Sivu 1

Katri Joensuu

Natural Resources Institute

Finland (Luke)

Side streams from horticultural

production

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

PRODUCED FOR FOOD - Crops, vegetables, fruit and berries that are mature for harvest

- Wild fruit and berries at the time of harvest

- Domesticated animals from birth

- Wild animals when they are caught or killed

- Milk that is drawn from animals

- Eggs when laid

- Wild fish/shellfish when caught

- Farmed fish/shellfish from hatching

NON-FOOD

PARTS

- E.G.

STRAW,

PEELS,

BONES

OTHER

PRODUCTION - E.G. ENERGY,

FEED

SIDE FLOW

(SF)

FOOD ENTERS THE NEXT

STEP IN THE FOOD SUPPLY

CHAIN

FOOD-CHAIN-

SUITABLE SIDE

FLOW

- Food/Primary

product that is still

expected to be

consumed by humans

INEDIBLE SIDE

FLOW

- E.g. Contaminated

food/primary product

e.g. due to

diseases/pests

Safety dimension of edibility

VALORISATION

AND CONVERSION

- E.g. Used as feed,

bio based material or

biobased processing

LEFT IN FIELD,

COMPOSTED,

SENT TO WASTE

TREATMENT

What happens with the side flow

What is side flow and food waste?

Side flow -definition

“The flows of primary products that were meant to be

eaten by humans, but never entered the next step in

the food supply chain (e.g. slaughter, retail,

processing), and instead were used for other

purposes or sent to waste treatment. Non-edible parts

of wasted food, e.g. peels and bones, are not included

as part of side flow.“

3 10.11.20

17

10.11.2017 4

Food waste (%)

FAO report (Gustavsson et al. 2011)

Side flow (%)

Our study

Agriculture,

aquaculture, fisheries

Postharvest handling

and storage

Primary production (including

postharvest handling and storage)

Cereals 2% 4% 4-14%

Roots and tubers 20% 9% 10% potatoes

26% carrots and turnips

Oilseeds and

pulses 10% 1%

3% oil crops

17% pulses

Fruits and

vegetables 20% 5%

1% greenhouse

10-26% open field

Meat 3.1% 0.7% 0.2-1.7% excluding rearing

3.0-9.0% including rearing

Fish and seafood 9.4% wild fish 0.5% 2.6% farmed fish

Milk 3.5% 0.5% 0.3%

Waste percentages

Nordic food waste project

Causes of side flows in primary production

1. Weather conditions, pests and plant-/animal diseases

2. Quality requirements and production regulations

3. Obstructed marketing channels and distance from

markets

4. Profitability of production

Sivu 5 10.11.2017 Foodspill 2 -project

Case-study example: carrot

The uses of carrot yield (weighted average), 27 producers

answered:

Nordic food waste project

72 %

2 %

4 %

11 %

8 %

1 % 2 %

Food use, primary

Food use, secondary

Left in field

Animal feed

Composted

Other use

No use

Case-study example: carrot

• The uses of annual biomass in total, including also non-

food parts

61 %

1 %

4 %

9 %

7 %

1 %

1 % 16 %

Food use, primary

Food use, secondary

Left in field

Animal feed

Composted

Other use

No use

Leaves left on field

Nordic food waste project

Case-study example: carrot

Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 26% of the

carrot production was side flow:

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

At harvest

After harvest

Nordic food waste project

Case-study example: strawberry

The uses of strawberry yield (weighted average), 68

producers answered:

Foodspill 2 -project

83 %

3 % 11 %

3 %

Food use, primary

Food use, secondary

Left in field

Composted/ otheruse/ no use

Case-study example: strawberry

• The uses of annual biomass in total, including also non-

food parts

67 % 2 %

9 %

3 %

19 %

Food use, primary

Food use, secondary

Left in field

Composted/ other use/ no use

Leaves and runners left on field

Foodspill 2 -project

Case-study example: strawberry

• Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 14% of

the strawberry production was side flow:

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Overproduction Overripe/ unripe,other faults in quality

Cultivation practices Weather conditions,plant diseases

after harvest

at harvest

Foodspill 2 -project

Case-study example: strawberry

• The uses of strawberry yield in food industry (weighted

average), 6 producers answered:

99 %

1 %

Food use

Biowaste/ no use

Foodspill 2 -project

Yields and side flows related to total

Finnish production in 2015, 1000 kg

Sivu 13 10.11.2017

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Carrot Onion Iceberg lettuce Strawberry

Non-food parts

Side flow

Food use

Foodspill 2 –project & Nordic food waste project

Willingness to find new solutions for the

utilization of side flow

Sivu 14 10.11.2017

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %

Peruna (63)

Vehnä (667)

Mansikka (67)

Jäävuorisalaatti (4)

Farmers %

Kyllä

Ehkä

Ei

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %

Peruna

Vehnä

Mansikka

Jäävuorisalaatti

Food industry producers %

Yes

Maybe

No

Iceberg lettuce (4)

Strawberry (67)

Wheat (667)

Potato (63)

Iceberg lettuce (4)

Strawberry (6)

Wheat (5)

Potato (29)

Foodspill 2 -project

On which conditions the farmer is willing to

utilize the side flow (potato) (n=48)

Sivu 15 10.11.2017

9

0

2

23

4

34

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Not willing

Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site if nocompensation is paid

Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site ifcompensation is paid for trasport

Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site ifcompensation is paid for both trasport and the potatoes

Willing to give avay potatoes if they are collected from thefarm and no compensation is paid

Willing to give avay potatoes if they are collected from thefarm a compensation is paid

Willing to utilize the side flow on own farm

Foodspill 2 -project

Case: enhancing the food

use of underutilized 1st

and 2nd class horticultural

products

16 10.11.2017

”Ugly” fruits and wegetables

• Differences in appearance (size, shape, color etc.) an

important reason for rejecting fruits and vegetables from

food use

- Rating to 2nd class, lower prize for the farmer

• Nutritional and hygienic quality at least as good as with

1st class

• EU legislation limited the use until 2009

- Since then, supermarket chains still keep up the standards

Sivu 17 10.11.2017 Picture:

https://www.misfitsproduce.ca/

24 %

Seppälä et al. 2009 & 2011

Environmental impacts of private consumption in

Finland

18 Hannele Pulkkinen

40 %

10.11.2017

Why is it important?

