Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards

This project has received funding from the European Union´s Horizon Europe research and Innovation programme under the agreement No. 101136701 DELIVERABLE 2.5 Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 1 of 98 Project title BRinging Evidence-bAseD food Chain solutions to prevent and RedUce food waste related to Marketing standards, and deliver climate and circularity co Benefits Project acronym BREADCRUMB Call topic HORIZON-CL6-2023-FARM2FORK-01 Type of action HORIZON-RIA Coordinator EIGEN VERMOGEN VAN HET INSTITUUT VOOR LANDBOUWEN VISSERIJONDERZOEK - EV ILVO Deliverable due date (first submission) 28/02/2025 Deliverable due date (second submission) 27/06/2025 Project number 101136701 Project start date 01/01/2024 Duration 36 months URL https://www.breadcrumb-project.eu D2.5 – CASE STUDY FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES Due date 28/02/2025 Delivery date 27/06/2025 – version 2 Work package WP2 Responsible Author(s) ILVO (Capwell Forbang Echo, Anna Twarogowska, Rani Van Gompel, Sofie De Man, Rachel Lemaitre) Contributor(s) CREDA (Djamel Rhamani, Maria Saray Ramirez Rodriguez) OPPPB (Marta Felip Palaus) UCPH (Subash Rana, Mukti R. Chapagain, Bent Egberg Mikkelsen) ITC (Sasa Straus, Tamara Kozic) AINIA (Maripaz Villaba Talens, Cristina Jodar, Laura Ripol) ANECOOP (Nicolas Juste, Maria Miranda Tarin) MENSANA (Sanja Korenika, Ines Kranjec) AVEC (Nadia Khaldoune, Federica Chiarella, Paul-Henri Lava, Pedro Peña) FEBEV (Michael Gore, Anne Heyvaert) D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 2 of 98 FENAVIAN (Anneleen Vandewynckel, Anne-Christine Gouder) MC/MCH (Rita Silva) CSCP (Nora Brueggemann, Marcia Rottwitt) UNIBO (Matteo Vittuari, Caterina Rettore, Matteo Masotti) Zelena Tocka (Aleksandra Kocet) Vila Natura (Marko Slavic) Landbrug & Fodevarer (Jorgen Nyberg Larsen) Lehmann Natur (Christina Marandi, Marc Stracke) Natura Nuova (Simone Prospero, Fabio Fenati) VLTN (Chantal den Broeder, Nika Palaguta, Paulina Szwed) Reviewer(s) CREDA (Djamel Rhamani, Maria Saray Ramirez Rodriguez) AINIA (Maripaz Villaba Talens, Cristina Jodar, Laura Ripol) Lehmann Natur & CSCP (Christina Marandi, Nora Brueggemann) Version 2.0 Dissemination level Public DISCLAIMER The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not necessarily represent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services. While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the authors(s) or any other participant in the BREADCRUMB consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the BREADCRUMB Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission herein. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the BREADCRUMB Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein. COPYRIGHT MESSAGE © BREADCRUMB Consortium, 2024-2026. This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgment of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation, or both. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 3 of 98 VERSION AND AMENDMENTS HISTORY Version Date (DD / MM /YYYY) Created /Amended by Changes 0.1 28/01/2025 Capwell Forbang Echo First draft 0.2 31/01/2025 Sofie De Man, Rani Van Gompel, Rachel Lemaitre, Anna Twarogowska Internal review and minor changes to content 0.3 02/02/2025 Capwell Forbang Echo Addressed comments 1.0 21/02/2025 Capwell Forbang Echo Addressed comments from reviewers, styling and final version 1.1 20/05/2025 Nora B and Regina F. (CSCP) Adjusted values for Lehmann Natur CS. 1.2 03/06/2025 Capwell Forbang Echo Incorporated CSCP changes and adjusted text 1.3 12/06/2025 Nora B and Regina F. (CSCP) Text changes on LN 2.0 23/06/2025 Capwell Forbang Echo Incorporated CSCP changes and adjusted text D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 4 of 98 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 10 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 BREADCRUMB PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 11 1.2 AIM AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................. 12 1.3 LINKS WITH OTHER BREADCRUMB WORK PACKAGES AND TASKS ....................................................... 13 1.4 BREADCRUMB PROJECT: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS ............................................... 14 1.4.1 Food, Waste, and Food Waste ................................................................................................ 14 1.4.1.1 Food Waste Estimates ......................................................................................................... 14 1.4.2 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 14 1.4.2.1 Public and Private Food Marketing Standards .................................................................... 15 1.4.3 Suboptimal Food (Products) .................................................................................................... 16 2. OVERVIEW OF BREADCRUMB CASE STUDIES ................................................................................. 17 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 STEP 1: DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.2 Challenges faced by the case studies ..................................................................................... 21 3.1.3 Food commodity and product focus ........................................................................................ 21 3.2 STEP 2 - 5: DATA QUALITY CHECK, STANDARDISATION, AND ANALYSIS .................................................. 24 4. FINDINGS FROM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES COMMODITY ............................................................. 26 4.1 ITALY - NATURA NUOVA ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.1.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 26 4.1.2 Suboptimal products ................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 PORTUGAL – MC/MCH ..................................................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Suboptimal products, ............................................................................................................... 30 4.3 SLOVENIA – ZELENA TOCKA AND MENSANA ......................................................................................... 31 4.3.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Suboptimal products ................................................................................................................ 32 4.4 GERMANY – LEHMANN NATUR ............................................................................................................ 33 4.4.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 33 4.4.2 Suboptimal products ................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.2.1 Product targeted recommendations to reduce future food waste due to food marketing standards in LN .................................................................................................................................... 34 4.5 SPAIN – ANECOOP .......................................................................................................................... 35 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 5 of 98 4.5.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 35 4.5.2 Suboptimal products ................................................................................................................ 36 4.6 FLANDERS AND THE NETHERLANDS – ILVO ......................................................................................... 36 4.6.1 Food Marketing Standards ...................................................................................................... 37 4.6.2 Suboptimal products, ............................................................................................................... 38 4.7 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ........................... 39 4.8 ESTIMATES OF FOOD WASTE IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES TARGETED IN THE STUDY.............................. 42 4.9 SOLUTIONS TO SUBOPTIMAL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS AND THEIR FATE ................................... 51 5. FINDINGS FROM MEAT COMMODITY ................................................................................................. 54 5.1 BELGIUM - FENAVIAN ....................................................................................................................... 54 5.2 BELGIUM - FEBEV ............................................................................................................................. 54 5.3 EUROPE - AVEC ................................................................................................................................ 54 5.4 FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS IN MEAT ............................................................................................. 55 5.4.1 Creation, adherence, and implementation ............................................................................... 56 5.4.2 Challenges ............................................................................................................................... 56 5.5 ESTIMATE OF FOOD WASTE ................................................................................................................ 57 5.6 SUBOPTIMAL PRODUCTS, .................................................................................................................... 60 6. FINDINGS FROM EGG COMMODITY ................................................................................................... 62 6.1.1 Food Marketing Standards in Egg sector in Denmark ............................................................. 62 6.1.1.1 Egg sorting process complexity and waste generation ....................................................... 63 6.2 FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS AND ESTIMATE OF FOOD WASTE IN THE DANISH EGG SECTOR .............. 63 6.2.1 Handling of food waste and opportunities and challenges for valorisation ............................. 65 7. FINDINGS FROM CEREAL COMMODITY ............................................................................................. 66 7.1 ITALY – NATURA NUOVA ..................................................................................................................... 66 7.1.1.1 Costs, Benefits, and Challenges.......................................................................................... 67 7.1.2 Food Waste estimates ............................................................................................................. 68 7.2 SLOVENIA - VILA NATURA .................................................................................................................. 68 7.2.1 Food Marketing Standards and Food Waste ........................................................................... 68 7.3 FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS IN CEREALS OVERVIEW ....................................................................... 69 7.4 FOOD WASTE ESTIMATIONS ................................................................................................................ 71 8. FINDINGS FROM FISH COMMODITY ................................................................................................... 74 8.1 FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS .......................................................................................................... 75 8.2 FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS .......................................................................................................... 77 8.3 FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................... 79 8.4 CHALLENGES ..................................................................................................................................... 83 9. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 84 9.1 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 84 9.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 86 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 6 of 98 9.3 RESEARCH AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 87 9.3.1 Research Recommendations .................................................................................................. 87 9.3.2 Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 87 9.3.3 General Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 87 10. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 89 11. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 90 11.1 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND CONSENT FORM ..................................................................... 90 11.2 GUIDING QUESTIONS / TEMPLATE USED BY CASE STUDIES ..................................................................... 94 11.3 OVERVIEW OF FMSS INFLUENCING FW AT EACH STAGE OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN IN F&V IN ITALY. ............ 97 11.4 OVERVIEW OF FMSS INFLUENCING FW AT EACH STAGE OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN IN THE CEREAL SECTOR IN ITALY. 