Position Paper Upcycled Foods & Ingredients

In a recent publication “Circular Agrifood & Biomass” produced by the Dutch Enterprise Agency, Topsector Agri & Food, Foodvalley, Holland Circular Hotspot and the Ministry of Agriculture in assignment of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management professor Imke de Boer, Professor of Animals & Sustainable Food Systems – Wageningen University, shared the future food vision “Re-rooting the Dutch Food System: from more to better” which very well explains how future challenges in relation to the future of food production are related to an optimal planning and use of biomass streams. It is those principles, that substantiate very well the vision behind the ‘upcycling for food’ ambition statements.

1. Safeguard

This principle addresses the importance of safeguarding and regenerating the health of our ecosystems. Biomass production, being the basis of the bio-economy, requires healthy aquatic, arable, grassland, and forest (agro)ecosystems. To safeguard the health of these systems, farming, fishing and forestry practices must utilise natural resources at a rate that does not exceed their regenerative and absorptive capacity, to ensure current and future availability of natural resources.

2. Avoid

This principle addresses the importance of avoiding the production and use of non-essential biobased production, and the losses and waste of essential ones. Avoiding non-essentials can prevent unnecessary exploitation of natural resources, especially as impacts of production are unlikely to be fully offset by recovery and recycling.

3. Prioritize

This principle addresses the importance to use biomass effectively. It refers to the priorities in use of biomass. It argues that priority should start with basic human needs (e.g. food, pharmaceuticals, clothes) and sectors without sustainable alternatives (e.g. chemical industry).

4. Recycle

Even if waste of food and non-food bioproducts is avoided, the production and consumption of essential food and non-food biobased products results in by-products, such as crop residues, manure, human excreta or slaughterhouse waste. This principle calls for nutrients and carbon from by-products to be effectively (see prioritize) recycled into the biobased system.

5. Entropy

The driving force behind the recycling of nutrients and carbon in (agro)ecosystems is energy. Increased circularity and recycling costs energy and a fully circular bioeconomy is difficult to achieve given the loss in consecutive cycles. This principle not only advocates moving towards renewables, but also stresses the importance to minimize energy use. Second, we need to re-connect people to their food; so that everyone is aware of how their food is produced; third, we need a new economy; an economy that goes beyond gross domestic product, but serves the planet and all its inhabitants. We need to adopt a richer range of indicators to express what is valuable to our society and planet.

“Our first priority remains to avoid food losses and waste. Only unavoidable losses and waste should be recycled, first as food and then as feed. Consequently, the number of livestock we can keep is determined by the total amount of food leftovers and available grass resources, implying we can only consume a moderate amount of animal-source food”.

Imke J.M. de Boer, Professor of Animals & Sustainable Food Systems at Wageningen University (photo by: Linelle Deunk)

Potential positive environmental impact for transforming food grade materials into food

Recently, a study of the University of Milan also adds to this vision by presenting prognoses that a substituting of 11-16% of energy-intensive crops (e.g. cereal bran, beet pulp, molasses and distillery residues) currently used as animal feed with agricultural by-products, are calories that could directly earmarked for human diets and would save significant shares of the use of natural resources associated with food production, See figure below:

Source: New study: Changing animal feed reduces consumption of natural resources – Feed & Additive Magazine (feedandadditive.com)

In a circular economy, materials are continually reused, fostering thriving ecosystems. In the realm of food, circular agrifood systems rely on regenerative practices and upcycling throughout production and processing. However, defining ‘upcycling practices’ for by-products from the agrifood chain can vary depending on different viewpoints. Drawing from established theoretical and business models, the Upcycling Community has developed its distinctive perspective. Within this ‘Ecosystem Insights’ chapter titled ‘Toward a Common Definition,’ you will explore the frameworks they have employed to refine their approach.

In a research paper led by Jessica Aschemann-Witzel of Aarhus University, she compared various existing definitions of upcycling and identified three important, common characteristics:
1. upcycled product should consist of or contain materials that would otherwise be wasted,
2. upcycled materials should be turned into food that is fit for human consumption,
3. upcycling should be done via a process that increases the value of the end product.

This last point is illustrated in the figure below, where upcycling adds value to a product, bringing it to a higher level in the food hierarchy ladder than it would reach if it were recycled or downcycled. (e.g. from potential food grade material towards compost). When these three “characteristics” come together, the food can be regarded as ‘upcycled food’.

