply, if selected asa BAT. Those were: (i) limitation of environmentalimpact, (ii) economy of raw materials and energy, (iii)improvement of safety and risk minimization, (iv) val-orization, (v) benchmarking, and (vi) innovation.Regardless of the objectives, the indicators of an exist-ing state must be set up first. Thus, in accordance withGuidance on the Selection and Use of EnvironmentalPerformance Indicators (EC Recommendation No2003/532/EC, 2003) and Practical Guide for theImplementation of an Environmental ManagementScheme (Masoliver Jordana, 2001), the indicators ofenvironmental performance, particularly input�outputoperational performance indicators, were selected asthe most suitable set of indicators for the purpose ofdevelopment of national reference documents on BATs(Midzic-Kurtagic et al., 2010). The environmental per-formance of food and beverage companies wasassessed using input�output operational performanceindicators (Masoliver Jordana, 2001; Strange andBaley, 2008), focusing on resource consumption andemissions generated. The available sources of infor-mation were: (i) Environmental monitoring reportsfor individual companies, and (ii) Activity Plans forReduction of Emissions and Compliance with BATfor individual companies, prepared for the purposeof environmental permission procedure. Twenty-twocompanies from seven subsectors, including brewery,dairy, fish farming, fish processing, fruit andvegetable processing, meat processing, and slaughter-houses, expressed their willingness to voluntarilyparticipate in the study and become subject to anenvironmental audit.

52. VARIOUS LEGAL ASPECTS OF FOOD WASTE

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The information requested in the environmentalauditing questionnaire included (Midzic-Kurtagic et al.2010):

• Basic data on facility, including annual productioncapacity, number of employees, etc.

• Description of the facility, including information onequipment for pollution control, methods ofmaintenance and cleaning of the equipment andfacility, and description of activities and productionprocess.

• Data on consumption of raw materials, water, andenergy.

• Current environmental status at the facility site,including wastewater, solid waste, and airemissions. For each waste flow a study was made of(i) the quantity generated, (ii) the process where it isgenerated, (iii) the environmental impact, and(iv) management of the waste flows.

The mapping activities revealed some important find-ings about production and environmental performancein the food and beverage sector in Bosnia andHerzegovina, as well as the suitability of the investiga-tive method applied. Separation of waste streams isimplemented in most sectors. Dairies close to rural areasseparate whey and sell it to farmers as animal feed. Twolarge-scale dairies separate whey and make a new rangeof natural and aromatized whey products.

Only one fruit and vegetable processing industryimplemented cleaner production measures aimed atseparating the organic solid waste and recycling ofpackaging waste. Organic waste is given to farmers forcomposting while a small amount is used for animalfeed. Implementation of cleaner production measuresreduced the quantity of solid waste being disposed ofby 534 tonnes of organic and 51 tonnes of packagingwaste per year. The investment payback period was12 months, with total saving of h9,963 per year(Silvenius and Gronroos, 2003). Slaughterhouses areusing water extensively; there is little use of pressuredhoses or triggers, especially in small traditional slaugh-terhouses and meat-processing companies. There is noreuse or recirculation of water.

In order to optimize energy consumption, most ofthe breweries, fruit and vegetable processors, andlarge-scale dairies use separate temperature controldevices in cooling chambers. Production processes arealmost completely automated and heating and coolingprocesses automatically programmed. However, thereare a large number of small-scale dairies that useequipment, including milk pumps, motors, and heat-ing and cooling equipment (pasteurization and dryingequipment, refrigerators), that is not optimized to useenergy rationally. Experience has shown that energyconsumption in dairies can be reduced by 10�30% by

employing and improving equipment and procedureswith better energy efficiency and less heat waste,with drying air, speed control pumps, etc. Large-scaledairies use pasteurizers in the form of plate heatexchangers with high heat recovery. In the milk dryingprocess, the energy consumption is reduced in thevaporization processes by use of secondary vapour.Large-scale dairies also apply pipeline and equipmentinsulation (Midzic-Kurtagic et al., 2010),

The mapping of environmental performance, carriedout by Midzic-Kurtagic et al. (2010), revealed that thebeer production subsector is more environmentallyadvanced than other subsectors analyzed. The reasonmay lie in the fact that major beer production compa-nies have Environmental Management Systems inplace, which oblige them to prevent pollution as wellas to introduce environmental-friendly procedures andtrain employees to act responsibly in the productionprocess. On the other hand, the slaughtering subsector,which in fact has the highest environmental impactsconcerning type of solid waste produced and wastewa-ter loads that can be expected, seems to be the leastenvironmentally friendly and requires significantimprovement in that sense.

Midzic-Kurtagic et al. (2010) concluded that the BestAvailable Techniques that will certainly get on theBAT candidate list will include wastewater stream sep-aration, including economically feasible pollution pre-vention measures. Strong enforcement of law on waste,in terms of keeping records on waste generation andwaste selection/separation at source, must be a prior-ity. This will in the long-run result in an improvementin the waste recycling system and decrease wastequantities to be disposed of at municipal landfills.

3. EFFECTIVENESS OF WASTEMANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE

EUROPEAN UNION

3.1 Adoption of a “Recycling Society”in the EU

The waste management hierarchy is one of the guid-ing principles of zero-waste practice around the globe(Box 1.1).

