MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409450548 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2025.142.027

Food loss and waste reduction interventions: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4409450548 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caitlin Olauson, Wanda Martin, Alejandra Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteReduction (mathematics)Psychological interventionEnvironmental scienceBusinessWaste managementEnvironmental planningMedicineEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, one third of food produced goes to waste, which contributes to climate change, nega­tively impacts air and water resources, and can lead to environmental and human health risks. Mitiga­tion efforts have surged in response to these stag­gering statistics on food loss and waste, including initiatives such as food rescue and upcycling pro­grams. Circular economy practices are important for a sustainable future. Limited literature is availa­ble that compares different food rescue programs worldwide and synthesizes considerations for plan­ning new interventions. This paper is a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature on programs and interventions for food rescue and food waste reduction that occur at the retail level. The search in Scopus and Web of Science yielded 400 records for studies published in the past 30 years. Analysis of 18 full-text reports showed diverse food pro­grams from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, New Zealand, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Studies were conducted in vari­ous settings, including restaurants, institutions, and retail food stores. The collection methods of res­cued food varied according to the program’s capacity and included accepting donations, redistribution programs, and social enterprises. The results of these reports highlight some of the barriers that food rescue programs face, including logistical and workforce challenges, liability concerns, food avail­ability, and financial restraints. Facilitators that pro­moted food rescue included the use of comple­mentary technology, cooperative alliances, support­ive policies, and favourable incentives. Report find­ings highlight the key role of volun­teers, partner­ships, and innovative technological solutions in advancing food rescue and waste reduction pro­grams. Our research focuses on con­solidating the lessons previously learned as a means of helping future food waste diversion programs overcome obstacles and improve operational effi­ciency. While food rescue is an important interme­diary endeav­our, addressing the root causes of wasted food and reducing inefficiencies in the cur­rent modern industrial food system is necessary to meaningfully reduce food waste at a global level.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207