Source: https://community.materialtrader.com/upcycling-recycling-and-downcycling-whats-the-difference/

These characteristics might imply a clear definition of upcycled food, however it is important to dissect this a bit further. Organic materials that are lost or wasted during the processing and production of agricultural and food products can be upgraded to a higher-value product via varying routes leading to different destinations that are not necessarily food for human consumption. The “way up” is often explained by the Food Hierarchy Model, as illustrated below.

Under this model, for example organic materials generated as a side stream of harvesting crops at an arable farm that are currently composted or ploughed under in in the soil, are considered to be upcycled when as a result of collecting, preserving and processing those residual streams for the purpose of giving them a higher destination in the Hierarchy Ladder. Based on this model, materials that are repurposed into feed can still be defined as upcycled because a higher destination of those materials (after upcycling processes) is consumption as food.

In the United States and Canada, upcycled food and the use of upcycled ingredients are already gaining traction as a result of efforts by various NGOs, think tanks and notably, the Upcycled Food Association (UFA). 

In 2020, the UFA, a nonprofit dedicated to upcycling, formed a task force to produce a clear definition of the term “upcycled food” for use in policymaking, the measurement of the share of upcycled ingredients in end products by the private sector, and in communication to the public. 

Definition of upcycled food formulated by the Upcycled Food Association :“Upcycled foods use ingredients that otherwise would not have gone to human consumption, are procured and produced using verifiable supply chains, and have a positive impact on the environment.” 

The UFA launched its upcycled food standard in 2021, which companies can use to communicate auditable claims on the percentage of upcycled ingredients in their products on both a B2B and B2C level. This is the only known business standard for upcycled food  currently in use. 

“The Standard aims to set a robust and credible framework for the certification of upcycled products, while reflecting the current capability of the sector.” 

The UFA Standard (1) includes the following stipulations:

• In finished food products containing upcycled ingredients, 10% of the finished product must be upcycled ingredients (in terms of the mass of the total food product).
• Upcycled Ingredients must be composed of an aggregate of ≥95% upcycled input(s) Upcycled ingredients may comprise multiple inputs as long as they meet the criteria of ≥95% diverted material.

According to the UFA, 92 companies use its third-party certification program across over 300 products and more than 160 ingredients, preventing hundreds of thousands of tons of food waste.  

In a report commissioned by Danish think tank One\Third, Simon Hvid and Asger Smidt-Jensen from the Danish Technological Institute and Johanne Birn consultancy agency undertook a series of interviews with small, medium and large corporations, and a selection of experts in the field of upcycling⁴. A common theme that emerged during the interviews was that food ingredients that are derived from side streams but which have been produced for decades fall within a grey area that could exclude them from being labelled as “upcycled”.

“What we define as upcycled foods depend on cultural context and the history of the food. This can hinder innovation and communication about upcycled products. To overcome these barriers, we should promote cross-cultural knowledge exchange and establish a clear, open definition of upcycled food.”

Asger Smidt-Jensen, Consultant at Danish Teknologisk Institut

Thus, there is a temporal component and context to whether a food or ingredient can be defined as upcycled. Examples of ingredients from otherwise discarded materials which could potentially fall under the upcycling umbrella are pectin extracted from citrus peels and potato starch extracted from otherwise unutilised potatoes and potato scraps. Both processes could be considered upcycling, but the products yielded are now just considered as regular ingredient and none of the companies interviewed would consider these ingredients to be upcycled.

Another point taken from the interviews with the Danish companies and experts was geographical dependency. What is considered as discarded or unused material and the routes to upcycling these materials differs significantly between countries. Examples include whey from milk production being used for producing protein isolate in one country and in a direct application as fertiliser in another; and okara from tofu production, which might be a highly sought-after food ingredient in one country and unutilised waste for biogas production in another. This illustrates that the difference in what is considered waste and what is considered upcycling of waste varies from country to country, creating another grey area in defining upcycled food.  

Yet another area up for debate that was identified by the Danish study is the difference between upcycled food products based on discarded food material that could have otherwise been eaten, and  products based on potentially food grade material. An example of the first category are cakes baked from bananas which would otherwise have been discarded while an example of the latter is spent grain from breweries being used to make bread. For the first category, the value lies in avoiding food waste which could potentially also be mitigated through other means, whereas the second category does not create less food waste but instead potentially produces higher-value products.  

Concluding, the utilisation of upcycled ingredients for food production is of interest to many companies, but the grey areas mentioned above are relevant barriers to work on when it comes to creating more value based on upcycled food concepts.