In general, recycling levels may have increasedacross Europe, but there is a long way to go before theEU fully embeds the “recycling society” mentally—notonly avoiding producing waste but using it as aresource. Such findings were outlined in a recentEuropean Commission (EC) report (2011)—Supportingthe Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention andRecycling—on member states’ performance in the pre-vention and recycling of waste. According to the

6 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

report, for most MS, overall waste generation seems tobe increasing, or at best stabilizing—but at a lower ratethan economic growth. For example, in 2008 wasterecycling was estimated at 38%, an increase of 5%compared with 2005 and 18% compared with 1995. Formunicipal waste, 40% was recycled or composted in2008, an improvement of 11.4% between 2005 and2008, with significant disparities between MS: from afew percent up to 70%. In addition, the report foundthat more consistency between product design andwaste policies is needed to further boost recycling.According to the report, future trends in waste genera-tion and treatment show that, without additional wasteprevention policies, waste generation is expected toincrease by 7% from 2008 to 2020.

3.2 Main Stipulations of the Landfill Directive1999/31/EC

Diverting waste from landfill is an important ele-ment in EU policy on improving the use of resourcesand reducing the environmental impacts of waste man-agement, in particular, in pursuance of Directive 1999/31/EC on landfill of waste (hereinafter referred to asthe Landfill Directive). According to this Directive, MSmust reduce the amount of biodegradable municipalwaste going to landfill:

• to 75% of the total amount of biodegradablemunicipal waste generated in 1995 by 2006;

• to 50% of 1995 levels by 2010;• to 35% of 1995 levels by 2016.

The Waste Framework Directive was revised and thenew directive (2008/98/EC) was issued in November2008. Several of the new provisions in the directive aimto reduce landfilling. Key issues are the introductionof quantitative targets on recycling of selected wastematerials from households and other origins. It pro-vided for the development of waste prevention anddecoupling objectives for 2020.

The EC has published a green paper on the manage-ment of biowaste in the EU (EC, 2008b). Biodegradablewaste means any waste that is capable of undergoinganaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food andgarden waste and paper and paperboard (see theLandfill Directive). In this report, only the biodegradablewaste included in municipal waste is addressed.Biowaste means biodegradable garden and park waste,food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants,caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste fromfood processing plants (see the Waste FrameworkDirective (2008/98/EC)). It sets out several options toimprove biowaste management, including standards forcomposts, specific biowaste prevention measures, andtighter targets for biodegradable municipal waste sent tolandfill. Greenhouse gas emissions are also becomingmore and more relevant in waste management planning.Landfilled biodegradable waste produces methanemany years after the waste has been deposited.Countries with high dependence on landfill can takepositive action against climate change by landfilling lessbiodegradable waste. Likewise, in countries that havevery low landfill rates, waste recycling and energy recov-ery can help avoid greenhouse gas emissions from the

BOX 1.1

THE WASTE MANAGEMENT H I ERARCHY

Most Preferable

AVOID

REDUCE

REUSE

RECOVER

TREAT

DISPOSE

Least Preferable

Landfill

WASTE

Resources

Recycling

Energy

The waste management hierarchy - the higher the

better (adapted from Parkes, 2011):

Resources � better design, use, reuse of products, so

they don’t become waste

Recycling � how can we do it better

Energy � much of it renewable, saves fossil fuels,

avoids landfill. What other options can be exploited

Landfill � last resort, loss of valuable materials,

changing hearts and minds

(EC Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Implementation)

73. EFFECTIVENESS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

production of virgin material or energy (EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2008).

Another Directive, 2001/77/EC, on the promotionof electricity produced from renewable energy sourcesin the internal electricity market, may stimulate wasteincineration with energy recovery. The biodegradablefraction of industrial and municipal waste is definedin the directive as a renewable, nonfossil energysource. Production of electricity from incineration ofmunicipal waste contributes to meeting the EU renew-able energy target of 12% of total energy supply by2010. Individual targets have been set for eachMember State. According to the EC’s 2008 integratedclimate change and energy package (EC, 2008a) andthe proposed directive on renewable energy sources(EC, 2008c), MS are expected to define ambitious newtargets for generating electricity and heat from wasteto help achieve the EU’s goal of generating 20% ofenergy from renewable sources by 2020.

3.2.1 The European Environment AgencyReport No 7/2009

3.2.1.1 AIMS

Waste policies must be seen in the broader life-cycleperspective of resource use, consumption, and produc-tion; prevention and recycling of waste are importantelements in this life cycle. There are different routes todivert waste from landfill, including prevention andrecycling, other material and energy recovery, and pre-treatment. Not all of them are used by all MS. TheEEA report (European Environment Agency, 2009)focused on why specific sets of measures were chosenand evaluated, which measures worked well and why,and it explored success factors and reasons for unsatis-factory results.

3.2.1.2 INDICATOR-BASED ANALYSIS

The methods employing favoring and hindering fac-tors and the evaluation of each country/region are pre-sented in detail in a series of background papers givenin the EEA report. Individual country/region papers

present the objectives, the policy instruments intro-duced to meet these objectives, and the waste manage-ment scene at the time of the transposition of theLandfill Directive. Further, these papers include anevaluation of the implemented policy of that Directive,which is a driver for landfill diversion (http://waste.eionet.europa.eu/publications).