97 11.5 CONTRIBUTION OF FW DUE TO FMS ON TOTAL FW IN THE PORTUGUESE CASE STUDY .......................... 97 11.6 CALCULATION OF PER YEAR% ESTIMATE OF FW AND FW-FMS IN THE DANISH EGG SECTOR ................. 98 11.7 LIQUID WASTE DURING THE PROCESSING OF EGG PRODUCTS, AN EXAMPLE FROM A COMPANY ................ 98 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 7 of 98 List of figures FIGURE 1: THE BREADCRUMB PROJECT AT A GLANCE ......................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2: BREADCRUMB CASE STUDIES, COMMODITIES TARGETED AND EU MEMBER STATES INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 3: GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDIES ............................................. 17 FIGURE 4: SIX-STEP METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF T2.3 ............................................................... 18 FIGURE 5: STRUCTURE AND FLOW OF QUESTIONS IN T2.3................................................................... 19 FIGURE 6: SHARE OF FMS IDENTIFIED IN ITALY ...................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 7: MC/MCH'S PRODUCTS AND FSC STAGES .............................................................................. 29 FIGURE 8: FISH CASE STUDY GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT ...................................................................... 74 FIGURE 9: SHARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FMS IMPLEMENTED BY SPANISH FISH SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 10: MAJOR CONCERNS OF FISH STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................... 79 FIGURE 11: DISTRIBUTION OF FW (+ FW DUE TO FMS) ACROSS FISH FSC, CASE STUDY - SPAIN . 80 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: CASE STUDY DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES, DATA PROCESSORS AND ANALYSTS ... 20 TABLE 2: FOOD COMMODITY, FOOD PRODUCTS AT VARIOUS FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN STAGE TARGETED BY CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 3: OVERVIEW OF FMS IN BREACRUMB F&V CASE STUDIES, MEMBER STATES, AND STAGES OF FSC WHERE THEY ARE APPLIED .................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 4: ESTIMATE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION, AVERAGE FW AND AVERAGE FW DUE TO FMS FOR VARIOUS F&V PRODUCTS ................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 5: SUBOPTIMAL F&V AND THEIR FATE .......................................................................................... 52 TABLE 6: SEVERAL FOOD MARKETING STANDARDS IN THE EU MEAT SECTOR ................................ 55 TABLE 7: ESTIMATE OF TOTAL FW AND FW DUE TO FMS FOR VARIOUS MEAT PRODUCTS ............ 58 TABLE 8: ESTIMATE OF TOTAL FW AND FW DUE TO FMS FOR VARIOUS EGG PRODUCTS .............. 64 TABLE 9: OVERVIEW OF FMS IN CEREALS ................................................................................................ 69 TABLE 10: ESTIMATE OF TOTAL FW AND FW DUE TO FMS FOR VARIOUS CEREAL PRODUCTS ...... 72 TABLE 11: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FMS DETECTED IN CASE STUDY AND ITS EXTENSION ALONG THE FRESH FISH SUPPLY CHAIN. ............................................................................................................... 75 TABLE 12: PRIVATE MARKETING STANDARDS WITH A PUBLIC STANDARD AS BASELINE. ............... 77 TABLE 13: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC MARKETING STANDARDS AND ITS INTERACTION WITH FOOD WASTE AND COST-BENEFITS ............................................................................................................. 77 TABLE 14: ESTIMATE OF (WEEKLY) TOTAL PRODUCTION, AVERAGE FW AND AVERAGE FW DUE TO FMS FOR VARIOUS FISH PRODUCTS ................................................................................................. 81 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 8 of 98 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Description AI Artificial Intelligence ARC Approved Retail Consortium B2B Business to Business BMC Business Model Canvas CS Case Studies CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive D Deliverable EC European Commission EAB External Advisory Board EU European Union ERP Enterprise Resource Planning FAO Food and Agriculture Organization F&V Fruits and Vegetables FMS Food Marketing Standards FMSIG Food Marketing Standards Interest Group FSC Food Supply Chain FW Food Waste GA Grant Agreement GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative GRMS Global Red Meat Standard HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points HORECA Hotel, Restaurant and Café / Catering IFS International Featured Standard IDI In-depth interview JRC Joint Research Centre M Month D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 15 of 98 international guidelines, developed at different times and under varying conditions, tailored to specific products or entire sectors (European Commission, 2020). The main purpose of FMS is to facilitate trade, ensure products meet consumer expectations, and maintain fairness in the supply chain. These standards aim to: ✓ Enhance economic conditions for production and trade. ✓ Improve product quality for producers, traders, and consumers. ✓ Provide transparent and adequate product information. ✓ Ensure standardized, satisfactory quality in the market. Marketing standards are defined by legislation to guarantee product quality and accurate labelling, (Nes & Ciaian, 2021) 1.4.2.1 Public and Private Food Marketing Standards Public Food Marketing Standards Public FMS are regulations established and enforced by government bodies or international organizations to ensure baseline criteria for product quality, labelling, and safety. These standards aim to protect public health, promote fair trade, and safeguard the environment. For example, in the European Union, legislation such as Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (CMO Regulation) 4 and the "breakfast directives" define mandatory rules on the composition, naming, and labelling of specific food products across member states. Public standards are legally binding and provide a uniform framework for fair trade practices and consumer protection. Private Food Marketing Standards Private FMS, on the other hand, are developed and managed by entities such as companies, manufacturers, non-governmental organizations, industry associations, and retailers. These standards are often more flexible and responsive to changing consumer preferences and global market demands. Private standards have emerged to address gaps in public regulations, manage risks, and build consumer trust in food safety and quality. They are also used strategically to enhance brand reputation, manage suppliers, and adapt to the evolving agri-food system. 4 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 16 of 98 1.4.3 Suboptimal Food (Products) Suboptimal food refers to food products that exhibit physical imperfections deviating from typical visual standards, despite having no issues with intrinsic quality or safety. These imperfections may include irregular shapes, inconsistent weights, or blemished appearances that fail to meet marketing standard and product specifications. Additionally, suboptimal food encompasses items with superficially damaged packaging or those nearing their expiration date, provided their nutritional quality remains intact (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019; Cao & Miao, 2021; de Hooge et al., 2017). D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 17 of 98 2. OVERVIEW OF BREADCRUMB CASE STUDIES The BREADCRUMB project address five commodities (fruits and vegetables, meat (poultry, bovine, and pork), eggs, cereals, and fish) through 16 multi-actor case studies (Figure 2). The CSs were spread throughout several EU members states targeting different stages of the FSC to ensure the representativeness and enhance comparability of the results obtained. Households or consumers will only be targeted in tasks related to WP4 of the project where suboptimal products identified in the downstream FSC stages will be studied to determine alternative marketing channels. Figure 4 shows a geographical spread of the CSs in the BREADCRUMB project. Figure 2: BREADCRUMB case studies, commodities targeted and EU member states involved Figure 3: Geographical representation of the case studies D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 18 of 98 3. METHODOLOGY The methodology used in T2.3 outlines different stages for the data collection, pre-processing, and sensemaking of CSs datasets. These six-step approach led to the creation of D2.5 (Figure 4): ✓ Step 1 – Case Study data collection (M6 – M10): CS data was collected using online surveys and in-depth interviews with external stakeholders. This step ensured that a wide range of perspectives and detailed information were gathered to provide a comprehensive understanding of FW caused by FMS. ✓ Step 2 – data quality check (M10): Assigned ‘data-processors’, primarily non-CS project partners, conducted thorough quality checks on the collected data. This step was crucial to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of the data before further processing. ✓ Step 3 – data standardisation (M10 – M11): Cleaned and anonymized data from various CS were filled into a standardized reporting template. This step facilitated uniformity across all datasets, making it easier to compare and analyse the information systematically. ✓ Step 4 – data analysis (M11 – M12) : Project-assigned CS data analysts, who in some cases were the same organisations/partners as the data processors, conducted detailed analyses of the standardized data. This step involved application of various analytical techniques to uncover patterns, trends, and insights related to FW generation due to FMS. ✓ Step 5 – Reporting (M12) The data analysts prepared comprehensive reports outlining the insights generated from the CS data analysis process. These reports highlighted key findings, identified significant factors influencing FW, and provided evidence-based conclusions. ✓ Step 6 – review and compilation (M13): The individual data analysis reports were reviewed to ensure accuracy and completeness. The major task output, D2.5, was then compiled, integrating the insights from all CS into a cohesive document. This final report serves as a critical deliverable for disseminating the findings of the BREADCRUMB project Figure 4: Six-step methodological approach of T2.3 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 19 of 98 3.1 Step 1: Data collection 3.1.1 Overview BREADCRUMB CSs employed various data collection techniques (Table 2); and elaborated in D1.1 Data Protocol, to acquire estimates of FW related to FMS. Case studies also prepared and iterated three versions of case study plans (D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4) which further shaped their vision on data collection. The general protocol followed by all CSs involved the use of an information sheet and a consent form (Appendix I). This was used as a first step to inform and seek the approval of the external stakeholders who were contacted to participate in providing answers to the questions either through an online survey or an online/in-person in-depth interview (IDI). A general structure of questions was prepared and used (slightly modified to fit the context where necessary) by the CSs. The questions followed a logical structure to obtain FW estimates from the companies operating in the different food commodities (Figure 5). It also went further to understand the abilities or existing opportunities of companies to handle suboptimal products and their general future plans to reduce FW. Figure 5: Structure and flow of questions in T2.3 Based on Figure 6, a guide template (Appendix II) with sample questions was prepared for the CSs to further translate and expatiate in their context. The development of survey and IDI questions was an iterative process involving several reviews of different draft versions to produce a final version supervised by CS data processors to ensure the final questions are applicable, understandable, and expected answers synchronized to enhance comparability. During the data collection period (mainly D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 20 of 98 from M7 – M10; July to October 2024), a total of 101 IDIs were conducted and 39 survey responses recorded (Table 1). Supplementary data was also collected by some companies such as Lehmann Natur through an “internal data collection” method. Table 1: Case study data collection techniques, data processors and analysts Food Commodity Case Study Data collection techniques(s) Data Processor Data Analyst IDI Survey F&V F&V.CS1.NN-IT 7 UNIBO UNIBO F&V.CS2.MC-PT 8 VLTN MC F&V.CS3.ZT-SI 16 ITC ITC F&V.CS4.Men-SI 11 F&V.CS5.LN-DE 6 Internal data CSCP CSCP F&V.CS6.Ane-ES 8 AINIA AINIA F&V.CS7.ILVO-BE 5 VLTN EV-ILVO F&V.CS8.ILVO.BE_NL 5 Meat M.CS1.Fen-BE 3 9 EV-ILVO M.CS2.AVE-BE_EU 3 11 M.CS3.Feb-BE 4 19 Eggs E.CS1.LF-DK 5 UCPH UCPH E.CS2.AVE-BE_EU* 5 EV-ILVO EV-ILVO Cereals C.CS1.NN-IT 5 UNIBO UNIBO C.CS2.VN-SI 5 ITC ITC Fish F.CS1.Opp-ES 5 CREDA CREDA * = egg case study analyzed in T2.4 for D2.6 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 21 of 98 3.1.2 Challenges faced by the case studies Several challenges were encountered during data collection by case study partners. The major difficulties include: ✓ Stakeholder reluctance: Many stakeholders, such as suppliers, were either unwilling or unavailable for interviews. Amongst other reasons for this unavailability, was the fact that the interviews were conducted during the summer holiday months. This reluctance often stemmed from concerns about confidentiality, time constraints, or a lack of perceived benefit from participating in the study. ✓ Small sample size and incomplete data: obtaining a sufficient sample size was challenging and the data, especially quantitative information, was often incomplete. This makes it difficult to draw comprehensive conclusions. ✓ Claims of "No Food Waste": Some stakeholders claimed to have no FW, due to them not monitoring or measuring the potential FW which raised questions about the sensitivity of the topic. ✓ Complex and ambiguous questionnaires: The questionnaires were challenging for stakeholders, incorporating too many perspectives beyond the stakeholders comprehension. This is an aspect solely based on the complexity of the subject matter in question being studied; FMS. This complexity led to confusion and incomplete responses, as stakeholders struggled to understand and answer the questions accurately. These ambiguities resulted in varied interpretations and inconsistent data, complicating the analysis process. 