The food industry is undergoing significant transformations, driven by innovative approaches and a growing emphasis on sustainability. This section delves into two key perspectives that highlight these changes: Innova Market Insights’ data on the current state of upcycling in the market and Rabobank’s vision for the future of sustainable agrifood systems by 2040.

Innova Market Insights also observes the trajectory of current areas of innovation through the lens of upcycling initiatives. Previously, Innova observed the growth of new food and beverage launches tracked with an upcycling claim between 2018 and 2022. Global data showed that there was a mass increase in new product launches with an upcycling claim, which showed a growth of +62% CAGR between 2018 – 2022. Within that same period, we also noticed a steady increase in the variety of brands that launched a new product on the market which claims to be upcycled. This in fact confirms that more brands are delving deeper into the upcycling market.  

In terms of new product launches which include an upcycling claim split by region and country, it is noticeable that North America and Europe really dominated the market between 2020 and 2022. Of all the product launches tracked between 2020 and 2022 that carried an upcycling claim, three out of five originated from North America, with four out of five product launches being from the United States. Europe accounted for three in ten of all launches tracked with an upcycling claim between 2020 and 2022, with the United Kingdom and Denmark claiming more than half of the upcycled product launches. Asia, the region which according to our Consumer Insights previously showed the highest increase of agreement, only had a 2% share in upcycled product launches tracked between 2020 and 2022, with Hong Kong and Singapore being the only two contributing countries for this percentage. 

The data collected at Innova Market Insights allows us to analyse which categories drive a specific segment in the market. We could conclude that about one in four product launches globally between 2020 and 2022 were tracked in both the snacks category and the bakery category, thus making up for almost half the product launches tracked with an upcycling claim in said period. These two categories were closely followed by the soft drinks category, which claims a market share of 16% in tracked upcycled food and beverage launches between 2020 and 2022 globally. 

“Consumers target joint responsibility for protecting the planet, with trust and transparency being key to building product life stories that stand up to scrutiny; at the same time, upcycling emerges as a key eco-strategy with close to 2 in 5 consumers globally mentioning to already recycle, upcycle and/or repurpose their products/items.”

Belmin Djuheric, Consumer & Market Analyst at Innova Market Insights:

Rabobank assumes a system change in 2040. This system change is necessary to have a balance between the production of food with nature and the environment. For the agri-food sector, this implies a major change in the valuation of the production method and great opportunities for upcycling products, as these products make a positive contribution to the aforementioned balance

What will the agri-food sector look like in 2040? We base this on the sector’s contribution to broad prosperity and build on the True Value scenario.  

True value means the development of a business model that provides a market-based reward for the use of labor, capital and the environment.

Expectation for 2040: At the national and European level, CSRD has been fully implemented, giving the circular demand-driven chain a European place. Low-cost prices can no longer exist to meet these demands. Due to vertical integration and consolidation, chain players prefer to work with fixed suppliers. Family businesses have developed rapidly in this regard, because they can more easily pursue long-term goals.

As a result, food manufacturers and food retailers are working more closely with agricultural entrepreneurs. In 2040, we see demand-driven chains that respond to consumer demands and contribute to awareness. The chains help agricultural entrepreneurs generate additional income and save costs. The basis for this is mutual trust (transparency) within the chain.   

Demand-driven chains contribute, for example, to lower greenhouse gas emissions and better animal welfare, at the request of consumers. But they also mean longer-term relationships with greater sales security and remuneration that covers costs. Value creation and sales security allow agricultural entrepreneurs to partially escape global market competition. Entrepreneurs who are already active in demand-driven chains turn out to be able to innovate and become more sustainable more quickly and strengthen their earnings model considerably.  

Technical solutions are at the basis of many developments. Robotisation, artificial intelligence, precision agriculture, digitalisation of business operations and genetic engineering: they are taken for granted on every farm. Transparency and data sharing are the standard. The organic sector can scale up by making greater use of high-tech solutions, especially in arable farming.   

The role of the chain has increased compared to 2023. Agricultural sectors have more market power. This is based on chain agreements, with transparent price structures on, for example, labor, energy, raw materials, water, emission rights and carbon credits. In this chain integration, consumer health plays a major role at all levels. This starts with the production method, but also plays a role in the processing and treatment of food. The starting point here is that good food contributes to the health of the consumer. Through awareness and by steering for prevention and the food environment, the diet of the average Dutch person will be healthier in 2040 than in 2023. This contributes to people’s quality of life and productivity for society, a win-win situation.

In these scientific insights of the Chapter 5, we are going through three different research that will help us understand better the consumers behavior towards upcycled food. Let’s dive in!