3.2.1.3 INTERVIEWS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

One way of analyzing the process of policy designand implementation is to review the course of actionstaken regarding the policy process and objectives(upstream from the policy in place in Figure 1.2) andregarding the implementation of the policy and theoutcomes (downstream from the policy in place inFigure 1.2). By describing changes in waste managementin terms of a series of actions over time, it is possible tofocus on the real actions and therefore choices made byauthorities and other stakeholders, thus going beyonddeclarations of intent.

3.2.1.4 POLICY INSTRUMENTS

The following two case studies illustrate some of theinstruments in control of wastes and waste manage-ment. A variety of waste management techniques havebeen adopted across the EU with mixed effects.

GERMAN CASE STUDY The German strategy onbiodegradable waste has focused on separate collectionand recycling of secondary raw materials (paper andbiowaste), mechanical-biological treatment, dedicatedincineration with energy recovery of mixed householdwaste, and banning the landfill of waste with organiccontent of more than 3%. Separate collection schemeshave been successful in achieving very high recyclingrates. A landfill ban was adopted in 1993, but due toseveral loopholes it was not implemented properly.The loopholes were closed with the Waste LandfillingOrdinance (2001), which confirmed the deadline of1 June 2005 for implementing the landfill ban andincluded special provisions for landfilling residuesfrom mechanical-biological treatment. Since the

Context

Policiesin place

OutcomePolicy process Implementationprocess

Objectives

Upstream Downstream

FIGURE 1.2 Policy effectiveness — from

objectives to outcome (EEA Report No 7/2009).

8 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

deadline, the amount of municipal waste landfilledhas fallen to 1%.

HUNGARIAN CASE STUDY The Hungarian wastestrategy has focused on building capacity and settingup schemes for separate collection, mainly for packag-ing waste. An eco-taxation system of product chargeshas been in operation since 1995. A product charge islevied on certain products that have an impact onthe environment, such as packaging materials includingbeverage packaging for commercial use. If a produceror importer meets the recycling or recovery targets,charges are returned. In practice, therefore, the productcharge aims to ensure that recycling targets are met.The charge must be paid by the producer (or importer)and can be passed on to the consumers. Exemptions ordiscounts apply in the case of eco-labeled products. TheMinistry of Environment and Water collects a share ofthe revenue from the charge and earmarks it for wasterecovery and other environmental projects. Since 2003,landfilling of organic wastes has been partially banned.The amount permitted is gradually reducing in linewith the interim targets for Biodegradable MunicipalWaste (BMW). The National Biowaste Program 2005includes initiatives for extending separate collection toinclude garden waste, green waste from public parks,organic kitchen waste, and paper by 2008.

3.2.1.5 LANDFILL TAXES AND GATE FEES

In general, it appears that a combination of policyinstruments is required to divert waste from land-fills effectively. Economic instruments such as usercharges for the management of municipal waste(e.g., “pay-as-you-throw” schemes), landfill tax, andproduct charges can have a significant role if designedto regulate the behavior of households, waste compa-nies, and producers. For a landfill tax to be effective,the tax level should be relatively high, although publicperceptions of the tax burden are arguably as importantas the tax rate.

The Landfill Directive provides that MS mustensure that all costs involved in setting up and operat-ing a landfill site, as well as the estimated costs of theclosure and aftercare of the site for a period of at least30 years, are covered by the gate fee. The WasteIncineration Directive sets emission limits and moni-toring requirements for pollutants entering air andwater, and many plants also have to apply best avail-able techniques according to the Integrated PollutionPrevention and Control Directive.

In 2004, Germany and Italy had the highest gatefees for landfilling at h80�90 per tonne at 2005 prices.Costs were lower in the Flemish Region of Belgiumand in Finland at h47�60 per tonne. Hungary andEstonia had the lowest gate fees at h30�36 per tonne.

Reviewing gate fee growth in the decade to 2006, it isinteresting to note that fees have rocketed in Estoniaby 700%. Finland has experienced a similar change asfees have risen by almost 300%. The increase has beenmore moderate in the Flemish Region in the last tenyears, with a rise of 40%. It seems reasonableto attribute these cost increases to implementation ofthe Landfill Directive—and anticipation of it. In theFlemish Region, Germany, and Italy, incinerationprices are 30�70% higher than landfill gate fees,whereas the price in Finland was lower until 2006,when it rose to 25% higher than landfill. The priceincrease is the result of increasingly strict environmen-tal standards, for example, investments to abate dioxinand NOX emissions.

3.2.1.6 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

Public acceptance is absolutely crucial in determiningwhat alternatives to landfilling are politically feasible.Communication and information programs thereforeclearly have an important role to play in explainingto the general public the true costs and benefits ofalternative waste management (and energy generation)strategies.

3.3 European Waste Framework Directive (WFD)

One promising development of the waste-manage-ment policies in the European Union is the new WFD,which should have been transposed by December2010. It has still not passed into national law in manyEU countries. MS had a transitional period of 2 yearsto put the necessary measures in place to comply withthe new Directive. The new Directive modernizes andsimplifies the approach to waste policy around theconcept of “life cycle thinking”, and introduces a bind-ing waste hierarchy defining the order of priority fortreating waste. The Directive obliges MS to modernizetheir waste management at the national level, includ-ing the requirements of the new WFD. But it will alsoseek to develop support for MS in designing appropri-ate strategies and policies upstream. With full imple-mentation of existing acquis, recycling could increasefrom 40% in 2008 to 49% in 2020, according tothe Commission. The Directive obliges MS to modern-ize their waste management plans and to set up wasteprevention programs by 2013 (Europa Press releasesRAPID, 2011).