3.1.3 Food commodity and product focus During the draw-up of case studies plans (D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4), product mapping based on the five food commodities of interest in the BREADCRUMB project was carried out. This was to ensure CSs targeted the most relevant food products at various stages of the FSC to establish clear links between the hypothesized possibility of FMS contributing to the generation of FW. Table 2 below outlines the products and the stage of the FSC that was targeted by each CS. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 22 of 98 Table 2: Food commodity, food products at various food supply chain stage targeted by case studies Food Commodity Case Study Products targeted Stage of FSC F&V F&V.CS1.NN-IT Apples (fresh + processed), Pears, Apricots, Peaches, Plums, Fruit purees + smoothies, Canned + dried fruits Primary production, Processing, Retail and Distribution, F&V.CS2.MC-PT Lettuce, Round tomatoes, Carrot, Orange, Raspberry, Strawberry, Apple Gala, Pear Rocha Primary producers, Processing, Retailer F&V.CS3.ZT-SI Apples, Onions, Potato, Tomato, Zucchini Primary production, Processing, Retail F&V.CS4.Men-SI Pumpkin Hokkaido, Turnip, Cabbage, Lettuce, Potato, Tomato, Zucchini, Onions, Apple Primary production, Processing, Restaurant and food services F&V.CS5.LN-DE Limes, Lemons, Cucumbers, Cherry date tomatoes, Peppers Primary producer, Wholesaler, Retailer F&V.CS6.Ane-ES Citrus fruits, Persimmons Primary production, Processing F&V.CS7.ILVO-BE Blueberries, Raspberries, Strawberries, Blackberries Primary Production, Distributor , Retailer, Match marker F&V.CS8.ILVO.BE_NL Bell pepper, Tomatoes, Lettuce Primary Production Cooperative, Processing, Wholesaler, Match maker Meat M.CS1.Fen-BE Chicken fillet, Bacon, Cooked ham, Raw ham, Sausages, Pâte, Salami Others (ready meals, head products, sliced raw salty products, beef fillet, meat loaf) Primary Production, Processing and Manufacturing, Retail and Distribution M.CS2.AVE-BE_EU Whole chicken, Breast fillet, Legs, Processed products Primary Production, Slaughtering, Processing and D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 23 of 98 Manufacturing, Retail and Distribution M.CS3.Feb-BE By-products*, Fresh meat, Carcases , Meat preparations, Mechanical separated meat, Minced meat* Primary Production, Processing and Manufacturing, Retail and Distribution *= sub-optimal products coming from parts of meat that do not meet standards after cutting Eggs E.CS1.LF-DK Egg and egg products Primary Production, Processing (product factory), Retailer and Distribution (packing station) E.CS2.AVE-BE_EU* Primary Production, Retail and Distribution (Packing station), Processing Cereals C.CS1.NN-IT Soybean + soy, Wheat + soft wheat + wheat flour, Corn + soft corn Primary Production, Processing, and Distribution C.CS2.VN-SI Wheat + wheat flour , Oat + oat flakes, Spelt + spelt flour, Corn, Barley Primary Production, Processing, Food Service (Restaurant) Fish F.CS1.Opp-ES Sardine, Anchovy, Alatxa, Bogue, Shrimp, Greater Forkbeard, Mediterranean sand eel, Octopus, Norway lobster, Small spotted catshark, Four spot megrim Primary Production (fishermen), Wholesaler, Retail (fishmonger), Food Service (Restaurant) D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 24 of 98 3.2 Step 2 - 5: Data quality check, standardisation, and analysis Once all data was collected by the different CSs, the assigned data processors, responsible for the data pre-processing, conducted quality checks on the raw data, such as handing of missing data, standardisation, outlier management, data anonymization, various data transformation and thematic coding. This step ensured that any inconsistencies or errors were identified and corrected early in the process. The data was then anonymized to protect the privacy of the participants and cleaned to remove any irrelevant or redundant information. This cleaned data was subsequently filled into a standardized reporting template, which facilitated uniformity and ease of analysis across all CSs. Following this, the assigned data analysts, who were responsible for data analysis and generating insights, conducted detailed analyses of the standardized data. These analyses involved applying various techniques to uncover patterns, trends, and significant findings related to FW and FMS. The data analysts worked meticulously to ensure that the insights generated were accurate and meaningful. To ensure consistency and alignment across the project, several meetings were held among the data analysts. These meetings provided a platform to discuss challenges encountered during the analysis process, share progress updates, and align methodologies and approaches. This D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 31 of 98 strategies. Despite these efforts, some companies struggle to find large-scale solutions to valorise and reduce FW, highlighting the need for continued innovation and adaptation. 4.3 Slovenia – Zelena Tocka and Mensana In 2022, Slovenian fruit, vegetable, and flower exports reached a significant value, contributing to the country's overall export growth of 34.2% from the previous year 9 . Slovenian fruit production is characterized by small to medium-sized family-owned farms, similar to Italy and Portugal. The sector has seen improvements in efficiency and technological advancements over recent years 10 . Slovenia's annual fruit production includes key products such as apples, pears, peaches 11 , and cherries with the fruit processing industry also notable with a market size of approximately €156.9 million 12 . Slovenian households spent a considerable portion of their income on food, with food and nonalcoholic beverages accounting for 16.8% of total household expenditure in 2022 13 . Slovenia exported a substantial amount of fresh fruit in 2022, with major export destinations including Italy, Croatia, Austria, Germany, and Hungary 14 . The Slovenian fruit sector faces challenges such as rising production costs, particularly for energy and water management, and climate variability 15 . 4.3.1 Food Marketing Standards In Slovenia, there is no specific national legislation regulating FMS for fruits and vegetables. Instead, companies must comply with the FMS established at the EU level, which set clear requirements for quality classification, size, labelling, and packaging. These standards apply to key categories such as apples, tomatoes, citrus fruits, and table grapes, ensuring uniform quality and presentation across the EU market. Compliance with these standards is essential for companies looking to sell their fresh produce domestically or export it to other EU countries. While EU standards provide a consistent framework, companies can further enhance their market position by obtaining certifications like GLOBAL GAP and adhering to good agricultural practices. These certifications ensure the safety, quality, and sustainability of their products through rigorous processes. Although meeting these standards and obtaining certifications may require investments 9 Exports and imports of goods, December 2022 10 KIS_Slovensko_kmetijstvo_v_stevilkah_za_leto_2021_EN_spl.pdf 11 Characteristics of Agriculture in Slovenia 12 Fruit & Vegetable Processing in Slovenia - Market Research Report (2014-2029) 13 Correction – Household budget survey, 2022 14 Slovenia Vegetable Exports by country 2022 | WITS Data 15 EN-brochure-agriculture-in-numbers-2024.pdf D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 32 of 98 in quality control, traceability systems, and staff training, these efforts help companies secure competitive advantages, expand their market reach, and enhance their brand reputation. FW across key commodities such as Hokkaido pumpkin, turnip, cabbage, lettuce, tomato, potato, zucchini, and onion is influenced by product type, FMS, and production scale. Public FMS focusing on appearance, size, freshness, and colour drive significant FW at the primary production stage, especially for fresh products like turnips, cabbage, and lettuce. In contrast, processing stages show relatively lower FW, primarily caused by peeling, trimming, and handling inefficiencies rather than direct FMS enforcement. The Restaurant and other Food Services stage also contributes to FW, driven by customer-focused quality and freshness standards. At the primary production stage, strict public standards lead to non-compliant products being discarded, left in the field, or diverted to secondary uses such as animal feed or composting. For example, turnips often face rejection due to appearance and size, contributing to high FW levels. Products like tomatoes and zucchini are sometimes repurposed into sauces, pickles, or soups, minimizing losses. In the processing stage, FW arises mainly due to operational inefficiencies, with losses occurring during preparation processes like peeling and trimming. Processing FW is often diverted to secondary uses like animal feed or compost, with potato peels and rejected zucchini being repurposed efficiently. In the Restaurant and Food Services stage, FW is influenced by strict private standards for quality, taste, and freshness. Generally, primary production remains the most critical point of FW generation, driven by public standards focusing on appearance, size, and freshness. Processing stages experience lower FW, with losses primarily stemming from preparation processes. The Restaurant & Food Services stage represents an additional point of FW generation, driven by private customer demands, but also offers opportunities for waste reduction through repurposing. Effective mitigation strategies, such as repurposing rejected products into sauces, pickles, or animal feed, highlight opportunities for reducing FW, particularly for fresh produce. Smaller producers effectively reduce FW by processing rejected products into compotes or sauces, while larger systems face higher FW due to stricter enforcement of FMS and larger quantities rejected. 4.3.2 Suboptimal products Suboptimal produce like tomatoes, zucchini, and apples is often repurposed into sauces, juices, or pickles, while items such as onions, potatoes, and pumpkins are more likely to be discarded due to limited reuse options. Restaurants can reduce food waste by creatively using imperfect produce, though severely damaged items are usually thrown away. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 33 of 98 4.4 Germany – Lehmann Natur In 2022, German fruit, vegetable, and flower exports reached a significant value, contributing to the country's overall export growth. German fruit production is characterized by a mix of small to medium-sized family-owned farms and larger commercial operations. The sector has seen improvements in efficiency and technological advancements over recent years 16 . Germany's annual fruit production includes key products such as apples, pears, strawberries, and cherries 17 . The fruit processing industry in Germany is also notable, with a market size of approximately €12.4 billion 18 . German households spent a considerable portion of their income on food, with food and nonalcoholic beverages accounting for 15% of total household expenditure in 2022 19 . Germany imported a substantial amount of fresh fruit in 2022, with major import sources including Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and France. Imports are essential to meet domestic demand, especially for tropical and exotic fruits 20 . The German fruit sector faces challenges such as rising production costs, particularly for energy and labour, and climate variability. The sector's focus on sustainability and certification also provides a competitive edge in the market 21 . The German case study on F&V was conducted in cooperation with the German organic wholesaler Lehmann Natur (LN) and CSCP. It focused on five key commodities for LN in terms of volume and sales (Table 1 & 2). The study utilized two data sources: internal data from LN's merchandise management system and six interactions through verbal or written questionnaires with international and European F&V suppliers of LN. 4.4.1 Food Marketing Standards Most of the food produced by the six suppliers was sold in conformity with standards, as LN communicated its specifications and requirements clearly. Suppliers were aware of LN's requirements and EU standards (Table 4), resulting in high compliance rates. The percentage of F&V’s sorted out or rejected by retail consumers due to not meeting standards ranged from 30% for limes to 11% for cucumbers. The strict FMS led to significant FW, particularly for products that did not meet specific standards. In some companies, FMS are enforced by sorting the fruit by quality with an AI-supported sorting machine. Non-compliant products were often devalued, repurposed, or 16 Thünen: Trends in German fruit and vegetable cultivation 17 Germany: Product Brief Fresh Fruits | USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 18 Fruit & Vegetable Processing in Germany - Market Research Report (2014-2029) 19 Consumption expenditure - German Federal Statistical Office 20 The German market potential for fresh fruit and vegetables | CBI 21 Exporting fresh fruit and vegetables to Germany | CBI D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 34 of 98 discarded, contributing to overall FW. The need to meet stringent size, colour, and quality requirements resulted in some produce being used for secondary purposes or left unharvested, highlighting the impact of FMS on FW generation. 4.4.2 Suboptimal products Despite high compliance, all six suppliers reported some level of "devalorisation" due to FMS. This included produce that could not be exported to the European or German market and had to be sold locally at lower prices or used to produce other products like juice for human consumption (for one company this could amount up to amounting to 4,619,000 kg/year, and revalorizes 7,550,000 kg/year into products like lemon juice from green-coloured lemons). Some limes, tomatoes, and cucumbers were used as animal feed (4,000 kg/year), composted, or left in the field when they did not meet size, colour, or other customer requirements. Additionally, between 0.28% and 2.65% of unsellable produce per commodity was sold by LN to the wholesale market. LN also had to discard between 1.15% and 2.27% per commodity due to defects or rejections by retail customers. 4.4.2.1 Product targeted recommendations to reduce future food waste due to food marketing standards in LN ✓ Limes: Allowing for a higher tolerance of discoloured, yellow limes could reduce devaluation and waste upstream in the supply chain. ✓ Lemons: The project team suggests discussing with German retailers the possibility of extending the 2024 special agreement to accept a certain share of green lemons due to adverse weather conditions. This could help maintain higher acceptance rates and reduce rejections, while also working on end-consumer acceptance. ✓ Cucumbers: The issue of "soft edges" in cucumbers, which occurs more frequently in hot months or at the end of a production cycle, could be mitigated by switching to foil packaging. This would prolong shelf life and reduce the number of cucumbers unsuitable for human consumption. ✓ Cherry Date Tomatoes and Peppers: Increasing spoilage tolerance by retail clients from 3% to 5% and implementing a sorting process at the retail site could reduce the need for timeintensive and ecologically questionable transportation of quality products. An annual refund agreement for spoiled goods exceeding 5% could be considered instead of returning the goods. Additionally, the practice of "Drop Shipping" with one organic retailer, where products are sent directly from the producer to the retailer where sorting could be implemented in case of complaints, could be expanded to reduce transportation times and waste. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 35 of 98 4.5 Spain – ANECOOP In 2022, Spanish fruit and vegetable exports reached a significant value, contributing to the country's overall export growth. Spanish fruit production is characterized by a mix of small to medium-sized family-owned farms and larger commercial operations 22 . Spain's annual fruit production includes key products such as oranges, lemons, cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, and peppers 23 . The fruit processing industry in Spain is also notable, with a market size of approximately €13.3 billion 24 . Spanish households spent a considerable portion of their income on food, with food and non-alcoholic beverages accounting for 12.9% of total household expenditure in 2022 25 . Spain exported a substantial amount of fresh fruit in 2022, with major export destinations including Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Imports are essential to meet domestic demand, especially for tropical and exotic fruits22. ANECOOP is a prominent cooperative in Spain, known for being one of Europe's leading suppliers of F&V, and salad products. Established in 1975, ANECOOP has grown to become a significant player in the agricultural sector, with a network that spans across 13 provinces in Spain 26 . ANECOOP offers a diverse range of products, including citrus fruits and persimmons (Table 1 & 2). They are particularly noted for their citrus fruit exports 27 . ANECOOP is committed to sustainable practices such as prevention and reduction of FW and maintaining high-quality standards in their production and distribution processes. ANECOOP's extensive network and commitment to innovation and quality make it a key player in the fruit and vegetable market in Spain and beyond. 4.5.1 Food Marketing Standards Table 4 compiles the FMS also implemented in Spain. Implementing these FMS presents several challenges, particularly in the context of the F&V sector. These include: ✓ Regulatory Compliance: Older members may struggle to understand the field's rules. Regulations are often poorly adapted to the specific needs of the fruit sector, focusing more on general food standards that do not fit well with fruits and vegetables. ✓ Quality Standards and Labelling: Quality standards do not consider the size of the company or the unique aspects of the fruit and vegetable sector. There is a need to segregate qualities and manage labelling according to each customer's requirements, which can be inconsistent 22 The Spanish market potential for fresh fruit and vegetables | CBI 23 Inside Spain’s Citrus Industry - Citrus Industry Magazine 24 https://citrusindustry.net/2018/07/03/inside-spains-citrus-industry/ 25 Notas de prensa INE (inglés) 26 Anecoop Group - Anecoop 27 Agriconsa , Which is, who are, history, Agriconsa, Anecoop, cooperatives, farmers, Valencia, Spain, Europe, EU D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 36 of 98 and challenging. Also, specific customer demands, such as de-greening oranges for aesthetic purposes, can lead to issues like weight loss, spots, and rot. ✓ Economic and Resource Challenges: Increasing regulations require significant economic resources for infrastructure, computer equipment, personnel, and audit fees, which can amount to around €100,000. Customers' demands for pest-free and cosmetically perfect fruit, despite it being grown outdoors, add to the economic burden. ✓ Operational and Training Issues: Training staff and controlling production is difficult, especially with many small farms adds to the challenges. In addition, maintaining facilities to meet regulatory standards is economically challenging. Also, adapting standard requirements to the company's characteristics and product is difficult, and measuring necessary parameters for certification is also a challenge. Overall, the implementation of FMS in the F&V sector involves navigating complex regulations, meeting diverse customer demands, and managing significant economic and operational challenges. 4.5.2 Suboptimal products Suboptimal products in the Spanish F&V sector are managed through various strategies. Some products are sold to the juice and animal feed industries or second-category markets, even if they do not recover the full cost of handling and collection. In some cases, products are discarded to free the fruit tree. Efforts are made to find customers in local markets for both fresh and juice products. Additionally, there are projects like dehydrated persimmon studies to explore potential sales. To reduce FW, several measures are being implemented. These include chemical and biological treatments in the field to control pests, thinning to improve fruit calibre, and regular actions by the cooperative's technical team to assist farmers. Post-harvest treatments are being improved to reduce rot, and harvesting colour is optimized to minimize rotting and staining. Farmers receive aid for plantation renovation, and there are ongoing efforts to find customers for low-category products. Training and advice are provided to farmers to enhance pest control and productivity. 4.6 Flanders and the Netherlands – ILVO Flanders, the northern region of Belgium, is a significant hub for fruit production, particularly for soft fruits like strawberries, raspberries, and blueberries. In 2023, Flanders hosted 1,674 fruit farms, accounting for 7.7% of the region's agricultural producers 28 . However, the number of fruit farmers has been steadily declining over the years. Strawberries are a cornerstone of Flanders' soft fruit 28 Key Figures on Agriculture 2023 | Statbel D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 37 of 98 production, with a yield of 51,453 tons in 2023. Major strawberry cultivation areas include Hoogstraten, Roeselare, and Beveren 29 . The popularity of other soft fruits, such as raspberries and blueberries, has also been rising, reflecting changing consumer preferences and market trends 30 . A distinctive feature of fruit and vegetable production in Flanders is the auction obligation. There are three main auctions for vegetables and fruit: Belorta, Reoveiling, and Hoogstraten. The umbrella organization for these auctions, VBT (Verbond van Belgische Tuinbouwcoöperaties), provides a platform for knowledge exchange and sector-relevant information. All producers must pass their produce through these auctions, where most products are also packaged. Approximately 85% of strawberries are sold via the auction clock, setting the retail price, while only 5% of berries are sold this way, making them more attractive for promotions. The Netherlands excels in producing tomatoes and bell peppers, utilizing advanced greenhouse technology to achieve high yields on limited arable land. Regions like Westland and Venlo are known for their state-of-the-art greenhouses, featuring automated climate control, hydroponics, and energyefficient lighting. Sustainability is a cornerstone of Dutch horticulture, with practices such as closedloop water systems, carbon dioxide recapture, and renewable energy integration reducing resource use and environmental impact. Integrated pest management (IPM) further supports eco-friendly production by minimizing chemical pesticide use. The Dutch Quality Control Bureau (Kwaliteits Controle Bureau, KCB) 31 ensures high standards in Dutch horticulture by enforcing compliance with national and international quality regulations. This bureau monitors the safety, consistency, and presentation of tomatoes and bell peppers for export. These products are key exports, bolstered by the Netherlands' strategic location and efficient logistics. Ongoing research and innovation in genetics, cultivation techniques, and digital farming maintain the country's competitive edge and global leadership in horticulture. 