Dr. Machiel Reinders is Senior Scientist Consumer Behavior and Marketing at the Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen Economic Research

While the trend of upcycling is growing, it’s worth noting that the term ‘upcycled foods’ is relatively new and largely unexplored by consumers. Limited research has delved into how consumers respond to the use of by-products and side-streams in creating new food products. Notwithstanding this limited research, recent scholarly contributions have emerged with a focus on consumers’ perceptions and expectations pertaining to upcycled food. 

First of all, literature shows that consumers are showing a burgeoning interest in upcycled foods (Aschemann-Witzel & Do Carmo Stangherlin, 2021), although comprehensive knowledge in this area is still wanting. A study conducted in the US and China by Grasso et al. (2023) reveals that out of those who claimed to understand what upcycled foods are, only 11.2% in the US and 16.5% in China possessed a “strong” understanding of the concept, a New Zealand survey of 1001 consumers in 2021 found that although only 10% of consumers had previously heard of upcycled foods, 59% were as likely or more likely to purchase an upcycled product over a conventional one (Goodman-Smith, F.; Bhatt,S.; Moore, R.; Mirosa, M.; Ye, H.;Deutsch, J.; Suri, R. Retail Potentialfor Upcycled Foods: Evidence fromNew Zealand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052624 )  

In the US, participants were willing to try food with upcycled ingredients if it is better for the environment and if it has a lower price (equal at 21%), followed by better taste (at 19%). In China participants were willing to try upcycled food: if it has superior nutritional properties (25%), better taste (22%) and if it is better for the environment (19%) (Grasso et Al. 2023) This indicates that taste and nutrition play key roles for upcycled foods to be successful. Environmental benefits are not enough. 

Furthermore, consumers’ interest in upcycling does not necessarily translate into a heightened willingness to pay for products derived from waste-to-value processes (Aschemann-Witzel & Do Carmo Stangherlin, 2021; Grasso & Asioli, 2020). In fact, consumers often expect these solutions to be priced lower than conventional products (Peschel & Aschemann-Witzel, 2020, Goodman-Smith et al., 2021).  

The New Zealand research found that upcycled food becomes more attractive primarily through lower pricing, 56% of those who would not opt for an upcycled product over a conventional product would find upcycled products more attractive if the price was lower (Goodman-Smith et al., 2021). This is possibly due to perceptions that upcycled products are of lesser value, stemming from their association with waste (Abbey et al., 2015; Rozin et al., 2015), from a belief of reduced quality through reuse or recycling (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018; Matsumoto et al., 2018), or from the perception that the product is somehow contaminated (Baxter et al., 2017: Magnier et al., 2019). Given the intimate nature of food, which is eaten and digested, these perceptions bear particular significance in the context of food consumption, aligning with the oft-repeated adage that “you are what you eat” (Aschemann-Witzel & Do Carmo Stangherlin, 2021). Note that transparently communicating about the added cost of reclaiming valuable ingredients that are then used as upcycled food ingredients appears to alleviate part of consumer’s negative value perception, and has the potential to increase fair price perception (Peschel & Aschemann-Witzel, 2020). 

Second, consumer perceptions and expectations regarding upcycled food are highly diverse. Generally, environmentally interested consumers – likely characterised by buying organic, better education and higher awareness of food waste consequences – are willing to pay more for upcycled products and also consumers with a positive attitude towards sustainable consumption are more willing to accept the products (Aschemann-Witzel & Do Carmo Stangherlin, 2021; Perito et al., 2019, 2020). Similarly, participants who frequently recycle their waste at home were significantly more willing to buy these products (Yilmaz & Kahveci, 2022).  

Additionally, consumers who had higher quality or better taste expectations from upcycled food products have increased willingness to buy them (Yilmaz & Kahveci, 2022). Similarly, consumers that have tasted the product and have a favorable experience are more likely to accept the reuse element (Ellis et al., 2019). 

Furthermore, Yilmaz & Kahveci (2022) found that gender and age play a role in the acceptance of upcycled food products, with female and younger consumers displaying more positive attitudes. Interestingly, several studies reported that consumers from lower income groups were significantly more interested in buying upcycled food products (Coderoni and Perito, 2020 , 2021; Yilmaz & Kahveci, 2022). This interest might be linked to price expectations, as these studies often do not mention the price of upcycled products, potentially leading consumers to perceive them as cheaper due to their ‘waste’ origins.  