The impact of waste policy (namely the LandfillDirective and the updated WFD), as well as the recom-mendations contained in the EC communication onfuture steps in biowaste management in the EU, onfood waste generation is neutral. In other words it hasno impact on the actual amount of food waste beinggenerated. Waste policy does, however, have a

93. EFFECTIVENESS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

considerable impact on the treatment of food wasteonce it has been generated, and this section looksbriefly at the potential impacts of likely treatment sce-narios. Thus, the combined impact of waste diversionpolicies on the quantity of food waste going to landfillis estimated as (shown in Table 1.1):

• 25% reduction in food waste going to landfill by 2010,in comparison with that produced in 2006 (basedon Landfill Directive targets);

• 60% reduction in food waste going to landfill by 2013,in comparison with that produced in 2006 (basedon Landfill Directive [50%] and WFD [10%] targets);

• 90% reduction in food waste going to landfill by 2020,in comparison with that produced in 2006 (basedon Landfill Directive [65%], WFD [15%], and futurebiowaste legislation following from the ECcommunication on future steps in biowastemanagement in the EU [10%]).

4. BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT POLICYUPDATES

As the result of a large impact assessment, the ECDirectorate General (DG) for the Environment pub-lished a “Communication on Biowaste” in May 2010.The conclusion was that there is no major legal obsta-cle preventing MS from starting biowaste recycling. Bycontrast, a few months later in July, the EuropeanParliament (EP) and the EP’s Environment Committeevoted by a vast majority for specific legislation on bio-waste, which included quality assurance by the end of2010. The parliament stated that the rules on the man-agement of biowaste are fragmented and the currentlegislative instruments are not sufficient to achievethe overall objectives of sustainable management ofbiowaste. The European Compost Network (ECN),together with a large number of European stake-holders, is fully in line with the parliament’s view.One of the potential benefits offered by the optimiza-tion of biowaste management is the potential saving of10�50 million tonnes CO2. In addition, 3�7% of agri-cultural soils could be improved. Additionally, optimi-zation could even help meet up to 7% of the 2020

renewable energy, and 42% of the biofuel productiontargets, if biowaste is processed via anaerobic digestionand the resulting biowaste is used as a biofuel. The sit-uation could be addressed further by the definition ofend-of-waste criteria for compost/digestates to meetthe legal status of a “product” in the context of theWFD in 2011. This way the compost will be seen as ahigh quality product fit for use and tradable acrossEU borders (Barth and Siebert, 2011).

4.1 Landfill Bans on Food Waste

Landfill bans on food waste have been introducedin certain European countries as well as across theAtlantic with mixed results. It remains to be seen,however, if closing the door on landfilled food wasteswill provide feedstock to anaerobic digestion (AD)(Burrow, 2011).

Many countries are looking to the AD pacesetters likeGermany and Sweden for inspiration. As a result, the ideaof landfill bans on food waste has taken a central place.The most successful countries in terms of recycling arethose that have introduced landfill bans. These includeGermany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark,France, Norway, Belgium, and various US states andCanadian provinces (Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, 2010).

It has also sparked some interest among policy-makers. If food waste is banned from landfill, there ismore chance of meeting the targets under Europe’sLandfill Directive, while also securing more renewableenergy as the waste is diverted to anaerobic treatmentplants.

Dr Hogg (a director at Eunomia, a waste manage-ment consultancy) thinks landfill bans are blunt instru-ments, and care has to be taken to ensure that theydon’t simply lead to a switch from landfill to incinera-tion. A well-implemented “requirement to sort” organ-ics, accompanied by “end of waste standards”, is likelyto do more to foster AD than is a ban (Burrow, 2011).

4.1.1 Introduction of New Regulations and theRight Policies

Austria, Germany, and the Holland region of theNetherlands all require the sorting of organic waste byhousehold. Denmark provides an example of where theban approach may not deliver much in the way of food-sourced AD. There is little source separation of food, andmost food waste is incinerated in Denmark. Much alsodepends upon the relative costs of the alternative treat-ment routes. Landfill bans have been implemented bymany countries in Europe and municipalities in NorthAmerica and Canada. All have the overall aim of movingwaste treatment and management up the hierarchy(to focus on prevention, reuse, and recycling; Box 1.1). To

TABLE 1.1 Estimated Total Impact of Policies on Food WasteTonnages Going to Landfill in the European Union (Million Tonnes)1

2006 2010 2013 2020

EU12 7.5 5.6 3.0 0.8

EU15 32.7 24.5 13.1 3.2

EU27 40.2 30.1 16.1 4.0

Source: EUROSTAT data.1Based on 2006 figures, not taking into account socioeconomic changes.