4.6.1 Food Marketing Standards Public FMS in Flanders and the Netherlands, likewise in many EU countries, are crucial for ensuring consistency, quality, and fair market practices in the trade of fresh fruits and vegetables. These standards have been streamlined from 36 to 10, with specific standards for products like strawberries to ensure uniformity across markets 32 . Public FMS simplify trade by providing clear guidelines, facilitating market integration and competitiveness, especially for export-driven countries like Belgium. The UNECE Standards provide norms for various fruits and vegetables, ensuring consistency in size, shape, colour, and condition across international markets. Regulation 543/2011, 29 Spatial distribution of fruit cultivation | Agriculture & Fisheries 30 Fruit | Fruit and vegetables from Flanders 31 Home | KCB 32 Fruit and vegetables - European Commission D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 38 of 98 amongst others (Table 3) outlines marketing standards, quality requirements, and packaging guidelines to maintain the integrity of produce. Private FMS are essential for ensuring food safety, sustainability, and compliance with market-specific requirements. Key certifications like IFS and GLOBAL GAP focus on food safety, quality assurance, and good agricultural practices. Additional modules like SPRING and GRASP address water management and social responsibility. Retaildriven standards often require add-ons to GLOBAL GAP , such as sustainability-focused modules or unique certifications. The implementation of FMS poses challenges due to specific client requirements and diverse packaging needs. Producers must be flexible to meet these demands, which can be time-consuming and lead to increased labour and potential waste. Despite these challenges, compliance with FMS offers opportunities to strengthen partnerships with quality-driven customers and meet growing consumer expectations for safety, sustainability, and ethical sourcing. FW in soft fruit production in Flanders mainly consists of rot, which cannot be repurposed. Once fruit fails to meet industry standards, its economic value drops significantly, posing challenges for producers who operate on slim profit margins. Strict classification standards exist, with Class 1 and Class 2 having stringent quality criteria, while Class 3 is typically used for frozen fruit with less rigorous standards. 4.6.2 Suboptimal products, In Flanders, surplus soft fruits like avocados are sent to oil processors, while rejected blueberries are frozen and sorted for use in yogurt and frozen goods. Retailers use innovative technologies, such as organic peel coatings, to extend the shelf life of avocados. Surplus products unsuitable for fresh markets are processed into concentrated purees or frozen goods, enhancing sustainability and reducing waste. While in the Netherlands, matchmaking platforms connect producers with processors to turn surplus agricultural products into long-lasting items. These platforms facilitate the streamlined food supply chain by packing and delivering surplus items directly to members' homes. Misfit vegetables like tomatoes and bell peppers are processed into purees, providing new revenue streams for producers. Regular communication with producers ensures feasible product transformation, balancing economic viability and waste reduction. In Flanders and the Netherlands, the following were advanced as possible pathways for future planning to prevent and reduce FW. ✓ Technological advances: By 2027, a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system will be implemented by a Belgian distributor of soft fruits to enhance tracking and reporting of food waste, aiding in meeting Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) standards. The Dutch matchmaking platform is exploring tools like 'Overschot Spot' to connect surplus producers with potential users. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 39 of 98 ✓ Semi-finished products and flexibility: A Belgian distributor plans to work with semi-finished products, allowing for finalization based on market quality and requirements, increasing flexibility and reducing waste. ✓ Carbon accounting and certifications: Carbon accounting will become mandatory for growers supplying retail, with certification systems like GLOBAL GAP incorporating carbon metrics to align practices with environmental expectations. ✓ Reforming certification landscape: Future plans include redefining FMS to encourage acceptance of non-standard produce, reducing rejections, and adding value for growers. Shorter supply chains and closer collaboration with producers can drastically reduce waste. ✓ Acceptance of imperfect produce: The goal is to ensure no produce is wasted by fostering societal acceptance of imperfect produce and building robust networks for collaboration across the supply chain. 4.7 General overview of Food Marketing Standards in Fruits and Vegetables Table 3 below outlines some FMS implemented in the F&V commodity, detailing both public and private FMS. It includes specific contexts, stages of the FSC where they are applied, and the EU countries (the case studies) where these standards are implemented. Table 3: Overview of FMS in BREACRUMB F&V case studies, member states, and stages of FSC where they are applied Type of FMS FMS Specific FMS (context) FSC implemented EU countries implemented Public Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 ✓ Premium product: Overcolouring of the peel >40% ✓ Primary production ✓ Italy ✓ Portugal ✓ Slovenia ✓ Germany ✓ Spain ✓ Belgium ✓ The Netherlands ✓ Absence of imperfections (10% tolerance) ✓ Primary production ✓ Retail ✓ Distribution ✓ Caliber ✓ Primary production ✓ Retail ✓ Distribution ✓ Brix degree (sweetness) ✓ Primary production ✓ Retail ✓ Distribution Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 ✓ Pesticide residues level ✓ Primary production ✓ Retail ✓ Distribution D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 40 of 98 ✓ Phytosanitary products levels ✓ Primary production Regulation (EU) 2018/848 ✓ Less chemical residues for organic production ✓ Primary production ✓ Retail ✓ Distribution Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 ✓ Protects against pests of plants. ✓ Establishes phytosanitary measures to reduce pest risks. ✓ Primary production Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 ✓ Ensures food safety ✓ Hygiene requirements for food business operators. ✓ All stages of production. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/428 ✓ Amends marketing standards for fruits and vegetables. ✓ Aligns with UN/ECE revised standards. Regulation regarding bio products ✓ Organic production and labelling. ✓ Primary production ✓ Processing IGP - National ✓ Protects names of products with specific geographical origin. ✓ Primary production Portugal Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ✓ Labelling : covers labelling, allergens, nutrition information, and product origin. ✓ Processing ✓ Retail and distribution ALL HACCP – International ✓ Food safety ✓ Primary production ✓ Processing ✓ Food services D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 47 of 98 Potato 62.0 1.94 0.08 ✓ Public FMS standards related to shape, size, or quality Tomato 9.8 1.22 0.05 ✓ Public FMS related size, shape, and quality Zucchini 0.7 7.14 2.86 ✓ Public standards on quality (freshness) Processing Onion 11.0 15.0 0 Retail Apples 30.0 10.0 9.6 ✓ Public standards on appearance, shape and quality Apple strips 2.0 0 0 Onion 10.0 10.0 2 ✓ Public standards on appearance and quality Potato 10.0 10.0 2.0 ✓ Public standards on appearance (size and shape) and quality (freshness issues) Tomato 10.0 10.0 3.0 ✓ Public standards on appearance, shape and quality Fresh Zucchini 2.0 2.5 0.5 ✓ Public FMS regarding the appearance and quality F&V.CS4.Men-SI Slovenia Primary production Pumpkin Hokaido 40.0 5.0 0.45 ✓ Public standards on size and freshness Turnip 100.0 10.0 5.0 ✓ Public standards on appearance and size Cabbage 30.0 1.0 1.0 ✓ Public standards on appearance and colour D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 48 of 98 Lettuce 50.0 1.0 0.24 ✓ Public standards on freshness and size especially those related to perishability and cosmetics Tomato 20.0 1.0 0.9 ✓ Public standards on appearance and size Potato 50.0 1.0 0.12 ✓ Public standards on size and quality F&V.CS5.LN-DE Germany Primary production Limes 6,714 NA 30 ✓ Non-conformity to several standards Wholesale 2,055 (products bought) 228 11.11 (of complaint reasons related to FMS, excluding spoilage) ✓ Colour (customer requirement) ✓ Spoilage (EU Norm) Primary production Cucumber 60,000 NA Wholesale 2,323 1.61 11.24 (of complaint reasons related to FMS, excluding spoilage) ✓ Soft-ends / spoilage Primary production Cherry date tomatoes 25,300.563 NA Not indicated Wholesale 492 1.28 9.01 (of complaint ✓ Too low spoilage tolerance D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 49 of 98 reasons related to FMS, excluding spoilage) ✓ Quality deviations, freshness defects and maturity level Primary production Peppers 650 5 – 11 Not indicated ✓ Aesthetic defects such as silvering, small size or differences in shape Wholesale 2,579 1.30 7.63 (of complaint reasons related to FMS, excluding spoilage) ✓ Quality deviations maturity level growth deficiencies, not meeting customer specifications, wrong calibre or discolouration (0,38%) F&V.CS6.Ane-ES Spain Primary production Citrus fruits 435 7.25 7.23 ✓ Aesthetic appearance (caused by pests, hail, wind, wounds due to harvesting operations) ✓ Decay ✓ Overmature Persimmons 90 22.48 22.47 Primary production & processing Citrus fruits 86,142 2.0 0.52 Persimmons 113,835 32.47 13.69 F&V.CS7.ILVO-BE Belgium Primary production Strawberries 51.453 34 14.0 Not indicated F&V.CS8.ILVO.BE_NL The Netherlands Primary Production Bell peppers 67.69 4.0 Not indicated Tomatoes 85.52 2.5 34 www.flandersfruitsandvegetables.com D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 50 of 98 Processing (class II) Bell peppers 1,100,000 0.7 Tomatoes 1,995 14.29 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 51 of 98 4.9 Solutions to suboptimal fruit and vegetable products and their fate Suboptimal products in the F&V sector are managed through various strategies. Public FMS often result in FW due to strict criteria such as overcolouring of the peel, absence of imperfections, caliber, brix degree, pesticide residues, and phytosanitary product levels. These products, including apples, pears, apricots, plums, and peaches, may also be directed to alcohol production. Private FMS impose even stricter standards, leading to products being sold at lower prices or resulting in FW. For instance, products not meeting caliber, absence of imperfections, pesticide residue levels, and specific acidity/sugar levels are sold at reduced prices. Additionally, products like fruit purees, smoothies, canned fruit, and dried fruit with limited remaining shelf life are often discounted or donated. Firmness and various certifications (IFS, BRC, Global GAP, ISO 22005:2007) also influence the fate of products, with many directed to alcohol production (Table 5). D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 52 of 98 Table 5: Suboptimal F&V and their fate FMS category Product FMS applicable Fate of the product Public Apples Premium product: Overcolouring of the peel >40% ✓ Food loss Apples, Pears, Apricots Absence of imperfections (10% tolerance) ✓ Food loss ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Plums Caliber ✓ Food loss ✓ Sold at lower price ✓ Alcohol production Pears, Apricots, Apples, Plums Brix degree (sweetness) ✓ Food loss ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Apricots, Plums, Peaches Pesticide residues level ✓ Food loss ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Peaches, Plums Phytosanitary products levels ✓ Food loss Apples for processing Less chemical residues for organic production ✓ Food loss ✓ Alcohol production Private Apples, Pears, Apricots, Peaches, Plums Caliber higher than public standard ✓ Sold at lower price Apples, Pears, Apricots, Peaches, Plums Absence of imperfections (5% tolerance) ✓ Sold at lower price Apples, Pears, Apricots Pesticide residue levels below 40-70% of legal level s ✓ Sold at lower price Apples, Peaches, Plums Specific acidity/sugar levels ✓ Sold at lower price D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 53 of 98 ✓ Food loss Fruit purees, smoothies, canned fruit, dried fruit Remaining shelf life ✓ Increasing discounts; Donation Fruit purees, smoothies, canned fruit, dried fruit Product presentation ✓ Sold at lower price Apples, Pears, Plums Firmness ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Plums Standard IFS ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Plums BRC certification ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Plums Global GAP ✓ Alcohol production Apples, Pears, Plums ISO 22005:2007 for traceability ✓ Alcohol production D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 54 of 98 5. FINDINGS FROM MEAT COMMODITY Three CSs were conducted in the meat commodity, FENEVIAN and FEBEV are focused on Belgium and AVEC is focused on EU27. Each CS focused on different meat products (Table 1 & 2). 5.1 Belgium - FENAVIAN FENAVIAN is the Belgian Federation of the Processing Industry of Meat, other proteins, and ready meals which focuses on maintaining high standards in the meat processing industry, ensuring food safety, quality, and sustainability. Through its members data to support this study was collected. The major of stakeholders operate at an international scale engaging in Business-2-Business (B2B) models. 5.2 Belgium - FEBEV The Belgian beef sector plays a vital role in the country's agricultural and food industry, with a strong focus on quality and export. Its most renowned breed, the Belgian Blue, is globally recognized for its leanness and fine texture, making it ideal for premium markets. The sector encompasses farmers, slaughterhouses, cutting plants, and processors, working together to meet strict standards in food safety, animal welfare, and sustainability. At the same time, the sector faces challenges such as rising costs, stricter environmental regulations, and shifting consumer preferences toward sustainable and plant-based alternatives. FEBEV, the Federation of Belgian Meat, represents the interests of slaughterhouses, cutting plants, and meat processors in Belgium. Acting as a spokesperson to policymakers, the federation promotes innovation and quality systems while supporting its members in areas such as sustainability and export. FEBEV contributes to a forward-looking and resilient sector, balancing economic interests with societal expectations. 5.3 Europe - AVEC AVEC is the voice of the European poultry meat sector. The association facilitates communication and exchange between international organizations and decision-makers, and focuses on key areas like animal health and welfare, food safety and quality, trade and sustainable development. AVEC acts as a reliable, open and credible partner for all stakeholders in the poultry meat sector, media and institutions. By advocating for coherent European policies which will work on the global stage, AVEC is ensuring the development of a solid and thriving European poultry meat sector. Poultry is the most widely consumed meat in the world, and is enjoyed by many as part of a balanced diet. For years, the European poultry meat sector has provided the world with nutritious and safe D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 55 of 98 poultry meat. As part of this, the sector is highly integrated and has kept its focus firmly on science and critical innovation to engage and develop trade. The ongoing success of the sector is defined by its collective knowledge and commitment to these core aims: ✓ To provide EU citizens with healthy, sustainable, safe and affordable meat ✓ To contribute to a healthy EU economy by creating jobs and supporting trade ✓ To defend and uphold EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection standards 5.4 Food Marketing Standards in Meat Table 7 categorizes the identified FMS in the meat sector into public and private ones, detailing the specific standards and stages of the FSC at which they are implemented. Table 6: Several Food Marketing Standards in the EU meat sector Category Food Marketing Standard Name Stage of Food Supply Chain Public Regulation EC 1308/2013 ✓ Carcass classification Regulation EC 1069/2009 ✓ Handling of animal by-products “Detailhandel” (Retail) ✓ Governmental standards for food sold in the retail sector Regulation 543/2008 Poultry Meat Marketing Standards ✓ Poultry meat marketing Private International Featured Standards (IFS) ✓ Food safety and quality assurance for retail and wholesale suppliers Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standard (BRC) ✓ Food safety and quality for retail supply chains Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS) ✓ Meat production Belbeef ✓ Beef production in Belgium BePork ✓ Pork production in Belgium FEBEV+ ✓ Meat production D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 56 of 98 Meesterlyck ✓ Artisanal meat production Beter Leven ✓ Animal welfare in food production FSSC 22000 ✓ Food safety management based on ISO standards National/Local Schemes ✓ Various stages of food supply chain GLOBAL GAP ✓ Various stages of food supply chain especially at the primary production stage 5.4.1 Creation, adherence, and implementation The creation and adherence to FMS are crucial for gaining market access, meeting customer demands, and remaining competitive. Compliance is essential to avoid market exclusion as regulatory demands rise. In the Belgian meat industry, a multi-layered approach is used to gain market access through certification of multiple FMS. Key points include customer-centric development, broadening the customer base, and interconnected standards. Compliance with multiple standards expands market reach but also requires additional certifications to meet specific client requirements and compete in limited-supplier markets. Limited certifications, like Approved Retail Consortium (ACS) alone, restrict market access, necessitating further compliance. Implementing FMS like IFS, BRC, and Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS) is essential for market access and meeting customer requirements. In Belgium, standards like Belbeef and BePork are valuable for retail but lack international added value. Compliance with FMS enables companies to meet strict customer-imposed requirements, though some flexibility is allowed. Carcass classification, mandated by legislation such as EC 1308/2013, provides assurance to farmers and influences pricing. Meeting multiple FMS requirements increases costs due to additional staffing and compliance measures. Non-compliant products are investigated and destroyed to maintain quality. 5.4.2 Challenges Implementing FMS presents several challenges, including stringent customer and regulatory requirements. Major customers often perform additional audits, and failure to achieve Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) certification has significant consequences. Product specifications can be restrictive, and strict interpretations of FMS or legal regulations create additional obstacles. Delays in food safety testing can lead to food waste if products spoil while awaiting clearance. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 63 of 98 Eggs are sorted by weight into sizes XL, L, M, and S, and undergo extensive quality control, including salmonella checks, x-ray inspections, and cold chain storage. Danish eggs are marked with a traceability code that indicates the production method and country of origin, ensuring they can be traced back to the farmer. This comprehensive system ensures that only high-quality eggs reach consumers, maintaining Denmark's reputation for food safety and quality. 6.1.1.1 Egg sorting process complexity and waste generation The egg sorting process begins on farms, where eggs are categorized based on size, leaks, cracks, and blood spots. Eggs outside the standard size or with blood spots are sold directly to consumers on-farm, while those with significant leaks or cracks are discarded. After initial sorting, eggs are transported to a packing facility for further grading and quality control using automated machinery. Eggs are stamped with production details and Class A eggs are packaged with expiry dates for retail. Class B eggs are processed into egg products, generating FW like eggshells and residuals. Waste quantification helps monitor production efficiency, with waste often repurposed for animal feed or fertilizer. Interviewees highlighted efforts to track and reduce waste, indicating a culture of continuous improvement in waste management. 6.2 Food Marketing Standards and Estimate of Food Waste in the Danish Egg sector Table 8 summarizes FW estimates in the egg production and processing industry in Denmark. Interviewees agreed on implementing EU FMS in their operations, despite some variations in interpretation, such as egg washing and date marking. They noted that these standards do not significantly increase FW (Table 8) but can cause financial losses, especially for producers. Allowing egg washing could potentially increase sales of class A eggs by 3 - 4% and reduce financial losses on Class B egg that are sold as Class A after washing. Interviewees highlighted that the majority of FW is caused by leaks, cracks, and handling damage, rather than by marketing standards. They reported minimal FW, approximately 0.5% in retail and distribution. The consensus is that marketing standards do not significantly contribute to FW, but there is frustration with standards that prioritize appearance over usability, impacting economic viability. There is a call for revising these standards to allow more flexibility in categorizing and marketing eggs, potentially reducing waste and increasing revenue. Interviewees also noted that significant innovations in waste reduction will require regulatory changes. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 64 of 98 Table 8: Estimate of total FW and FW due to FMS for various Egg products Case study Country FSC Food Product Total Production (Tons/year) (Weighted) Average FW Estimate (%) (Weighted) Average FW Estimate due to FMS (%) FMS causing FW E.CS1.LF-DK Denmark Primary production Eggs 3,708.364 3.35 3.35 Retail and distribution (Packing station) 62,997.088 0.8 0.5 ✓ Standards related to appearance and quality (after sorting) Processing (product factory) 1,774.160 9.64 6.84 E.CS2.AVEBE_EU* EU * = taken up in T2.4 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 65 of 98 6.2.1 Handling of food waste and opportunities and challenges for valorisation This section explores how eggs classified as food waste (FW) or downgraded to Class B are managed within the industry. Defective eggs that are unsuitable for retail or liquid production are typically redirected for use in animal feed. Additionally, eggshells are repurposed for various industrial applications, including the manufacturing of tiles and cement mixtures. Some companies collaborate with specialized organizations, such as Symrise, to extract valuable proteins from discarded materials; effectively turning waste into a resource. These innovative uses of eggshells exemplify circular economy practices and contribute to enhanced sustainability across the sector. Despite these efforts, regulatory barriers remain a significant obstacle. Interviewees expressed frustration with the lengthy approval processes required by the European Union, which delay the adoption of new by-product applications. Economic considerations also play a role; while companies acknowledge that reducing food waste can benefit their bottom line, such efforts are often only feasible if the required investments are reasonable. In summary, the industry is actively pursuing sustainable waste management strategies but continues to face regulatory and logistical challenges that must be addressed to unlock the full potential of by-product utilization. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 66 of 98 7. FINDINGS FROM CEREAL COMMODITY In the BREACRUMB project, two cereal CSs were deployed in Italy and Slovenia. 7.1 Italy – Natura Nuova The Italian cereal sector is a vital part of the national agricultural economy, with wheat, corn, and soybeans as key crops. In 2023, the sector's production was valued at €5.29 billion, making up 14.4% of agricultural output. Wheat alone contributed €1.84 billion, or 35% of the cereal sector's value, while corn accounted for €1.51 billion (29%), and soybeans also made a significant contribution. Wheat production focuses on both durum and soft wheat, with 3.5 million tons of durum and 3.081 million tons of soft wheat produced in 2023. The milling industry processed over 4 million tons of soft wheat into flour, driven by demand from the bakery and pastry sectors. Soybean production, concentrated in northern regions like Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy, is important for animal feed and industrial uses. In 2023, the sector saw notable growth, with Italian soybeans in demand within the EU for non-GMO and sustainable products. Corn production, central to livestock feed and bioenergy, reached approximately 6 million tons in 2023. Despite challenges like increased production costs and competition from imports, Italian corn remains valued for its high quality, especially in niche markets like organic feed 40 . Natura Nuova uses cereals and grains for plant-based protein products, such as seitan, tofu, and tempeh. The company conducted five interviews with primary producers and millers, covering wheat and soybean farms and mills involved in flour production. The interviews, held between September and November 2024, provided Public FMS baseline: Most of the public FMS in the cereal sector are intended to preserve the safety of the product, while no public FMS related to the aesthetic characteristics of the product were found. FMS aiming at guaranteeing the safety of products are related to: ✓ Presence of diseased and broken seeds ✓ Specific weight ✓ Levels of chemical residues ✓ Mycotoxins levels 40 ISMEA (2023). Sector factsheet – Cereals https://www.ismeamercati.it/seminativi/cereali D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 67 of 98 ✓ Limited level of GMO ✓ Levels of allergen ✓ Absence of physical contaminants and foreign bodies ✓ Classification of flour Private baseline Private FMS that are extending and/or making public FMS stricter are mainly related to the safety of products. However, also private FMS related to quality and aesthetics can be found. Concerning private FMS with a public baseline related to food safety of product, the interviews highlighted: ✓ Lower moisture content, impurity levels, weight ✓ Higher protein level Concerning aesthetic and quality levels, private FMS for cereals include: ✓ Absence of aesthetic imperfections (foxing; discoloration and brownish spots, dark colour, teguments, damaged seeds, vitreous seeds) ✓ Compliance with technical and rheological parameters 7.1.1.1 Costs, Benefits, and Challenges Benefits: ✓ Companies adopt FMS primarily for economic benefits, aiming to stay competitive, sell products, and position them as premium-quality offerings sold at higher prices. ✓ Adhering to FMS enhances product value, ensuring competitiveness and profitability. Costs: ✓ Financial investments and procedural adjustments are required. ✓ Primary producers need standardized fertilization and plant protection plans, modern production techniques, higher-quality plant products, increased labor, higher fuel consumption, and extended working hours. ✓ Processors and distributors face costs for extensive testing (e.g., mycotoxins), removing unfit seeds, separating homogeneous batches, and maintaining advanced storage facilities. ✓ High raw material management costs involve detailed document analysis for traceability and compliance, necessitating rigorous and frequent quality checks. Challenges: D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 68 of 98 ✓ Relaxing FMS could decrease food safety and lead to unpredictable processing performance. ✓ Despite the costs, adherence to FMS ensures consistent quality and predictability. 7.1.2 Food Waste estimates Table 11 demonstrates the estimated FW due to FMS for cereal products in Italy. Primary producers in Italy most often sell all their produce, with some however subjected to price reduction due to quality issues. For the products not complying with FMS, two main pathways are followed: they are either wasted or repurposed for animal feed. Appendix 11.4 further indicates the FMS at each stage of the cereal FSC that contributes to FW generation. 7.2 Slovenia - Vila Natura In Slovenia, the quality of cereals and cereal-based products is regulated by both EU-wide general FMS for cereals and specific national regulations. These include the Rules on the Quality of Cereal Products, Fine Bakery Products, and Bakery Products. These rules provide detailed guidelines for producing, processing, and marketing cereals to ensure consistency, safety, and high-quality standards. The milling industry, a key player in the cereal supply chain, enforces stringent quality criteria tailored to processing and end-use needs. Critical parameters include moisture content (for safe storage and stability), purity (to assess foreign materials or impurities), and mycotoxin levels. Protein content is emphasized for its role in determining the baking properties of wheat and other cereals. Additional factors like falling number, hectoliter weight, and gluten content help classify cereals into distinct grades, determining their suitability for various applications. This grading system is crucial for setting purchase prices, with higher-quality grades fetching better market value. By adhering to these comprehensive standards, Slovenia ensures the competitiveness of its cereal products in both domestic and international markets, while maintaining consumer trust and food safety. 7.2.1 Food Marketing Standards and Food Waste Variations in FW across cereals at company level in Slovenia (Table 9) are influenced by private buyer-imposed standards (e.g., protein content, cleanliness, moisture levels) and private and public regulations (e.g., GLOBAL GAP, Slovenian Cereals Quality Regulation respectively). Producers manage FW by selling non-compliant products as animal feed. FW is most significant at the primary production stage, driven by private standards (Table 9). Wheat and oat are most impacted due to D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 69 of 98 low protein content, high moisture, and mycotoxin contamination. Processing generates minimal FW, mainly from packaging and raw material cleaning inefficiencies. Strict compliance with private standards on protein, moisture, and cleanliness heavily influences FW. Standards like GLOBAL GAP contribute to sustainability but play a minor role in FW generation. Plans to reduce FW are limited, as compliance with FMS is crucial for market access. In summary, FW in cereals varies across supply chain stages, with private standards posing significant challenges at primary production. Investments in technology and flexibility in buyerimposed standards (mandatory – private standards) could further minimize FW in cereals. 7.3 Food Marketing Standards in Cereals overview This table integrates the public and private FMS details with the stages and key observations, providing a comprehensive overview. Table 9: Overview of FMS in Cereals Stage Public FMS Private FMS Key Observations Primary Production ✓ Italian Commodities Exchange: Presence of diseased seeds under 5% (Soybean) ✓ Italian Commodities Exchange: Presence of broken seeds under 20% (Soybean) ✓ Italian Commodities Exchange: Specific weight (Soft wheat, wheat) ✓ Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005: Levels of chemical residues (Soft Wheat, Soybean, Wheat flour) ✓ Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006: Mycotoxins levels ✓ Private contracts: Moisture content (Soft wheat, Soybean, Wheat flour) ✓ Private contracts: Impurity level (Soybean) ✓ Private contracts: Minimum weight lower than public FMS (Soybean) ✓ Private contracts: Protein level (Soft wheat) ✓ Private contracts: Absence of aesthetic imperfections (Wheat, corn, soy) ✓ Slovenian Regulation: National-level standards on cereal quality ✓ Rare impact of national public standards on FW ✓ Quality Standards for cereals (milling industry): Imposed by buyers, focus on protein content, moisture, and mycotoxins ✓ High compliance with GAP and Slovenian Regulation D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 70 of 98 (Corn, Wheat, soft corn, wheat flour) ✓ Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003: Limited level of GMO (Soybean) ✓ EU Regulation 1169/2011: Levels of allergen (Wheat flour) ✓ Regulation (EU) No. 852/2004 + (Italian) Presidential Decree DPR 187/2001: Absence of physical contaminants and foreign bodies (Wheat flour) ✓ Italian Law No. 580/67: Classification of flour (Wheat flour) ✓ Private contracts: Vitreous seeds (Corn) ✓ Private contracts: Origin of raw material (Wheat flour) ✓ Private contracts: Organic production (Wheat flour) ✓ Private contracts: Technical and rheological parameters (Wheat flour) ✓ Private contracts: Type of milling (Wheat flour) ✓ FW largely driven by strict private buyer requirements Processing ✓ HACCP: Mandatory EU-level standard ensuring food safety ✓ Organic Certification (EU) ✓ Labelling and Expiry Dates: Required for all processed products ✓ IFS Certification: Focused on traceability, safety, and compliance with retailer demands ✓ FW caused by processing inefficiencies rather than FMS ✓ Private standards (IFS) demand higher transparency and traceability, leading to increased costs and investments HoReCa (Restaurant) ✓ No specific public standards directly affecting operations ✓ Green Key Certification: Private standard (Slovenia) emphasizing sustainability and environmental goals ✓ FW largely unrelated to FMS D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 71 of 98 7.4 Food Waste estimations Based on the figures of the FW estimates due to FMS in Table 10 for both Italy and Slovenia: The three highest FW estimates due to FMS include: ✓ Italy - Corn (Retail, distribution, and processing): 3.465% FW due to vitreous seeds, absence of teguments, and light-coloured seeds. ✓ Italy - Wheat flour (Retail, distribution, and processing): 12% FW due to mycotoxin levels, foxing or weathering, specific weight, residues of plant protection products, absence of foreign bodies, organic production, and type of milling. ✓ Italy - Soy (Retail, distribution, and processing): 1.509% FW due to the absence of damaged seeds and limited levels of GMO. The three smallest FW estimates due to FMS: ✓ Slovenia - Wheat flour (Processing): 0% FW. ✓ Slovenia - Spelt flour (Processing): 0% FW. ✓ Slovenia - Oat flakes (Processing): 0.03% FW due to IFS certification and packaging inefficiencies. Country Comparison: Italy vs. Slovenia (Wheat at Primary Production): ✓ Italy: Soft wheat, FW data not provided, FMS causing FW include minimum test weight, protein content, moisture content, and mycotoxin levels. ✓ Slovenia: Wheat, 1.20% FW due to standards on protein content (low < 11.5%) and presence of mycotoxin levels. In summary, Italy's corn at the retail, distribution, and processing stage has the highest FW estimates due to FMS, while Slovenia's wheat flour at the processing stage has the least FW. Comparing wheat at the primary production stage, Slovenia has a specific FW estimate of 1.20%, while Italy's data is not provided. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 72 of 98 Table 10: Estimate of total FW and FW due to FMS for various Cereal products Case study Country FSC Food Product Total Production (Tons/year) (Weighted) Average FW Estimate (%) (Weighted) Average FW Estimate due to FMS (%) FMS causing FW C.CS1.NN-IT Italy Primary production Soft wheat Not provided Not provided Not provided ✓ Minimum test weight of 76 kg/hectare ✓ Protein content of at least 11% ✓ Moisture content > 13 – 16% ✓ Mycotoxin levels Retail, distribution and processing Wheat flour 8,000.0 12.0 12.0 ✓ Mycotoxin levels ✓ Foxing or weathering ✓ Specific weight ✓ Residues of plant protection products ✓ Absence of foreign bodies ✓ Organic production ✓ Type of milling Corn 80,000.0 31.5 3.465 ✓ Vitreous seeds ✓ Absence of teguments ✓ Light coloured seeds Soy 15,000.0 8.2 1.509 ✓ Absence of damaged seeds ✓ Limited levels of GMO C.CS2.VN-SI Slovenia Primary production Wheat 270.0 1.20 1.20 ✓ Standard on protein content (low < 11.5%) and presence of mycotoxin levels Oat 160.0 0.697 0.697 ✓ Standards related to protein content and mycotoxin levels D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 79 of 98 Figure 10: Major concerns of Fish stakeholders 8.3 Food Waste estimates Not all of the FMS identified in the fish CS contribute to FW. Figure 11 highlights the most relevant FMS generating FW, summarized at each stage of the fish FSC. Also, Table 14 presents the FMS causing the most and least FW in the fish FSC. Three FMS causing the most FW: ✓ Wholesaler (Alatxa): 30% FW due to species (low-valued), size, integrity, freshness, and labelling issues. ✓ Primary production (Alatxa): 12% FW due to minimum caliber, legal species, low-valued species, and integrity. ✓ Food service (Greater Forkbeard): 15% FW due to freshness, integrity, size, and high-valued species. Three FMS causing the least FW: ✓ Food service (Mediterranean sand eel): 1% FW due to freshness and integrity. ✓ Retail (fishmonger): 1.5% FW due to freshness and integrity. ✓ Wholesaler (Shrimp): 1.5% FW due to species (low-valued), size, integrity, freshness, and labelling issues. It is noticeable how FW estimates are low for most stages, with whole sale and food service having higher ratios. This may be due to the position at the end of the supply chain, mainly caused by the loss of product integrity and freshness during handling, as well as irregularity in customers' demands and expectation, increasing the pressure over some private FMS, as high-valued species that are not always demanded (e.g. Norway lobster). D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 80 of 98 Figure 11: Distribution of FW (+ FW due to FMS) across fish FSC, Case study - Spain D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 81 of 98 Table 14: Estimate of (weekly) total production, average FW and average FW due to FMS for various Fish products Case study Country FSC Food product Total production (tons) Average FW estimate (%) Average FW estimate due to FMS (%) FMS causing FW F.CS1.OppES Spain Primary production (fishermen) Sardine 2,265,191* 1.7 1.7 ✓ Minimum caliber ✓ Legal species ✓ Species: low-valued sp. ✓ Integrity Anchovy 4,063,835* 1.7 1.7 Alatxa 79,797* 12 12 Bogue 725,498* 2 2 Wholesaler Alatxa 2 30 30 ✓ Specie: low-valued sp. ✓ Size ✓ Integrity ✓ Freshness ✓ Labelling Shrimp 0.2 1.5 1.5 Retail (fishmonger) Fish and seafood 0.25 1.5 1.5 ✓ Freshness ✓ Integrity Food service (restaurant) Sardine 0.006 7 4.9 ✓ Freshness ✓ Integrity ✓ Size ✓ Specie: high-valued sp. Anchovy 0.02 7 4.9 Greater Forkbeard 0.0014 15 15 Shrimp 0.0038 4 4 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 82 of 98 Mediterranean sand eel 0.0078 1 1 Octopus 0.007 12 7.8 Four spot megrim 0.0066 10 7 * = annual catches D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 83 of 98 8.4 Challenges Interviews across the FSC reveal that the revalorization of products is minimal or nearly non-existent. The fishermen stage presents an opportunity to revalorize products that do not meet private FMS for other human consumption uses. However, the unpredictability of catches, forecasting difficulties, and diverse catch compositions make it challenging to establish stable value chain relationships to enhance product value and reduce food waste. At other stages, revalorization is more difficult due to short shelf life and the need to maintain the cold chain, creating logistical issues. Wholesalers could facilitate revalorization, but bureaucratic and legal requirements significantly hinder this process. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 84 of 98 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 Conclusion In this report D2.5, the analysis of FMS and their influence on FW and FW estimates collected by the 16 CSs across five food commodities (fruits and vegetables, cereals, meat, fish and eggs) are presented. This work uncovered the complex relationship between FW and FMS at the company level. A six-step approach was used for data collection, pre-processing, and sensemaking, ensuring a smooth workflow and allowing for the immediate identification and management of any inconsistencies or errors. During data collection, through interviews and surveys, the CSs faced several challenges such as stakeholder reluctance, small sample size due to rejection in answering (response rate), claims of not monitoring FW, and some interviewees found difficulties in understanding questions due to the complex nature of the subject matter. These limited sample sizes may not fully represent the broader industries, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the definition of FW is not uniform across all commodities, making alignment over the different CSs challenging before starting data collection. Monthly meetings with the CSs provided opportunities to reflect on, and find solutions for these challenges. Conducting interviews helped explore and understand the difficulties when FW and FW-FMS estimates were not shared. During sensemaking, different trends and patterns were uncovered using the filled-out reporting templates of the 16 CSs, who worked closely with the assigned data processors and data analysts. However, there were substantial data limitations, particularly concerning incomplete information on FW for certain products. For example, total production volumes and FW amounts for some items were not provided, limiting the ability to make precise calculations or draw robust conclusions about FW generation across these products. This lack of comprehensive data may skew the analysis of FW patterns and hinder the development of effective recommendations for waste reduction strategies. It also became clear that FW monitoring was not a key priority for some companies, or they were unwilling to share the data. Additionally, obtaining estimates on FW-FMS was challenging because different companies did not measure and monitor FW caused by specific reasons such as FMS. This made it difficult to receive data on FW-FMS from various companies along the food supply chain (FSC) in different sectors. To highlight some key results on food waste estimates due to food marketing standards; Cereals (Italy and Slovenia): ✓ Corn (Retail, distribution, and processing): 3.5% FW due to vitreous seeds, absence of teguments, and light-coloured seeds. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 85 of 98 ✓ Wheat flour (Retail, distribution, and processing): 12% FW due to mycotoxin levels, foxing or weathering, specific weight, residues of plant protection products, absence of foreign bodies, organic production, and type of milling. ✓ Soy (Retail, distribution, and processing): 1.509% FW due to damaged seeds and limited levels of GMO. ✓ Wheat (Primary production): 1.20% FW due to standards on protein content (low < 11.5%) and presence of mycotoxin levels. ✓ Oat flakes (Processing): 0.03% FW due to IFS certification and packaging inefficiencies. Fish (Spain): ✓ Alatxa (Wholesaler): 30% FW due to species (low-valued), size, integrity, freshness, and labelling issues. ✓ Alatxa (Primary production): 12% FW due to minimum caliber, legal species, low-valued species, and integrity. ✓ Greater Forkbeard (Food service): 15% FW due to freshness, integrity, size, and high-valued species. Eggs (Denmark): ✓ Eggs (Primary production): 3.35% FW due to standards related to appearance and quality. ✓ Eggs (Retail and distribution): 0.5% FW due to standards related to appearance and quality after sorting. ✓ Eggs (Processing): 6.84% FW due to standards related to appearance and quality. Meat (Belgium and EU): ✓ Whole beef (Processing and manufacturing, retail and distribution): 12.5% FW due to discarded Category III standards. ✓ Deboned beef carcasses (Processing and manufacturing, retail and distribution): 9.8% FW due to IFS standards. ✓ Slaughtered beef carcasses (Processing and manufacturing, retail and distribution): 9.0% FW due to IFS standards. ✓ Cooked ham (Processing and manufacturing): 0.15% FW due to FMS. ✓ Processed products (Processing and manufacturing): 0.12% FW due to FMS. Fruits and Vegetables: ✓ Organic Limes ( Primary Production): 30% FW due to colour requirements and spoilage. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 86 of 98 ✓ Organic Limes (Germany, Wholesale): 11,1% FW due to not meeting customer specifications such as colour requirements and size. ✓ Carrot (Portugal, Primary production): 24.2% FW due to standards related to appearance (broken carrots, size, and deformation). ✓ Persimmons (Spain, Primary production): 22.47% FW due to various standards. ✓ Tomato (Slovenia, Primary production): 0.05% FW due to public FMS related to size, shape, and quality. ✓ Potato (Slovenia, Primary production): 0.08% FW due to public FMS standards related to shape, size, or quality. ✓ Onion (Slovenia, Primary production): 0.24% FW due to public FMS related to size, shape, and quality. These estimates illustrate the significant variation in FW across different products and stages of the food supply chain, influenced by specific food marketing standards requirements. To conclude, FW is a problem encountered in all commodities, yet measuring FW is for some companies not a priority. Additionally, no distinction is made between FW and FW-FMS in several companies. In this fast-changing reality, there are significant differences between companies; some are front runners already tracking FW and FW-FMS, and finding solutions, while others prefer to hold off until action is required, as they do not yet see the added value. However, as of 2026, CSRD requires companies, with more than 250 employees to report transparently on their environmental impact, social responsibility and governance. This will definitely bring changes in the near future. 9.2 Limitations of the study A key limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size for most case studies in the various food commodities. The CSs indicated that motivation to participate in interviews, fill out surveys and share data was limited. These limited sample sizes may not fully represent the broader industries, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, there are considerable data limitations, particularly concerning precise information on FW for certain products. For example, production volumes and waste amounts for some cereals were not provided, limiting the ability to make precise calculations or draw robust conclusions about FW generation across these products. This lack of comprehensive data may skew the analysis of FW patterns and hinder the development of effective recommendations for waste reduction strategies. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 87 of 98 9.3 Research and Policy Considerations 9.3.1 Research Recommendations ✓ Expand Sample Size: Conduct broader studies involving diverse stakeholders across regions and scales of operation to enhance representativeness. ✓ Analyse Specific Standards: Investigate the unique challenges and benefits associated with each type of FMS, focusing on their direct and indirect impacts on food waste. ✓ Quantify Waste Reduction Impact: Develop metrics to assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing food waste attributable to FMS compliance. 9.3.2 Policy Recommendations ✓ Harmonize Standards: Align public and private standards to reduce inconsistencies and operational burdens on companies. ✓ Support Waste Reduction Initiatives: Provide financial or technical assistance to companies implementing waste-reduction strategies, such as process optimization and circular practices. ✓ Facilitate Coordination: Promote national and sectoral-level coordination to address gaps in food waste management and enhance alignment of FMS with sustainability goals. ✓ Encourage Innovation: Incentivize technologies like blockchain for traceability and revalorization of suboptimal products to reduce waste and maximize resource use. 9.3.3 General Recommendations ✓ Expand Data Collection and Monitoring: Invest in robust tracking systems for food waste across all product categories to improve the accuracy of waste assessments. ✓ Enhance Cost Management for FMS Implementation: Streamline the process of adhering to FMS by leveraging automation and improving internal documentation systems to reduce administrative and certification costs. ✓ Increase Focus on Sustainability Metrics: Incorporate more sustainable practices into operations, increasing consumer awareness and demand for sustainable products. ✓ Promote Waste Reduction Initiatives: Share best practices and collaborate with industry peers to create more efficient production processes, optimize recipes, explore alternative processing methods, and develop new products from waste materials. ✓ Broaden Retailer Engagement on Sustainability: Work closely with retail partners to align on sustainability goals, develop joint initiatives to reduce environmental impact, improve product packaging, and reduce food waste during production transitions. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 88 of 98 ✓ Invest in Training and Knowledge Sharing: Provide ongoing training for staff in compliance, documentation, and waste management to mitigate costs and promote efficient practices. ✓ Research on Waste Fate and Recovery: Explore innovative waste management strategies beyond degradation to feed or incineration, such as reprocessing waste into new products or exploring more sustainable disposal methods. Conduct research into the long-term environmental impacts of current waste management practices to make more informed decisions. These recommendations aim to address the key challenges of food waste, FMS compliance costs, and sustainability within the industry, while encouraging more effective practices and collaboration. D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 95 of 98 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 96 of 98 D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 97 of 98 11.3 Overview of FMSs influencing FW at each stage of the supply chain in F&V in Italy. The figure highlights the affected products and corresponding waste outcomes. The values in “FW from FMS” columns refer to the percentage of total FW caused by FMS (e.g. Apples for fresh distributor: FW is 1% of total revenue and it is totally caused by FMS, thus FW from FMS is 100%) 11.4 Overview of FMSs influencing FW at each stage of the supply chain in the cereal sector in Italy. 11.5 Contribution of FW due to FMS on total FW in the Portuguese case study D2.5 – Case Study Estimates of Food Waste Generated due to Marketing Standards Page 98 of 98 11.6 Calculation of per year% estimate of FW and FW-FMS in the Danish egg sector 11.7 Liquid waste during the processing of egg products, an example from a company FW % FW DUE TO FMS % CONTRIBUTION OF FW DUE TO FMS ON TOTAL FW (%) FMS GENERATING FW FW % FW DUE TO FMS % FMS GENERATING FW REJECTED AT RECEPTION (%) REJECTED AT RECEPTION DUE TO FMS (%) CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS REJECTED AT RECEPTION ON TOTAL PRODUCTS REJECTED AT RECEPTION (%) FMS GENERATING FW Lettuce 1,8% 0,0% 0,0% None. The existing FW is due to overstocks and difficulty in predicting sales 0,9% 0,6% 66,1% Labeling, size, poor commercial appearance, Unfresh appearance, brownish leaf tips Round Tomato 10,0% 0,0% 0,0% None because of efforts made in investment and planning in production 0,5% 0,5% 88,9% Labeling, size, no consistency, color, epidermal defects Carrot 25,5% 24,2% 95,0% Appearance (Broken carrots, size and deformation) 0,01% 0% NONE 0,8% 0,7% 83,2% Labeling, size, dehydrated, poor commercial appearance, packaging, weight Orange 15,0% 13,5% 90,0% Epidermic defects 0,01% 0% NONE 0,4% 0,2% 40,5% Labeling, size, organoleptic characteristics, epidermal defects Raspberry 15,0% 0,0% 0,0% None because there are several channels to valorize raspberries 0,01% 0% NONE Strawberry 0,01% 0% NONE 3,2% 2,0% 62,4% Labeling, coloring, poor commercial appearance, undersize, sugar content, packaging Apple Gala 11,1% 1,2% 11,0% Colour, size and epidermic defects 0,01% 0% NONE 4,3% 0,1% 2,5% Labeling, packaging, size, bruising, hardness, changes in the polp, poor commercial appearance Pear Rocha 20,3% 3,7% 18,0% Colour, size and epidermic defects 0,01% 0% NONE Banana 0,0% 0,0% 26,3% Ripening, bruising, epidermal defects PRODUCT PRIMARY PRODUCTION PROCESSING RETAIL