Third, the type of product, its origin, and the extent of processing significantly impact consumer perceptions of upcycled goods. In this context, whether a products is of plant or animal-based origin and the degree of technology used in processing can become relevant factors in the perception of and reaction to the food (Aschemann-Witzel & Do Carmo Stangherlin, 2021). For instance, Nitzko and Spiller (2019) found that German consumers are more accepting of upcycled plant-based foods (especially non-standard fruits/vegetables and food industry by-products) compared to upcycled animal-based foods. The authors explain that this is explicable by lower consumer confidence in the meat industry, their perceived higher pathogenic risk and disgust, while plant-based foods have a healthier and more positive image. Within plant-based foods, non-standard fruits and vegetables receive more favorable reviews than food industry by-products, likely due to their unprocessed, natural nature.  

Furthermore, upcycling appears to be more favorably received for “vice products”, i.e., products that provide immediately gratifying experience (e.g., the good taste or pleasure), but have negative long-term outcomes (e.g., future health problems) (Peschel & Aschemann-Witzel, 2020). The most preferred categories for upcycled food products are generally considered staple food categories such as breakfast foods, pasta and dairy. However, snack foods were the second most preferred food category for upcycled foods by both US and Chinese consumers (Grasso et al., 2023). However, as snack foods are typically considered discretionary foods, staple foods should be initially prioritised as a vehicle for upcycled ingredients, to form part of a healthy and sustainable diet (Thorsen et al., 2022).   

Each year, millions of dollars on food go to waste. Not only does this amplify the burden on those with food insecurity, but food waste also has environmental impacts, releasing considerable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the environment. Thus, it is essential to find realistic and actionable solutions to reduce food waste.  

This was for Innova Market Insights one of the key reasons why we decided on having upcycling as one of our key trends in our ‘Innova Top Ten Trends 2022’. As the ninth trend, ‘Upcycling Redefined” was all about demonstrating the rise of the circular economy and how to better showcase the use of ingredients that were once considered waste.  

One year later, we launched our 2023 Innova Trend Survey. In this survey we asked consumers from 11 countries to select 3 out of 15 aspects for the following question: “Considering food and beverage, which aspects do you think should drive the development of new products the most?”. One in four consumers ended up responding with ‘environmental factor’ as one of their top three aspects, making it the fifth most important factor, just behind ‘flavor’ and ‘naturalness.’ To dig deeper into the thoughts of consumers, an additional topic of interest was to understand the actions consumers had taken to support the environment and/or social situation in the past 12 months (from the moment the survey was conducted). Almost one in two consumers mentioned having ‘minimised their food waste’, while four in ten consumers stated to have recycled, upcycled and/or repurposed their products.   

Seeing the importance of ‘food waste’ from consumers globally, an additional question was included in the survey: “How aware are you of the following global issues?” In the Innova Trend Survey 2022, ‘food waste’ was the issue which consumers were second most aware of. In 2023, this became the number one issue. Not to mention that 64% of consumers globally said that they were likely to pay extra for products dedicated to tackling ‘food waste’, despite the ongoing inflation during the time the survey was conducted.  

To gather more insights on consumers’ perceptions of ‘food waste’, Innova Market Insights conducted the survey, Innova Lifestyle & Attitudes Survey 2023, which focused solely on the lifestyle of the consumer. Several questions on the wellbeing of the environment with ‘food waste’ as a possible factor were asked within the survey. For example, we asked the following: “Which actions have you taken to support the environment or social situation in the past 12 months?” We noticed two interesting insights from respondents; one was that 46% of consumers globally mentioned to have tried to ‘minimise their food waste’, and the other was that 37% of consumers globally mentioned to recycle, upcycle and/or repurpose their products/items. Not only did consumers globally agree with ‘food waste’ being the number one issue globally, but ‘food waste’ was also the most popular choice from consumers when it came to supporting the environment.  

Diving deeper, we also wanted to know which actions consumers would take to reduce their food waste. So, when we asked the following question: “Which of the following actions are you currently taking to manage food waste?”, the number one chosen action by consumers globally was ‘reusing leftovers’ (38%), followed closely by ‘cooking/preparing smaller portions’ (37%). In third place, consumers tend to ‘freeze their products more’ (34%), and ‘buying less’ products placed fourth (32%). Overall, there are many actions available for consumers to take to reduce their food waste, but ultimately it is up to them to decide if they want to reduce their food waste or not.  

Going back to ‘upcycling,’ we can confirm that the appeal for upcycling is poised for further expansion. To expand on this, we were curious if consumers would agree or disagree with the following statements: “A product that contains upcycled ingredients is more appealing to me than other products” and “upcycled ingredients are better in quality compared to regular ingredients”. For the first statement, the percentage of consumers agreeing went up from 35% in 2022 to 46% in 2023, and for the second statement, the percentage of consumers agreeing went up from 32% in 2022 to 43% in 2023.  