10 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

that end, the bans are usually implemented within aframework of existing policy measures, such as landfilltaxes. The cost implication to any producer of wastewill be the difference between treatment costs and land-fill costs, and the latter is largely a function of landfill taxrates. Higher landfill taxes encourage diversion, and thusalternative treatments are more attractive. Therefore, thetreatment of commercial and industrial waste has beenand will continue to be driven commercially.

The British Government has already declared that itwill not introduce wholesale landfill bans anytimesoon. Instead it has declared its intention to divertwaste from landfill, using the escalation of landfill tax,which will eventually make diversion and recycling abetter financial option for the producers. Using landfilltax as a financial driver also ensures that the develop-ment of treatment capacity keeps pace with demand.Indeed, landfill bans cannot be introduced overnight;the infrastructure needs to be in place to take the wastefor alternative treatment.

Germany is an example of how long a time isrequired for the implementation of a landfill ban.Gunnel Klingberg (secretary general at Municipal WasteEurope) suggests “the timing between introduction andenforcement of this action may be as long as a decade”.

When the Flemish Region of Belgium implementedits landfill ban, legislation allowed landfill operatorsto apply for exemptions where the required alternativetreatment infrastructure was not in place. This has hadthe effect of slowing down the development of newinfrastructure needed to meet the requirements of theban.

Different country policies regarding waste managementcharges may result in market distortions. If landfill bans areenforced before sufficient infrastructure is constructed, thatwould impede the efficient market disposal of waste. Forexample, heightened gate fees charged at existing waste treat-ment facilities lead to an increase in the export of waste tothose countries that can dispose of it in a more economic way,illustrated by the transport of waste between Germany andthe Netherlands. Tolvik Consulting Director, Adrian Judge,

speaking to Burrow (2011).

If a comprehensive treatment network is not in place,then countries also run the risk of biowaste being sentfor incineration rather than composting or AD becauseof a lack of capacity, the costs involved with bulkingand transportation, or local policy (Burrow, 2011).

In order to develop the infrastructure required,treatment facilities need to be confident that feedstockwill be available and at a price that works economi-cally. “Market forces are another complication in thelandfill ban tax—and another reason why any banneeds to be part of a wider waste, environmental, andenergy policy”, suggests Municipal Waste Europe’s

Klingberg (Burrow, 2011). “One needs to think aboutthe social, technical, environmental, and social reasonsfor any decisions. This means that for AD one can’tjust think about what goes in—it is very importantalso to think about what comes out, and whether youare producing something the market wants and canafford.” When it comes to AD, there are two main out-puts: digestate and energy. These can both offerdrivers for AD in their own right. Supporting the gen-eration of renewable energy, and the market develop-ment of digestate, would make AD “competitive”,particularly if combined with taxes or other measuresto make landfilling or incineration more expensive.

4.2 Selection of Measures

Many experts, some quoted above, argue stronglythat landfill bans must be part of a balanced portfolio ofpolicy measures. The countries that have made banswork have installed a policy mix of measures; the banis just one. In line with that they have developed com-posting or AD alternatives, supported the use of andthe market for compost, prevented the generationof biowaste at source, limited cross-border movements,used fiscal drivers, and supported home composting.This requires joined-up policies through govern-ment too, including departments interested in soilquality, waste collection, energy, heat, and resourceself-sufficiency. Fiscal, legislative, and social measuresare all important in helping shift behavior and ensuringthat organic waste is treated correctly and utilized moreas a resource and not merely as waste.

In summary, in order to divert food waste fromlandfill, focusing on its prevention, reuse, and recy-cling, the following regulations and policies have to becombined:

• Sort-separated collection of organic/food waste• Stipulation of end-of-waste criteria, and

development of end-of-waste standards• Introduction of landfill tax• Establishment of balanced gate fees• Establishment of infrastructure• Establishment of a comprehensive treatment

network• Use of market forces to develop AD• Landfill bans• Others (Burrow, 2011).

4.3 Example of Application of WasteManagement Legislation in Ireland

The amount of biodegradable municipal waste dis-posed of to landfill increased by 5%, or 1.5 milliontonnes, in 2007, leaving Ireland in “danger” of missing

114. BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY UPDATES

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

its EU targets; only B30% of the waste was recycled.Furthermore, 433,600 tonnes of food waste are sent tolandfill each year, at a cost of approximately h1 billion tothe country; of this, the catering sector accounts for over100,000 tonnes of food waste, at a cost of more than h200million wasted (Statutory Instrument No 508, 2009).Consequently, new regulations were designed to pro-mote the segregation and beneficial use of food arisingfrom the commercial sector and to reduce the amount ofbiodegradable waste going to landfill. Diversion of thiswaste type from landfill will help Ireland to achievetargets set down in the EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC and form part of the commitments of the NationalStrategy on Biodegradable Waste 2006. The WasteManagement (Food Waste) Regulations 2009 (SI No 508)require that commercial premises:

• segregate and separately store all food waste arisingon their premises for

• separate collection by an authorised waste collector.

Ultimately, the Commission intends to improvethe implementation of legislation in the waste sectorduring the coming years. Looking at the currentdevelopment, the European Parliament’s critique of frag-mented legislation can be fully supported. An optimizedway of meeting the EU landfill directive, an all-in-onebiowaste directive, including targets, would be far thebest driver to force sustainable biowaste managementacross MS (Barth and Siebert, 2011).

