A Better Theory for Food Wasters

Eaters around the world, including the most conscientious ones, discard tons of food daily, without guilt or complaint, for a variety of reasons including far-fetched edibility (think of fish bones), a lack of place in their gastronomic tradition (say, banana peels in Italy), or a scarcity of conservation means (e.g., no refrigeration). However, at other times, the same eaters feel a sense of guilt or anger if, for example, broccoli go uneaten because of their color or supermarkets discard misshapen bananas. In fact, even though all these foods share the same fate of ending up in the bin, the impression is that there is a difference between food that is simply discarded and food that is wasted. But is there really?Some of the food waste definitions endorsed today by mainstream institutional agencies fail indeed to tell apart discarding and wasting. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines food waste as “the edible amount of food, postharvest, that is available for human consumption but is not consumed for any reason,” regardless of whether it was discarded due to cultural reasons or fussiness.However, neglecting differences among types of discarded food undermines attempts to exactly quantify and reduce food waste. For instance, a strict adoption of the FDA definition would include those parts of fermented food lost during the preparation, even if fermentation can extend the food life making its waste less likely. Additionally, distinguishing waste from discarded food can help prevent epistemic injustice (roughly, when someone’s voice is silenced due to cultural reasons). For instance, Alexander and colleagues (2013: 478) recalled the crucial cultural role of discarding food in some societies, such as in the Trobriand Islands where “gifts of vast quantities of yams left to rot in front of the recipient’s long house were an agonistic display of power.” It would indeed be unfair to define this behavior as wasteful, due to its cultural value, even if the FDA definition well applies to it.Despite criticism from discard and food scholars and activists (Liboiron and Lepawsky 2022), who have proposed more nuanced classifications—such as distinguishing between avoidable and unavoidable food waste (Moreno et al. 2020)—the approaches endorsed by institutional agencies (such as the FDA, FAO, or EU) still fail to account for these complexities.A different perspective might be grounded on the shared belief that the term “waste” means something negative (Moser 2002). A common aspect shared by the Trobriand case and, for example, the case of fish bones is that neither carries negative connotations. In contrast, discarding a banana simply because it fails to meet certain beauty standards appears deserving of condemnation.Drawing on food scholarship and applying a philosophical methodology, I propose a revision of food waste definitions based on the idea that “food waste” should be understood as a thick term—one that integrates descriptions (e.g., “water” that refers to substances composed of H2O) and evaluations (e.g., “good” that does not convey factual information but a judgement). Thick terms simultaneously identify something while expressing a value judgment. For example, the word “selfish” describes someone as prioritizing their own interests over others’ while also conveys a negative evaluation (see Kirchin 2013).If we apply this approach to “food waste,” we can offer a substantive advantage in distinguishing between food that is wasted and food that is merely discarded. To exemplify, the FDA criterion may function as the descriptive component of a food-waste definition, while the evaluative component may be provided by a selection or combination of norms of appropriate food use (Matthes and Matthes 2018), the consequences of food waste (Thompson 2015), or the virtues expressed by those discarding food. For instance, the condemnation of a supermarket for disposing of misshapen fruits can be based on norms that discourage discarding food solely for aesthetic reasons, concerns about the environmental consequences of such action, or on criticism of the unvirtuous intent to maximize profit at the expense of the environment.As these examples illustrate, a thick definition of “food waste” applies only in scenarios where both descriptive and evaluative criteria are met, ensuring that the term is used only when discarding is undesirable. This approach can be utilized by agencies tasked with measuring food waste, by asking individuals in surveys whether they consider what they have discarded to be waste, based on their moral beliefs. This allows to more easily distinguish between waste (i.e., when condemnation occurs) and discards (i.e., when condemnation does not occur). It may also aid in tracking responsibility. For example, market constraints may sometimes compel consumers to purchase six-pack cartons of eggs, even when they need fewer, leading them to discard the excess. The path of condemnation reveals that, while consumers are discarding the eggs, the wasteful decision originated with companies offering only six-packs, thus helping to attribute responsibility and shift reduction measures away from individuals and toward systemic change.However, some questions still remain unanswered, such as what are the values that should be used to back the evaluation needed to identify food waste. Questions like these fall outside the competence of philosophers, who can illuminate the conceptual structure of terms but should adopt epistemic humility and consult stakeholders and other scholars for accomplishing these tasks.This research was funded by the FCT exploratory grant no. 2023.12085.PEX.