When these two questions were divided into specific demographic segments, we observed that consumers originating from Asian Pacific and Latin American regions tend to agree more on upcycled ingredients being more appealing and of better quality than regular ingredients in comparison with consumers from European and North American origin. This was especially the case for consumers residing in Asian Pacific countries.

Another interesting datapoint to note is that consumers with a higher-than-average income level tend to be more interested in upcycled ingredients and tend to agree on the matter that upcycled ingredients are of better quality compared to non-upcycled ingredients. 

 An additional important demographic trend we noticed is that consumers aged 18-24 and 25-34 convincingly over-index based on the appeal they see in upcycled foods compared to older generations. Therefore, Millennials and Gen Z consumers should be seen as the key audience for the upcycling movement going forward. 

The mass increase in appeal to reduce food waste and in the importance of upcycled ingredients and/or products from consumers from all generations across all regions globally, resulted in naming our number one trend in our latest Top Ten Trends 2023 to be “Redefining Value”  

In conclusion, with the results gathered from the 2023 Innova Trends Survey, the data suggests to companies to focus on informing clients and prospects about the opportunities of upcycling, especially since food and beverage companies are showing more interest in this movement. In addition, consumer insights are extremely valuable for food industries since consumers are known to drive and influence food innovations. Thus, the results from the survey which partly focused on consumer acceptability for upcycled foods, provide companies with insights to inspire innovation and drive growth.  

Dr. Machiel Reinders is Senior Scientist Consumer Behavior and Marketing at the Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen Economic Research

Effectively communicating the benefits of upcycled products is crucial to their acceptance. Literature shows that highlighting the sustainability aspects, environmental benefits, and waste reduction capabilities can positively influence consumer attitudes (Aschemann-Witzel & Peschel, 2019). For example, Taufik et al. (2023) found that communicating environmental benefits (rather than health benefits) led to stronger self-rewarding feelings which in turn led to greater intention to purchase upcycled food. Other researchers suggest that communication should stress other-oriented benefits of the product (e.g. farmers’ welfare) rather than self-oriented benefits (e.g. healthy food) (Bhatt et al., 2020; McCarthy et al., 2020).  

“Scientific research helps to reveal consumer perceptions to relative new and abstracts concepts such as upcycling and provides insights in underlying drivers and barriers and individual and contextual differences. Its generated knowledge forms an essential basis for successful product and market development of upcycled foods and for effectively communicating them”.

Machiel Reinders, Senior researcher consumer behaviour and marketing at Wageningen University & Research

Transparency about the effort and cost involved in reclaiming valuable ingredients for upcycled products is vital (Peschel & Aschemann-Witzel, 2020). It is also important to substantiate on-pack claims on upcycled foods, using life cycle assessments or other suitably designed tools, to make sure that consumers are not misled on the environmentally-friendliness of the new foods. On-pack claims on supposedly “green” foods should be designed to be trustworthy and avoid consumer confusion. It is advised to avoid using the term ‘waste’ in marketing messages when promoting upcycled foods (Moshtaghian et al., 2021).  

Finally, the location where you introduce upcycled foods can significantly affect consumers’ reception. Settings that foster experiential consumption, such as coffee bars, tend to be more welcoming for upcycled products than places characterised by habit-driven decision-making, like supermarkets (Peschel & Aschemann-Witzel, 2020).  

Policymakers and industry stakeholders should take note that consumer research in this field is still relatively scarce and leaves many questions unanswered. Robust conclusions will require further research conducted under diverse cultural backgrounds and in more externally valid settings. To better understand consumer barriers, researchers recommend studying the exact products in question—e.g. the food category and the degree of processing that is involved—in the context in which they are typically consumed. The journey towards more sustainable and innovative food practices continues, with upcycled foods being an essential part of this exciting transition. 

Amid the numerous legal and policy domains affecting food waste valorisation, waste law emerges as perhaps the most significant. Food law comes a close second but excludes food that is no longer deemed fit for human consumption. Instead, it centres on consumer interest, human health, and the effective functioning of the internal market. As a result, it’s the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98 (WFD) that governs food waste and its valorisation. The WFD lays down definitions and best practices related to waste management, encompassing environmental protection, human health, and resource efficiency in its scope. The present version of the WFD was adopted in November 2008.

“Government bodies and competent authorities must work towards ensuring that SMEs are able to safely valorise agri-food by-streams without excessive regulatory burdens, unnecessary bureaucracy, or prohibitive financial barriers. Support measures should include streamlined regulatory frameworks, access to funding and technical assistance, and the creation of market incentives for innovative by-product use”.

Dr. Madhura Rao, postdoctoral researcher at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

In May 2018, the WFD underwent amendment through the adoption of Directive (EU) 2018/851. Through this amending directive, food waste gained recognition as a distinct category within biodegradable waste. This is a noteworthy change, considering that the 2008 Directive simply considered food waste as part of bio-waste; detaching it from its value as a fundamental human need and natural resource different from another biomass. The amending directive introduces a separate definition for food waste, derived from the EU General Food Law’s (Regulation EC No 178/2002, henceforth GFL) definition of food. This marks the first instance since 1975, when the first WFD was adopted, that a link between legislation on food and waste has been established. However, it’s interesting to note that the GFL defines food as ‘any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans’. Consequently, the WFD’s definition only encompasses discarded food that humans can reasonably be expected to ingest, excluding inedible elements such as pits, peels, and trimmings from the classification of food waste. Therefore, despite the WFD adopting a definition for food waste, by-products of food processing may be classified as bio-waste instead of food waste. To prevent this, the WFD must employ a more precise definition of food waste that includes discarded inedible parts as food waste as well. Such a definition has already been formulated by the EU-funded project ‘FUSIONS’ (2012 – 2016).

Although relatively new on the policy agenda, food waste has rapidly become an environmental issue requiring urgent attention. In 2017, the European Commission adopted the ‘Resource Efficiency: Reducing Food Waste, Improving Food Safety’ resolution which reiterates previous EU-level discussions on the subject.  It invited MS to measure foo waste levels using a common methodology, officially adopt a food waste hierarchy based on Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC and provide clarification regarding the implication of various pieces of domestic legislation on food waste.  Most notably, the resolution called on MS to examine the possibility of setting up binding, Union-wide food waste reduction targets by December 2020.  This is the first ever mention of legally binding targets with regard to food waste.  

In May 2020, the Farm to Fork Strategy indicated that the Commission would propose legally binding targets for food waste reduction based on data expected from MS in 2022. While the intention to set up legally binding targets shows political will to reduce and better utilise food waste, tangible actions in the direction are yet to be seen across all MS. Currently, no legislation or policy document at the EU level provides concrete guidance regarding food waste valorisation. However, the Commission’s Sustainable Food System Framework Initiative, which at the time of writing this chapter is pending public consultation, has the potential to change this. The impact assessment for this proposed regulation mentions improved food loss and waste management as well as better recovery and redistribution of surplus food. 

Food safety is key when valorising by-streams and surpluses for human consumption even though they are not waste. In the EU, food safety is overseen by the GFL. Since its inception, the GFL has revolved around the principle that food safety is a shared responsibility, lying with both the national authorities of EU Member States (MS) and food business operators (FBOs). This notion is explicitly delineated in Paragraph 30 of the GFL’s preamble, which assigns primary legal responsibility for upholding food safety to food business operators. 

Given that the precise methods to discharge this duty remain unspecified, FBOs often find themselves grappling with regulatory ambiguity. When working with food processing by-products and surpluses, this uncertainty is amplified, requiring additional support and guidance from competent authorities. This regulatory ambiguity does not only prevent manufacturers from valorising by-products with confidence but also makes suppliers of by-products hesitate to provide manufacturers with by-products, resulting in significant roadblocks to let innovation happen. This supply side custom is especially crucial because whether side stream is dealt with as by-products or waste depends on the practice of suppliers. As mentioned above, WFD defines waste as “any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”. Therefore, how a holder (I.e., supplier) treats side stream determines the status of such side stream. If treatment of supplier side is too strict (even too much in terms of securing food safety), the flexibility for valorising side stream is diminished. Therefore, secure but reasonable guidance would be required. Through guidelines developed in line with national contexts, competent authorities can play a significant role in specifying safety criteria for popular by-streams to accelerate upcycle food production. From the example of the EU Food Donation Guidelines, we know that such documents can have a strong positive impact on the state of food loss and waste. Widely used private food safety standards such as FSSC 22000 and ISO 22000 and can also help in this regard by providing a structured framework for food business operators to establish comprehensive food safety management systems for food processing by-streams. 