4.4 Waste Management for the Food Industriesin the USA and Canada

The main Directives of the EU and Acts of the USAand Canada on waste management for the food indus-tries are provided by Arvanitoyannis (2008). He statedthat the EU legislation is much more flexible andchangeable (many amendments in a short period)than the respective US and Canadian legislation. TheUS Congress puts together the environmental laws.For such legislation to be enacted, lawmakers mustperceive that environmental regulation benefits soci-ety; only after that will such laws be passed. In 1970,Congress created the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Since then, the EPA has been responsi-ble for enforcing applicable federal laws. In manycases, the laws allow the states to adopt and enforcethe federal laws. The US EPA proposed the food wasterecovery hierarchy (Box 1.2) based on the EU wastehierarchy presented in WRD 2008.

5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSIDENTIFIED FOR THEIR PREVENTION

POTENTIAL

BIO Intelligence Service carried out a preparatorystudy on FW across EU27 (EC DG ENV, 2011).Recently they published a technical reports

BOX 1.2

U S EPA FOOD WASTE RECOVERY H I ERARCHY

Source reduction

Feed hungry people

Feed animals

Industrial uses

Composting

Landfill/incineration

A hierarchy for food waste prevention has been

developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency,

following the spirit of the EU waste hierarchy as

presented in the 2008 WFD. It prioritizes reduction at

source and presents a list of preference for use, reuse,

recycling, and waste treatment. While this study does

not include composting, it should be noted that approxi-

mately one third of all food waste is inedible (WRAP,

2009), and thus options such as diversion to animal

feed, industrial uses of food waste (e.g., cooking oils),

and composting will usually be the environmentally

preferable choice. Energy recovery can be another

acceptable option where justified by a life cycle thinking

approach. The US EPA hierarchy does not differentiate

between waste treatment options; anaerobic digestion is

likely to be environmentally preferable to incineration

and landfilling (US EPA).

WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK

Source: US EPA, www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/organics/food/

fd-gener.htm

12 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

identifying five policy options for implementation atEU level to strengthen existing efforts to prevent foodwaste. The following five policy options wereexamined.

1. EU food waste data reporting requirements. EUROSTATreporting requirements for MS on food waste andstandardization methodologies for calculating foodwaste quantities at MS level to ensurecomparability.

2. Date labeling coherence. The clarification andstandardization of current food date labels, suchas “best before”, “sell by”, and “display until”dates, and the dissemination of this informationto the public to increase awareness of foodedibility criteria, thereby reducing food wastedue to date label confusion or perceivedinedibility.

3. EU targets for food waste prevention. The creation ofspecific food waste prevention targets for MS aspart of the waste prevention targets for MS by 2014,as recommended by the WFD 2008.

4. Recommendation and subsidy on the separate collectionof food waste in the MS. Recommendation of MSadoption of separate collection of food waste orbiodegradable waste for the household and/or foodservice sector. Subsidy for the development ofseparate collection and treatment infrastructure.

5. Targeted awareness campaigns. Targeted awarenesscampaigns, aimed at the household sector and thegeneral public, to raise awareness on food wastegeneration, environmental and other impacts ofbiodegradable waste, prevention methods, andpractical tips to encourage behavior change and along-term reduction in food waste generation.

The concluding impact analysis of the EC DG ENV(2011) confirmed that the three priority options aredata reporting requirements (1), date labeling coher-ence (2), and targeted awareness campaigns (5).

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSTANDARDS AND THEIR APPLICATION

IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

The ISO 14000 environmental management familystandards exist to help organizations to minimize thenegative effect of their operations on the environment(which may cause adverse changes to air, water, orland), to comply with applicable laws, regulations, andother environmentally oriented requirements, and con-tinually to improve on the above.

ISO 14000 is a series of standards, and guideline ref-erence documents, which cover the following:

• Environmental Management Systems• Environmental Auditing• Eco Labeling• Life Cycle Assessment• Environmental Aspects in Product Standards• Environmental Performance Evaluation.

ISO 14000 is similar to quality management, as it isrelated to the comprehensive outcome of how a productis produced rather than to the product itself. The over-all idea is to establish an organized approach to system-atically reduce the impact of the environmental aspectsthat an organization can control. Effective tools for theanalysis of environmental aspects of an organizationand for the generation of options for improvement areprovided by the concept of Cleaner Production.

ISO 14001 is the standard against which organizationsare assessed. The contents of this standard and how thefood scientists and engineers can use these regulationsin order to comply with them have been described else-where by Gekas and Nikolopoulou (2007).

The food industry has lagged behind other businessesin implementation of the ISO 14000 series. The mainenvironmental challenges of food companies are wateravailability, wastewater discharge, air emissions, by-product utilization, solid waste disposal, and food pack-aging materials. These food industry managementproblems can be solved through ISO 14000. Laboratoriesworking on this implementation will be strongly encour-aged to register to ISO 14000 standards in order toenhance their business opportunities by performing life-cycle assessment among other tests.

Although the food industry was not one of the firstindustrial sectors to implement EMS/ISO 14000, adecade ago more than one thousand food companies inindustrialized countries worldwide had already appliedthe ISO 14001 (Boudouropoulos and Arvanitoyannis,2000).