Case-study example: carrot

Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 26% of the

carrot production was side flow:

12 %

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

At harvest

After harvest

Nordic food waste project

Campaigns promoting

the use of ugly fruits and

vegetables, some

examples

20

Imperfect produce, USA, California

• “In a world obsessed with perfection in everything,

we’re here to show the world the beauty in

imperfection”

• 30-50 % lower price

• Products from local farms

21 10.11.20

17 https://www.imperfectproduce.com/

Practically perfect,

USA, Virginia

• A project by two non-profit

organisations

• Making locally grown fruits

and vegetables more

affordable for the people

who need it most

• 30 % lower price

• Funded by USDA

Sivu 22

http://asdevelop.org/practica

lly-perfect/

Inglorious Fruits and vegetables,

France

• Campaign of the super market chain

Intermarché

• Products from French farms

• Also processed products

• 30 % lower price

23 10.11.20

17

http://itm.marcelww.com/inglorio

us/

Campaigns in UK

Wonky veg box; Britannia

• Wonky veg box (Asda)

• Perfectly Imperfect (Tesco)

• Wonky veg (Morrisons)

• 30-50 % lower price

Sivu 24

https://your.asda.com/news-and-blogs/wonky-

veg-jan-2017

https://www.ourtesco.com/2016/04/14/our-perfectly-

imperfect-range/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/18/morrisons-waste-

initiative-wonky-vegetables

Germany, Austria &

Switzerland

• Krumme dinger - Aldi Süd, Germany

• Keiner ist Perfekt - Edeka, Germany

• Wunderlinge - Billa, Austria

• Unique - Coop, Switzerland

- Up to 60 % lower price

Sivu 25 https://unternehmen.aldi-

sued.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/verantwortung/2017/pr

essemitteilung-aldi-sued-krumme-dinger/

Curved cucumbers, Finland

• In Prisma-supermarkets since 2014

Decrease in sales of Spanish

cucumbers

No impact on sales of class 1

cucumbers

• ’Different tomatoes’ also in some

stores from 2016

• http://www.pty.fi/kaupan-toiminta/ruokahavikin-

vahentaminen/prisman-kayrat-kurkut-ja-

toisenlaiset-tomaatit-maistuvat-suomalaisille/

• Similar trials also in K-group

supermarkets • https://safkanet.fi/2014/09/25/rumat-kasvikset-valtaavat-

hyllytilaa

Sivu 26 10.11.2017

New products from 2nd class fruits and

vegetables, some examples

• Dörrwerk, Berlin, Germany

- Fruit paper snacks from fruits and

berries from local farmers (+ exotic

fruits from abroad)

- https://www.doerrwerk.de/

• Kromkommer, the Netherlands

- Vegetable soups from fruits and

vegetables from local farmers

- https://www.kromkommer.com/english/

• Karotia, Finland

- ’Baby’ carrots from own produce

- http://karotia.fi/in-english/

Sivu 27 10.11.2017

Case-study example: carrot

• The uses of annual biomass in total, including also non-

food parts

61 %

1 %

4 %

9 %

7 %

1 %

1 % 16 %

Food use, primary

Food use, secondary

Left in field

Animal feed

Composted

Other use

No use

Leaves left on field

Nordic food waste project

Use of ugly fruits and vegetables

SWOT

• Strenghts - Positive way to inform consumers

about how food waste can be

reduced

- Decreasing waste on farms

• Opportunities - Better income for the farmer?

- Changing consumer attitudes

• Weaknesses - Availability of the products is

limited and seasonal

- Not profitable for the farmer if the

price is lower than for 1st class

- The products may be harder to

pack than 1st class

- Lower price the main attraction to

consumers?

• Threats - Competiton with 1st class products

- Also 1st class products rated as

2nd class?

- Supermarket chains may use only

as an image campaign?

Sivu 29 10.11.2017

Publications

• Franke, U., Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E. (2016) Food losses and waste in

primary production, Data collection in the Nordic countries https://norden.diva-

portal.org/smash/get/diva2:945862/FULLTEXT02.pdf

• Hartikainen, H., Kuisma, M., Pinolehto, M., Räikkönen, R., & Kahiluoto, H. (2014).

Ruokahävikki alkutuotannossa ja elintarvikejalostuksessa. Foodspill 2-hankkeen

loppuraportti.

http://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/485067/mttraportti170.pdf?sequence=1&isAllo

wed=y

• Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.- M., Härmä,

T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. & Virtanen, Y. (2009). Suomen kansantalouden

materiaalivirtojen ympäristövaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla. Suomen ympäristö

20/2009

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38010/SY20_2009_Suomen_kansantalou

den_materiaalivirtojen.pdf?sequence=1

• Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Härmä,

T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. & Virtanen, Y. 2011. An assessment of greenhouse

gas emissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT

model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1833-1841.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652611001612

Sivu 30 10.11.2017