Reflections by Dr. Madhura Rao, postdoctoral fellow at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Similar to other aspects of the circular bioeconomy, public-private partnerships are central to the successful valorisation of food processing by-products. FBOs can collaborate with governmental organisations and advocate for improved regulatory infrastructure in several ways:  

• Regulatory Alignment: FBOs should actively engage with government bodies to advocate for a comprehensive definition of food waste. This should encompass by-streams, including inedible components, to ensure a more accurate reflection of waste within existing legal frameworks. 
• Guideline Development: Collaborate with competent authorities and standard setting organisations to formulate clear guidelines on food safety when working with by-streams. 
• Policy Consultation: Actively participate in policy consultations led by governmental bodies. FBOs’ insights and perspectives contribute to shaping well-balanced regulations that encourage effective food waste valorisation. 
• Capacity Building: Seek training and educational initiatives provided by governmental organisations to enhance employees’ understanding of evolving food waste and food safety regulations. This empowers FBOs to navigate the regulatory landscape more effectively. 
• Research and Innovation: Engage in joint research initiatives with governmental research institutions to explore innovative approaches within regulatory boundaries. This collaboration can lead to the development of streamlined and accessible regulatory processes. 

Chapter 1 – A Call to Action: Why should we grow the market for upcycled food & ingredients

What’s Food Loss and Waste Got to Do with Climate Change? A Lot, Actually. | World Resources Institute (wri.org) 

THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development (un.org) 

Circular agrifood & biomass. Food & materials for a sustainable future (rvo.nl) 

Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy | Nature Food 

New study: Changing animal feed reduces consumption of natural resources – Feed & Additive Magazine (feedandadditive.com) 

EU actions against food waste – European Commission (europa.eu) 

Chapter 2 – Toward a common definition of upcycled food & ingredient

Upcycled Food Association and Upcycled Food Foundation

Upcycled-Certified-Standard-V2-WFCF.pdf (wherefoodcomesfrom.com)

https://community.materialtrader.com/upcycling-recycling-and-downcycling-whats-the-difference/

The food hierarchy proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of… | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)

Upcycling i Danmark (johannebirn.dk)

Chapter 3 – Serving up more upcycled food

Food waste reduction targets – European Commission (europa.eu) 

Corporate sustainability reporting – European Commission (europa.eu) 

EU Ecolabel – Home (europa.eu) 

pub.rabobank.nl/Vision-for-agrifood-2040/04.html 

Chapter 4 – Are consumers and society hungry for change?

Upcycled food choice motives and their association with hesitancy towards consumption of this type of food: a Swedish study | Emerald Insight

Upcycled by-product use in agri-food systems from a consumer perspective: A review of what we know, and what is missing – ScienceDirect

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366901245_Consumer_attitudes_to_upcycled_foods_in_US_and_China

Goodman-Smith, F.; Bhatt,S.; Moore, R.; Mirosa, M.; Ye, H.;Deutsch, J.; Suri, R. Retail Potential for Upcycled Foods: Evidence fromNew Zealand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2624. Via: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052624

Consumers’ purchase intention for upcycled foods: Insights from Turkey – ScienceDirect

Remanufactured Products in Closed‐Loop Supply Chains for Consumer Goods – James D. Abbey, Margaret G. Meloy, V. Daniel R. Guide, Selin Atalay, 2015 (sagepub.com)

Psychological aspects of the rejection of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust | Judgment and Decision Making | Cambridge Core

Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Consumption in the Circular Economy: A Literature Review (mdpi.com)

Remanufactured auto parts market in Japan: Historical review and factors affecting green purchasing behavior – ScienceDirect

(PDF) Comparing “Leaf-to-Root”, “Nose-to-Tail” and Other Efficient Food Utilization Options from a Consumer Perspective (researchgate.net)

(PDF) Upcycled foods: A nudge toward nutrition (researchgate.net)

Innova Market Insights’ Top Ten Trends for 2022: Health of the planet overtakes personal health priorities (foodingredientsfirst.com)

Chapter 5 – The regulatory framework from a European perspective

Waste Framework Directive – European Commission (europa.eu) 

Implementation of the Waste Framework Directive – European Commission (europa.eu) 

Novel Food – European Commission (europa.eu) 

A refreshing first: citrus peel as a raw material | European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform (europa.eu) 

Green claims – European Commission (europa.eu) 

Sustainable economy: Parliament adopts new reporting rules for multinationals | News | European Parliament (europa.eu) 

European Platform on LCA | EPLCA (europa.eu) 

EMAS registration – Your Europe (europa.eu) 

EU Ecolabel Product Groups and Criteria (europa.eu) 

Upcycling i Danmark (johannebirn.dk)