Another standard of the ISO 14000 family, ISO14040.2, has defined the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)principles and guidelines. The LCA exercise, withfocus on FIW, is presented in Chapter 15.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The goal of the European waste-related legislation isto protect public health and the environment, nature,and biodiversity and to mitigate climate change.Scientific methods of waste disposal or reuse shouldhave a central place in environmental legislation.The legislator must first determine whether there aredefensible scientific grounds for asserting that an envi-ronmental problem exists and then defend specific pol-icy choices reflected in a bill that proposes to address

137. CONCLUSIONS

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

the problem (Arvanitoyannis, 2008). However, govern-ment spending on environment and energy researchand development typically remains at less than 4% oftotal government spending on research and develop-ment, which has declined dramatically since 1980. Atthe same time, research and development expenditurein the EU, at 1.9% of GDP, lags way behind the Lisbonstrategy target of 3% by 2010 and behind major compe-titors in green technologies such as the USA, Japan,and, recently, China and India (European EnvironmentAgency, 2010). By contrast, in many areas (such as airpollution reduction, water and waste management,eco-efficient technologies, green infrastructure, eco-tourism, and others), Europe already has first-moveradvantages. The EU has more patents related to air/water pollution and waste than any other economiccompetitor (OECD, 2010). EU legislation is often repli-cated in China, India, California (USA), and elsewhere,highlighting further the multiple benefits of well-designed policies in the globalized economy.

Past experience shows that it often takes about 20�30years or more from the framing of an environmentalproblem and scientifically based early warnings to a firstfull understanding of impacts. Interconnected policiesthat take the long-term view are monitored based onrisk and uncertainty and have built-in interim steps forreview and evaluation. This can help to manage thetrade-offs between the need for long-term coherentaction and the time it takes to put measures into place.

The main EU Directives considered in this chapterare related to diverting FIW from landfill, to minimi-zation of packaging waste, and to integrated pollutionprevention and control. The waste policy has noimpact on the actual amount of food waste being gen-erated, as it is not designed to function as a preventivemeasure but rather as an incentive mechanism for dis-posal and reuse. Consequently, waste policy has aconsiderable impact on the treatment of food wasteonce it has been generated. The EU Landfill Directiveis one of the stakeholder key drivers for waste minimi-zation, management, and co-product recovery in foodprocessing (Waldron, 2007).

There are large differences between MS. Recyclingrates vary from a few percent up to 70%. In some MSlandfilling has virtually disappeared; in others morethan 90% of waste is still buried in the ground. Thisshows a significant margin for progress beyond the cur-rent EU minimum collection and recycling targets. Theintroduction of a combination of economic and legalinstruments used by the best performing MS should beencouraged, including landfill bans and applying theproducer responsibility concept to additional wastestreams across the EU. More consistency between prod-uct design and waste policies is needed to further boostrecycling. The new WFD modernises and simplifies our

approach to waste policy around the concept of “lifecycle thinking”. The Directive introduces a bindingwaste hierarchy defining the order of priority for treat-ing waste. Top of the list is waste prevention, followedby reuse, recycling, and other recovery operations,with disposal such as landfill used only as the lastresort. Waste is therefore increasingly also seen as aproduction resource and a source of energy. The EUbrings together waste and resource use policies throughthe Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recyclingof waste and the Thematic Strategy on the sustainableuse of natural resources. The Directive obliges MS tomodernize their waste management plans and to set upwaste prevention programmes by 2013. They must alsorecycle 50% of their municipal waste by 2020 (EuropaPress releases RAPID, 2011).

The next steps of the Commission are to continue tomonitor the implementation and enforcement of wastelegislation at national level, including the requirementsof the new WFD. But it will also seek to develop sup-port for MS in designing appropriate strategies andpolicies upstream. To further consolidate its waste poli-cies, the Commission will make further proposals in2012 including setting out the steps it will take in orderto move closer to an EU resource-efficient recyclingsociety (Europa Press releases RAPID, 2011), given that:

• Before implementations, likely scientific as wellas economic effects of directives must be assessed.

• Mixed country policies distort the market andprevent economic efficiency gains in waste disposal.

• EU superstructures are in a good position tocoordinate assessment studies and push countriestowards a unified, European-wide policy ofwaste disposal, which takes into account thedifferent disposal infrastructures available acrossMS and likely time lags between implementation.

• More specifically, efforts to push legislation with alikely strong impact, such as landfill bans, must beproperly assessed and implemented according toMS capabilities to scientifically process waste intorenewable energy and fine chemicals. It may benecessary to encourage or even subsidize theconstruction of recycling infrastructure.

References

Arvanitoyannis, I.S., 2008. Waste management for the food indus-tries. Food Science and Technology, International Series.Academic Press, Elsevier, USA.

Barth, J., Siebert, S., 2011. Biowaste management returns to EU policyagenda. Waste Management World, 19�21.

Boudouropoulos, I.D., Arvanitoyannis, I.S., 2000. Potential and per-spectives for application of Environmental Management System(EMS) and ISO 14000 to food industries. Food Rev. Int. 16 (2),177�237.

14 1. RECENT EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Burrow, D., 2011. Landfill bans: handle with care. WasteManagement World, 22�26. Available on-line at ,www.waste-management-world.com..

Derden, A., Vercaemst, P., Dijkmans, R., 2002. Best AvailableTechniques (BAT) for the fruit and vegetable processing industry.Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 34 (4), 261�271.

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certainDirectives. Official Journal of the European Union, L 312/3.22.11.2008.

EC, 2008a. Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the European Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee of the Regions — 20 20 by 2020 —Europe’s climate change opportunity. COM, 30 final. Commissionof the European Communities, Brussels.

EC, 2008b. Green paper on the management of biowaste in theEuropean Union. COM, 811 final. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels.

EC, 2008c. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament andof the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renew-able sources. COM, 19 final. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels.

EC DG ENV, 2011. Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27.EC Recommendation No 2003/532/EC, 2003. On guidance in the

selection and use of environmental performance indicators inEMAS, Official Journal of the European Union 184 (25.6.2003), 19.

EU Council Directive 91/156/EEC, amending Directive 75/442/EEC,1991a. Available at: ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri5CELEX:31991L0689:EN:HTML. [last visited27/10/2009].

EU Council Directive on Animal By-Products (2000/76/EC), 2000.Available at: ,http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_up-load/Downloads/DocumentCentre/OP_Resources/Incineration.Directive_2000_76.pdf. [last visited 29/10/2009].

EU Council Directive on Hazardous Waste (91/689/EEC), 1991b.Available at: ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri5CELEX:31991L0689:EN:HTML. [last visited 29/10/2009].

EU Council Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control(96/61/EC), 1996. Available at: ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri5CELEX:31996L0061:EN:HTML.[last visited 29/10/2009].

EU Council Directive on Landfill (1999/31/EC), 1999. Availableat: ,http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri5OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF. [last visited 29/10/2009].

EU Council Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste,1994. Available at: ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1994/L/01994L0062-20050405-en.pdf. [last vis-ited 29/10/2009].

Europa Press releases RAPID, 2011. EU moving towards ‘recyclingsociety’ but room for progress remains. Brussels, Belgium.Available at: ,http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/strategy.htm.

European Environment Agency, 2008. Better management of munici-pal waste will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EEA Briefing 1/2008, EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.

European Environment Agency, 2009. Report No.7/2009. Divertingwaste from landfill. Effectiveness of waste-management policiesin the European Union. Copenhagen, Denmark.

European Environment Agency, 2010. Report. The EuropeanEnvironment. State and Outlook 2010 Synthesis. EEA, Copenhagen,Denmark.

FAO, 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAOAgricultural Service Bulletin, No. 43, FAO Statistics Division.

Gekas and Nikolopoulou, 2007. Introduction to food waste treatment:the 14001 standards. In: Oreopoulou, V., Russ, W. (Eds.), Utilizationof by-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry.Springer.

Grolleaud, M., 2002. Post-harvest losses: discovering the full story.Overview of the Phenomenon of Losses During the Post-HarvestSystem. FAO, Agro Industries and Post-Harvest ManagementService, Rome, Italy.

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, 2010. Landfill Ban Investigation. Report forthe Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populationand Communities. Available at: ,http://www.environment.gov.au/wastepolicy/publications/pubs/landfill-ban.pdf.

LaForest, V., Bertheas, R., 2004. Integrated environmental regula-tion�how to define Best Available Techniques? 9th EuropeanRoundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Bilbao12�14 May, 2004.

Masoliver Jordana, D., 2001. Practical Guide for the Implementation ofan Environmental Management Scheme, Eco-management Manuals:2, Generalitat de Catalunya Departament de Medi Ambient.

Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2010. The causes of food waste inthe supplier�retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain.Resour. Conserv. Recycl. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006.

Midzic-Kurtagic, S., Silajdzic, I., Kupusovic, T., 2010. Mapping ofenvironmental and technological performance of food and beveragesector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (15),1535�1544.

OECD, 2010. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook,OECD Publishing.

OPSI, 2003. The Animal By-Products (Identification) (Amendment)(England) Regulations. Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1484.Available at: ,http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031484.htm.

[last visited 28/10/09].Parkes, L., 2011. WFD Implementation, Waste & Resource

Management, Environment Agency. Awareness Raising Eventsconcerning the application and enforcement of the “new” WasteFramework. Directive 2008/98/EC - UK 2011.

Schollenberger, H., Treiza, M., Geldermann, J., 2008. Adapting theEuropean approach of best available techniques: case studiesfrom Chile and China. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (17), 1856�1864.

Silvenius, F., Gronroos, J., 2003. Fish Farming and the Environment,Results of Inventory Analysis, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki. Finland.

Statutory Instruments (S.I. No. 508), 2009. Waste management (foodwaste) regulations 2009.

Strange, T., Baley, A., 2008. Sustainable Development, LinkingEconomy Society and Environment. OECD, Paris.

Stuart, T., 2009. Waste: Uncovering The Global Food Scandal.Penguin Books, London.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Available at:,http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/fterms.html.. (Retrieved2009-08-20).

Waldron, K.W., 2007. Handbook of waste management andco-product recovery in food processing (Volume 1). WoodheadPublishing Series in Food ScienceTechnology and NutritionNo. 141.

WRAP, 2009. Household food and drink waste in the UK. Banbury,UK.

WRAP, 2010. A review of waste arisings in the supply of food anddrink to UK households in the UK. Banbury, UK.

15REFERENCES

I. FOOD INDUSTRY WASTES: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES